Control of Air Pollution from
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards
Response to Comments
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Control of Air Pollution from
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using
data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments.
Response to Comments
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
4>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-22-036
December 2022
-------
EPA's Proposed Rule and Related Materials for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards was signed by Administrator Michael Regan on March 7,
2022. A pre-publication version of the proposal was made available on EPA's website on that date,
prior to publication in the Federal Register on March 28, 2022 (87 FR 17414 et seq.).1 The proposal
indicated that the rule would be open for public comment until May 13, 2022; the comment period
was subsequently extended to May 16 through a separate notice in the Federal Register (87 FR
24146, May 3, 2022).
This Response to Comments document is a compilation of public comments submitted to the public
docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, as well as EPA responses. Some
aspects of our responses appear in the preamble to the final rule or other documents in this rule's
docket and are incorporated by reference in this document.
This document is organized by category of comment topic. The original documents submitted by
commenters, including any attachments, footnotes, tables, and figures are included in the docket.
EPA received nearly 266,250 written comments on this proposal. Of the written comments, 35
documents are mass mailer letters individually sent by, or representing through signature, 264,343
commenters. There are also an additional 1,839 documents submitted as comments to the docket for
this rule, for a total of 1,874 individual posted comments. Detailed comments on various aspects of
the proposed program from the mass mailers and 360 other comment documents are reproduced
verbatim in this document. A list of these comments can be found in Appendix 1. Note that an
individual comment or part of a comment may be reproduced in more than one section of this
document if it contains observations on more than one aspect of an issue. Appendix 2 contains a list
of the remaining comments submitted to the docket before the docket closed on May 16, 2022.
These comments express general support for or opposition to the proposal and/or contain opinions or
statements about issues but without detailed data, information, or comment relating to specific
provisions of the proposal or EPA's supporting analysis. The comments listed in Appendix 2 are not
reproduced verbatim in this document, as these comments did not raise issues with reasonable
specificity or were outside the scope of the rulemaking. However, Appendix 2 contains a brief
summary of the nature of these comments.
The public hearing transcripts are included in the docket.2 Appendix 3 contains a list of the testifiers
and a brief summary of the nature of their testimony. The public testimony that is more specific in
nature and not subsequently included in written comments submitted by the testifier or the testifier's
organization is included verbatim in this document.
Late comments received during the period after the comment period closed, from May 17, 2022,
through October 4, 2022, were considered to the extent practicable in developing the final rule.
These late comments are set out in Section 34.
1 EPA notified more than 110 stakeholders of the availability of the pre-publication version through an e-mail dated
March 7, 2002, from Brian J. Nelson, Director, Heavy-Duty Onroad & Nonroad Center U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
2 See docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867. During the 3-day public hearing (April 12, 13, and 14, 2022), 278
individuals testified. The hearing testimony transcripts publicly available are redacted versions that were edited to
remove potential Personally Identifiable Information (PII).
l
-------
The responses presented in this document are intended to augment the rationale and responses to
comments that appear in the preamble to the final rule and to address comments not discussed in the
preamble to the final rule. To the extent there is any confusion or apparent inconsistency between this
Response to Comments document and the preamble, the preamble itself remains the definitive
statement of the rationale for the final rule. This document, together with the preamble to the final
rule and the information contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, and related technical support
documents, should be considered collectively as EPA's response to all of the significant comments
submitted on the proposal.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents iii
Table of Acronyms v
1 Overall Reactions to EPA's Proposal 1
2 Need for additional air quality control 3
3 Criteria pollutant standards 136
4 Warranty 580
5 Serviceability 611
6 Maintenance 641
7 Onboard diagnostics (OBD) 666
8 Inducement 712
9 This section is blank 802
10 Durability testing 802
11 Off-cycle standards and Test Procedures 827
12 Emission credits and averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) 960
13 This section is Blank 1080
14 This Section is Blank 1080
15 This Section is Blank 1080
16 General engine and vehicle testing provisions under 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 1080
17 Rulemaking process, analysis, and legal requirements 1088
18 Costs 1103
19 Inventory impacts 1174
20 Air quality impacts 1182
21 Criteria pollutant health benefits 1197
22 Demographic Analysis of Air Quality 1219
23 Environmental Justice 1221
24 Comparison of Benefits and Costs 1270
25 Impact on vehicles sales, mode shift, fleet turnover 1274
26 Employment impacts 1325
27 This Section is Blank 1340
28 Proposed changes to HD Phase 2 GHG program 1340
29 Other amendments HD highway engines and vehicles 1635
30 Cross-sector issues 1652
in
-------
31 Provisions related to refueling light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles 1732
32 Sector-specific amendments to EPA's emission control programs 1740
33 Comments outside the scope of the proposed rule 1775
34 Late Comments 1812
Appendix 1: Index of Commenters in Text 1859
Appendix 2: Other Comments Received, Not Reproduced Verbatim in Text 1873
Appendix 3: List of Testifiers at Public Hearings 1911
Appendix 4: General Statements Excerpted from the Detailed Comments Included in the
Document 1933
iv
-------
Table of Acronyms
Acronym
Definition
3B-MAW
3 Bin Moving Average Window
°C
Degrees Celsius
Microgram
nm
Micrometers
20xx$
U.S. Dollars in calendar year 20xx
A/C
Air Conditioning
ABT
Averaging, Banking and Trading
AC
Alternating Current
ACEA
European Automobile Manufacturers Association
ACES
Advanced Collaborative Emission Study
ACF
Advanced Clean Fleet (California standards)
ACT
Advanced Clean Truck (California standards)
ADAS
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
AECC
Association for Emission Controls by Catalyst
AECD
Auxiliary Emissions Control Device
AEO
Annual Energy Outlook
AER
All-electric range
AES
Automatic Engine Shutdown
AESS
Automatic Engine Shutdown System
AFDC
Alternative Fuels Data Center
AFTC
Alternative Fuel Tax Credit
AHS
American Housing Survey
A1
Aluminum
A12Ti05
Aluminum Titanate
AMOC
Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
AMT
Automated Manual Transmission
ANL
Argonne National Laboratory
ANPR(M)
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA
Administrative Procedures Act
API
American Petroleum Institute
APU
Auxiliary Power Unit
AQ
Air Quality
AQCD
Air Quality Criteria Document
AQMD
Air Quality Management District
AR4
Fourth Assessment Report
ARB
California Air Resources Board
ARB HHDDT
California Air Resources Board Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Test
ASC
Ammonia Slip Catalyst
ASL
Aggressive Shift Logic
ASM
Annual Survey of Manufacturers
ASTM
ASTM International, formerly American Society for Testing and Materials
AT
Automatic Transmissions
AT
Advanced Technology
ATA
American Trucking Association
ATIS
Automated Tire Inflation System
ATRI
Alliance for Transportation Research Institute
ATS
Aftertreatment System
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
V
-------
Acronym
Definition
ATUS
American Time Use Survey
ATVM
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing
Avg
Average
B100
1 methyl-ester biodiesel fuel
B20
0.2 biodiesel blended with 0.8 petroleum distilate diesel fuel
BECCS
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage
BenMAP
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
BETP
Bleed Emissions Test Procedure
BEV
Battery Electric Vehicle
bhp
Brake Horsepower
bhp-hr
Brake Horsepower Hour
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BMEP
Brake Mean Effective Pressure
BSFC
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
BSG
Belt-driven starter-generator
BTS
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
BTU
British Thermal Unit
C
Carbon
c
Centigrade
Ca
Calcium
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAAA
Clean Air Act Amendments
CaaS
Charge-as-a-Service
CaC03
Calcium Carbonate
CAD/CAE
Computer Aided Design And Engineering
CAE
Computer Aided Engineering
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAMx
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
CAN
Controller Area Network
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CASAC
Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
CaS04
Calcium Sulfate
CATF
Clean Air Task Force
CBI
Confidential Business Information
CCP
Coupled Cam Phasing
CCSCR
Close-Coupled Selective Catalytic Reduction
CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
ccv
Close Crankcase Ventilation
CD
Charge Depleting
CDA
Cylinder Deactivation
CDC
Centers for Disease Control
CDPF
Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter
CE-CERT
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
CEO
Council on Environmental Quality
CF
Conformity Factor
CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CH4
Methane
CHE APR
Connecticut Hydrogen and Electric Automobile Rebate Program
CI
Compression-ignition
CI
Carbon Intensity
CILCC
Combined International Local and Commuter Cycle
vi
-------
Acronym
Definition
CIPM
International Committee for Weights and Measures (Bureau International des Poids et
Mesures)
CITT
Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
CM
Compliance margin
CMAO
Community Multiscale Air Quality
CMAO
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (DoT)
CNG
Compressed Natural Gas
CO
Carbon Monoxide
C02
Carbon Dioxide
C02eq
C02 Equivalent
COFC
Container-on-Flatcar
COI
Cost of Illness
COPD
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
CoV
Coefficient of Variation
CPI
Consumer Price Index
CPO
Compressor pressure outlet
CPS
Cam Profile Switching
CPSI
Cells per Square Inch
C-R
Concentration-Response
CRC
Coordinating Research Council
CRGNSA
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
CRR
Rolling Resistance Coefficient
CS
Climate Sensitivity
CS
Charge Sustaining
CSA
Combined Statistical Area
CSB
Clean School Bus Program
CSI
Cambridge Systematics Inc.
CSS
Coastal Sage Scrub
CSV
Comma-separated Values
CTP
Clean Trucks Plan
CTTP
Cold Temperature Test Procedure
Cu
Copper
CuO
Copper(II) oxide or cupric oxide
CV
Commercial Vehicle
CVD
Cardiovascular Disease
CVT
Continuously-Variable Transmission
CW
Curb Weight
CY
Calendar year
D/UAF
Downward and Upward Adjustment Factor
DAAAC
Diesel Aftertreatment Accelerated Aging Cycle
DARAP
Diesel Aftertreatment Rapid Aging Protocol
DCP
Dual Cam Phasing
DCT
Dual Clutch Transmission
DDE
Durability demonstration engine
DE
Diesel Exhaust
DEAC
Cylinder Deactivation
DEER
Diesel Engine-Efficiency and Emissions Research
DEF
Diesel Exhaust Fluid
DER
Distributed Energy Resources
DERA
Diesel Emission Reduction Act
deSOx
Removal of sulfur oxide compounds
DF
Deterioration Factor
DHHS
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
vii
-------
Acronym
Definition
Diesel HAD
Diesel Health Assessment Document
DMC
Direct Manufacturing Costs
DNR
Department of Natural Resources (State-Level)
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DOC
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DOHC
Dual Overhead Camshaft Engines
DoIP
Diagnostic over IP (???)
DOT
Department of Transportation
DPF
Diesel Particulate Filter
DPM
Diesel Particulate Matter
DOS
DEF Quality Sensor
DR
Discount Rate
DRIA
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis
DTE
Distance to Empty
DWL
Discrete Variable Valve Lift
EAS
Exhaust Aftertreatment System
EC
European Commission
EC
Elemental Carbon
EC
Economic Census
ECM
Electronic Control Module or Engine Control Module
ECU
Engine Control Unit
ED
Emergency Department
EERA
Energy and Environmental Research Associates
EEVO
Early exhaust valve actuation
EFR
Engine Friction Reduction
EGR
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
EGU
Electrical Generating Unit
EHC
Electrically heated catalyst
EHPS
Electrohydraulic Power Steering
EIA
Energy Information Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Energy)
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EISA
Energy Independence and Security Act
EIVC
Early Intake Valve Closing
EIWR
Emission Warranty Information Reporting
EJ
Environmental Justice
EMCT
Emission Measurement and Testing Committee
EMFAC
California EMission FACtors emission inventory model
EMS-HAP
Emissions Modeling System for Hazardous Air Pollution
EO
Executive Order
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPCA
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPMA
electron probe microanalysis
EPS
Electric Power Steering
ePTO
Electric Power Take-Off System
ERC
Emision-Related Component
ERG
Eastern Research Group
ERM
Employment Requirements Matrix
ESA
Endangered Species Act
ESC
Electronic Stability Control
ETC
Electronic Throttle Control
-------
Acronym
Definition
ETW
Estimated Test Weight
EU
European Union
EV
Electric Vehicle
EVCS
Electric Vehicle Charging Station
EVSE
Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
F
Frequency
FAME
Fatty Acid Methyl Ester
FCAB
Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries
FCEV
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
FCV
Fuel Cell Voltage
Fe
Iron
FEL
Family Emission Limit
FET
Federal Excise Tax
FEV1
Functional Expiratory Volume
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FIA
Forest Inventory and Analysis
FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FOH
Fuel Operated Heater
FR
Federal Register
FRM
Final Rulemaking
FTC
Federal Trade Commission
FTE
Full Time Equivalent
FTP
Federal Test Procedure
FUL
Full Useful Life
FVC
Forced Vital Capacity
s
Gram
g/s
Gram-per-second
g/ton-mile
Grams emitted to move one ton (2000 pounds) of freight over one mile
gal
Gallon
gal/1000 ton-
mile
Gallons of fuel used to move one ton of payload (2,000 pounds) over 1000 miles
GCAM
Global Change Assessment Model
GCW
Gross Combined Weight
GCWR
Rated Gross-combined Weight (vehicle + trailer)
GDI
Gasoline Direct Injection
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEM
Greenhouse gas Emissions Model
GEOS
Goddard Earth Observing System
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
GIFT
Geospatial Intermodal Freight Transportation
GPF
Gasoline Particulate Filter
GREET
Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation
GSA
General Services Administration
GSF1
Generic Speed Form one
GST
Generic Scan Tools
GUI
Graphical User Interface
GVWR
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GW
Gigawatt
GWC
Gasoline Working Capacity
GWP
Global Warming Potential
H2
Hydrogen
H2 ICE
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine
H20
Water
ix
-------
Acronym
Definition
HABs
Harmful Algal Blooms
HAD
Diesel Health Assessment Document
HAP
Hazardous Air Pollutant
HALT
Highly Accelerated Life Testing
HC
Hydrocarbon
HD
Heavy-Duty
HDDEFTP
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Federal Test Procedure
HDDT
Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck
HDE
Heavy-Duty Engine
HDEV
Heavy-duty electric vehicle
HDGV
Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (GVWR <14,000 lb)
HDIUT
Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing
HDO
Heavy-Duty Otti-cycle
HDOE FTP
Heavy-Duty Otto-Cycle Engine Federal Test Procedure
HDOH
Heavy-Duty On Highway
HDT
Heavy-Duty Truck
HDUDDS
Heavy Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Cycle
HDV
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
HEG
High Efficiency Gearbox
HEI
Health Effects Institute
HES
Health Effects Subcommittee
HEV
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HFC
Hydrofluorocarbon
HFET
Highway Fuel Economy Dynamometer Procedure
HGTS
Hot Gas Test Stand
HHD
Heavy Heavy-Duty
HHDD
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Diesel
HHDDT
Highway Heavy-Duty Diesel Transient
HHDE
Highway Heavy-Duty Engine
HHDGV
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (>14,000 lb. GVWR)
HIF
Health Impact Function
HIL
Hardware-in-the-Loop
HNCO
Iso-cyanic Acid
hp
Horsepower
HrlCE
Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engine
hrs
Hours
HRV
Heart Rate Variability
HSC
High Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
HTA
Hydrothermally aged
HTUF
Hybrid Truck User Forum
HVAC
Heating, Ventilation and Air Cooling
HWFE
Highway Fuel Economy Drive Cycle
hz
Hertz
I/M
Inspection and Maintenance
IARC
International Agency for Research on Cancer
IATC
Improved Automatic Transmission Control
IC
Indirect Costs
IC
Internal Combustion
ICCT
International Council on Clean Transport
ICD
International Classification of Diseases
ICE
Internal Combustion Engine
ICEV
Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
X
-------
Acronym
Definition
ICF
ICF International
ICI
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
ICM
Indirect Cost Multiplier
ICP
Intake Cam Phasing
ICP-MS
Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry
ICR
Information Collection Request
ICV
Internal Combustion Vehicle
IIJA
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
IMAC
Improved Mobile Air Conditioning
IMC
Indirect Manufacturing Costs
IMPROVE
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRA
Inflation Reduction Act
IRAF
infrequent regeneration adjustment factor
IRFA
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIS
Integrated Risk Information System
ISA
Integrated Science Assessment
ISC
In-Service Conformity
IUL
Interim Useful Life
IUMPR
In-Use Monitor Performance Ratio
IUT
In-Use Testing
JAMA
Journal of the American Medical Association
k
Thousand
K
Potassium
kg
Kilogram
KI
kinetic intensity
km
Kilometer
km/h
Kilometers per Hour
kW
Kilowatt
L
Liter
LA92
Inventory development dynamometer driving schedule
lb
Pound
LBM
Liquified Biomethane
LCA
Life Cycle Analysis
LD
Light-Duty
LDT
Light-Duty Truck
LDV
Light-Duty Vehicle
LED
Low Emission Diesel
LHD
Light Heavy-Duty
LHDD
Light Heavy Duty Diesel
LHDGV
Light-Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle
LIVC
Late Intake Valve Closing
LLC
Low Load Cycle
LLNL
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's
LNG
Liquified Natural Gas
LO-SCR
Light-Off SCR (also Close-coupled SCR)
LPG
Liquified Petroleum Gas
LRR
Lower Rolling Resistance
LSC
Low Speed Cruise Duty Cycle
LT
Light Trucks
LTCCS
Large Truck Crash Causation Study
LTL
Less Than Truckload
XI
-------
Acronym
Definition
LUB
Low Friction Lubes
LUC
Land Use Change
m2
Square Meters
m3
Cubic Meters
MAGICC
Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change
MANE-VU
Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union
MAW
Moving-Average-Windows
MCF
Mixed Conifer Forest
MCS
Megawatt Charging System
MCT
Multicycle Test
MD
Medium-Duty
MDPV
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MDV
Medium-Duty Vehicle
MECA
Manufacturers of Emissions Control Association
mg
Milligram
Mg
Magnesium
Ug/m3
Micrograms per cubic meter
Mg(OH)2
Magnesium Hydroxide
mg/hp-hr
Milligrams per horsepower-hour
MHD
Medium Heavy-Duty
MHDD
Medium Heavy Duty Diesel
MHDE
Medium Heavy-Duty Engine
MHDV
Medium Heavy-Duty Vehicle (??? Evergreen Action comment)
MHEV
Mild Hybrid
mi
mile
MIL
Malfunction indicator light
min
Minute
MM
Million
MMBD
Million Barrels per Day
MMT
Million Metric Tons
Mn
Manganese
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
MOVES
MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
MP-AES
Microwave Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
mpg
Miles per Gallon
mpge
Miles per Gallon Equivalent
mph
Miles per Hour
MPO
Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRL
Minimal Risk Level
MSA
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSAT
Mobile Source Air Toxic
MST
Manufacturer self-testing
MT
Manual Transmission
MT
Metric Tons
MTS
Maximum Test Speed
MW
Megawatt
MY
Model Year
N2
Molecular Nitrogen
N20
Nitrous Oxide
Na
Sodium
NA
Nonattainment Area
NA
Not Applicable
-------
Acronym
Definition
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACFE
North American Council for Clean Freight Efficiency
NAFA
National Association of Fleet Administrators
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
NAS
National Academy of Sciences
NASTC
National Association of Small Trucking Companies
NATA
National Air Toxic Assessment
NCAR
National Center for Atmospheric Research
NCI
National Cancer Institute
NCLAN
National Crop Loss Assessment Network
NDUV
Nondispersive Ultraviolet
NEC
Net Energy Change Tolerance
NEI
National Emissions Inventory
NEMS
National Energy Modeling System
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NESCAUM
Northeastern States for Coordinated Air Use Management
NESCCAF
Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future
NESHAP
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NH3
Ammonia
NHS
National Highway System
NHTSA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIEHS
National Institute of Environmental Health Services
NiMH
Nickel Metal-Hydride
NIOSH
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NIST
National Institute for Standards and Technology
Nm
Newton-meters
NMHC
Nonmethane Hydrocarbons
NMMAPS
National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study
NO
Nitric Oxide
N02
Nitrogen Dioxide
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOX
Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NPV
Net Present Value
NRC
National Research Council
NRC-CAN
National Research Council of Canada
NREL
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NTDE
New Technology Diesel Engine
NTE
Not-to-exceed
NTEA
National Truck and Equipment Association
NTP
National Toxicology Program
NVH
Noise Vibration and Harshness
NZEV
Near-Zero Emission Vehicle
O&M
Operating and maintenance
03
Ozone
OAQPS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OBD
Onboard diagnostics
OBDEL
On-Board Diagnostic Emissions Limit
OBM
On Board Monitoring
OC
Organic Carbon
OE
Original Equipment
OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
-------
Acronym
Definition
OEM
Original Equipment Manufacturer
OHV
Overhead Valve
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OOIDA
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
OOS
Out of State
OP
Opposed-Piston
OPEC
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
ORD
EPA's Office of Research and Development
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
ORVR
Onboard refueling vapor recovery
OSAR
On Board Sensor Monitoring and Reporting Consortium
OSHA
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
OTA
Over-the-Air
OTAQ
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
OTC
Ozone Transport Commission
OTR
Ozone Transport Region
P
Phosphorus
Pa
Pascal
PA
Policy Assessment
PAH
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PBHPH
Per brake horsepower-hour
PCM
Powertrain Control Module
PCV
Positive Crankcase Ventilation
PEF
Peak Expiratory Flow
PEMFC
Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell
PEMS
Portable Emissions Monitoring System
PEV
Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PFI
Port Fuel Injection
PGM
Platinum Group Metal
PGM
Photochemical Grid Modeling
PHEV
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
PLT
Production-line testing
PM
Particulate Matter
PM10
Coarse Particulate Matter (diameter of 10 um or less)
PM2.5
Fine Particulate Matter (diameter of 2.5 um or less)
POC
People of Color
POM
Polycyclic Organic Matter
POTW
Public Owned Treatment Works
Ppb
Parts per Billion
Ppm
Parts per Million
Psi
Pounds per Square Inch
PTO
Power Take Off
PVE
Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation Testing
PZEV
Partial Zero Emission Vehicle
R&D
Research and Development
RBM
Resisting Bending Moment
RD
Renewable Diesel
REAL
Real Emissions Assessment Logging
REL
Reference Exposure Level
RESS
Rechargeable Energy Storage System
REV Midwest
Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
xiv
-------
Acronym
Definition
RfC
Reference Concentration
RFIP
Renewable Fuels Infrastructure Program
RFS
Renewable Fuel Standard
RFSP
Renewable Fuel Standard Program
RFS2
Renewable Fuel Standard 2
RIA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
RMC
Ramped Modal Cycle
RMC-SET
Ramped Modal Cycle Supplementary Emissions Test
RNG
Renewable natural gas
RPE
Retail Price Equivalent
RPM
Revolutions per Minute
RSC
Ricardo Strategic Consulting
RSWT
Reduced-Scale Wind Tunnel
RTS
Return-to-Service
S
Second
s
Sulfur
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SAB-HES
Science Advisory Board - Health Effects Subcommittee
SAE
SAE International, formerly Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFE
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SAIPE
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates
SAR
Second Assessment Report
SAV
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SC-GHG
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
see
Social Cost of Carbon
SCR
Selective Catalyst Reduction
SCRF
SCR-on-DPF
SEA
Selective enforcement audit
SER
Small Entity Representation
SET
Supplemental Emission Test
SGDI
Stoichiometric Gasoline Direct Injection
SHED
Sealed Housing Evaporative Determination
SHEV
Strong Hybrid Vehicles
SI
Spark-Ignition
SiC
Silicon Carbide
SIDI
Spark Ignition Direct Injection
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SIR
Service Information Requirements (CARB)
SMAD
Supplementary Monitor Activity Data
sMCT
Short Multi-Cycle Test
SMCAT+
Short Multi-Cycle Test Plus Steady State
S02
Sulfur Dioxide
SOA
Secondary Organic Aerosol
SOC
State of Charge
SOFC
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
SoH
State of Health (battery or fuel cell)
SOHC
Single Overhead Cam
SOP
Start of Production
SOx
Sulfur Oxides; Oxides of Sulfur
SPR
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
XV
-------
Acronym
Definition
SRT
Standard repair time
SSZ-13
A Chabazite-type Aluminosilicate ABC-6 Zeolite
Stage 3 RW
Stage 3 rework
STB
Surface Transportation Board
Std.
Standard
STP
Scaled Tractive Power
SUV
Sport Utility Vehicle
svoc
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
SwRI
Southwest Research Institute
TaaS
Transportation-as-a-Service
TAR
Technical Assessment Report
TC
Total Costs
TCO
Total Cost of Ownership
TCp
Total Cost package
TDS
Turbocharging And Downsizing
TEU
Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units
THC
Total Hydrocarbon
TIAX
TIAX LLC
TL
Truckload
TMC
Technology & Maintenance Council
TOFC
Trailer-on-Flatcar
Ton-mile
One ton (2000 pounds) of payload over one mile
TOU
Time of Use
TP
Tailpipe
Tpd
Tons per day
TRAP
Traffic Related Air Pollution
TRBDS
Turbocharging and Downsizing
TROPOMI
Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument
TRU
Trailer Refrigeration Unit
TSD
Technical Support Document
TSS
Thermal Storage
TTW
Tank-to-Wheel
TW
Test Weight
TWC
Three-Way Catalyst
U.S.
United States
U/DAF
Upward and Downward Adjustment Factor
UBE
Useable battery energy
UCT
Urban Creep and Transient Duty Cycle
UDDS
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
UF
Utility Factor
UFP
Ultra Fine Particles
UL
Useful Life
ULEDE
Ultra-Low Emissions Diesel Engines
ULSD
Ultra-low sulfur diesel
URE
Unit Risk Estimate
USD A
United States Department of Agriculture
USGCRP
United States Global Change Research Program
USPS
United States Postal Service
UTSA
Uniform Trade Secrets Act
UV
Ultraviolet
UV-b
Ultraviolet-b
V2G
Vehicle-to-Grid
xvi
-------
Acronym
Definition
VA
Variable Allowance
VGT
Variable-geometry Turbine
VIN
Vehicle Identification Number
VIO
Vehicles in Operation
VIUS
Vehicle Inventory Use Survey
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
VNT
Variable nozzle turbine
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
VSL
Vehicle Speed Limiter
VSL
Value of Statistical Life
VTEC-E
Variable Valve Timing & Lift Electronic Control-Economy
VTG
Variable turbine geometry
VTRIS
Vehicle Travel Information System
WA
Variable Valve Actuation
WL
Variable Valve Lift
WT
Variable Valve Timing
WACAP
Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project
WHD
Wage and Hour Division (Department of Labor)
WHO
World Health Organization
WHR
Waste Heat Recovery
WHTC
World Harmonized Transient Cycle
WHVC
World Harmonized Vehicle Cycle
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WRF
Weather Research Forecasting
WTP
Willingness-to-Pay
WTVC
World Wide Transient Vehicle Cycle
WTW
Well to Wheels
WVU
West Virginia University
zCSF
Zone-Coated Soot Filter
ZE
Zero Emission
ZEP
Zero Emission Powertrain
ZET
Zero Emission Truck
ZETI
Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (CALSTART)
ZEV
Zero emission vehicle
ZMER
Zero-Mile Emission Rate
Zn
Zinc
ZSM-5
Zeolite Socony Mobil-5, an Aluminosilicate Pentasil Zeolite within the family of zeolites
xvii
-------
1 Overall Reactions to EPA's Proposal
EPA categorized the content of detailed written comments received on this rule by topic area and
assembled them for response in the various sections of this Response to Comment document. In
addition to detailed comments on specific aspects of the proposed rule, many commenters also
provided general statements that indicate their support for the proposal as written, support for the
proposal while also stating that the proposal doesn't go far enough or general opposition to the
proposal. Because these statements are general in nature, they were not assigned to specific
sections of the document. Instead, these statements are summarized here; full excerpts are
provided in Appendix 4 for completeness.
1.1 General support for the proposal as written
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Many individuals and organizations who commented on the proposal included general statements
that supported or strongly supported the proposed action. While these commenters did not always
express a preference over any of the options, many stated the need to further reduce internal
combustion engine emissions while pursuing ZEV options. A few commenters noted that this may
be EPA's last rulemaking setting requirements for internal combustion engines, so it is important to
get it right. Several commenters generally supported specific aspects of the proposal without going
into detail: the NOx limits, the GHG reduction program and improvements in PM emission levels.
Some of these commenters also said that EPA should align the NOx regulations with CARB's
Omnibus rule to drive a more stringent national standard. Finally, several commenters noted that the
technologies to achieve the standards must be feasible and achievable over the full useful life of the
engine.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the comments expressing general support for EPA's rulemaking. Some of
these statements of general support also included additional non-specific comments that
disagreed with or suggested changes in specific aspects of the proposed program; we address
those comments in other sections of this Response to Comments document or in the preamble to
this rule. Also, as explained in the preamble of the final rule, we are not taking final action in
this rule on the GHG components of the proposal; comments on the GHG components of the
proposal are contained in Section 28.
1.2 General support for the proposal while also stating that the
proposal doesn't go far enough
l
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Most of the comments received, including the vast majority of mass mailer comments, generally call
on EPA to do more to reduce emissions from trucks and truck engines, especially by speeding up the
transition to electric vehicles. These commenters requested action that would lead to cleaner
emissions from internal combustion-powered vehicles and challenged EPA to be more ambitious,
more aggressive, or increase the stringency of the standards to strengthen the rule. These
commenters also requested EPA to implement a program for faster and more complete
implementation of zero emission vehicles. While not always providing data or detailed information,
many commenters requested full ZEV sales by 2035, and a few requested EPA adopt a goal of 100%
ZEV by 2050. There was also some support for fuel cell vehicles. Of the comments that generally
mentioned costs, many noted that electric vehicles are becoming cost effective.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the comments that recommend EPA adopt more stringent NOx and GHG
standards for heavy-duty engines and trucks. As explained elsewhere in this document as well as
in the preamble and RIA for this rule, the criteria pollutant heavy-duty engine standards EPA is
adopting will have a significant impact on improving air quality across the country and EPA's
assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final
emission standards (see the EPA response in section 1.3 of this document). Responses to
comments that provided more detailed information and data are included in the other sections of
this document. Also, as explained in the preamble of the final rule, we are not taking final action
in this rule on the GHG components of the proposal; comments on the GHG components of the
proposal are contained in Section 28.
1.3 General opposition to the proposal
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Some commenters expressed general opposition to the proposed revisions to the GHG Phase 2
program. Some comments also expressed general opposition to the proposed criteria pollutant portion
of the rule due to concerns about impacts of the new standards, useful life, and warranty
requirements on truck prices, transportation costs, jobs, and serviceability of hardware. Several of
those who commented provided more detailed comments that are included in other sections of this
document; others provided only general statements of concern.
Response:
EPA acknowledges these comments expressing general opposition to the proposed rule. As
explained in the preamble of the final rule, we are not taking final action in this rule on the GHG
components of the proposal; comments on the GHG components of the proposal are contained in
Section 28. Preamble Section II presents the need for this final rule, which is the need for
2
-------
additional emissions control from heavy-duty engines and vehicles, with additional information
included in RIA Chapter 4 and section 2 of this document. Preamble Sections I.D and XIII
describe our statutory authority for taking this final action.
Our technical analyses that form the basis of this final rule are presented in Sections III, V, VI,
VII, VIII, and X of the preamble to this rule, with additional information included in RIA
Chapters 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. In setting the final emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed
the statutory factors specified in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate
consideration to the cost associated with the application of technology EPA determined will be
available for the model year the final standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the
manufacturer associated with the application of such technology). EPA's assessment of the
relevant statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We
also evaluated additional factors, including factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of
these factors lends further support to the final rule. Preamble Section IV describes the basis for
the final useful life and warranty periods, with comments relating to useful life and warranty in
sections 3.8 and 4.0 of this document, respectively. Our analysis also shows that to the extent the
final rule impacts heavy-duty vehicle sales, we expect the impacts to be small and short in
duration; further, our estimates suggest a slight increase in employment in 2027 due to the final
rule (see preamble Section X and RIA Chapter 10 for a description of our economic analyses).
These issues are also discussed in response to more detailed comments provided by some
individuals and organizations in the separate sections of this document.
2 Need for additional air quality control
2.1 Human and environmental health impacts of criteria and toxic
air pollutants
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Ali P.
We need environment-related regulations now more than ever. Pollution is a rampant problem,
and the climate crisis is only worsening, both of which are harmful to humans and the world's
ecosystems. Traditional heavy-duty vehicles contribute to the formation of ozone and expel
particulate matter and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, worsening both of these issues.
This proposed rule would be a step forward in reducing our global environmental impact. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
There is very little regulation regarding the formation of ozone in the troposphere. It has the
greatest negative impact on children, teenagers, the elderly, and people with preexisting
respiratory conditions. While these groups may be the most vulnerable, ozone can be detrimental
to anyone's health, as it is linked to premature death and a myriad of respiratory issues, including
trouble breathing, asthma, and an increased likelihood of developing a respiratory infection
3
-------
(American Lung Association, 2020). Ground level ozone's dangerous and widespread nature
alone warrants an increase in its regulation, but there are additional societal and environmental
effects that further make ozone's regulation an urgent matter. For example, ozone significantly
damages plant tissue and reduces plant productivity. This both negatively impacts wildlife that
(either directly or indirectly) relies on these plants, and it can cause a decrease in crop yields
(California Air Resources Board, 2020). These combined effects of ozone can thus result in a
loss of biodiversity, a loss of money, and a loss of available food, all of which could be better
prevented with the regulation of ozone through policies such as this proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-1032]
Particulate matter (PM) released into the atmosphere also impacts people's health. PM can affect
anybody, but some people experience worse effects than others. The effects of PM can range
from mild eye irritation to the worsening of preexisting respiratory issues to an increased risk of
lung cancer or heart attacks. The smaller the particles, the deeper they can enter the lungs, and
the worse their potential damage on the respiratory system. The smallest particles can even enter
the bloodstream (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). PM is arguably the most
directly harmful pollutant to humans. All particle sizes are dangerous, and their variability in
size, chemical composition, and origin means the number of possible effects they can have on
humans is innumerable. It also means they can have varying drastic effects on the environment
if, for example, they get deposited into the soil or get dissolved into bodies of water such as lakes
and ponds. PM of certain chemical makeups can cause changes in abiotic factors (such as
altering the acidity of the soil or of a body of water), disrupting the ecosystems that rely on these
factors (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). For the sake of the public's
health and the environment's health, a reduction of PM in our atmosphere is necessary. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
The transportation sector is responsible for over a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
which is more than any other sector, because the vast majority of transportation methods rely on
the burning of fossil fuels for power (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022).
Heavy-duty vehicles are obviously included in this statistic, so reducing the extent of their
greenhouse gas emissions is a necessary step in slowing climate change, a global crisis that has
been largely ignored for too long. Immediate and effective action is crucial to becoming carbon
neutral, a goal most countries have pledged to accomplish, within the next several decades.
Government regulations that focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the
health of the environment are a necessity. Implementing this proposed rule, and others like it, is
the least we can do in the face of our worsening climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
Since 1990, economy-wide NOx emissions from highway vehicles have declined by 75%, even
as overall vehicle miles traveled have increased by nearly 50%. Continued improvements in
advanced-technology diesel engines are a key driver of this success, and one of many reasons
U.S. air quality is among the best in the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1163-A1, p.l]
4
-------
Organization: Anne Mellinger-Birdson
Heavy duty vehicle engines are primarily diesel, and create fine (PM2.5) and ultrafine particles,
carbondioxide (C02), volatile organic compounds and air toxics (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and heavy metal air pollution. Even if the diesel exhaust is filtered to reduce particles and heavy
metals such as arsenic or mercury, it does not eliminate these pollutants and all the gases are still
released. In addition, VOCs and NOx are substrates for ozone formation which also causes
health damage. Below, I comment on the health damage caused by all the pollutants made by
heavy duty vehicle engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
In addition, many vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, and communities of
color are both more exposed to air pollution, and more at risk of health problems caused by air
pollution. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1244]
1. Particles and ultrafine particles contribute major health damage in the U.S., causing heart
disease, lung disease, cancer, strokes, dementia, low birth weight, premature birth, damaged lung
growth in children(https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoal414123), and excess deaths
(https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoal702747).In the U.S., PM2.5 from fossil fuels cause 13.1% of
all deaths(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754), and diesel heavy duty engines are a
significant percent of the PM2.5. Particulate pollution is also linked to obesity, diabetes, mental
health problems, autism, and cognitive difficulties in people of all ages, from childhood to the
elderly. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1244]
2. VOCs can cause headaches, cancer, immune system problems and are linked to other health
conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
3. Nitrogen oxides cause lung disease, trigger asthma attacks, contribute to heart disease, and
damage children's lung growth (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoal414123). Children who grow
up with higher NOx exposure are more likely to develop asthma (https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-
5196(21 )00255-2). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1244]
5. Heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury are carcinogenic, and cause numerous other health
problems including kidney damage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
6. Ozone causes asthma attacks, is as bad for progression of emphysema as 29 pack-years of
cigarettes(https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.10255). Ozone likely contributes to children
developing asthma, and contributes to heart disease in adults. Ozone causes excess deaths in
Medicare recipients, this effect is more pronounced in black people
(https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoal702747). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244; see also Section
23]
7. Air pollution (PM, NOx, and ozone) is strongly linked to increased risk of pneumonia, and to
lower respiratory tract viral infections such as respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and
Covid(https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9726). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
8. Demetillo and colleagues found that diesel traffic is the dominant source of N02
disparities(https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094333). Lane and colleagues found that historical
5
-------
redlining maps from the 1930s still cause current day disparities in PM2.5 and NOx, with the
placement of highways as one of the main contributing factors
(https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.lc01012). Houston and colleagues found that Black and
Asian-American/Pacific Island people were more exposed to diesel truck traffic near the Port of
Los Angeles (https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301120). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244;
see also Section 23]
Because air pollution from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles is so damaging to health, and
especially to vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, pregnant women, and
communities of color, because of the structural inequities in our built environment placing more
highways, ports, and railyards in communities of color, and because climate change is the
biggest health threat we face, I support this rule. I encourage EPA to make it much stronger to
fully protect the health of the most vulnerable populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244; see
also Section 23]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
Cleaning up the trucking sector is a public health and health equity priority, and we urge US
EPA to establish strict new standards by the end of 2022 that push the rapid cleanup of smog-
forming emissions from trucks, ensure real-world pollution reductions and spur the transition to
zero-emission trucking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.l]
Over forty percent of all Americans live in communities impacted by unhealthy levels of ozone
and/or particle pollution, according to the American Lung Association's State of the Air 2022
report. 1 The trucking sector is a major source of smog- and particle-forming oxides of nitrogen
emissions (NOx) that threaten health across the United States and add to localized health burdens
and disparities. Poor air quality is associated with a wide range of negative health outcomes,
including asthma attacks, heart attacks and stroke, low birthweight, premature birth,
developmental harms, lung cancer and premature death. As US EPA notes, there are significant
disparities in exposures to harmful trucking pollution, and those most impacted are 'more likely
to be people of color and have lower incomes.'2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.l]
1 American Lung Association. State of the Air 2022. April 2022. www.lung.org/sota
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Transportation and Environmental
Justice. Regulatory Rulemaking Announcement. March 2022.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144Y3.pdf
Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
Last, but not least, delaying emission reductions via an electrification-only approach will
negatively impact disadvantaged environmental justice (EJ) communities and trigger
nonattainment penalties upon stationary sources, when mobile and federal sources are the
primary cause of ozone nonattainment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, p.2]
6
-------
Organization: CALSTART
Air pollution is the leading environmental health risk-factor worldwide and in the US and is
associated with millions of premature deaths worldwide and hundreds of thousands in the US
annually (Landrigan, 2018; WHO, n.d.; Thakrar, 2020). Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
from vehicles and other sources are a major source of air pollution. On-road heavy-duty vehicles
contribute 42 percent of NOx emissions from on-road sources in the US (EPA, 2017). While
harmful to breathe on its own, NOx reacts with other chemicals to form ozone and particulate
matter. In 2018, 2019 and 2020, more than 137 million people lived in US counties that received
an "F" grade for either ozone or particle pollution, including 31 million children and 21 million
people aged 65 or older, who face an increased risk of harm from breathing ozone or particle
pollution (American Lung Association, 2022; American Lung Association, 2022a). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.3]
Organization: ChargePoint, Inc. (ChargePoint)
HDVs alone are the single largest contributor to US emissions of NOx, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and carbon dioxide (C02). Long term exposure of NOx "can cause long
term lung damage in people who live close to truck traffic."4 ChargePoint is ready to support
swift deployment of zero emission MHDVs in public and private fleets in the near future through
deployment with the necessary charging infrastructure thus and proving substantial air quality
benefits to roadside communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1294-A1, p. 1]
3 Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles
Cost Analysis, March 2022, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
4 "EPA Proposal to Clean Up Truck Emissions Would Prevent Asthma Attacks, Reduce
Smog and Soot and Save Lives" https://www.lung.org/media/press-releases/epa-
proposal-to-clean-up-truck-emissions-would
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF)
EPA last updated the nitrogen oxides ('NOx') standards for heavy-duty vehicles in 2001.1 Since
that time, a growing body of evidence has confirmed our understanding of the significant human
health and environmental harm caused by air pollution from this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1295-A1, p.l]
1 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66 Fed. Reg. 5002
(Jan. 18, 2001).
As part of its mission, CBF is dedicated to saving the Bay—and keeping it saved—as defined by
reaching a 70 on CBF's Health Index, which uses ecological indicators to measure pollution,
habitat, and fisheries. 18 One indicator for pollution is nitrogen, a primary pollutant causing the
excess algal blooms that block sunlight for underwater grasses and use up life-sustaining oxygen
when they decompose, leading to the Bay's dead zones. 19 Since 2010, CBF has been dedicated
7
-------
to the success of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load ('Bay TMDL'), a federal-state
partnership designed to reduce the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution contributing to
dead zones in the Bay.20 The Bay TMDL sets a deadline of 2025, at which point 'all pollution
control measures needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place.'21 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, pp.5-6]
18 CBF, 2018 State of the Bay Report, https://www.cbf.org/about-the-bav/state-of-the-
bay-report/.
19 CBF, About the Indicators, https://www.cbf.org/about-the-bav/state-of-the-bav-
report/sotb-about-the-indicators.html#nitrogen-phosphorus; see also, 85 Fed. Reg. at
3310/1 ('Environmental impacts of concern are associated with [NOx, ozone, and PM2.5]
and include light extinction, decreased tree growth, foliar injury, and acidification and
eutrophication of aquatic and terrestrial systems.').
20 See U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
and Sediment (Dec. 2010) ('Chesapeake Bay TMDL'), available at
https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/chesapeake-bay-tmdl-document.
21 Chesapeake Bay TMDL at ES-1.
Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, often in the form of NOx, from both mobile sources and
stationary sources makes up about one-third—more than 85 million pounds—of the Bay's total
yearly nitrogen load.22 The Chesapeake Bay airshed is almost nine times larger than the
watershed,23 and this airborne nitrogen pollution travels from as far west as Indiana and
Kentucky, and as far north as Quebec, Canada. These NOx emissions drift into the Bay
watershed and fall out of the air either dry or as precipitation.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1295-A1, p.6]
22 CBF, Air Pollution, https://www.cbf.org/issues/air-pollution/; see also Chesapeake
Bay TMDL, Section 4.6.2, Atmospheric Deposition, pp. 4-33 (Dec. 2010),
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
12/documents/cbay_final_tmdl_section_4_final_0. pdf.
23 Chesapeake Bay TMDL, Appendix L, at L-4,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
02/documents/appendix_l_atmos_n_deposition_allocations_final.pdf.
24 Chesapeake Bay TMDL at Section 4.6.2, p. 4-33.
Fossil-fuel-powered cars and trucks are one of the principal sources of NOx pollution in the Bay
region.25 Indeed, when EPA conducted air modeling for the Bay TMDL, it modeled a 2030
scenario in which 'emissions projections assume[d] continued stringent controls are in place,
such as.. .Heavy Duty Diesel vehicle fleet fully replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicle (sic) that
comply with new standards.'26 Motor vehicles emit NOx close to the ground, depositing
nitrogen on plants and soils within tens of meters of the highway.27 Additional nitrogen falls on
8
-------
impervious surfaces, such as roads and parking lots, where much of it is washed into waterways
and, ultimately, the Bay.28 A portion of motor vehicle NOx remains airborne, where it either
combines with sunlight to form ozone, or remains as nitrogen in one or more forms. Many of
these NOx compounds then make their way into the Bay and its tributaries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1295-A1, p.6]
25 Chesapeake Bay TMDL at Section 4.6.2, p. 4-33.
26 Chesapeake Bay TMDL at Appendix L-15.
27 Redling, K., E. Elliott, D. Bain, and J. Sherwell, Highway contributions to reactive
nitrogen deposition: tracing the fate of vehicular NO using stable isotopes and plant
biomonitors, Biogeochemistry 116:261-274, 2013.
28 See Chesapeake Bay TMDL, at Appendix L-23.
Clean Air Act programs that reduce airborne nitrogen are a key component of protecting
waterways from excess nitrogen pollution.29 Reducing nitrogen inputs to the Bay airshed and
watershed is a critical part of achieving and maintaining water quality goals in the Chesapeake
Bay. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.7]
29 See Keith N. Eshleman, Robert D. Sabo, Declining nitrate-N yields in the Upper
Potomac River Basin: What is really driving progress under the Chesapeake Bay
restoration?, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 146, pp. 280-289 (Dec. 2016),
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.07.004; see also, Linker, Lewis C., Robin
Dennis, Gary W. Shenk, Richard A. Batiuk, Jeffrey Grimm, and Ping Wang, 2013.
Computing Atmospheric Nutrient Loads to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Tidal
Waters, Journal of the American Water Res. Ass'n (JAWRA) 1-17. DOI:
10.1111/jawr.l2112, available at
https://www.chesapeakebav.net/documents/Atmo Pep CB TMDL 10-13.pdf.
Organization: City Council District 8, Pittsburgh, PA, Erika Strassburger
As a Member of Pittsburgh City Council, I hear from constituents on a weekly basis about the
poor air quality in our region that threatens public health, especially for the most vulnerable
populations, and prevents true enjoyment of our city. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2233, p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
Trucks and buses remain a dominant source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution in many
communities, threatening the health of millions of people. Heavy-duty trucks and buses drive
American commerce and connect people across the country. Creating cleaner trucks is an
economic opportunity to support jobs and make more efficient vehicles while reducing harmful
pollution. Heavy-duty trucks and buses continue to contribute significantly to air pollution at the
local, regional, and national level, often disproportionally affecting communities of color and
low-income populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1, p.l]
9
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
In the sections below, Commenters detail the outsized contribution of HDVs to dangerous air
pollution, public health burdens, environmental injustices, and climate change. The scale of these
problems, in combination with the Agency's statutory mandates, demands a swift and protective
regulatory response from EPA in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 11]
EPA must fulfill its mandate to curb emissions from HDVs, which lead to air pollution that
causes significant negative health impacts. As EPA notes, 'Heavy-duty (HD) engines operating
across the U.S. emit NOx and other pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM,
and NOx. These pollutants are linked to premature death, respiratory illness (including childhood
asthma), cardiovascular problems, and other adverse health impacts. Data show that heavy-duty
engines are important contributors to concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 and their resulting
threat to public health.' 1 In particular, NOx emissions increase levels of ozone, because ground-
level ozone forms when there are high concentrations of ambient NOx and VOCs and when solar
radiation is high.2 NOx emissions (along with other gaseous precursors such as VOCs and SOX)
also impact particulate matter by forming secondary particles through atmospheric chemical
reactions.3 Reductions in NOx emitted from HDVs would therefore result in reduced ambient
levels of ozone and PM and improved health and environmental outcomes. See 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,417.4 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.11-12]
1 See Margaret Zawacki et al., Mobile Source Contributions to Ambient Ozone and
Particulate Matter in 2025, 188 Atmospheric Environment 129-41 (2018),
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.04.057. See also Kenneth Davidson et al., The
Recent and Future Health Burden of the U.S. Mobile Sector Apportioned by Source,
Environmental Research Letters (2020), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8.
2 See EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards—Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 171 (Mar. 2022),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf.
3 See id. at 174.
4 See also id. at Chapter 4: Health and Environmental Impacts.
HDVs are particularly notable contributors to particulate matter (PM) and criteria air pollutants.
For example, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) found that HDVs are responsible for
more than 70% of NOx emissions from on-road mobile sources. 5 In addition, the International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that for urban driving, the NOx emissions from
one line-haul truck are equivalent to the emissions from 100 cars for each mile driven.6
Nationally, HDVs are the largest contributor to mobile-source emissions of NOx, making up
about 32% of NOx emissions from on- and off-road mobile sources.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.12]
10
-------
5 See CARB, CARB Staff Current Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower
NOx Standards and Associated Test Procedures for 2022 and Subsequent Model Year 1
(2019),
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_04182019a.pdf.
6 See Huzeifa Badshah et al., Current State of NOx Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel Vehicles in the United States, ICCT (Nov. 2019),
https://theicct.org/publication/current-state-of-nox-emissions-from-in-use-heavy-duty-
diesel-vehicles-in-the-united-states/.
7 See EPA, EPA Announces the 'Clean Trucks Plan' 2 (2021),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/420f21057.pdf. Data is from
M0VES3 for onroad and nonroad sectors and 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
for all other mobile sectors.
Air pollution has become so significant that the public-health burdens attributable to air pollution
are 'now estimated to be on a par with other major global health risks such as unhealthy diet and
tobacco smoking, and air pollution is now recognized as the single biggest environmental threat
to human health.'8 Researchers at the University of Chicago studied the impact of air pollution
on life expectancy, and found that 'the deadly effects of PM2.5 on the heart, lungs, and other
systems have a more devastating impact on life expectancy than communicable diseases like
tuberculosis, behavioral killers like cigarette smoking, and even war.'9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, pp.12-13]
8 See Ken Lee & Michael Greenstone, Air Quality Life Index Annual Update, Energy
Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (2021), https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/08/AQLI_2021-Report.EnglishGlobal.pdf.
9 See World Health Organization (WHO), WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines (2021),
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/345329/9789240034228-eng.pdf.
Particulate pollution from HDVs can cause severe health impacts even with only short-term
exposures. There is consistent evidence showing the relationship between short-term exposure to
PM and mortality, particularly cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. Short- and long-term
exposure to PM2.5 can cause harmful health impacts such as heart attacks, strokes, worsened
asthma, and early death. 10 In addition, short-term PM exposure has been linked to increases in
infant mortality, hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease, hospital admissions and
emergency visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and severity of asthma attacks and
hospitalization for asthma in children. Year-round exposure to PM is associated with elevated
risks of early death, primarily from cardiovascular and respiratory problems such as heart
disease, stroke, influenza, and pneumonia.il [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.13]
10 See EPA, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (Dec. 2019),
http s: //cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/i sa/ recordi splay.cfm?deid=347534.
11
-------
11 See American Lung Association, State of the Air 2022 at 21-22 (2022),
https://www.lung.org/research/sota.
Not surprisingly, air pollution from HDVs often occurs along highways and in industrial or
urban hubs. A new Clean Air Task Force (CATF) map and data visualization tool, Deaths by
Dirty Diesel, 12 highlights the price that communities pay in negative health impacts from diesel
engines (including trucks and other diesel-fueled equipment). Deaths by Dirty Diesel makes data
on health impacts from diesel pollution easily accessible to community members on a state,
county, and metro area basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 13]
12 See CATF, Deaths by Dirty Diesel Map, https://www.catf.us/deathsbydiesel/. See also
CATF, Deaths by Dirty Diesel Map: Health Impacts Methodology,
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/06091832/deaths-dirty-diesel-
methodology.pdf.
The Deaths by Dirty Diesel tool illustrates the various impacts of PM,13 with a focus on the
negative impacts from fine particulate matter, or PM2.5. The colors on the map depict diesel
engines' contribution to PM2.5 air pollution in various geographic areas. The tool also contains
data on the adverse health, social, and economic impacts attributable to emissions from diesel
engines, including deaths, heart attacks, acute bronchitis, respiratory symptoms, asthma,
emergency room visits, cancer risk, monetized health losses, and lost work and activity days. 14
The tool shows the clear linkage between high levels of diesel-related air pollution and threats to
public health and welfare. For example, while risk is not spread evenly across any state, the data
show that California, New Jersey, and New York have the highest cancer risk from diesel
pollution, and Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon have the lowest. The tool is intended to help
visualize the vast impact of diesel pollution on communities and to make that information
accessible to the general public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.14]
13 See CARB, Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health.
14 CATF, Deaths by Dirty Diesel Map: Health Impacts Methodology,
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/06091832/deaths-dirty-diesel-
methodology.pdf.
Not coincidentally, the negative impacts of diesel pollution are often clustered along the
country's busiest interstate highways. California offers the starkest example: residents of Los
Angeles cope with the country's worst diesel pollution, at 0.726 ug/m3, but the map shows that a
driver heading north from Los Angeles on Interstate 5 would continue to encounter dangerously
high diesel particulate matter levels in California's Central Valley (Fresno County, CA: 0.451
ug/m3), in the Bay Area (San Mateo County, CA: 0.465 ug/m3), and even at the north end of 1-5
in the Puget Sound region (Kitsap County, WA: 0.221 ug/m3).15 Many of these counties,
including Los Angeles and Fresno Counties in California, are in non-attainment status for their
PM2.5 air quality. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.14]
12
-------
15 See CATF, Diesel pollution is a deadly problem in the United States (Jan. 2022),
https://www.catf.us/2022/01/diesel-pollution-deadly-problem-united-states/.
16 See EPA, Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants (2022),
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html.
According to the American Lung Association (ALA) State of the Air 2022 report, fourteen
counties received failing grades on all three of the air quality indicators that ALA reviewed:
daily particulate matter pollution, annual particulate matter pollution, and ozone pollution. 17
Seven of those are California counties bisected by 1-5, three are other California counties that sit
just to the east of 1-5, and another three are California counties bisected by other interstate
highways (1-8,1-10,1-15, and 1-40). The last is in Arizona, southeast of Phoenix and at the
convergence of three highways (1-8,1-10, and 1-19).18 EPA must take action to reduce the
dangerous levels of pollution found across the country in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.14]
17 See ALA, State of the Air 2022 at 19.
18 See Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National
Highway Freight Network Map,
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/nfn/maps/nhfn_map.htm (last modified
Mar. 5, 2020).
These findings show the critical need for EPA to minimize the harmful emissions from the HDV
sector. Doing so will not only improve a significant public-health and environmental issue but
will also decrease air pollution and improve well-being in overburdened communities. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 16]
NOx emissions from the heavy-duty sector also harm plants, wildlife, and visibility within
national parks and wilderness areas, including those that have been designated as 'Class I' under
the Clean Air Act and receive special air quality and visibility protections. 49 As EPA has noted
in the past, '[environmental impacts of concern are associated with these pollutants and include
light extinction, decreased tree growth, foliar injury, and acidification and eutrophication of
aquatic and terrestrial systems.' 85 Fed. Reg. 3,306, 3,310 (Jan. 21, 2020). These impacts are
especially damaging in areas already suffering from a range of climate change impacts, such as
the Rocky Mountains, Sierra Nevada Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, and Southwestern
Desert ecosystems. For example, ozone phytotoxicity can lead to foliar injury and reduce the
photosynthetic capacity of plants and trees, including Jeffrey and Ponderosa pines and other
high-elevation coniferous species. 50 Moreover, many of the tree species weakened by ozone and
other air pollutants linked to NOx emissions are already facing climate change-driven stressors,
such as drought, high temperatures, and native bark beetle attacks.51 As a result, NOx and GHG
pollution from the heavy-duty sector directly contributes to the ongoing tree mortality and mega-
wildfire crisis that has devastated the Western United States in recent years. Additionally,
nitrogen deposition from NOx pollution causes widespread deleterious impacts across land and
water ecosystems, including from both direct exposure (e.g., nitrogen enrichment) and biological
effects (e.g., decreases in biodiversity, fish declines). See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,454-56. Examples
13
-------
of nitrogen deposition impacts include expansion of algae blooms in high altitude lakes within
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks52 and the spread of invasive, fire-prone grasses
in Joshua Tree National Park.53 These harms affect the public welfare in countless ways,
damaging the ability of ecosystems to clean the air and water and to provide the basic natural
resources humans rely on for food, shelter, and material goods. See generally Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis (DRIA) Chs. 4.2, 4.3. EPA must take action to mitigate these harms in this
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp. 19-20]
49 See National Park Service, Air, Class I, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/classl.htm.
50 Ricardo Cisneros et. al., Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for
people and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California, 158 Envtl. Pollution 3261
(2010). See also 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,455.
51 Ricardo Cisneros et. al., Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for
people and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California, 158 Envtl. Pollution 3261
(2010).
52 National Park Service, Sequoia and Kings Canyon Park Air Quality,
https://www.nps.gov/seki/learn/nature/airqualitymon.htm.
53 National Park Service, Park Air Profiles - Joshua Tree National Park,
https://home.nps.gov/articles/airprofiles-jotr.htm.
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame)
By eliminating the diesel fuel from the diesel engine, ClearFlame engines will eliminate the
emissions of diesel particulate matter (PM) and NOx that increase asthma emergencies and
threaten health in disadvantaged communities that live with disproportionate levels of diesel
pollution, while also reducing GHG emissions in the near-term from these engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)
The transportation sector is responsible for 67 percent of NOx emissions in Connecticut, a key
component of ground level ozone (smog). Exposure to poor air quality exacerbates acute and
chronic respiratory problems such as asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and other
lung diseases. Furthermore, the immediate health impacts of mobile source related air pollution
(both direct and indirect) are felt in areas within and along transportation corridors that have
borne a disproportionate impact from this pollution for decades. A recent national report, Asthma
Capitals 20215, ranked New Haven (#5) and Hartford (#17) among the 100 largest U.S. cities
where it is most challenging to live with asthma. Both cities sit at the intersection of major U.S.
highways. CTDEEP recently conducted an analysis of on-road HD vehicle emissions and found
that, in 2020, on-road HD emissions accounted for 36% of on-road NOx emissions, but
emissions from HD vehicles are projected to increase to 57% of total on-road NOx emissions by
14
-------
2045 without the adoption of new emissions standards.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1,
p.2]
5 AAFA 2021 Asthma Capitals Report May 2021
6 MHD_Whitepaper_030822.pdf (ct.gov) p. 11
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
CR commends EPA for updating long overdue emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
Heavy-duty vehicles transport consumer goods all across the country, delivering goods to
warehouses and directly to homes. The growth of e-commerce and the promise of fast delivery
times will likely increase consumer reliance on heavy-duty vehicles. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration estimates a 55% growth in total medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
miles traveled between 2019 and 2050.6 A recent investigative article by CR highlights the
impacts of expanding e-commerce on communities living near warehouses. These impacts
include increased traffic and pollution coming from heavy-duty vehicles delivering goods to the
warehouses. 7 The expansion of the heavy-duty industry to meet consumers' needs should not
come at the expense of communities living near trucking routes, nor at the expense of the health
of consumers making purchases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.2]
6 NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission
Vehicles Cost Analysis, (March 2022). Available at:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
7 Kaveh Waddell, When Amazon Moves In These Communities Pay the Price, Consumer
Reports (December 9, 2021). Available at:
https://www.consumerreports.org/corporate-accountability/when-amazon-expands-these-
communi ties-pay-the-pricea2554249208/
As the EPA states, heavy-duty engines will continue to be one of the largest 'contributors to
mobile source NOx emissions nationwide in the future.'8 While making up only 5% of on-road
vehicles, and 10% of vehicle miles traveled, EPA estimates that NOx emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles will represent 32% of the mobile source NOx emissions in calendar year 2045, and
that heavy-duty engines would represent 89% of the on-road NOx inventory in calendar year
2045.'9 NOx are precursors to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, pp.2-3]
8 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards. 87 Fed. Reg. 1741, 17418 (March 28, 2022). Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-03-28/pdf/2022-04934.pdf.
9 Id.; Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Vehicle Miles, Available at:
https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles
15
-------
Long-term exposure to ozone and PM2.5 increases the risk of premature death from respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases. Exposure to PM2.5 is also linked with increased incidences of
childhood asthma. 10 These health impacts more significantly affect the estimated 72 million
people living within 200 meters of a truck freight route. Communities living near these routes are
disproportionately people of color and those with lower incomes. 11 A recent study conducted by
the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that Asian-American, Black, and Latinx communities
face, respectively, 34%, 24%, and 23% higher exposures to diesel pollution compared to their
white counterparts. 12 Stringent NOx emission standards are vital to reducing these adverse
health impacts and to addressing historic environmental inequities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1285-A1, p.3]
10 American Lung Association, Health Impact of Air Pollution, (2022. Available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/health-risks.
11 87F.R. 17414, 17418.
12 Union of Concerned Scientists, Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles
in California, (January 28, 2019). Available at:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/inequitable-exposure-air-pollution-vehicles-california-
2019.
Organization: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
On-Road HD vehicles are one of the largest sources of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in
Delaware, emitting nearly 3,945 tons/year (16%) of all NOx pollution. NOx contributes to smog
and secondary particulate matter (PM), which, along with primary PM emissions, are associated
with increased risk of premature deaths, hospitalization, and emergency room (ER) visits.
Numerous respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are linked to these pollutants such as asthma,
decreased lung function, heart attacks, and lung cancer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1,
p.2]
All combustion engines produce NOx and although technology has advanced in recent years,
more must be done to reduce NOx emissions from mobile sources. Cutting NOx and PM
emissions from the trucking industry is vital for improving public health and meeting National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
The District continues to have high annual ozone. The fourth highest values above the 70 ppb
2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), except in 2020 when
vehicle congestion in the Washington, DC, area was exceptionally reduced due to the Covid-19
health emergency. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) emissions from highway trucks are major
contributors to unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter. In
fact, modeling conducted by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) found that onroad diesel
vehicles were projected to be the second largest contributor to ozone in the District, behind only
16
-------
onroad gasoline vehicles. 1 This is detailed below in Table 1. These vehicles were modeled to
contribute to 16% of anthropogenic ozone on both exceedance days and throughout ozone season
in the District, which is a higher percentage than the District contributes to itself (12% on
average and 10% on exceedance days). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, pp. 1-2]
1. Ozone Transport Commission. 2011-Based Modeling Platform Support Document
October 18, 2018
Urban residents in the District are exposed to higher levels of health-damaging PM2.5 and air
toxic pollutants which concentrate at "hot-spots" near high-density traffic arteries. Freight
transportation relies on trucks, trains, and ships operating within communities in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic to move goods. This activity generates significant amounts of localized air
pollution in communities and for frontline workers already overburdened by diesel exhaust
pollution. Local emissions contribute to an ongoing health crisis in these communities. Reducing
NOx from heavy-duty truck engines is of the utmost importance due to its role in local and
regional ground-level ozone formation, as well as its contributions to PM2.5, and winter-time
visibility impairment at Class 1 areas. There are substantial year-round benefits of implementing
measures to reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p.
2]
An OTC analysis, shown in Figure 1, projects that on-road diesel vehicles, including heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs), will be the third largest NOx emissions source in the Ozone Transport Region
(OTR) in 2023. Emissions from highway trucks are estimated to comprise 20 percent of the
OTR's total NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 2]
2. Tan, et al., "On-Board Sensor-Based NOx Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles," Environmental Science and Technology, 53: 5504-5511 (2019).
To estimate the impact of on-road diesel the OTC modeled the contribution, in parts per billion
(ppb), of on-road diesel to 8-hour maximum ozone concentrations at monitors in the District.34
Table 1, below, lists the percent contribution to total ozone from on-road diesel vehicles in the
District. On-road diesel emissions are projected to contribute about 6 ppb to total ozone and the
projected contribution makes up nearly 15 percent of controllable ozone contributions on these
days. Also, at all monitors, on-road diesel vehicles are consistently projected to be the second
largest anthropogenic contributing sector to ozone, typically only behind area/nonpoint, on-road
gasoline vehicles, and in some cases, electric generating units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-
Al, p. 3]
3. Ozone Transport Commission "Technical Support Document for the 2011 Ozone
Transport Commission/Mid-Atlantic Northeastern Visibility Union Modeling Platform -
2nd Revision," December 2018.
4. The modeling evaluated the 8-hour maximum ozone on the 4th highest day, which is
the metric EPA uses to evaluate compliance with the ozone NAAQS.
17
-------
A national standard is necessary for a small jurisdiction such as the District because very few
private heavy-duty vehicles are registered in the District. In fact, of the heavy-duty vehicles
registered in the District, only about 50 vehicles are held privately, despite the thousands of
heavy-duty vehicles that pass through our borders. This does not consider the numerous heavy-
duty vehicles that circumnavigate the Washington Beltway which never cross the District border
yet impact our air quality. Our residents require NOx reductions from diesel vehicles in order to
breathe healthy air, and the only effective approach is a national solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1299-A1, p. 3]
Although as a whole the District boasts impressive health profiles, life expectancies, and quality
of life indicators, many historically overburdened communities in the District do not reflect the
trends found in other parts of the city. While traffic and air pollution are problems throughout the
city, evidence points to motor vehicle air pollution being concentrated along the interstates and
highways that serve as major commuter and goods movement routes, with the heaviest traffic
channeled through Southeastern DC (Wards 6, 7, and 8). The communities in Wards 6, 7, and 8
have higher-than-average rates of asthma, which is correlated with higher NOx emissions. If the
EPA does not act on the specific issues highlighted above, DOEE fears communities will not see
cleaner air, and thus, will continue to suffer adverse health effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1299-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Elders Climate Action
ECA requests this action to -
3) to end the inequitable and unlawful disparate impact on BIPOC and low income frontline
communities who are most exposed to emissions from HDVs in violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act and thereby suffer "disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations" in violation of EO
12,898. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 1]
Diesel trucks and buses are also major sources of other deadly air pollutants. Medium and heavy-
duty diesel engines emit more than 60% percent of the deadly particle pollution from vehicles.
Particle pollution cuts short tens of thousands of US lives per year and contributes to the heavy
burden of asthma on our nation's children. Diesels are the primary source of particles in
communities near heavily-trafficked highways where 65 million Americans are exposed to
harmful concentrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 3]
Vehicle pollution inequitably harms Black and Latinex communities that are much more likely
compared to whites to reside near heavy truck traffic on highways, and at truck terminals, ports
and distribution centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1]
NOx from diesels combines with heat and sunlight in the atmosphere to form ground level
ozone, or smog, a lung irritant and asthma trigger. Heavy duty vehicle emissions are a major
contributor to urban smog in the 230 urban counties where pollution concentrations violate
national air quality standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 3]
18
-------
Without effective action to achieve the emission reductions needed for attainment, many at risk
groups will suffer harm. EPA's review of the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter have
identified groups especially at risk from vehicle pollution, including— Babies and children,
whose bodies are rapidly developing, Pregnant women who risk increased premature birth and
low weight births when exposed to vehicle pollution. Children who develop asthma. Children
and adults with asthma who suffer asthma attacks. People with existing respiratory diseases
including COPD, COVID-related breathing limitations, long-COVID, and people with active
COVID or respiratory infections. People with lung cancer or other chronic diseases including
other cancers. People with or at risk for cardiovascular disease. Elders (over age 65) who risk
premature death with exposure to air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 4]
The proposed rule fails to achieve the public health benefits that will flow from requiring trucks
and buses to emit zero particles, zero NOx and toxic pollutants that cause urban smog, childhood
asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and premature deaths. Equally objectionable is
the failure of EPA to even consider zero emission standards for short-haul HDVs, and to evaluate
the climate and public health benefits that would follow from the actions needed for attainment
in the worst affected nonattainment areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 4]
Fire smoke and unprecedented hot temperatures are having a significant impact on human health
as an example of the regional impact of heat waves, drought and wildfires. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
The heat dome that raised temperatures above 110 F for three days in the Pacific NW in June
2021 caused over 200 heat-related deaths in Oregon and Washington. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
Recent research demonstrates that emissions from wildfire are the largest source of fine particle
pollution in large regions of the U.S. and contributed to thousands of premature deaths. Wildfire
in the western U.S. now accounts for half of all fine particle pollution in some areas of the West,
doubling the exposure to PM2.528 from non-fire sources including motor vehicles, power plants
and industrial operations.29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
28. PM2.5 are particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.
29. Burke, M. et al.,
The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States | PNAS (Jan 11, 2021). A warming
climate is responsible for roughly half of the increase in burned area in the United States (4), and
future climate change could lead to up to an additional doubling of wildfire-related particulate
emissions in fireprone areas (36) or a many-fold increase in burned area (37, 38). Costs from
these increases include both the downstream economic and health costs of smoke exposure, as
well as the cost of suppression activities, direct loss of life and property, and other adaptive
measure (e.g., power shutoffs) that have widespread economic consequences.30 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
30. Id.
19
-------
Using satellite measurements of smoke plumes integrated with ground level monitored PM2.5
(fine particle) concentration data, Burke et al. estimate that between 7,000 and 14,500 deaths per
year (depending on the dose/response curve used to estimate mortality from observed exposures)
are attributable to fire smoke in the contiguous U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 24]
Mortality and other health impacts such as asthma attacks and exacerbating COPD will be
experienced most severely by communities already burdened by the adverse health effects of
daily exposure to fine particle pollution emitted from tailpipes, power plants and industrial
sources. Exposure to fire smoke in the American West during the 2020 fire season was universal.
No communities were spared. But fire smoke at least doubled the annual exposure routinely
suffered by BIPOC and low income communities living near major highways and industrial
sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-Al]
In Oregon, mortality attributed to fire includes many hundreds more deaths than the lives lost
directly to fires. Statewide smoke pollution during the 2020 fires threatened lives and wellbeing
with extreme hazard concentrations of particles known to cause pre-mature death and cancer,
exacerbate asthma, COPD and other respiratory conditions, and cardio-vascular diseases. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 24]
The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) reports that "[t]he most severe recent air quality events in
Oregon are due to wildfire smoke.. ."31 OHA cited a study finding that fire smoke in 2012
"caused hundreds of premature deaths, nearly 2,000 emergency room visits and more than $2
billion in health costs."32 OHA points to the longer fire season as increasing the harm from
exposure to smoke. "Fire seasons in Oregon are roughly 100 days longer than they were in the
1970s. Longer seasons mean more smoke in Oregon communities."33 The greater density of
smoke and longer duration of smoke exposure in 2020 likely at least doubled the mortality
caused by smoke exposure compared to 2012. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 24]
31. Oregon Climate and Health Report, 40 (Oregon Health Authority, 2020).
32. Id., 33.
33. Id.,
In addition, low income families without air conditioning are much less able to escape smoke
pollution by closing doors and windows during the summer heat to keep themselves safe.
Workers cannot avoid exposure to smoke pollution if required to work outdoors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 24]
Beyond the economic and environmental damage, social disruption, and harm to health that will
result from a longer fire season and expanded fire zones, more deadly air quality will likely make
parts of the American West uninhabitable during the fire season for the most vulnerable
populations such as the elderly, children and those with existing respiratory and cardiovascular
conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 24]
20
-------
These recent data and other sources published since 2009, including the data discussed at length
in the Administrator's 2009 Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (December 15, 2009),
confirm the finding that EPA made 12 years ago: "The Administrator finds that the elevated
atmospheric concentrations of the well-mixed greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations." Id., at 66,523. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
EDF conducted an analysis examining the climate, air pollution, health and monetized impacts
that would result from electrifying 40 percent of new Class 4-8 single unit trucks, 40 percent of
new Class 8 short haul (day cab) tractors, and 80 percent of all transit and school buses, in the
2027-2029 timeframe.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 15]
70 EDF. 2022. The Opportunity for Near-Term Electrification of Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Vehicles
We have attached this analysis to our comments and summarize the key results here. As stated
above, numerous recent studies confirm that eliminating tailpipe emissions from these segments
is both technically feasible and cost-saving.71 EDF analysis shows that advancing ZEVs at this
rate would:
• Avoid 85 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions every year by 2040 and
more than 1.6 billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050, eliminating 46 percent of
emissions from those segments by 2050.
• Significantly reduce ozone forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution by nearly 45,000 tons
annually in 2040 and 840,000 -2.2 million tons through 2050 - pollution that
disproportionately impacts people of color and lower income neighborhoods.
• Prevent as many as 7,500 - 9,600 premature deaths through 2050.
• Provide our nation with up to $34 billion in economic benefits annually in 2040 with a
cumulative savings of $650-680 billion by 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
P 15]
71 See eg. Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-
Duty Electrification Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush Industries for Environmental Defense
Fund, http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf; Muratori, Matteo et al. 'Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-
Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis.' NREL Transforming Energy. March
2022. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
While these segments present the most cost-effective near-term opportunity for reductions, it will
be equally important for other segments, including long-haul tractors, to transition to
electrification as soon as possible because of their significantly high emissions, high vehicle
miles traveled and lower fuel economy. The dramatic economic and health savings shown above
are the result of just a portion of the medium- and heavy-duty fleet starting to electrify over the
next 7 years. The impact of 100 percent new ZEV sales across all vehicle segments would push
21
-------
these benefits into the trillions of dollars. (See Attachment A for the full White Paper and a more
extensive justification for the near-term electrification of the truck and bus segments
modeled) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 16]
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
We support new standards for control of air pollution from heavy-duty trucks. The transportation
sector emitted pollution is a major sort of air pollution-related death and disease, and recently
became the #1 source of global warming pollution in the United States. Heavy-duty trucks are a
leading source of lung-damaging air pollutants—including smog-forming NOx pollution and
particle pollution (soot). It's estimated that in 2020, that nationwide trucks consumed 55.3 billion
gallons of fuel and emitted 561 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, 1.5 million metric tons
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 38,000 metric tons of particulate matter (soot) (PM). The largest
single source of these pollutants are heavy duty trucks (57% of vehicle generated soot comes
from trucks.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.l]
PM2.5 alone results in at least 200,000ii deaths annually in the United States from nine (9)
separate causes including: cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney
disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lung
cancer, and pneumonia.iii Over 15,000 preterm births are linked to PM2.5 with 1/3 of early
births resulting in deaths.iv [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.2]
ii J. Lelievelda, K. Klingmiillera , A. Pozzera , R. T. Burnettc , A. Hainesd , and V.
Ramanathan, Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public
health and climate, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116(15)
7192-7197; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.l819989116
iii Benjamin Bowe, MPH1,2; Yan Xie, MPH1,2,3; Yan Yan, MD, PhDl,4; et al., Burden
of Cause-Specific Mortality Associated With PM2.5 Air Pollution in the United States,
JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11): el915834. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15834
iv Leonardo Trasande, Patrick Malecha, and Teresa M. Attina, Particulate Matter
Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs,
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510810, March 2016
Ozone-forming nitrogen oxides harm the health of both children and adults - this includes
asthma, 1 other respiratory illnesses like COPD, and brain inflammation leading to cognitive
decline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.l]
1 Rasmussen S.G., et al., "Association Between Unconventional Natural Gas
Development in the Marcellus Shale and Asthma Exacerbations," JAMA Internal
Medicine, 2016, 176(9), 1334-1343,
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2534153 Willis, M.
D., et al., "Unconventional natural gas development and pediatric asthma hospitalizations
22
-------
in Pennsylvania, Environmental Research, 166, 402-408, October 2018,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29936288
Pregnant people and babies are especially vulnerable. As evangelicals, we have a special care for
children - both born and unborn. Medical research shows that ozone exposure increases the
likelihood of reproductive and developmental harm, including reduced fertility, preterm birth,
stillbirth and low birth weight. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.l]
Being recently pregnant, these harms hit me at a personal level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1134-A1, p.l]
Medical research shows that exposure to diesel fumes like emitted from heavy duty vehicles can
contribute to ADHD. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.l]
Like every parent, I want my children to reach their full God-given potential and the truth is
heavy duty vehicle pollution robs children of this. But safeguarding our children from heavy
duty truck pollution is beyond the control of one person, one parent. We need the strongest
standards possible to defend the health and lives of our children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1134-A1, pp.1-2]
Organization: Evergreen Action
The transportation sector accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in the
nation, and Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles (MHDVs) represent nearly a third of those
emissions. In addition to producing greenhouse gas emissions, heavy duty vehicles are also
responsible for significant soot and smog pollution. The particulate matter in soot is responsible
for a range of lung and heart diseases which increases hospitalization rates and keeps people
from school and work. The NOx pollution that contributes to smog formation harms millions of
Americans every year by causing decreased lung function and exacerbating respiratory diseases.
These health impacts most severely impact low income communities and communities of color
that tend to be surrounded by and displaced by transportation routes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1289-A1, p.l]
Organization: Florida Council of Churches
Our Sovereign God formed humanity from the dust of Earth and breathed into our nostrils the
breath of life, and humanity became a living breathing creature. We all share this breath of life.
In the age of the pandemic, we've masked up to limit the spread of the moisture in our breathing.
But there is no break, no stop sign, no point of exchange where my breath ends and your breath
begins. We breathe the same air. We are made of the same breath. Scripture says it's the breath
of God. Indeed, we share this breath of the divine with all living creatures and the inanimate
structures on Earth. Let us think of Earth and its biosphere as a breathing creature itself, inhaling
and exhaling. Ancient rabbis say that in pronouncing the Hebrew name for God replicates this
inhaling and exhaling. Breath is life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, p.l]
23
-------
Florida is home now to nearly 22 million people and is growing by 1000 new residents a day.
Almost half of Floridians live in the ten counties with the highest density of population and thus
traffic congestion. Density can be determined in various ways. If one excludes land area with
zero population, the ten most dense counties are respectively Broward, Pinellas, Miami-Dade,
Palm Beach, Orange, Seminole, Hillsborough, Duval, Sarasota, and Lee. These counties also
have significant, historic populations of African descent and Latine populations who live in
urban neighborhoods ringed by inner-city interstates and expressways. It has been well-
documented by scholars how the road systems were intentionally designed in conjunction with
redlining to box these people in. They bear the brunt of exhaust pollution in Florida. Asthma is
common across the state in these hemmed in communities and life-expectancy is lower. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, p.l]
The Parramore district in Orlando has one of the highest ozone readings in the nation. It is
completely hemmed in by elevated interstate highways. The City of St Petersburgh established a
community garden at the Enoch Davis Center in the southcentral neighborhood but had to put it
in raised beds. The ground around the center was too toxic for a garden - the toxicity was the
accumulation of exhaust pollution over the decades. We must address both NOx and heavy metal
pollution in these urban settings. The road runoffs create accumulated toxicities. One of our
future food supplies is urban agriculture, and the soil is crying for renewal - as the New
Testament says, even the stones are shouting and creation is longing for the liberation of
humanity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, pp. 1-2]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Current EPA 2010 standards are inadequate to protect public health from HDV NOx emissions.
Diesel vehicles are the largest contributor to health impacts from transportation-related air
pollution in the U.S., responsible for more than 9 thousand premature deaths in 2015. ICCT
research has shown that excess NOx emissions from diesel HDVs produce health impacts an
order of magnitude greater than diesel passenger cars. Diesel HDVs are one of the top
contributors to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in PM2.5 and N02 exposure.
Previous ICCT research has shown that achieving a 90% NOx reduction for model year 2027
and later diesel engines could avoid more than $1 trillion in air pollution-related health damages
cumulatively from 2027-2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
RECOMMENDATION: We strongly encourage EPA to finalize stringent NOx engine standards
by the end of this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
On-road vehicles remain the largest source of NOx emissions in the United States,3 and the
majority of these emissions are from HDVs—especially those with diesel engines.4 Current EPA
2010 standards for heavy duty vehicles have not been updated since 2010, whereas EPA's Tier 3
emissions standards will continue to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from new light- and
medium-duty passenger vehicles through model year 2025.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 7]
3. EPA, "Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data." https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-
inventories/air-pollutantemissions-trends-data
24
-------
4. https://theicct.github.io/roadmap-doc/
5. https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-light-duty-emissions/ and
https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-heavy-duty-emissions/
EPA 2010 standards are inadequate to protect public health from HDV NOx emissions. Diesel
vehicles are the largest contributor to health impacts from transportation-related air pollution in
the U.S., responsible for more than 9 thousand premature deaths in 2015.6 ICCT research has
shown that excess NOx emissions from diesel HDVs produce health impacts an order of
magnitude greater than diesel passenger cars in the U.S.7 ICCT research also shows that a
disproportionate amount of NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is emitted during urban
driving. Vehicle operation at speeds of less than 25 mph results in NOx emissions of more than
five times the certification limit for the average HDV certified to EPA 2010 standards.8 Diesel
HDVs are one of the top contributors to racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in PM2.5
and N02 exposure in the U.S.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 7]
6. Anenberg et al., "The Global Burden of Transportation Tailpipe Emissions on Air
Pollution-Related Mortality in 2010 and 2015."
7. Anenberg et al., "Impacts and Mitigation of Excess Diesel-Related NOx Emissions in
11 Major Vehicle Markets."
8. Badshah, H., Posada, F., and Muncrief, R. (2019). Current state of NOx emissions
from in-use heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the United States." Washington, DC:
International Council on Clean Transportation.
https://theicct.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/NOx_Emissions_In_Use_HDV_US_2019
1125.pdf
9. Tessum et al., "PM 2.5 Polluters Disproportionately and Systemically Affect People of
Color in the United States"; Kerr, Goldberg, and Anenberg, "COVID-19 Pandemic
Reveals Persistent Disparities in Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution."
EPA's Option 1 will benefit communities in all states; adopting requirements similar to the
scenario represented by Federal omnibus + Alternative 3 would further increase benefits by
approximately 15% across U.S. states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1]
The most populous states, such as California and Texas have among the highest potential health
benefits in absolute terms from heavy-duty vehicle emission regulations. Yet multiple states are
projected to experience outsized benefits compared to their population, such as Pennsylvania and
Delaware, as well as Midwest and Southern states, including Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Georgia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1]
25
-------
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Across the country, many of our members live in communities facing air quality issues and the
concurrent health risks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.2]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
It is critical that we as a country recognize the impact that internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles have in causing air pollution in our communities. For this reason, Lion applauds the
EPA for considering updated and more stringent guidelines to curb the air quality and health-
related issues associated with the on-road heavy-duty vehicle sector as it stands. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 1]
As the EPA noted in the rulemaking document, the health risks associated with the air pollutants
from ICE vehicles are steep and costly both financially and measured in terms of human lives.
Therefore, it is imperative that aggressive steps be taken to reduce this harm immediately. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Ozone can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and long-term exposure may
result in permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung development in children. There is also
consistent evidence that short-term exposure to ozone increases risk of death from respiratory
causes. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.l]
1 U.S. EPA, "Health Effects of Ozone Pollution," https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-
ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution, last updated July 30, 2019 (accessed
February 7, 2020).
NOx emissions are the major drivers of surface ozone concentrations at the regional scale in the
eastern United States, and significant contributors to fine particle pollution and regional haze.
Maine, because of its geographic location at the downwind terminus of the northeast corridor, is
especially impacted by transported emissions from states and regions to our south. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.2]
The primary ozone and precursor transport route is over the Gulf of Maine and along the Maine
coastline. Historically, during ozone events in Maine, peak ozone levels are monitored first along
the southern Maine coast, then they are monitored later in the day at downwind locations as the
air mass moves along the coastline to the Northeast. As an example, Figure 1 shows the coastal
track of a high-ozone air mass which occurred during the June 12, 2017, ozone event, with peak
ozone levels monitored at the summit of Cadillac Mountain four (4) hours after the peak ozone
level was recorded at the Kennebunkport monitoring site and seven (7) hours after the peak
ozone level was recorded at a Connecticut monitoring site just outside of New York City. Figure
2 shows surface wind streams during the afternoon of June 12, 2017, where the sea breeze
26
-------
transport pattern matches the historical transport pattern for ozone events along the Maine
coast. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.2]
Although Maine is currently attaining all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)3,
reducing heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions is still important for urban and rural residents that
are often exposed to higher levels of health-damaging PM2.5 and air toxic pollutants
concentrated at "hot-spots" near higher-density traffic arteries. Freight transportation relies on
trucks, trains, and ships operating within communities in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic to move
goods. This activity generates a significant amount of localized air pollution in communities and
for frontline workers already overburdened by diesel exhaust pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1288-A1, p.3]
3 Maine's Limited Maintenance Plans for the Portland and Midcoast region were
approved on 10/14/20202 (85 FR 64969).
Because of its role in secondary particulate formation, reducing heavy-duty vehicle NOx
emissions can help improve visibility in Federal Class I areas. There are seven Class I Federal
areas in the region that comprises the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU)4,
with these Class I areas historically facing some of the worst visibility in the nation. Monitor
analyses of the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) network
shows the increasing importance of nitrate formation on visibility impairment, especially in the
winter months. 5 Because of this, the MANE-VU states through the MANE-VU Regional
Planning Organization process requested that EPA implement a program to reduce NOx
emissions from HDVs.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.3]
4 Maine has three Class I areas: Acadia National Park, Moosehorn Wilderness Area, and
Roosevelt Campobello International Park.
5 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. "Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data
2004-2017 (2nd RH SIP Metrics)," December 18, 2018.
6 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. "Statement of the MANE-VU States
Concerning a Course of Action by the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal
Land Managers toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional Haze
Implementation Period (2018-2028)," August 25, 2017.
To address the region's persistent air quality problems, reducing NOx from heavy-duty truck
engines is of the utmost importance due to its role in local and regional ground-level ozone
formation, as well as its contributions to PM2.5, and visibility impairment at Class 1 areas. The
year-round benefits of measures to reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions are
substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.4]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Lung Association (248)
Pollution from diesel-powered trucks and buses puts the health of anyone who spends time
outdoors at risk, but especially people living in communities near highways, ports, bus depots
27
-------
and other transportation hubs. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions can cause lung damage on their
own and also form ground-level ozone and particle pollution. Ozone and particle pollution can
lead to asthma attacks, cardiovascular and lung disease, strokes and even premature death. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609-A1, p.l]
In its 2022 "Zeroing in on Healthy Air" report, the American Lung Association found that a
nationwide transition to zero-emission light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles, powered by non-
combustion electricity, would save 110,000 lives and secure $1.2 trillion in public health benefits
nationwide from 2020-2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609-Al,p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (22,659)
- Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the greatest threats to public
health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300 feet of a major roadway
or transportation facility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Evangelical Environmental Network
(EEN) (67,755)
Pollution from transportation is a major cause of air-pollution-related death and disease, and
recently transportation became the top source of global warming pollution in the United States.
Heavy-Duty Trucks, like tractor-trailers, are a leading source of lung-damaging air pollutants—
including smog-forming NOx pollution and particle pollution (soot). In 2020, trucks emitted an
estimated 561 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and 38,000 metric tons of particulate matter (soot) (PM), filling the air we breathe with
life-threatening air pollution. The largest single source of these pollutants is heavy duty
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1610-A1, p.l]
As pro-life Christians, we want the air that we breathe to be safe for our children. However, soot
(PM2.5) from burning fossil fuels cut short the lives of 350 million Americans each year and
contributes to at least 15,000 premature births of which 1/3 of those babies die. Heavy duty
trucks, like tractor-trailers, emit soot and other pollutants that put God's creation and our families
- especially pregnant mothers and the unborn - in harm's way. Unborn children close to major
roads are at higher risk of birth defects, and children attending school near these highways have
higher rates of cancer and asthma. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1610-Al,pp.l-2]
That's why over 67, 755 pro-life Christians are calling on the EPA to ensure stronger standards
that will cut pollution from Heavy-Duty Trucks by 2027 and move us to zero emission by 2035.
Our kids deserve clean air and the right to an abundant live. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1610-
Al, p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
Trucks are also major sources of other deadly air pollution. Medium and heavy duty trucks
account for more than 60% percent of the deadly particle pollution that comes from vehicles.
28
-------
Particle pollution cuts short tens of thousands of US lives per year and contributes to the heavy
burden of asthma on our nation's children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Neighbors for Clean Air and Elders
Climate Action (43)
Diesel trucks and buses are also major sources of other deadly air pollutants. Medium and heavy-
duty diesel engines emit more than 60% percent of the deadly particle pollution from vehicles.
Diesel engines emit deadly particle pollution. NOx combines with heat and sunlight in the
atmosphere to form ground level ozone, or smog, a lung irritant and asthma trigger. Particle
pollution cuts short tens of thousands of US lives per year and contributes to the heavy burden of
asthma on our nation's children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.2]
Heavy duty vehicles are major contributors to air pollution in the Portland metro area and on the
1-5 and 1-84 corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.2]
The Oregon Health Authority says that many groups are especially at risk from vehicle pollution,
including—
Babies and children whose bodies are rapidly developing,
Pregnant women who risk premature births and low weight babies when exposed to vehicle
pollution.
Children are at higher risk of developing asthma.
Children and adults with asthma suffer more frequent asthma attacks requiring urgent or
emergency care.
People with existing respiratory diseases including COPD, COVID-related breathing limitations,
long-COVID, and people with active COVID or other respiratory infections suffer more severe
outcomes.
Non-smokers are more at risk for lung cancer or other chronic diseases including other cancers.
People with or at risk for cardiovascular disease.
Elders (over age 65) suffer higher risk of premature death with exposure to vehicle
pollution. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by PennEnvironment (50)
Smog pollution from trucks is also a threat to public health, causing childhood asthma, cancer
and even premature death. To protect our health and fight climate change, EPA must strengthen
the proposed heavy duty truck rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1616-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Public Citizen (168)
Diesel pollution kills. Nearly 10,000 people in the United States die each year from exposure to
diesel emissions from the transportation sector, and hundreds of thousands of others face heart
attacks, asthma, and respiratory conditions that damage their wellbeing and quality of life. The
EPA's proposed rulemaking on diesel emissions is much needed. I appreciate the EPA for
proposing these new standards to better protect the climate and the health of people. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1597-A2, p.l]
29
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The Outreach Team (95)
Smog and soot air pollution from trucks and buses are among the greatest public health threats
for millions of people, which is why the EPA must create the strongest possible limits on heavy
duty vehicle pollution. I support strong truck pollution regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1618, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 1 (2,443)
Every year semi-trucks, busses, and other heavy-duty vehicles emit millions of tons of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and other greenhouse gas pollutants driving climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1594-A1, p.l]
NOx air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles contributes to ozone and fine particulate pollution,
which are unsafe to breathe, especially for the young and elderly and anyone exercising
outdoors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1594-A1, p.l]
In our national parks it harms plants, trees, insects and other animals and it reduces the ability of
visitors to see and appreciate the views of our treasured park landscapes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1594-Al,p.l]
Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) etal.
Poor air quality affects the residents living and working in metropolitan Washington. Some
communities in metropolitan Washington face higher rates of illnesses such as asthma than the
national average, and these illnesses are aggravated by these pollutants. As such, reductions in
NOx emissions will provide health benefits from both reduced ozone and PM2.5
pollution. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-0996-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
It is well understood that diesel exhaust is "carcinogenic to humans," as determined by the World
Health Organization, and leads to tens of thousands of premature deaths each year. 16 Diesel
exhaust contains smog precursors, fine particulate matter—which can be inhaled and lodged in
the lungs, and more than 40 known cancer-causing compounds. 17 Exposure to pollution from
diesel-powered vehicles has also been linked to low birth rate, premature birth, lower IQ,
diabetes, stroke, congestive heart failure, heart disease, obesity, asthma, and allergies. 18 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 8]
16. https://www.catf.us/2022/01/diesel-pollution-deadly-problem-united-states/,
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-pollution-deathslinked- diesel.html; "Diesel Engine
Exhaust Carcinogenic." International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health
Organization, 12 June 2012, www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2012/pdfs/pr213_E.pdf; see
also Kristina W. Whitworth, Elaine Symanski, and Ann L. Coker, Childhood
Lymphohematopoietic Cancer Incidence and Hazardous Air Pollutants in Southeast
30
-------
Texas, 1995-2004, Envtl. Health Perspectives, Vol. 116 No. 11 (Nov. 2008), 1576-1580
(describing cancer risk linked to air pollutants).
17. Cal. Air Res. Bd., "Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts," (last visited
May 4, 2022), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-
health-impacts.
18. Wilhelm, Michelle, et al. "Traffic-Related Air Toxics and Term Low Birth Weight in
Los Angeles County, California." Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 120, no. 1,
Aug. 2011, doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f [exposure linked to low birth weight];
Christopher S. Malley, Johan C.I. Kuylenstierna, Harry W. Vallack, Daven K. Henze,
Hannah Blencowe, Mike R. Ashmore. Preterm birth associated with maternal fine
particulate matter exposure: A global, regional and national assessment. Environment
International, 2017 [exposure linked to premature birth]; Perera, Frederica, et al.
"Prenatal Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure and Child IQ at Age 5
Years." Pediatrics, vol. 124, no. 2, Aug. 2009, pp. 195-203, doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3506
[exposure linked to lower IQ]; ZJ, Andersen, et al. "Diabetes incidence and long-term
exposure to air pollution: a cohort study." Diabetes Care, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp.
92-98, doi: 10.2337/dcl 1-1155 [exposure linked to diabetes]; T., To et al. "Chronic
disease prevalence in women and air pollution—A 30-year longitudinal cohort study."
Environmental International, vol. 80, July 2015, pp. 26-32, doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2015.03.017 [exposure linked to diabetes, stroke, congestive heart
failure, and heart disease in women]; Dong, Guang-Hui, et al. "Ambient Air Pollution
and the Prevalence of Obesity in Chinese Children: The Seven Northeastern Cities
Study." Obesity, vol. 22, pp. 795-800, doi: doi: 10.1002/oby.20198 [exposure linked to
obesity in children]; Finkelman, Fred. "Diesel exhaust particle exposure during
pregnancy promotes development of asthma and atopy." The Journal of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology, vol. 134, issue 1, pp. 73-74, doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.04.002
[exposure linked to development of asthma and atopy].
On top of this, these same communities suffer from a handful of additional harms from the
freight sector: the paved areas and large, low buildings dominating freight facilities contribute to
urban heat island effects, stormwater issues and other environmental impacts. Other industrial
sources are often clustered near freight facilities, which means that communities impacted by
diesel trucks are also impacted by other sources of air and water pollution, and toxic releases.
These communities also face racism and other forms of discrimination that increase their
vulnerability to environmental threats. In fact, freight-impacted communities are even more
vulnerable to the impacts of air and other pollution because of socio-demographic stressors—
including racial segregation, high rates of poverty, lack of access to affordable foods, and lack of
access to healthcare—compared to communities that do not face these stressors.25 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 9 - 10]
25. Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, Coming Clean,
and Campaign for Healthier Solutions, Life at the Fenceline: Understanding Cumulative
Health Hazards in Environmental Justice Communities (Sept. 2018), available at
https://new.comingcleaninc.org/assets/media/documents/Life%20at%20the%20Fenceline
31
-------
%20-%20English%20-%20Public.pdf; Rachel Morello-Frosch et al., "Understanding the
Cumulative Impacts of Inequalities in Environmental Health: Implications for Policy,"
Health Affairs 30, no. 5 (2011): 879-998.
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Many of these areas are over-burdened communities whose citizens are exposed to a
disproportionate share of harmful environmental conditions. The excessive emissions from HD
trucks are a primary cause, contributing substantial emissions of NOx - the key pollutant
contributing to the formation of ozone and PM2.5 - and are linked with a large number of
adverse impacts on the respiratory system, as well as other ill effects associated with exposure to
elevated levels of ozone and PM, including premature death. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-
Al, p. 2.]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
We appreciate the goals of the proposed rule. NASTC and our members share the aims of
reduced pollution and of cleaner air. Further, we understand the health and environmental
concerns cited in the proposed rule (though we do have concerns about the underlying
assumptions). We also understand that heavy-duty vehicles emit a sizable amount of nitrogen
oxide (NOx) and greenhouse gases (GHG) while doing their jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1130-A1, p. 1]
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
The transportation sector is also responsible for a significant share of criteria pollutant emissions,
including over 55% of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) total emissions inventory in the U.S.,15 17.9
million tons per year of carbon monoxide, 133,000 tons per year of fine particulate matter (PM)
PM2.5, 287,000 tons per year of PM10, and 1.8 million tons per year of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).16 These emissions have significant effects on communities around the
country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 5]
15. U.S. EPA, Smog, Soot, and Other Air Pollution from Transportation,
https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/smog-soot-and-
local-air-pollution (last updated Nov. 20, 2020).
16. NHTSA, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year
2021 - 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Mar. 2020) at 4-1-4-2, available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/safe_vehicles_rule_feis.pdf.
Electric and other zero emission vehicles are a critically important, cost-effective strategy to
reduce such air pollution, particularly in areas with severe air quality problems. All-electric
vehicles produce zero direct emissions since these vehicles lack a tailpipe and thus have zero
tailpipe emissions of GHGs or other pollutants. As a result, use of these vehicles in place of
internal combustion engine vehicles can significantly improve air quality in urban areas. On
32
-------
average across the United States, annual life cycle emissions per vehicle are substantially lower
for all electric vehicles as compared to gasoline vehicles. The emissions reductions are even
greater in geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity
generation.20 The share of electricity generated from renewable energy resources (e.g., wind,
solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass) has dramatically increased in recent years to about
20% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2020.21 And the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) predicts that this trend of significant increases in generation from
renewable resources will continue.22 As the sources of electricity generation become cleaner,
GHG and criteria pollutant emissions related to use of electric vehicles will further decline.
Electric vehicles also emit less heat and produce less noise.23 Researchers from Harvard studied
emissions from electric vehicles and conventional vehicles in large metropolitan statistical areas
and concluded that in each area, air pollution mortality was significantly less from electric
vehicles.24 Others have found that, regardless of the electric vehicle adoption scenario they
considered, ozone and PM2.5 concentrations declined with the adoption of electric
vehicles.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, pp. 5-6]
20. U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric
Vehicles, https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html (last visited July 5,
2021) (see comparison of electricity sources and annual vehicle emissions, on a national
average and state-by-state basis).
21. U.S. EIA, Electricity in the United States,
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricityin-the-us.php (last updated
Mar. 18, 2021) (figure showing U.S. electricity generation by major energy sources,
1950-2020)
22. U.S. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (Feb. 2021) at 16, available at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf.
23. Vishant Kothari & Ryan Sclar, World Resources Institute, '4 Reasons to Prioritize
Electric Vehicles After COVID-19,' https://www.wri.org/insights/4-reasons-prioritize-
electric-vehicles-after-covid-19 (Oct. 14, 2020).
24. Ernani F. Choma, et al., 'Assessing the Health Impacts of Electric Vehicles Through
Air Pollution in the United States,' 144 Environment International 106015 (2020),
available at
https ://www. sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/SO 16041202031970X#b0105.
25. D.R. Peters, et al., 'Public Health and Climate Benefits and Trade-Offs of U.S.
Vehicle Electrification,' 4 GeoHealth (2020), available at
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.eom/doi/full/10.1029/2020GH000275; see also
Uarporn Nopmongcol, et al., 'Air Quality Impacts of Electrifying Vehicles and
Equipment Across the United States,' 51 Environmental Science and Technology 2830
(2017), https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b04868.
33
-------
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
It is unquestionable that heavy-duty vehicles and engines impact the health of individuals who
breathe in dirty air and the environment at large. As stated in the proposed rule, 'Heavy-duty
(HD) engines operating across the U.S. emit NOx and other pollutants that contribute to ambient
levels of ozone, PM, and NOx. These pollutants are linked to premature death, respiratory illness
(including childhood asthma), cardiovascular problems, and other adverse health impacts. Data
show that heavy-duty engines are significant contributors to concentrations of ozone and PM2.5
and their resulting threat to public health.'6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.2]
6 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,417.
As it relates to parks, this air pollution harms the health and wellbeing of visitors and employees
within national parks and residents of the gateway communities surrounding national parks. NOx
pollution also directly impacts numerous unique park ecosystems harming plants and wildlife.
As EPA has noted in the past, 'Environmental impacts of concern are associated with these
pollutants and include light extinction, decreased tree growth, foliar injury, and acidification and
eutrophication of aquatic and terrestrial systems.'7 These impacts are especially relevant in areas
already suffering from a range of climate change impacts, such as the Rocky Mountains, Sierra
Nevada Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, and Southwestern Desert ecosystems. For example,
ozone phytotoxicity can lead to foliar injury and reduce the photosynthetic capacity of plants and
trees, including Jeffery and Ponderosa pines and other high elevation coniferous species.8
Moreover, many of the tree species weakened by ozone and other air pollutants linked to NOx
emissions are already facing climate change driven stressors associated with manmade GHG
emissions, such as drought, high temperatures, and native bark beetle attacks. 9 Because of this,
NOx and GHG pollution from heavy-duty trucks can be directly linked and the ongoing tree
mortality and mega-wildfire crisis that has devastated the Western United States in recent years.
Additionally, nitrogen deposition from NOx pollution causes widespread deleterious impacts
across land and water ecosystems and includes both direct exposure (e.g. nitrogen enrichment)
and biological effects (e.g. decreases in biodiversity; fish declines;). Examples of nitrogen
deposition impacts include expansion of algae blooms in high altitude lakes within Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks and the spread of invasive, fire prone, grasses in Joshua Tree
National Park. 10 These harms affect the public welfare in countless ways, damaging the ability
of ecosystems to clean our air and water and to provide us with the basic natural resources we
rely on for food, shelter, and material goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.2-3]
7 85 Fed. Reg. at 3310
8 Ricardo Cisneros, et. al., Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for
people and ecosystems in southern Sierra Nevada, California, Environmental Pollution
158, 3261 (2010).
9 Id.
10 See generally, NPS, Sequoia and Kings Canyon Park Air Quality. Available at
https://www.nps.gov/seki/learn/nature/airqualitymon.htm. See also, NPS, Park Air
34
-------
Profiles - Joshua Tree National Park. Available at
https://home.nps.gov/articles/airprofiles-jotr.htm.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOx pollution also contributes to haze pollution that decreases visibility in
our national parks and other Class 1 areas covered by the CAA's Regional Haze Program. Haze
consists of pollutants emitted from these vehicles, engines, and other sources that causes and
contributes to regional haze in the national parks resulting in views that can be distorted and
impaired. 11 Virtually every park in the United States is affected by haze pollution, and for 89
percent of parks, visibility impairment is either a moderate or significant concern. 12 As a result
of haze pollution, visitors of the national parks miss out on many miles-worth of views of the
grand landscapes this country has to offer. On average, 50 miles of scenery is missed by visitors
to national parks due to impaired visibility caused by regional haze, and in some parks, as many
as 90 miles of scenery and landscape is lost in sight due to regional haze. 13 Although air quality
has improved over time, these benefits are not felt by all parks equally. In fact, 33 national parks
are as polluted as this nation's 20 largest cities. 14. With numerous states in the middle of their
second-round regional haze planning periods additional reductions in NOx pollution from HD
vehicles could go a long way towards helping achieve natural levels of visibility in national
parks and other Class 1 areas as is set forth as a goal under the Clean Air Act. . [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1314-A1, p.3]
11 NPCA, Air and Climate Report: Polluted Parks, NPCA.org (2019),
https://www.npca.org/reports/air-climate-report.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
Organization: National Religious Partnership for the Environment
For communities living near freeways, trucking corridors, and freight hubs, pollution from
medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses can be deadly. Discriminatory land use and
transportation policies have resulted in the burden of diesel pollution exposure to be borne more
heavily by communities of color. This exposure to diesel pollution has led to long-term
respiratory and cardiovascular health issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1221-A1, p.l]
Organization: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
Tribes continue to suffer from unhealthy exposures to ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and
hazardous air pollutants emitted from heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1382-
A2, p.2]
35
-------
Organization: New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
Since 1990, economy-wide NOx emissions from highway vehicles have declined by 75%, even
as overall vehicle miles traveled have increased by nearly 50%. Continued improvements in
advanced-technology diesel engines are a key driver of this success, and one of many reasons
U.S. air quality is among the best in the world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1268-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The NESCAUM region includes the New York City (NYC) Combined Statistical Area (CSA)
with over 20 million people living across portions of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania. It is the largest CSA by population in the United States. While air pollution levels
have dropped over the years across much of the United States, the NYC metropolitan area and
surrounding regions continue to persistently exceed federal health-based air quality standards for
ground-level ozone.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-Al, p. 2.]
The chronically persistent high ozone concentrations compromise the health and welfare of the
citizens living in the NYC CSA and elsewhere in the NESCAUM region. Epidemiological
studies provide strong evidence that ozone is associated with respiratory effects, including
increased asthma attacks, as well as increased hospital admissions and emergency department
visits for people suffering from respiratory diseases. Ozone can cause chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD), and long-term exposure may result in permanent lung damage, such
as abnormal lung development in children. There is also consistent evidence that short-term
exposure to ozone increases risk of death from respiratory causes.5 Furthermore, more recent
studies show that ozone concentrations below the current National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) contribute to the risk of premature death in sensitive populations,
such as the elderly.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 2-3]
5. U.S. EPA, "Health Effects of Ozone Pollution," https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-
ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution, last updated May 5, 2021 (accessed May
12, 2022).
6. Di, Q., et al., "Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare population," New England
Journal of Medicine 376: 2513-2522 (2017). DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoal 702747; Di, Q., et
al. "Association of short-term exposure to air pollution with mortality in older adults,"
JAMA 318: 2446-2456 (2017). DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17923.
While ozone is largely a summertime issue in the Northeast, NOx emissions are a year-round
problem. During colder seasons, NOx emissions play a role in producing secondary PM2.5
through the formation nitrates. PM2.5 exposure is associated with a variety of health effects,
including reduced lung function, irregular heartbeat, asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature
death in people with heart or lung disease.7 Low-income communities and communities of color
are often located near trucking corridors, ports, fleet garages, warehouses, and other trucking
hubs. These communities are often affected by disproportionate amounts of diesel exhaust
emissions and worsened health burdens due to poor air quality in US cities.8,9 Health and
economic impacts include increase in asthma and other respiratory illnesses, especially in
36
-------
children and older adults, leading to additional trips to doctors and emergency rooms, missed
days of school and work, and thousands of premature deaths each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1249-A1, p. 3.]
7. U.S. EPA, "Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM),"
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-
pm, last updated May 26, 2021 (accessed May 12, 2022).
8. Demetillo, M.A.G.; Harkins, C.; McDonald, B.C.; Chodrow, P.S.; Sun, K.; Pusede, S.
E., "Space-Based Observational Constraints on N02 Air Pollution Inequality From
Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities," Geophys. Res. Lett. 48: e2021GL094333 (2021).
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL094333. Available at
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094333 (accessed May 12,
2022).
The public health and environmental impacts of NOx are summarized in Table 1. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Our Children's Trust
EPA continues here a long-standing practice of discounting the lives of children and unborn
future generations when it analyzes and considers the formulation of proposed regulations to
carry out its delegated authority to protect the air and human health and welfare. That charge, to
protect air quality in order to protect human health and welfare, is a charge not to merely protect
one living generation of adults' air quality, but to protect babies, children, and 'our Posterity'—
for the U.S. Constitution is clear that all sovereign authority vested in our federal government,
and here as delegated to EPA, cannot be used to destroy the nation and thereby its sovereignty,
precluding children of today and tomorrow from inheriting the air and water and land in sound
condition and having the ability to govern themselves to also protect the lifegiving air and all
generations to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.2]
The RIA and proposed rule analysis repeatedly reference how children are a most vulnerable
class of citizens and their physical health is threatened by the pollutants being allowed by this
proposed rule. However, EPA has not analyzed the extreme mental health harms to children from
both the physical harms they experience from this pollution, but also from the climate anxiety
they carry due to the institutional betrayal of agencies like EPA and also the acute and chronic
trauma they experience from living with climate crisis. There is a mental health crisis among our
young, which EPA in other contexts has acknowledged. It should be included here as well and in
every analysis you conduct, particularly when so many of the physical harms you assess and
monetize are respiratory in nature for children, and where the inability to breathe on bad ozone
days or when fires are ripping through your community are destabilizing the mental health of so
many of our children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.4]
Under the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government is restrained from engaging
in conduct that infringes upon fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, and equal
protection of the law, all of which includes a climate system that sustains human life and liberty.
37
-------
Under the Public Trust Doctrine, embedded in our Constitution and other founding documents,
and in the very sovereignty of our Nation, U.S. residents (both present and future, i.e., Posterity)
have a right to access and use crucial natural resources, like air and water. The U.S. government,
and its executive agencies, have fiduciary duties as trustees to manage, protect, and prevent
substantial impairment to our country's vital natural resources which the government holds in
trust for present and future generations. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.6]
19 Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1254 (D. Or. 2016).
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
NOx emissions are the major drivers of surface ozone concentrations at the regional scale in the
eastern United States. Epidemiological studies provide strong evidence that ozone is associated
with respiratory effects, including increased asthma attacks, as well as increased hospital
admissions and emergency room visits for people suffering from respiratory diseases. High
ozone concentrations can compromise the health and welfare of people living in the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR). People of color and those with lower household incomes are often
impacted by disproportionate amounts of diesel exhaust emissions and worsened health burdens
due to poor air quality in US cities. 1 Ozone can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD), and long-term exposure may result in permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung
development in children. There is also consistent evidence that short-term exposure to ozone
increases the risk of death from respiratory causes.2 Furthermore, recent studies show that ozone
concentrations below the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) continue to
contribute to the risk of premature death in sensitive populations, such as the elderly.3 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.2]
1 Demetillo, M.A.G.; Harkins, C.; McDonald, B.C.; Chodrow, P.S.; Sun, K.; Pusede, S.
E., 'Space-Based Observational Constraints on N02 Air Pollution Inequality From Diesel
Traffic in Major US Cities,' Geophys. Res. Lett. 48: e2021GL094333 (2021). DOI:
10.1029/2021GL094333. Available at
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094333.
2 U.S. EPA, 'Health Effects of Ozone Pollution,' https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-
ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution, last updated May 5, 2021. Accessed May
12, 2022.
3 Di, Q., et al. 'Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare population.' New England
Journal of Medicine 376.26 (2017): 2513-2522. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoal 702747; Di, Q.,
et al. 'Association of short-term exposure to air pollution with mortality in older adults.'
JAMA 318.24 (2017): 2446-2456. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17923.
While ozone is largely a summertime issue in the OTR, NOx emissions are a year-round
problem, due to its role in producing secondary PM2.5 in the colder seasons. PM2.5 exposure is
associated with a variety of health effects, including reduced lung function, irregular heartbeat,
asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature death in people with heart or lung disease.6 The
38
-------
public health and environmental impacts of NOx are summarized in Table 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1250-A1, p.3]
6 U.S. EPA, 'Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM),'
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-
pm, last updated May 26, 2021. Accessed May 12, 2022.
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
EPA's proposed changes to its pollutant emissions standards for heavy-duty engines are a logical
update that will benefit employees and customers of the nation's retailers through improved air
quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.2]
Organization: Saahil Pasha
According to the American Lung Association, approximately 3 out of every 8 people in the
United States lives in a county where a grade of "F" has been assigned for the ozone pollution
(American Lung Association, 2021). This means that these counties received an extremely poor
rating for the ground level ozone. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, more than 122.3 million people lived
in counties that received a rating of "F" (American Lung Association, 2021). According to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ground level ozone forms when nitrogen oxides (NOx)
and volatile organic compounds undergo a chemical reaction in the presence of sunlight and heat
("Ground-level ozone basics," 2021). Ground level ozone in high concentrations is extremely
detrimental to health. Adults and children with asthma, older adults, people who work outdoors,
and people that spend time outdoors are at a significant risk for lung and airway related illness
("Health effects of ozone pollution," 2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1206]
The DFW metroplex ranks 17th on the American Lung Association's list of most polluted cities
in the country, due in part to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (American Lung
Association, 2021). DFW failed to meet federally mandated air quality levels in 2019
(IQAir.com, 2021). Pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, and chemical plants react with
sunlight, resulting in elevated surface ozone levels (EPA, 2021). The DFW metroplex has
significant numbers of daily commuters traveling to work by private vehicle and plenty of hot,
sunny days, providing the perfect environment for ozone pollution to develop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1206]
Air pollution, and the resulting poor air quality leads to increased morbidity and mortality from
respiratory disorders, cardiovascular diseases, cancers, and body systems dysfunctions
(Manisalidis et al., 2020). Ozone and particulate matter (PM) are the most prominent air toxins,
and the harmful effects are primarily related to lung function. Tissue damage associated with
inhalation, affects the conducting airways (upper respiratory tract, bronchi, bronchioles) as well
as the alveoli of the lungs, where air/blood oxygen exchange occurs (Steinberg, 1990). Even
minute quantities of ozone negatively affect forced expiratory lung volume in healthy young
people (Brown, 2008). Asthmatics and sufferers of chronic obstructive lung disease are
especially affected by surface ozone. EPA regulations concerning maximum tolerable ozone
levels continue to be debated, but really no amount of surface air ozone is good for humans
(Levitan, 2018). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1206]
39
-------
Air pollution directly impacts all residents of the North Texas area and is a significant public
health concern. Air quality is an important consideration for all who enjoy outdoor activities, and
especially those who have chronic health conditions. According to Air North Texas, 10 counties
in the area fall under "non-attainment" for ozone pollution, which means that local air quality is
worse than National Ambient Air Quality Standards established by amendments to the Clean Air
Act of 1970 (Air North Texas, 2022). In addition, poor air quality disproportionately affects
those who belong to minority groups. Black, Latinx, and low- socioeconomic populations are
more likely to reside near trucking and freight routes where most of the air pollution is produced
(Demetillo, 2021). These communities are excessively exposed to poor air quality, resulting in a
near fifteen-year difference in life expectancy (Chaudhary, 2021). In addition, those with pre-
existing conditions such as asthma, lung diseases, and heart disease have increased risk of being
negatively impacted by air pollution (NSW Government, 2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1206]
Air pollution has an impact on the incidence of chronic disease and is considered a risk factor.
The proposed EPA rule and improved health outcome projections will reduce the burden of
chronic disease. Further, reducing the burden of chronic disease on healthcare resources can
contribute towards reducing healthcare costs (Chapel et al., 2017). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1206]
Organization: Sage Lincoln
I applaud the EPA's efforts to reduce pollution from heavy-duty trucks: truck emissions of NOx,
PM, CO, and ozone are linked to premature death, respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems,
and other health impacts. I support the EPA adopting the most stringent air pollution standards
for three reasons:
I. Heavy-duty trucks are a leading source of harmful air pollutants.
II. Vehicle pollution is most concentrated on and near roadways, exposing bicyclists to
unsafe levels of pollutants.
III. Decreasing truck emissions and ensuring safe, healthy bicycling can disproportionately
benefit low-income individuals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1073]
I. Heavy-duty trucks are a leading source of harmful air pollutants.
As the EPA acknowledges in its proposed comment, emissions from the transportation sector are
a major source of air pollution and can lead to harmful health effects including premature death,
respiratory illnesses, and cardiovascular problems. The medium- and heavy-duty vehicle and
engine sector is the largest contributor to mobile source emissions of NOx, which reacts in the
atmosphere to form smog and particulate matter. 1 The health impacts of these pollutants are well
documented. For example, PM2.5 alone results in 200,000 deaths per year in the United States.2
1 Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Air Pollution, and Climate Change, CONGRESSIONAL RES.
SERVICE (Feb. 11, 2022), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12043.
40
-------
2 Benjamin Bowe et al., Burden of Cause-Specific Mortality Associated With PM2.5 Air
Pollution in the United States, JAMA NETWORK OPEN (Nov. 20, 2019).
Currently, over 137 million people in the United States live in regions with unhealthy levels of
ozone or particulate pollution.3 Many of these people live in cities: urban areas experience
higher levels of truck-related air pollution than most of the country.4 Although diesel vehicles
represent just 5 percent of traffic in cities, they emit up to half of urban NOx pollution. 5
Furthermore, communities near truck routes exposed to the highest levels of pollution are
disproportionately low-income and minority, and face a higher health burden from these
pollutants.
3 2022 State of the Air, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOC. (2022),
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/kev-findings.
4 Heather Strosnider et. al, Rural and Urban Differences in Air Quality, CENTER FOR
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (June 23, 2017).
5 Kristoffer Tigue, Diesel Emissions in Major US Cities Disproportionately Harm
Communities of Color, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Oct. 27, 2021).
More stringent heavy-duty truck emission standards will save lives and help protect the health of
the millions of Americans who live in urban areas and near truck routes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1073]
II. Bicyclists Are Exposed to Dangerous Levels of Air Pollution from Exhaust.
While pollution from vehicles causes regional air quality issues, concentrations of these toxic
pollutants are higher closest to traffic, particularly on and adjacent to roads.6 Individuals on or
near roads, such as bicyclists, are therefore exposed to extremely high concentrations of
pollution.
6 Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health: Frequently Asked Questions, EPA (Aug.
2014).
Bike lanes adjacent to traffic feature very poor air quality: bicyclists are essentially breathing in
direct exhaust from vehicles before it has a chance to disperse.7 Studies have shown that this
close proximity to traffic exposes bicyclists to pollution levels that greatly exceeds threshold
values established as dangerous to human health.8 Just a few feet can make a huge difference for
pollution concentration—bicyclists in bike lanes are exposed to 50 percent more NOx and black
carbon than on bike paths adjacent to busy streets.9
7 Piers MacNaughton et. al, Impact of Bicycle Route Type on Exposure to Traffic-
Related Air Pollution, 490 SCI. TOTAL ENVIRON. 37 (Aug. 15, 2014).
8 Juan F. Franco et al., Air Pollution alongside Bike-Paths in Bogota-Colombia, FRONT
ENVIRON. SCI. (Nov. 25, 2016).
41
-------
9 Piers MacNaughton et. al, Impact of Bicycle Route Type on Exposure to Traffic-
Related Air Pollution, 490 SCI. TOTAL ENVIRON. 37 (Aug. 15, 2014).
During exercise, bikers have higher ventilation rates, exposing them to more pollution. Cyclists
can breathe nine times more air while biking than resting, increasing exposure to toxic air
pollution ninefold. 10 This combination of proximity to traffic and higher breathing rate leads to
extremely high pollution exposure. Studies are mixed on whether the harm of pollution exposure
during cycling outweighs the benefit of cycling: at least some studies have found that the risk of
cardiovascular disease from exposure to particulate pollution while exercising outweighed the
health benefits of that exercise. 11 Either way, even short-term exposure to pollutants while
biking increases blood pressure, 12 deaths, and cardiovascular- and respiratory-related
hospitalizations. 13
10 Richard Schiffman, On Your Bike, Watch Out for the Air, N.Y. TIMES (July 6,
2017).
11 Seong Rae Kim, Association of the combined effects of air pollution and changes in
physical activity with cardiovascular disease in young adults, 42 EUROPEAN HEALTH
J.2487 (July 1, 2021).
12 James Ramsay, Just How Healthy is Biking in New York City? Help Us Find Out,
Gothamist (June 18, 2019).
13 Burden of disease from environmental noise - Quantification of healthy life years lost
in Europe, WORLD HEALTH ORG. (2011).
Our understanding of the health impacts of cycling adjacent to traffic is still evolving and
ongoing studies are attempting to precisely determine the health impacts of breathing pollution
while biking. 14 However, it is clear that reductions in truck emissions will reduce the extremely
high pollution exposure of bicyclists. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1073]
14 Natalie Migliore, Something in the Air: Biking Could be Hazardous To Your...,
WFUV (Sept. 10, 2018).
III. Safe, Healthy Bicycling Disproportionately Benefits Philadelphians and Low-Income
Individuals.
The Philadelphia metro area is the 17th most polluted in the country for fine particulate pollution
and the 21st most polluted for ozone. 15 Philadelphia is also the poorest big city in America: 20
percent of Philadelphia families live in poverty, 16 and 43 percent are unable to meet their basic
needs. 17 Philadelphia residents pay a higher percentage of income on transit fares than
commuters in most cities, making public transit potentially cost-prohibitive. 18 However,
Philadelphia has higher per capita bicycle commuting rates than any of the ten largest cities in
the U.S. 19
42
-------
15 2022 State of the Air, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOC. (2022),
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings.
16 Philadelphia County, U.S. CENSUS QUICKFACTS (July 1, 2021),
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221.
17 DIANA M. PEARCE, OVERLOOKED & UNDERCOUNTED 2019 BRIEF:
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN
PENNSYLVANIA 5 (Oct. 2019), https://pathwayspa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/PA2019_OverlookedUndercounted_Web.pdf.
18 The Cost of Commuting for Philadelphians, PEW TRUSTS (July 24, 2019),
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research- and-analysis/reports/2019/07/24/the-cost-of-
commuting-for-philadelphians.
19 Biking to Get Around, BICYCLE COALITION OF GREATER PHILADELPHIA,
https://bicyclecoalition.org/resources/commuting/ (accessed May 4, 2022).
Bicycle commuting, where feasible, is an affordable method of transportation: low-income
Americans commute by bike more than any other income brackets.20 Furthermore, people of
color currently account for the fastest cyclist growth rate.21 Therefore, ensuring bicyclists can
travel safely and healthily is an issue of equity. Additionally, as cities nationwide encourage
bicycling for its climate, health, and traffic benefits, the EPA should ensure that bicyclists are not
forced to breath unsafe levels of pollutants from vehicle exhaust.
20 Brian McKenzie, Modes Less Traveled—Bicycling and Walking to Work in the
United States, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (May 8, 2014),
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-25.html.
21 THE NEW MAJORITY: PEDALING TOWARDS EQUITY, BIKE LEAGUE 3 (May
2013),
https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf.
The health effects of truck emissions are serious and well documented. Millions of Americans
are exposed to unsafe levels of air pollutants each year because of our current lax standards, and
communities near truck routes, urban areas, and bicyclists are disproportionately burdened. For
these reasons, I urge the EPA to choose the most stringent standards possible for truck emissions
and to improve emissions standards for all other vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1073]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
A strong low-NOx standard further supports the agency's mission to protect public health. The
EPA's own Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) reaffirms much of our understanding of the health
effects associated with exposure to ozone. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone is
associated with numerous adverse health impacts including respiratory, metabolic and
cardiovascular effects as a result of both short- and long-term exposure.21 The RIA also infers a
43
-------
causal relationship between asthma exacerbation and other respiratory effects and short term
NOx exposure.22 It is also worth noting that heavy-duty emissions contribute to ambient levels
of air toxics which can expose the affected population to an elevated cancer risk.23 This
is significant because in addition to contributing to the formation of PM2.5 and ozone, many
VOCs, including benzene, are also considered air toxics.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-
Al, pp.6-7]
21 RIA at pg. 172; see also 2016 AQMP, Appendix 1, pgs. 1-5 -1-18.
22 Id. at pg. 178.
23 Id. at pg. 182.
24 2016 AQMP at pg. 9-9.
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles generate an outsized share of harmful tailpipe pollution.
Though comprising less than 10 percent of all vehicles on the road, trucks are responsible for
over 60 percent of all tailpipe NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions.4 EPA estimates these
vehicles will account for 89 percent of on-road NOx emissions, and 32 percent of all mobile
source NOx emissions, by calendar year 2045.5 These vehicles also contribute to ambient ozone
and carbon monoxide (CO) levels. All of these pollutants are linked to serious health impacts,
such as premature death, respiratory illness, and cardiovascular issues, and all have health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) developed by EPA.6 One report estimates
that NOx and PM emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles nationwide are 'responsible
for up to 4,550 premature deaths, 4,290 hospital visits, and 2.7 million incidents of exacerbated
respiratory conditions and lost or restricted workdays annually,' resulting in over $53 billion in
monetized public health impacts annually.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.2]
4 Per EPA MOVES model emissions inventory. See e.g., U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY,
MOVES and Other Mobile Source Emissions Models, https://www.epa.gov/moves (last
updated July 2, 2021).
5 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17418.
6 Id. at 17441. See also, AM. LUNG ASS'N, State of the Air (2021),
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/17c6cb6c- 8a38-42a7-a3b0-6744011da370/sota-
2021.pdf. For example, an estimated 750 premature deaths related to on-road vehicle
emissions occurred in Virginia in 2016. Transp., Equity, Climate & Health Project,
Preliminary Results Slides, https://cdnl.sph.harvard.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2343/2020/10/TRECHPrelimResultsSlides.pdf (last visited Apr. 13,
2022)
44
-------
7 Dana Lowell & Jane Culkin, M.J. BRADLEY & ASSOCS., Medium- & Heavy-Duty
Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness 13 (July 2021),
https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/
EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pdf.
Many major metropolitan areas in the U.S., including many in the South like Washington, D.C.,
Atlanta, and Birmingham, already suffer from elevated concentrations of ozone, NOx, and PM.8
Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle traffic (measured in vehicle miles traveled) is expected to grow
by 29 percent through 2050, with higher projected regional growth rates in the Southeast.9 As
noted in the Federal Register notice, '72 million people live within 200 meters of a truck freight
route,' making exposure to medium- and heavy-duty vehicle tailpipe pollution a serious public
health issue nationwide. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.2]
8 See ENV'T AM., U.S. PIRG & FRONTIER GRP., Trouble in the Air: Millions of
Americans Breathed Polluted Air in 2018 (Winter 2020),
https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/EnvironmentAmerica_TroubleintheAir_scrn.pdf.
9 Dana Lowell & Jane Culkin, supra note 7 at 13.
10 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17418.
Exposure to this type of pollution is also an environmental justice issue; '[rjelative to the rest of
the population, people of color and those with lower incomes are more likely to live near truck
routes.'11 This is in part due to zoning practices and land use decisions, including in the South,
that have consistently sited highways and commercial and industrial facilities that often rely on
frequent truck deliveries in communities of color and low-income communities. 12 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.2-3]
11 Id.
12 See e.g., Kaveh Waddell, When Amazon Expands, These Communities Pay the Price,
CONSUMER REPS. (Dec. 9, 2021), https://www.consumerreports.org/corporate-
accountability/when-amazon-expands-these-communities-paythe-price-a2554249208/;
INST. FOR TRANSP. & DEV. POL'Y, Highways and Zoning: Tools of Racist Policy
(Mar. 10, 2021), https://www.itdp.org/2021/03/10/highways-and-zoning-tools-of-racist-
policy/; Ashish Valentine, 'The Wrong Complexion for Protection.' How Race Shaped
America's Roadways and Cities, NAT'L PUB. RADIO (July 5, 2020),
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/05/887386869/how-transportation-racism-shaped-america;
Johnny Miller, Roads to Nowhere: How Infrastructure Build on American Inequality,
THE GUARDIAN (Feb. 21, 2018),
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere-infrastructure-american-
inequality.
45
-------
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
Heavy-duty truck engines are a significant source of air pollutants that contribute to ambient
concentrations of ozone, inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and air toxics.6 Exposure to ozone
and PM2.5 has serious health effects and is associated with increased risk of premature deaths,
emergency room visits, and hospital stays.7 A range of adverse respiratory effects are linked to
these pollutants such as asthma, respiratory inflammation, and decreased lung function and
growth.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 4]
6. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,444.
7. Id. at 17,444-51.
8. Id.
In particular, PM2.5 poses the greatest health risk among air pollutants as the fine particles can
lodge deep into the lungs and possibly enter into the bloodstream, causing irregular heartbeat,
heart attacks, as well as increased risk of lung cancer.9 Recent evidence also suggests a causal
relationship between PM2.5 exposure and a host of other negative health impacts, including male
and female reproductive and developmental effects from long-term exposure (i.e., fertility,
pregnancy, and birth outcomes), metabolic effects from long-term and short-term exposure, and
nervous system effects from short-term exposure. 10 Heavy-duty engine emissions also
contribute to ambient levels of air toxics, such as benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
naphthalene, that are known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health
effects. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255- A 1, p. 4]
9. EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Control of Air Pollution from Airplanes
and Airplane Engines: Particulate Matter Standards and Test Procedures, 87 Fed. Reg.
6324, 6331 (Feb. 3, 2022).
10. Id.
11. Draft RIA at § 4.1.6.
Organization: Sustainable Solar Systems
Diesel pollution from heavy duty trucks and buses is a massive public health threat. Even
without considering climate change, the air pollution caused by heavy duty trucks is a
environmental justice issue that causes more health issues in frontline and marginalized
communities. Diesel pollution worsens asthma and is particularly dangerous to children's
developing lungs. Here in Philadelphia, 21% of children have asthma, which is more than double
the national rate. Indoor and outdoor air pollution are major contributors to the high prevalence
of asthma in Philadelphia. The air pollution doesn't only affect childrens' health. It increases
costs for LMI families, increases absentee rates in school and days missed from work for their
parents. It affects childrens ability to learn in school, affecting lifetime income levels for those
children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2737, p.l]
46
-------
Organization: Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)
As pointed out by other commenters such as the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium,
pollution from diesel vehicles is a significant contributor to ground level ozone. 1 In turn, ground
level ozone can have an array of adverse effects including respiratory distress and damage to
vegetation.2 Emissions pose a particular threat to underserved communities and can exacerbate
health and wealth inequalities. Yet, heavy-handed regulations are a crude way to handle this dire
threat. As the EPA rightly notes, the highway vehicles targeted play a critical economic role,
including, ' supporting] local and regional construction, refuse collection, and delivery work to
long-haul tractor-trailers that move freight cross-country.'3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1102-
Al, p.l]
1 Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055' (Apr.
25, 2022).
2 See, for example: Zhang, Junfeng Jim, Yongjie Wei, and Zhangfu Fang, 'Ozone
pollution: a major health hazard worldwide,' Frontiers in Immunology (2019): 2518.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards,' Proposed Rule (Mar. 28, 2022).
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Tesla fundamentally agrees with the agency that: Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles contribute
to poor air quality and health across the country, especially in overburdened and underserved
communities. Without further reductions, heavy duty vehicles will continue to be one of the
largest contributors to mobile source emissions of NOx, which react in the atmosphere to form
ozone and particulate matter.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.5]
32 EPA, Heavy-Duty 2027 and Beyond: Clean Trucks Proposed Rulemaking (March
2022) at 2.
While comprising less than 10 percent of all vehicles on the road, medium- and heavy-duty
trucks account for more than 60 percent of tailpipe NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions
from the on-road fleet; these emissions contribute to poor air quality in many urban areas,
including areas with vulnerable populations.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.5]
33 See generally, MJ Bradley, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure,
Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness (Aug. 11, 2022) at 4; See also, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Ready for Work Now Is the Time for Heavy-Duty
Electric Vehicles (Dec. 11, 2019) at 2 (While heavy-duty vehicles make up only 10
percent of all vehicles on roads in the United States, they contribute 45 percent of the
transportation sector's nitrogen oxide pollution, 57 percent of its fine particulate matter
pollution, and 28 percent of its global warming emissions).
47
-------
Indeed, the public health, climate, and economic benefit from much more stringent NOx and
GHG emission standards than the EPA proposes cannot be understated. Air pollution is
estimated to cause over 200,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year; with more than half are
caused by transportation emissions.34 Recent findings indicate that the U.S. health care costs of
air pollution and climate change exceed $800 billion per year.3 5 Air pollution impacts with
pollutants like PM2.5 that are associated with the medium- and heavy-duty sector not only cause
premature mortality, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease but also can affect
neurological disorders.36 Other studies suggest that exacerbation of air pollution and heat
exposure related to climate change may be significantly associated with risk to pregnancy
outcomes in the U.S.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.6]
34 Atmospheric Environment, Air pollution and early deaths in the United States. Part I:
Quantifying the impact of major sectors in 2005 (Nov. 2013); See also, PNAS, Fine-scale
damage estimates of particulate matter air pollution reveal opportunities for location-
specific mitigation of emissions (April 8, 2019) (Over 100,000 premature death just from
PM 2.5).
35 Medical Society Consortium, The Costs of Inaction: The Economic Burden of Fossil
Fuels and Climate Change on Health in the United States (May 20, 2021).
36 The Lancet, Long-term effects of PM2 5 on neurological disorders in the American
Medicare population: a longitudinal cohort study (Oct. 19, 2020).
37 Bekkar, et al. JAMA Open Network, Association of Air Pollution and Heat Exposure
with Preterm Birth, Low Birth Weight, and Stillbirth in the USA Systematic Review
(June 18, 2020).
These negative effects of air pollution disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations,
including children, the elderly, and residents in low-income and disadvantaged communities.38
Indeed, two-thirds of Americans who live near high-volume roads are people of color and the
median household income in these places is roughly 20% below the national average.39
Emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks are roughly the equivalent to those of 20 to 55 light-
duty vehicles on the road. Repeatedly, peer reviewed, government and inter-governmental
studies point toward electrification as key to addressing criteria air pollutants, improving air
quality, and lower the risk of respiratory illness.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.6]
38 UN Environmental Programme, Young and old, air pollution affects the most
vulnerable (Oct. 16, 2018).
39 Union of Concerned Scientists, Delivering Opportunity: How Electric Buses and
Trucks Can Create Jobs and Improve Public Health in California,'(Oct. 11,2016), at 10.
40 See e.g., International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), AR 6 Climate Change 2022:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Feb. 28, 2022) at 7-120; USGCRP, National
Climate Assessment 4, Volume II, Chapter 29 at Box 29.2 (In transportation, for
example, switching away from petroleum to potentially lower GHG fuels, such as
48
-------
electricity and hydrogen, is projected to reduce local air pollution. In California, drastic
GHG emissions reductions have been estimated to substantially improve air quality and
reduce local particulate matter emissions associated with freight transport that
disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities').
By removing diesel from the heavy-duty equation altogether, BEVs represent a superior solution
relative to other approaches that seek to reduce emissions by increasing the efficiency of diesel
trucks or via post combustion treatment. As one recent analysis recognized, fully addressing
harmful air pollution from trucks used in urban and community areas by 2035 and eliminating
pollution from all new trucks and buses by 2040, can provide tremendous public health and
welfare benefits, including preventing 57,000 premature deaths by 2050, reducing NOx emission
by more than 10M tons, eliminating almost 200,000 tons of PM by 2050, and avoiding 4.7B tons
of GHG emissions.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.6]
41 EDF, Clean Trucks, Clean Air, American Jobs (Mar. 4, 2021) at 1.
Indeed, the American Lung Association (ALA) recently estimated that wide-spread
transportation electrification across the United States translates into $72 billion in avoided health
effects. Electrification would save approximately 6,300 lives per year and avoid more than
93,000 asthma attacks, and 416,000 lost workdays annually due to significant reductions in
transportation-related pollution.42 Other studies have found dramatic localized air quality and
public health benefits will result for electrifying the heavy-duty fleet.43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1219-A1, pp.6-7]
42 American Lung Association, The Road to Clean Air Benefits of a Nationwide
Transition to Electric Vehicles (March 31, 2022) at 5-6. See also, ZETA, Medium- and
Heavy Duty Electrification: Weighing the Opportunities and Barriers to Zero Emission
Fleets (Jan. 26, 2022) at 8-9.
43 See, Texas A&M, Tailpipe Emission Benefits of Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Truck Electrification in Houston, TX (Apr 14, 2021) (Finding that by electrifying
40% of the predominantly diesel-fueled MHDVs in the eight-county area, Texans
could avoid 21 tons per day of NOx — over a quarter of the 80 tons per day
emitted by greater Houston's on-road traffic. This could be achieved by
electrifying a little over 60,000 MHDVs, about 1% of all the vehicles in greater
Houston. By comparison, it would take 3.8 million light duty vehicles to achieve
the same amount of NOx reductions. Electrification of MHDVs is the quickest
way to take the biggest bite out of greater Houston's NOx emissions.)
Organization: Valeria Trujilo Aguilar
EPA Should Support and Advance with Lower NOx Emission Standards for New HDV Engines
Proposed in Option 2 of the Cleaner Trucks Initiative
As a private citizen residing in Denver, Colorado which ranks #7 among the most polluted cities
in the U.S. by ozone concentration and receiving a grade of F in both ozone and particle
pollution graded by the American Lung Association "State of the Air" Report2 methodology
49
-------
which uses quality-assured data from the EPA in accordance with current National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for 03 and PM2.5. IQAir3 estimates that air quality in Denver is slightly
declining from 2017-2020 at 7.4 ug/m3, 8 ug/m3, 8.2 ug/m3 and 8.7 ug/m3 respectively. Ozone
pollution represents Denver's main air quality challenge with motor vehicle emissions been the
single largest contributor^ Pollutants from HDV pose health risks at all stages of life accounting
for significant risk of premature births and premature deaths due to the adverse effects on nearly
every organ system in the body5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
2 American Lung Association, "Colorado: Denver", State of the Air, Research &
Reports, Report Cards, States and Counties, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/colorado/denver.
3 IQAir, "Air Quality in Denver", Modified May 15 at 18:00, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/colorado/denver.
4 IQAir, "Air Quality in Denver", Modified May 15 at 18:00, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.iqair.com/us/usa/colorado/denver.
5 Sara Chandler, Joel Espino, and Jimmy O'Dea, "Delivering Opportunity: How Electric
Buses and Trucks Can Create Jobs and Improve Public Health in California", Union of
Concerned Scientists, The Greenlining Institute, October 2016, Updated May 2017,
accessed May 15, 2022, https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/UCS-
Electric-Buses-Report.pdf.
The EPA6 recognizes that climate change and ozone pollution are highly intertwine. Ozone is
formed through photochemical interactions between nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)7. Scientists suggest that there is a strong correlation
between higher ozone levels and higher daylight temperatures8. Ozone levels do not always
increase with higher temperatures when VOCs to NOx ratios are low, suggesting that regulating
the sources of VOCs and NOx have the potential to alter the harmful health effects of ozone
levels even in the presence of higher temperatures; an inedible threat of GHG contributing to
climate change9. The EPA cites automobiles, trucks, and buses as significant contributing
sources of VOCs and NOx emissionslO. Thus, advocating for the maximum NOx stringency
standards for new heavy-duty vehicles has the potential to minimize the harmful effects of ozone
pollution by decreasing the sources that contribute to its formation which continue to
disproportionally affect susceptive groups in ozone polluted cities like Denver. Mapping for
Environmental Justice published a map for the State of Colorado in 2020 that shows
communities of color breathe nearly twice as much diesel pollution than white communities 11.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1223]
6 EPA, "Basic Information about N02", accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.epa.gOv/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#What%20is%20N02.
7 Jeannie Allen, "Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change", NASA Earth
Observatory, February 2004, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/.
50
-------
8 Jeannie Allen, "Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change", NASA Earth
Observatory, February 2004, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/.
9 9 Jeannie Allen, "Tango in the Atmosphere: Ozone and Climate Change", NASA Earth
Observatory, February 2004, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/200402_tango/.
10 EPA, "Sources of Hydrocarbon and NOx Emissions in New England", accessed May
15, 2022, https://www3.epa.gov/regionl/airquality/piechart.html.
11 Mapping for Environmental Justice, "Colorado", The Green Initiative Fund, Earth
Island Institute, University of California Berkeley, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://mappingforej.berkeley.edu/colorado/
The EPA states that NOx exposures aggravate respiratory diseases such as asthma which leads to
more respiratory symptoms requiring hospitalizations and emergency room visits and susceptible
groups such as children and the elderly are at higher risk of developing respiratory infections
among other respiratory complicationsl2. Consistent with the Clean Air Act section
202(a)(3)(A), the reduction of NOx emissions in new mobile sources such as in HDV, the EPA
will continue to fulfill its purpose to protect human health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1223]
12 EPA, "Basic Information about N02", accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.epa.gOv/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#What%20is%20N02.
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
The medium- and heavy-duty truck sector is the second largest contributor of climate change
causing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector and the largest source of harmful
smog and soot-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the United States. 1 It is well known that NOx
and particulate matter emitted from diesel and gasolene trucks and buses create poor air quality
and severe health impacts.2 An analysis of EPA data revealed that by 2023, diesel emissions can
cause nearly 9,000 premature deaths, 3,800 heart attacks, 173,067 cases of respiratory symptoms,
and more than 2,963 asthma-related visits to the emergency room.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1347-A1, p.l]
1 https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-nprm-overview-
2022-04.pdf
2 http s: //erj. ersj ournal s. com/content/17/4/733
3 https://www.catf.us/deathsbydiesel
51
-------
Organization: William F. Limpert
The American people want and deserve clean air.
A recent study by Harvard University and the Universities of Birmingham and Leicester in the
United Kingdom found that the fossil fuel industry causes 8,000,000 premature deaths
worldwide each year, including 350,000 in the United States. In that regard it is possible that
EPA's very concerning estimates of increased health costs, premature deaths, hospital emissions,
asthma and allergic rhinitis symptoms, and lost days from school and work resulting from failure
to act may actually underestimate the benefits these rules would bring to us, and especially to
those of us with limited income. We have known for a long time that the true cost of using fossil
fuels is much higher than what we are paying at this time. That true cost may very well fall to
our children, grandchildren, and all those who follow us, even if they never use fossil fuels.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I would like to comment on the benefits of better visibility that these rules would bring to us.
Good atmospheric visibility provides clearer vision, more natural colors, increased productivity,
and better emotional health. My wife and I formerly owned a home and property in Bath County,
in western Virginia. This is a sparsely populated area with little traffic or industrial activity. The
air quality there was by far the best that we have experienced in our lifetimes. We could see fine
detail far into the distance. The night sky was filled with stars. Colors were greatly enhanced by
the good visibility. We were always emotionally uplifted when we were there, and I think other
local residents were as well. Despite very large political differences and life experiences we all
got along very well. Despite being physically separated we all felt a sense of community and
togetherness. If someone had a problem, others came to help. In most cases when cars passed on
the road both parties waved. Days spent there were the happiest days of our lives. I really think
that the great visibility from little fossil fuel use in that area contributed heavily to all of these
benefits. These benefits will convey to all of us with better outdoor visibility under the proposed
rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
In addition to these ambient conditions, also of concern are the on-board emissions from the
diesel school buses that represent more than 90 percent of the 480,000 school buses on the road
today, transporting over 20 million students daily and driving 3.3 billion miles annually.
Children are particularly susceptible to the negative health effects of diesel exhaust from school
buses, a known carcinogen linked to reduced lung development and increased risk for asthma
and pneumonia in children, among other risks. In addition, there is evidence that reducing
diesel exhaust exposure can improve not only students' respiratory health, but also their
academic outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
Electric school buses, which produce zero tailpipe emissions, are the healthiest solution for all
students, bus drivers, and the communities they travel through. Because students from low-
income communities are more likely to ride a school bus - 60% of students from low-income
families ride the bus to school, compared to 45% of students from families with higher incomes -
a more stringent rule will advance the transition to an electric school bus fleet and
52
-------
simultaneously help address this transportation inequity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1,
p.2]
EPA studies confirm that medium- and heavy-duty vehicles also generate 23 percent of the
transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), contributing to the severity of climate
change impacts, including heat waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme climate and weather
events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. Some populations may be especially vulnerable to these
and other climate change impacts, including low-income communities, people with disabilities,
people of color, and Indigenous populations. Furthermore, studies (such as the recent 'Zeroing in
on Healthy Air' from the American Lung Association) show that regulations and policies
designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as through accelerating electric transportation, will
have the added benefit of reducing other forms of pollution, such as air toxics and particular
matter, that impact public health and disproportionately impact overburdened communities.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
Organization: Yellowstone Integrated Architecture and Construction
Dangerous nitrogen oxides and other pollution that heavy duty vehicles like trucks and buses
spew into our air hurt communities of color and low wealth communities first and worst, but
affect all of us, especially our children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2816, p.l]
Diesel pollution from heavy duty trucks and buses is a massive public health threat. Diesel
pollution worsens asthma and is particularly dangerous to children's developing lungs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2816, p.l]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters agreed that emissions from heavy-duty trucks are a significant contributor to air
pollution, including concentrations of ozone and PM2.5, which are negatively impacting human
and environmental health across the nation. Commenters noted thatNOx emissions are higher in
urban driving. Commenters requested a national standard for heavy-duty trucks both as soon as
possible and as stringent as possible.
Many commenters noted that they need this rule to protect the health of children and future
generations, and that emissions from trucks impact children's health in many ways, including
asthma incidence. Commenters also mentioned other sensitive populations, e.g., pregnant
women, older adults, and those with existing diseases, that are at risk from pollution by vehicles.
Commenters noted that health and environmental impacts of criteria and toxic pollutants are
made worse by the ongoing impacts of climate change (pollution from heavy duty trucks can
have a larger impact on populations already affected by climate change).
Multiple commenters stated that visibility in Class I and other areas is negatively impacted by
NOx emissions, especially in the wintertime, and that these standards will be beneficial
throughout the year. A commenter emphasized that good atmospheric visibility provides clearer
vision, more natural colors, increased productivity, and better emotional health. Another
53
-------
environmental effect noted by commenters is deposition. They stated that deposition of nitrogen
and other pollutants is a problem and mobile source emissions are a significant contributor to
deposition. They stated that this is demonstrated in the air quality modeling done for the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL. They also stated that cleaning up air can help waterways too.
Numerous commenters mentioned that EJ communities are experiencing disproportionate health
effects and being impacted by emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants from heavy duty trucks.
One commenter specifically noted that bicyclists are exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution
from exhaust and that reductions in truck emissions will reduce the extremely high pollution
exposure of bicyclists. They also noted that bicycle commuting, where feasible, is an affordable
method of transportation: low-income Americans commute by bike more than any other income
brackets and people of color currently account for the fastest cyclist growth rate. Therefore,
ensuring bicyclists can travel safely and healthily is an issue of equity. Additionally, as cities
nationwide encourage bicycling for its climate, health, and traffic benefits, the EPA should
ensure that bicyclists are not forced to breathe unsafe levels of pollutants from vehicle exhaust.
One commenter provides an analysis of the air quality and human health benefits of electrifying
40 percent of new Class 4-8 single unit trucks, 40 percent of new Class 8 short haul (day cab)
tractors, and 80 percent of all transit and school buses, in the 2027-2029 timeframe; the
commenter's results show meaningful reductions in GHGs and NOx emissions through 2050,
which would lead to improvements in health effects and environmental effects.
Multiple commenters mentioned or referenced the American Lung Association's State of the Air
report. The State of the Air report highlights the number of Americans who continue to live in
places with failing grades for unhealthy levels of particle pollution or ozone.
Response:
Section II of the preamble describes the health and environmental effects caused by emissions of
NOx and other criteria and toxic pollutants from heavy-duty trucks. EPA agrees that emissions
from heavy-duty trucks contribute to concentrations of ozone, NO2, and PM2.5, which are all
associated with impacting human health. Heavy-duty trucks and buses continue to contribute
significantly to air pollution at the local, regional, and national level, often disproportionally
affecting communities of color and low-income populations and this final rule will achieve
significant improvements in air quality, including for those disproportionately affected. EPA also
agrees that protecting children's health is a high priority; we added text in preamble Section II.B
describing why children can have increased vulnerability and susceptibility for adverse health
effects from air pollution exposures.
Emissions from heavy-duty trucks also impact environmental health through contributing to
deposition impacts and visibility decrements, as well as contributing to ozone that harms
vegetation.
We are finalizing new standards for diesel engines over a new low-load duty cycle to capture
operation at lower speeds and loads that would represent urban driving (see preamble section III
for more information). Our responses to comments on stringency of the criteria pollutant
54
-------
standards can be found in Section 3. Our responses to additional, more general comments in
support of the proposed rule, advocating a more stringent approach, or in opposition to the rule,
can be found in Sections 1.1, 1.2., and 1.3. Finally, our responses to comments about the EJ need
for this rule can be found in Section 23.
2.1.1 Emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks are underestimated
Comments by Organizations
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
Moreover, the modeled NOx contribution from HDVs shown in Figure 2 is potentially
underestimated because EPA has not yet incorporated high emitting heavy-duty trucks, such as
glider vehicles and HDVs with tampered emission control systems into their mobile source
emissions models. In-use testing data suggests that real-world NOx emissions are higher
than modeled estimates, underscoring the need to achieve substantial NOx emission reductions
from the heavy-duty diesel truck sector.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, pp. 2-3]
2. Tan, et al., "On-Board Sensor-Based NOx Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles," Environmental Science and Technology, 53: 5504-5511 (2019).
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Regionally, heavy-duty vehicles are the third largest source of NOx emissions as illustrated in
Figure 3. Moreover, the modeled NOx contribution from HDVs shown in Figure 3 is potentially
underestimated, because the mobile source model used in developing the inventory does not
account for high emitting heavy-duty trucks, such as glider vehicles and HDVs with tampered
emission control systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.4]
9 Tan, Y., et al., 'On-Board Sensor-Based NOx Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles,' Environmental Science and Technology, 53: 5504-5511 (2019). DOI:
10.1021/acs.est.8b07048.
55
-------
Figure 3
Modeled Ozone Season NO* Emissions in the OTR for Calendar Year 2023
Onroad Nondiesel
Onroad Diesel
EGU (ERTAC, Except Peaking)
Non-EGU ^
Nonroad Diesel
Nonroad Nondiesel
Oil & Gas Nonpoint
CMV (C1C2C3)
Airport
Oil & Gas Point
Peaking EGUs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Thousands Tons
Source: OTC
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
The modeled NOx contribution from HDVs shown in Figure 4 is potentially underestimated
because the mobile source model used in developing the inventory does not account for high
emitting heavy-duty trucks, such as glider vehicles and HDVs with tampered emission control
systems. In-use testing data suggest that real-world NOx emissions are higher than modeled
estimates, underscoring the need to achieve substantial NOx reductions from the heavy-duty
diesel truck sector. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 7]
16. Tan, Y., et al., "On-Board Sensor-Based NOx Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles." Environ. Sci. Technol., 53: 5504-5511 (2019). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b07048.
56
-------
Nonpoint
Onroad Nondiesel
Onroad Diesel
EGU (ERTAC, Except Peaking)
Non-EGU
Nonroad Diesel
Nonroad Nondiesel ^
Oil & Gas Nonpoint
CMV (C1C2C3)
Rail
Airport
Oil & Gas Point
Peaking EGUs hi
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO
Thousands Tons
Figure 4: Modeled NOx Emissions in the Northeast (calendar year 2023).
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters noted that modeled NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the figures included
as part of the comments are potentially underestimated because the modeling done to generate
the NOx inventory did not account for glider kits and tampered vehicles. Commenters stated that
this could mean that heavy-duty trucks are an even larger contributor of NOx emissions,
compared to what's shown in the figures.
Response:
Thank you to the commenters for providing this information to support taking action on heavy-
duty engines and vehicles. EPA agrees that the earlier versions of MOVES, such as the one used
to generate the NOx inventory in the referenced OTC figure, did not fully account for the high-
emitting heavy-duty vehicles. However, as described in Chapter 5.2.2 of the draft RIA, EPA
used an updated version of MOVES (MOVES_CTI_NPRM) that accounts for glider vehicles in
the analysis done for the proposal. EPA also is aware of intentional tampering of emission
control systems that could increase the emissions of NOx from heavy-duty trucks. Although we
account in our model for some level of tampering and mal -maintenance, such as NOx
aftertreatment malfunction, we recognize the need to update the tampering and mal-maintenance
effects in MOVES, particularly to incorporate recent data surveying intentional tampering in
heavy-duty trucks; we are continuously working to update our inventory and inventory modeling
tools.
2.1.2 Health impacts of NO2
57
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Various Academic Researchers
Strengthening HDV NOx emissions standards is necessary to protect children's health
NOx emissions are precursors to PM2.5 and ozone, which contribute tens of thousands of
premature deaths each year in the U.S. Heavy-duty trucks and buses are responsible for a
substantial share of PM2.5- and ozone-attributable premature deaths. Traffic-related air pollution
is responsible for an estimated 22,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year, about 19% of all
PM2.5- and ozone-attributable deaths in the U.S.I On-road diesel vehicles contribute an
estimated 43% of these traffic-related air pollution deaths. The vast majority of diesel vehicles in
the U.S. are the heavy-duty vehicles that would be affected by the proposed emissions
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 1]
1. Anenberg, S. C.; Miller, J.; Henze, D. K.; Minjares, R.; Achakulwisut, P. The Global
Burden of Transportation Tailpipe Emissions on Air Pollution-Related Mortality in 2010
and 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14 (9), 094012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ab35fc.
NOx emissions also produce N02, which is associated with respiratory effects, and in particular
the development of new cases of asthma amongst children. The 2016 EPA Integrated Science
Assessment for N02 concluded that "There is likely to be a causal relationship between long-
term N02 exposure and respiratory effects based on the evidence for development of asthma
(Section 6.2.9, Table 6-5). The conclusion is strengthened from the 2008 ISA (Table ES-1)
because where previous epidemiologic findings were inconsistent, recent studies consistently
observe N02-related increases in asthma development in children who are followed over time
and are supported by previous experimental studies." An American Thoracic Society workshop
report published in 2019 also "found that long-term exposure to air pollution, especially metrics
of traffic-related air pollution such as nitrogen dioxide and black carbon, is associated with onset
of childhood asthma." In 2017, a large meta-analysis of epidemiological studies found a relative
risk of 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.37) for each 10 ppb increase inN02.2 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 1]
2. Khreis, H.; Kelly, C.; Tate, J.; Parslow, R.; Lucas, K.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Exposure
to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Risk of Development of Childhood Asthma: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environment International 2017, 100, 1-31.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2016.l 1.012.
Given the large burden of N02 concentrations on children's respiratory health throughout the
U.S. and the important contribution of HDV NOx emissions to those concentrations,
strengthening NOx emissions limits for HDVs is necessary to protect children's health. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1220-A1, p. 2]
58
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Section II of the preamble describes the health and environmental effects caused by emissions of
NOx and other criteria and toxic pollutants from heavy duty trucks. EPA agrees that reducing
NOx and other emissions from heavy-duty trucks protects children's health.
2.2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
As U.S. EPA is aware, California faces some of the nation's most significant air quality
challenges. The state's largest facilities which include power plants and refineries, as well as our
significant manufacturing industries are subject to the most stringent emissions standards
nationally if not worldwide. As a result, NOx emissions have been reduced by approximately
90% through decades of implementation of strong stationary source control measures. However,
much of the state remains in non-attainment of federal ambient air quality standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1253-Al,p.l]
For example, nearly 90% of California's 40 million residents live in areas that do not meet the
2015 federal ozone standards. These issues are especially acute in disadvantaged communities
where residents often face additional challenges including exposure to air toxics from the
transportation sector and are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change including
significantly increased risk from wildfires and wildfire smoke. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1253-A1, p.2]
The reason for this continued non-attainment is primarily due to emissions from the
transportation sector which continues to be heavily reliant on the combustion of fossil fuels.
Mobile sources are the largest contributor of criteria pollutant, toxic, and anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state. CARB data shows that mobile sources account
for 70-80%) of overall NOx emissions. To meet federal and state clean air standards and protect
public health, this pollution must be cut by up to 80%> by the mid-2030s. While air districts do
not have authority to regulate mobile sources, we have worked diligently to implement incentive
programs like the Moyer program which since its inception in 1998 has enabled the voluntary
replacement, scrappage, or repower of over 68,000 engines resulting in reduction of more than
198,000 tons of NOx and Reactive Organic Gases, and reduction of over 7,300 tons of
particulate matter. Additionally, CARB's Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation which was adopted
in 2020 is expected to reduce NOx by 24 tons per day in 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1253-A1, p.2]
Despite these significant efforts by air districts and CARB, federal action to reduce emissions is
critical if we are to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For example, data shows
that in the South Coast air basin, considering only emissions from ships, locomotives, and
aircraft which are under federal authority, the region needs an additional 46 tons per day of NOx
reductions by 2023 to attain standards in a timely manner. When also considering the emissions
59
-------
from on-road heavy-duty trucks that are subject to federal authority, the region needs a total of
67 - 69 tons per day of NOx reductions from federal sources. Extrapolating this example to the
rest of California, it is clear that without significant progress in reducing mobile source
emissions, especially at the federal level, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet
our air quality mandates. Absent strong federal action, extreme nonattainment areas such as the
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins face Clean Air Act penalties and sanctions due to
mobile source emissions under federal jurisdiction. Such air districts will be forced to implement
additional stationary source regulations that are much less cost-effective than federal mobile
source measures and in regions that already impose the most stringent regulations in the nation.
To this end, CAPCOA strongly encourage U.S. EPA to promulgate technology forcing
regulations in the mobile sector that are directly and solely under U.S. EPA authority that yield
as much emissions reductions as possible as quickly as possible. The health of our residents
depends on it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1253-A1, p.2]
Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
Even if all stationary sources had zero emissions, some air basins (including the South Coast Air
Basin) wouldn't be in attainment with national ambient air quality standards for ozone. Failure to
comply with federal standards could result in the loss of billions of dollars in federal highway
funds and a permit moratorium (as stated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)). For example, the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the South Coast Air Basin, which
is in extreme nonattainment for ozone, to come into compliance by 2023. If this deadline is not
achieved, CAA Sections 179 and 185 allow the USEPA to impose the following sanctions:
withhold federal highway funding and increase offsetting requirements and impose an annual
penalty on major stationary sources. Some public wastewater agencies have estimated the
potential penalty to exceed $1,000,000 per year. Thus, these Proposed Standards are essential to
air basins for limiting ozone production prior to federal attainment deadlines, while also
providing the necessary options of heavy-duty vehicles for critical operations as described in this
comment letter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, p.l]
Organization: Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and Central Texas Clean Air
Coalition (CAV)
As of 2020, the region's design value for ozone (03) is at 93% of the federal limit and 80% of
the annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) limit for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). While the CAC will continue to do its part to reduce emissions through voluntary
programs within our region, as EPA's proposed rule indicates, heavy-duty engines will continue
to be one of the largest contributors to mobile source nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1274-A1, p.l]
Air quality modeling shows that NOx emissions are responsible for about 99% of the local, state,
and national contribution to high 03 levels within the region. In 2028, heavy-duty vehicles will
account for just 7% of the region's weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) but 46% of the
region's on-road NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1274-A1, p.l]
60
-------
Organization: Clean Energy Ventures et al.
We believe that EPA's Clean Trucks Plan, of which this Proposal is a critical component, is
critical to helping states attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Ozone, to providing improved health to residents of disadvantaged communities that continue to
be burdened by disproportionate levels of diesel pollution, and to ensuring that the heavy-duty
engine and vehicle sector will play its part in helping our nation meet our critical climate
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2339-A2, pp. 1-2]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
More than 127 million Americans live in areas that either have not attained the 8-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard. These Americans need the emissions reductions on the fastest
time frame possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air
These emissions prevent most of the state from meeting national ambient air quality standards set
to protect public health, with the South Coast having the worst smog - and the San Joaquin
Valley the worst particulate matter — in the entire country. That means nearly all Californians
encounter unhealthful air quality days. That results in lost days at school, emergency room visits
and hospitalizations, and lost days at work, not to mention human suffering. One 2008 study that
remains relevant conservatively estimated that pollution in the San Joaquin Valley and the Los
Angeles air basins results in a cost of about $28 billion annually. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1139-A1, p.l]
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Environmental impacts from the transportation sector—and the resulting health and economic
consequences—are a major concern. Greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles are the top source
of emissions in Colorado and a significant portion of the population lives in an area of the state
that is soon to be classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area by the US Environmental
Protection Agency. Transportation is one of the two largest sources of ozone precursors along
with oil and gas production, largely due to NOx emissions from medium and heavy duty
vehicles, and reducing transportation emissions is a critical strategy to meet federal health-based
air quality standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.l]
Organization: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)
For almost 50 years, Connecticut's citizens have suffered the public health and economic
impacts from ozone nonattainment. This past year, Connecticut experienced twenty-one days
with unhealthy ozone levels, and on April 13, 2022, EPA published a public notice2 proposing to
reclassify Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex Counties as 'severe' nonattainment with respect
to the 2008 national ambient air quality standard or NAAQS for ground level ozone. The
importance of NOx emissions reductions to addressing ozone nonattainment is well documented
and reaffirmed by EPA in 20163 in its response to Connecticut and several other states and
61
-------
jurisdictions reaffirming the urgent need to reduce NOx emissions that 'significantly contribute
to ozone and fine particulate problems' noting that the parties pointed to the 'significant
contribution of heavy-duty vehicles to NOx in their areas.' 4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-
Al, pp. 1-2]
2 see, 87 Fed. Reg. 21825
3 U.S. EPA, 'Memorandum in Response to Petition for Rulemaking to Adopt
Ultra-Low NOx Standards for On-Highway Heavy-Duty Trucks and Engines,'
December 20, 2016. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nox-
memorandum-nox-petition-response-2016-12-20.pdf (accessed April 25, 2022).
4 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016), at 73523.
Past ozone control strategies for NOx have centered around Point Source Electrical Generating
Units (EGUs). EGU based strategies have been effective in reducing the long-range pollutant
transport into Connecticut. However, mobile source NOx emissions dominate ozone production.
Figure 1 is a graphic of contribution modeling done by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
which depicts sector contributions to Connecticut's Westport monitor. On-road diesel emissions,
contributing 11% of NOx emissions, constitute a major share of ozone production at this critical
nonattainment monitor. States' modeling efforts continue to yield important information about
the role of widespread NOx emissions in contributing to ozone nonattainment in
Connecticut. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.2]
Figure 2 is a high-resolution gridded NOx inventory (1km). This inventory was mapped for
southwest Connecticut and New York City (without EGU point sources) to show where
emissions are concentrated. At this resolution, the NOx emissions along the major highways are
evident. As the Westport monitor evidences, the impact of on-road mobile emissions continues
to climb and account for a large percentage of the ozone produced in our state. Connecticut urges
EPA to act swiftly to significantly reduce NOx emissions from HD trucks as part of this
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.3]
Actual nitrogen dioxide emissions (N02) concentrations can also be assessed through satellite
technology which has evolved to a point where N02 can be resolved on an urban scale. The
Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) satellite map in Figure 3 shows averaged
monitored N02 concentrations for the summer of 2021. Concentrated areas of N02 emissions in
urban centers occur just upwind of nearby ozone non-attainment areas. Air pollution from the
transportation sector is not just a state environmental or transportation issue; it is a national issue
that requires EPA to implement a federal program to achieve deep NOx reductions from HD
trucks. The transportation sector in general, and the HD sector in particular, involves the
shipping of freight across state lines. Effectively addressing this sector at the federal level is
imperative to putting Connecticut, and many other jurisdictions across the country,7 on the path
to achieving health based NAAQs and to protecting our most vulnerable communities. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.3]
62
-------
7 See NACAA_Comments-EPA_HD_Truck_NPRM-0516221h.pdf
(4cleanair.org) p. 4-8
Figure 2 States have limited authority to address transportation-related emissions, nonetheless we
have been active partners with EPA in reducing transportation related air pollution. In
Connecticut, we continue to implement a 'whole of government approach' to finding innovative
state air quality and transportation solutions to improve air quality, reduce climate pollution,
protect public health and enhance economic competitiveness. Connecticut has been a leader in
the electrification of the transportation sector, joining the seven state Zero Emission Vehicle
MOU in 2013 and through the creation of clean car incentive programs like the California Low
Emission and Zero Emission Programs. Connecticut is also one of fifteen states that has adopted
these standards because they are more protective of public health and the environment than the
federal standards. Since 2015, Connecticut has also implemented the Connecticut Hydrogen and
Electric Automobile Program Rebate (CHEAPR), a first of its kind rebate program that
incentivizes the purchase of electric vehicles at the point of sale. Connecticut is also a signatory
the Multi-State Medium and Heavy Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding to advance the rapid and equitable electrification of trucks and buses. In addition,
recently passed legislation, Public Act 22-25 which authorizes several programs for medium and
heavy-duty vehicles and adopts aggressive procurement targets too incorporate zero-emission
vehicles and transit buses into our state fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.4]
Organization: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
All combustion engines produce NOx and although technology has advanced in recent years,
more must be done to reduce NOx emissions from mobile sources. Cutting NOx and PM
emissions from the trucking industry is vital for improving public health and meeting National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
Delaware's process for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS is complex, costly, and time
consuming, but without more protective vehicle emission standards, Delaware will not meet air
quality goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.3]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
The District has set ambitious goals for NOx emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles
through our Clean Energy Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018 (D.C. Law 22-257), which
mandates that 100 percent of public buses be zero-emission by 2045. Additionally, the District
has signed on to the Multi-State Medium and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum
of Understanding (MHD ZEV MOU), committing to a phase out fossil fuel-burning medium -
and heavy-duty truck and bus sales by 2050. However, both of these programs function in a
longer time horizon and the District needs NOx reductions from the medium and heavy-duty
vehicle sector sooner in order to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1299-A1, p. 3]
63
-------
Organization: Elders Climate Action
ECA, its chapters and members have a stake in this decision both because 1) we are the elders of
families whose health and well-being are personally affected by exposure to the hazardous air
pollution conditions existing in 230 urban counties where the NAAQS for ozone and/or PM2.5
are violated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 1]
ECA requests this action to - 2) optimize the emission reductions needed from HD on-road
vehicles to ensure attainment of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS within the deadlines established
by the CAA rather than delaying attainment until 2045 for some areas, and not attaining at all in
New York City, Houston, South Coast and San Joaquin Valley; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1218-A1, p. 1]
The need for national zero emission standards is greatest in the urban areas that EPA has
designated "extreme" (South Coast AQMD) and "severe" (San Joaquin Valley AQMD), or
recently bumped-up to "serious" for ozone. NOx emissions from HDVs are a primary contributor
to their numerous elevated violations of the ozone NAAQS. These areas are not able to achieve
sufficient emissions reductions to attain the NAAQS without significant reductions from HDVs.
We submit modeling to show the potential emission reduction benefits of the action we request
in South Coast and San Joaquin Valley where the attainment deadlines are 2035 and 2031,
respectively. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
This statutory standard applies to emissions of four listed criteria pollutants, and subsection
202(1)(2) establishes a similar statutory directive for control of "hazardous air pollutants from
motor vehicles" (including benzene and formaldehyde listed by law, 1,3 butadiene and other
pollutants identified by EPA as "mobile source air toxics"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-
Al, p. 6]
These statutory mandates do not directly apply to GHG pollutants. However, they do apply to
nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are governed by a NAAQS for N02, by the NAAQS for ozone
which requires the control of nitrogen oxides as precursors to the formation of ozone in the
atmosphere, 1 and the NAAQS for PM2.5 which governs NOx emissions as a precursor to the
formation of nitrates measured as a fine particle (PM2.5). EPA explains that this proposed HDV
rule is intended to control NOx emitted from HDVs for the purpose, among others, of achieving
reductions needed for attainment of both the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 6]
1. 40 CFRPart 50, section 50.9, 50.10.
The failure to attain the ozone NAAQS in 230 urban counties where 135 million Americans
reside is a perpetual air pollution pandemic that has burdened millions of children with a lifetime
of asthma and shortened millions of American lives over the last 50 years. This public health
crises will continue to make our cities unhealthy places to raise our children and for elders to
reside for decades to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 6]
64
-------
In most nonattainment areas, the nitrogen oxides and reactive organic compounds emitted from
internal combustion engines (ICEs) are the primary cause of ozone formation and a significant
contributor to PM2.5 nonattainment. Replacing ICEs as quickly as possible is the solution to
urban smog and soot pollution that impairs the health and quality for life for millions of urban
Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
This statutory "greatest degree of emission reduction" mandate also applies to all species of
PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from HDVs as particles or aerosols because both inhalable (PM10)
and respirable (PM2.5) particles are governed by NAAQS issued to protect public health,2 and
are included within the scope of the directive in section 202(a)(3)(A) to issue standards for
"particulate matter." HDV emissions that are measured as particulate matter (PM) include metals
in carbon fuels, and both particle and aerosol carbon species that are the products of incomplete
carbon (C) combustion such as elemental C, black C, benzene, PAHs, aldehydes and C02 which
is the product of complete C combustion. EPA acknowledges that diesel engines emit PM that
contributes to nonattainment for PM2.5 and causes significant health risks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
2. 40 CFRPart 50, sections 50.6, 50.7, 50.13.
The rule package identifies both ozone and PM2.5 as pollutants of concern that are the reason for
proposing standards for NOx. The TSD includes a modeling analysis of the NOx reductions and
the PM emission reduction benefits that will be achieved by the proposed standards for NOx, but
EPA does not include any analysis of the NOx or PM emission reductions that could be achieved
by adopting zero emission standards for classes or categories of HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
The modeling analysis is performed for 2027 and 2045. 2027 is an attainment deadline year for
recently bumped-up "serious" ozone nonattainment areas (NAs), but 2045 has no relation to a
statutory attainment deadline. The deadlines for the San Joaquin Valley "severe" ozone
nonattainment is 2031 and the deadline for South Coast AQMD is 2037. The modeling results
reported in the TSD demonstrate that most NAs will attain the ozone standard by 2045, but not
South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, New York City or Harris County TX. Clearly the reductions
required by the proposed rule are not adequate to attain the NAAQS in these NAs by the
statutory deadlines applicable to eachNA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
Additional reductions are also needed for some PM2.5 NAs to attain by the statutory
deadlines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
These modeling results demonstrate the need to evaluate alternative regulatory options that
include standards sufficient to achieve the emission reductions needed for attainment by the
applicable statutory deadlines. Zero emission standards based on the availability of zero emission
power trains should be evaluated as a regulatory option for timely attainment of the
NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 7]
The degree of control needed for both NOx and PM2.5 emitted from HDVs should be
demonstrated by modeling the impact that HDV standards will have on attainment of the
65
-------
NAAQS for two reasons: 1) the statutory purpose of protecting public health, and 2) the structure
of section 202 of the Act which establishes different criteria for standards for HDVs versus
standards for light duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 8]
The standard setting authority granted to EPA by section 202 must be viewed in light of the
statutory framework which declares the purpose of the Act is "to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C. §7401(b)(l). Under the structure of the Act, the NAAQS
promulgated pursuant to section 109 provide the relevant benchmarks for determining whether
the primary purpose of the Act, i.e., protecting public health, is being implemented. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 8.]
Here EPA has investigated the impact that the proposed standards will have on attainment and
found that 1) controlling emissions from HDVs are necessary for attainment in many ozone NAs
because the reductions required by the proposed rules will contribute to attainment in some NAs,
but 2) that the reductions are not enough to demonstrate attainment in the worst polluted air
pollution control regions.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 8.]
3. The modeling analysis results reported in the Technical Support Document are
useful for drawing these inferences, but the modeling is not adequate to determine
the emission reductions needed for timely attainment by the statutory deadlines
for each NA. Regional modeling for NAs that are not expected to attain before the
statutory deadline should be performed, in collaboration with regional air quality
planning agencies, to obtain more precise data regarding the emission reductions
needed for attainment.
This statutory mandate to achieve "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable.. ."for
heavy duty vehicles does not apply to standards for light duty vehicles (LDVs). Section 202(i)
specifically authorizes EPA to forego more stringent standards for LDVs if they are not needed
for attainment, but that provision does not apply to HDVs. For HDVs, the duty to set standards
that reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable..." is continuing, and is not
limited by the need for reductions to attain NAAQS. These differences imply 1) that standards
for both HDVs and LDVs must continue to be strengthened as necessary to support the states in
developing implementation plans that can attain the NAAQS; and 2) that for HDVs the
progressive emission reductions that become available from more advanced technology must
continue to be reflected in more stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
9.]
To estimate the emission reduction benefits of the regulatory approach that we ask EPA to adopt,
we have performed modeling using the EMFAC model to quantify the emission reductions that
would be achieved in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Air Quality Management
Districts (AQMD)s. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
CARB has developed estimates of the NOx reductions needed for attainment in South Coast and
SJV AQMDs. CARB has identified emissions from federally regulated transportation source
sectors as the primary cause of nonattainment after the implementation of stationary and area
66
-------
source measures included in the draft ozone SIP. These source sectors include out-of-state (OOS)
trucks traveling into and through California, commercial shipping and aircraft operations in
CA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
In these comments we fault EPA for not identifying the degree of emission needed to help states
achieve the emission reductions needed for ozone and PM2.5 attainment. To address that
objection, we have prepared modeling analyses of two scenarios to estimate the contribution to
attainment in the two most polluted ozone NAs in the U.S. where 20 million Americans are at
risk from exposure to frequent (more than 100 days per year) daily violations of the ozone
NAAQS, that include the most extreme daily peak concentrations measured in the U.S. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
The NOx standards for HDTs should be sufficiently stringent to reduce harmful air pollution and
improve public health in the near-term. The most adversely impacted communities cannot wait
another decade before realizing the benefits of cleaner trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-
Al, p.6]
In the 20 years since EPA issued the last major rule to address NOx from HD engines, areas in
the U.S. have continued to struggle with meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), with some regions increasing criteria pollutant emissions and being reclassified to
'serious' nonattainment.xxxviii [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxxviii EPA Proposed Rule, 17418.
We know that air pollution from transportation disproportionately impacts people of color, who
are three times more likely than white people to live in the most polluted counties in the
U.S.xxxix [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, pp.6-7]
xxxix American Lung Association, Fact Sheet: Medium and Heavy Duty
Vehicles, https://www.lung.org/getmedia/bb0d60ba-eff2-4084-907b-
916839ae985d/medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicles-fact-sheet.pdf.
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
These disturbing health trends are exacerbated by the fact that the St. Louis metropolitan area has
been designated as an ozone nonattainment area since 1992, with the exception of the year 2003,
when the 1-hour ozone NAAQS were revoked. 12 Further, EPA recently notified the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources ('MDNR') that because of continued exceedances of the ozone
standard, the area would likely be reclassified to higher nonattainment designation with more
stringent ozone compliance requirements. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.3]
67
-------
12 U.S. EPA, Missouri Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by
Year for All Criteria Pollutants, data current as of April 30, 2022, located at
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_mo.html.
13 Reclassification of Areas Classified as Marginal for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 21842, 21845 Table 1 (April 13,
2022).
It is also meaningful that very little NAAQS air monitoring measuring transportation-related
pollutants is taking place in the St. Louis metro area, especially in or near the minority and other
disadvantaged populations that bear the disparate impacts of this pollution. Within the entire City
of St. Louis, there is only one ozone monitor, two NOx and CO monitors, and four PM
monitors.20 Expanding to the entire St. Louis ozone nonattainment region, only five more ozone
monitors are added to the picture.21 However, none of these additional ozone monitors are
located in the areas with the highest minority populations.22 This lack of meaningful monitoring
makes it very difficult for impacted communities to understand the nature of the ozone problem
affecting their health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.5]
20 MDNR, Air Facilities & Air Quality Monitoring Sites, located at
https://modnr.maps. arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d5ce71196074
4f74abe421312915d075.
21 Id.
22 Id.
EPA should also include in the rule additional requirements for increased air monitoring for
pollutants of concern near transportation corridors in overburdened communities so as to
document whether these existing and proposed regulatory approaches are working. As EPA has
admitted, current NAAQS monitoring is woefully inadequate to document the regional
distribution of transportation pollutants, so increased monitoring is essential to determining the
adequacy and efficiency of EPA's final regulations.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1,
p.6]
24 U.S. EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis at p. 177 (March
2022).
Organization: Jessica Stevens
I am writing in support of the Environmental Protection Agency in the proposed regulation to
reduce air pollution from highway heavy duty vehicles and engines. Greenhouse gasses, ozone,
and other particulate matter are primary contributors in our current climate crisis, so any
recommendation to reduce these is urged. In addition, these have direct consequences in public
health and environmental justice, which was put under consideration in constructing this report. I
will outline why this regulation is essential in taking steps against climate change and why it is
68
-------
important in our quality of life, as well as providing some recommendations and other items to
take under consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Transportation is currently the greatest source of greenhouse gasses in the United States. In 2020,
it accounted for 27% of the emissions produced, mostly coming from petroleum based fuel for
trucks, cars, planes, etc. (Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Over half of the emissions in
this industry come from cars, light, medium, and heavy duty trucks, while the other half result
from other forms of transportation like planes, ships, and trains. The National Institute of
Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) outlines the air pollution produced by the transportation
sector and the potential health impacts this has. The NIEHS states that Traffic Related Air
Pollution (TRAP) includes ground level ozone, carbon, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter (Air
Pollution and Your Health). This can result in various forms of respiratory disease, like asthma
or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Additionally, air pollution increases the risk for
cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, particularly breast and lung cancer. The NIEHS also
found that nine out of 10 people living in urban areas worldwide were found to be affected by air
pollution (Air Pollution and Your Health). This report specifically mentions that lower income
families and people of color possess higher risk for air pollution by being more likely to be
located near truck routes. This is a public health and environmental justice problem that needs to
be addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Furthermore, recent studies show that ozone concentrations below the current National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) continue to contribute to the risk of premature death in sensitive
populations, such as the elderly.2 NOx emissions from trucks likewise impede the States' ability
to attain and maintain federal air quality standards for particulate matter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1288-Al,p.l]
2 Di, Q., et al. "Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare population." New
England Journal of Medicine 376.26 (2017): 2513-2522. DOI:
10.1056/NEJMoal702747; Di, Q., et al. "Association of short-term exposure to
air pollution with mortality in older adults." JAMA 318.24 (2017): 2446-2456.
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.17923.
Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) etal.
We agree that the proposed rule has the potential to achieve significant Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
emissions reductions and will likely result in substantial public health and welfare benefits. The
region is currently designated as being in non-attainment of federal National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. NOx is a precursor pollutant of ground-level ozone. As
such, reductions in NOx emissions will help the region to attain the federal NAAQS for ozone.
In addition, NOx is a precursor to secondary particulate matter, such as particulate matter
measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller (PM2.5). Exposure to PM2.5, along with
ground-level ozone, is associated with premature death, increased hospitalizations, and
emergency room visits due to exacerbation of chronic heart and lung diseases and other serious
health impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0996-A1, p. 1]
69
-------
The National Capital region has implemented several emissions control measures in all
emissions sectors, including transportation, over the years to improve its air quality and comply
with NAAQS for a variety of criteria pollutants. The region also relies heavily on federal
emissions control programs for a significant amount of its emissions reductions. While
significant progress has been made in the Washington region to reduce emissions of criteria
pollutants and GHG emissions, addressing sources of low-level NOx, including from on-road
vehicles, is critical to continuing to deliver cleaner air for the residents of the region. The role of
the federal government's leadership in delivering effective regulatory limits on emissions from
motor vehicles is a critical component of our ability to meet our adopted and mandated
environmental objectives. As such, MWAQC, TPB, and CEEPC believe the continued updates to
emission standards to reduce pollutants are appropriate and necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-0996-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum
While significant reductions in NOx from industrial and electric generation sources have been
achieved—helping to maintain ozone attainment in the Kansas City region—ongoing federal
leadership is needed to achieve more significant emissions reductions from on-road sources. The
importance of the role of the federal government in delivering effective regulatory limits on
emissions from motor vehicles cannot be understated. These limits challenge manufacturers to
integrate tried and tested control technology for curtailing emissions into their projects which
would otherwise be adopted at a slower pace. It is a critical component to maintaining the current
and future attainment for ozone and meeting GHG targets in the transportation sector in the
Kansas City region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
MOG is pleased to see EPA undertake this initiative under Section 202(a)(1) of the Act. While
states also have an obligation to address emissions from mobile sources as part of their
nonattainment SIP planning, EPA has additional authority that is critical to the objectives of the
Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.2]
It is essential that EPA's mobile source regulatory program that will impact state implementation
plan development be balanced for upwind and downwind states. MOG cautions EPA to ensure
the implementation of this proposed rule regulating emissions from heavy duty trucks will
include direction to states relative to implementation that will target alignment encouraging all
states to manage mobile emissions from heavy duty trucks in a collaborative manner. The Clean
Air Act provides for the authority to regulate mobile sources within the state implementation
plan strategies supporting the NAAQS as specifically noted by EPA in its proposed FIP for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.3 The Wisconsin v. EPA D.C. Circuit opinion concluded that EPA
exceeded its statutory authority under the Good Neighbor Provision 'by issuing a Rule that does
not call for upwind States to eliminate their substantial contributions to downwind nonattainment
in concert with the attainment deadlines.' 938F.3d303, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Wisconsin
remand directed EPA to address the downwind state 'deadline' in such a manner as to
'harmonize' the deadlines of upwind and downwind states and to apply 'parallel timeframes.' Id.
at 312, 314. The D.C. Circuit repeatedly has explained the CAA directive to 'harmonize' and
70
-------
manage the relationship described as parallel between the Good Neighbor obligations for upwind
states and statutory attainment deadlines for downwind areas. That relationship is one of 'par,'
using the Court's term, meaning to be judged on a common level with the other.4 With this
proposed rule is opportunity to implement mobile source emissions reductions that will impact
ambient air quality for upwind and downwind states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, pp.2-
3]
3 87 Fed. Reg. 2077, ftn. 142. 'The EPA recognizes that mechanisms exist under title I of
the CAA that allow for the regulation of the use and operation of mobile sources to
reduce ozone-precursor emissions.'
4 Definition of Par, MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www.meriam-
webster.com/dictionary/par (last visited Mar. 24, 2022).
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Often, freight operations are located in communities that have poor air quality and fail to achieve
federal clean air standards. As many as 40 percent of U.S. ports and many other freight facilities
are in areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and PM,
and freight operations have been identified as major contributors to nonattainment
issues.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 9]
24. Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. "Ports Initiative Workgroup Report:
Recommendations for the U.S. EPA." US EPA, September 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
09/documents/ports_workgroup_report_for_epa_9_l 516.pdf; see, e.g., South
Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Proposed Rule 2304 Indirect Source Rule for
Commercial Marine Ports Working Group Meeting #1, Powerpoint (Feb. 25,
2022), at p. 2, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/planning/fbmsm-docs/pr-2304-wgm-no-l_2022-02-25.pdf?sfvrsn=8
(describing the ports of LA and Long Beach as the "single largest fixed source of
air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin").
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
There is a looming crisis facing many state and local clean air agencies. Currently, more than
one-third of the U.S. population lives in an area that does not meet the health- and welfare-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter (PM) or both.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 2.]
While state and local air agencies have made great strides in reducing emissions from stationary
sources, for the most part they lack the authority to regulate mobile sources and never do they
have the authority to regulate mobile sources upwind of or across their borders. The regulation of
mobile sources is an authority that lies almost entirely within the purview of the federal
government. Unfortunately, emission standards for this heavy-duty "federal source" have not
kept pace with standards for the light-duty motor vehicle sector or stationary sources, and fall far
71
-------
short of what is needed to meet clean air and public health protection goals. As large swaths of
the country slip deeper into nonattainment, or teeter on the cusp of it, many state and local air
agencies are left with few avenues to achieve the emission reductions they sorely need. Areas
that miss their attainment deadlines face the threat of "bump-up" to a more demanding
classification of nonattainment - if they are not already classified as Extreme - and statutorily
required economic sanctions if they fail to meet their attainment deadlines. On April 13, 2022,
EPA proposed to bump up 30 areas in nonattainment of the 20082 and 20153 ozone NAAQS,
meaning the citizens of these areas continue to suffer the detrimental impacts of unhealthful
air. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 2]
2. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-13/pdf/2022-07509.pdf
3. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-13/pdf/2022-07513.pdf
Further, EPA is now in the process of reconsidering the existing PM and ozone NAAQS,
adopted in 2012 and 2015, respectively, and reaffirmed in December 2020. With respect to PM,
the agency's science advisors on the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) are
recommending that EPA revise the standards to make them more protective of public health. In a
letter transmitted to Administrator Michael S. Regan on March 18, 2022,4 responding to the
EPA staff Draft Policy Assessment (PA) for PM, the science advisors wrote that "all CAS AC
members agree that the current level of the annual [PM2.5] standard [of 12 micrograms per cubic
meter (jag/c3)] is not sufficiently protective of public health and should be lowered" and that a
majority of CAS AC members finds "that the available evidence calls into question the adequacy
of the current 24-hour standard [of 35 [j,g/m3]" and "conditional on retaining the current form,
the majority of CAS AC members favor lowering the 24-hour standard." NACAA also notes that
in the Draft PA EPA staff report that the risk assessment for PM2.5 revealed that Black
populations experience significantly higher mortality risk when compared to other racial groups,
even at the recommended lower standard.5 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 2 - 3.]
4. https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/PM-NAAQS-CASAC-
Responses-to-EPA-PM-Draft-PA-031822.pdf (see pp. 2-3)
5. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/draft-policy-assessment-
for-the-reconsideration-of-the-pm-naaqs_october-2021_ed3.pdf (see pp. 3-149 -
3-150)
On April 28, 2022,6 EPA staff released for review and comment the Draft PA for ozone, in
which the staff put forth their conclusion that the current evidence and information do not call
into question the adequacy of the protection provided by the current standard and, instead,
continue to provide support for the current standard and consideration of retaining that standard
without revision. CASAC members, who have not yet weighed in, were to meet in June to
conduct their peer review of the Draft PA. However, on May 13, 2022, CASAC Chair Dr.
Lianne Sheppard issued a memorandum7 in which she announced that she had paused review of
the Draft PA so the Committee can 1) discuss EPA's charge question about the CASAC Ozone
Panel's views on "EPA's evaluation of newer studies and its conclusion that they do not
materially change the findings of the 2020 ISA [Integrated Science Assessment] or warrant
72
-------
reopening of the air quality criteria," 2) consider several Panel members' concerns regarding
some of the causal determinations made in the 2020 ISA and 3) decide if the Panel would like to
have further discussion of the science prior to reviewing the draft PA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1232-A1, p. 3]
6. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-
04/o3_reconsideration_draft_pa-v_final-compressedfinal.pdf
7. https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/CASAC-Ozone-Panel-Chair-
Memo-05-13-22.pdf
Regardless of whether either or both standards are strengthened, the fact is that many areas
across the country are in need of NOx reductions just to meet the current standards and provide
clean air to their citizens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 3]
Our nation is in need of a strong, sustainable transportation strategy with top priority placed on
new federal programs to continue to reduce emissions from the mobile source sector. As this
strategy is developed, the need for meaningful reductions in criteria pollutant emissions,
especially NOx and PM, cannot be overlooked. Regarding attainment and maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS, most areas of the country are "NOx-limited," meaning that reducing NOx
emissions is the key to success. In addition, research shows that in some areas of the country,
such as much of the East Coast, NOx reductions are now "supercharged," meaning that one-
pound of reduction in NOx emissions equals more than one pound of ozone reduction. Failure to
adequately address transportation-related NOx sources will have a direct and consequential
impact on state and local air agencies' abilities to fulfill their statutory obligations to attain and
maintain federal air quality standards by mandated deadlines and achieve their environmental
justice goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 3]
Now is the time for decisive federal action that will result in deep NOx reductions from HD
trucks. Cleaning up this sector is imperative to putting our nation on a path to attaining and
maintaining the health-based NAAQS and protecting our nation's most vulnerable communities.
EPA must take full advantage of this opportunity to adopt a maximally stringent, technology-
forcing federal rule that will take effect beginning with MY 2027 and achieve the full measure of
potential emission reductions. Through a variety of actions, states are demonstrating strong
leadership with respect to addressing HD truck NOx emissions, including by exercising their
authority under section 177 of the CAA and through non-regulatory efforts such as collaborative
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). It is incumbent upon EPA to do its part. If EPA does not
incorporate NACAA's recommendations into the final rule and does not finalize the rule this
year, in time for it to take effect with MY 2027, many areas will be forced to adopt severe limits
on stationary sources, for which they have authority to control, at ever-increasing costs, if
reductions from such sources are even available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 3 -
4]
Americans in every part of the country urgently need improvements in NOx emissions from
onroad HD vehicles; the following examples are just a few indications of this nationwide
need. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p 4]
73
-------
In Wisconsin, EPA action to significantly reduce NOx emissions from highway heavy-duty
vehicles is critical for the state to meet its Clean Air Act (CAA) attainment obligations relative to
ozone. Wisconsin's Lake Michigan shoreline experiences complex, persistent ozone issues due
to a combination of emissions, meteorology and geography, as well as from transported ozone
precursors originating from out of state. As a result, Wisconsin has multiple areas that remain in
nonattainment of the 2015 ozone standard. Reductions in regional NOx emissions are necessary
to resolve these nonattainment areas. The onroad mobile sector is the largest contributor of NOx
emissions in Wisconsin. According to the 2017 National Emissions Inventory, the onroad mobile
sector accounts for 38 percent of the NOx inventory in Wisconsin, with nearly half of those
emissions coming from heavy-duty vehicles. Recent ozone modeling done by the Lake Michigan
Air Directors Consortium indicates onroad diesel vehicles, the vast majority of which are heavy-
duty vehicles, contribute up to 8 parts per billion (ppb) or 11 percent of ozone at Wisconsin's
lakeshore nonattainment monitors. A comprehensive federal rule to address nationwide NOx
emissions from this sector cannot be delayed any further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1,
p. 4]
New Jersey and its multi-state nonattainment areas need NOx reductions from HD trucks for
attainment and/or maintenance reasons associated with both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Although the state is currently in attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, the NOx reductions would
help the state attain any future revised PM2.5 NAAQS by reducing levels of PM2.5 precursors.
In addition, New Jersey needs NOx reductions to meet its regional haze goals; given the timing
of this rule - to be finalized this year - the related NOx reductions will contribute toward
achievement of those goals. New Jersey is also home to several ports that are surrounded by
environmental justice communities impacted by the emissions from heavy truck traffic. Mobile
sources (onroad and nonroad) make up greater than 75 percent of New Jersey's annual and
summer day inventory for NOx. Due to state preemption, New Jersey is limited in its capacity to
address the largest sources of ozone-producing pollutants and relies on federal measures like the
HD truck rule to attain. In New Jersey, electric generating units (EGU) are less than 5 percent of
the inventory and non-EGU stationary sources are 14 percent. The cost per ton associated with
further reductions from these source sectors would be high. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-
Al, p. 4]
Over the years, Oregon has had difficulty reducing emissions from the medium- and heavy-duty
mobile source sectors because of limited tools at the state level. Oregon relies on California and
its federal counterparts at EPA to develop and maintain the most advanced new vehicle emission
standards possible to complement bold action at the state level. In 2019, Oregon adopted the
second strongest diesel regulations in the nation and will begin phasing out older model medium-
and heavy-duty diesel-powered trucks in the Portland Metro Region next year. But state action
alone will not be enough. The decades-long downward trend in ambient ozone concentrations
has leveled off. Despite Oregon's status as a "section 177 state" and its adoption of several
California rules, it remains likely that the state will see increases in ozone concentrations due to
ongoing climate warming and increased interstate transportation. Further, if the ozone NAAQS is
revised downward, Oregon will be at greater risk of losing its attainment status in several
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
74
-------
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) in Seattle, WA seeks a technology-forcing
standard to reduce NOx emission from HD trucks due to several ozone-related concerns.
Reducing NOx would help reduce exposure in the near-road communities, which are
disproportionately affected by air pollution, and also assist in addressing ozone-impacted areas.
Finally, the PSCAA's former PM2.5 nonattainment area includes one of the largest container
ports on the West Coast and strong growth in both population and goods movement are
anticipated along the West Coast's main north-south interstate and the in the region served by
PSCAA. Reducing PM and NOx from heavy-duty vehicles through controls that do not lose their
effectiveness over time or during some duty cycles will be vital to the health of near-roadway
and near-port communities and to maintaining the area's attainment status. For all these reasons,
technology-forcing regulations and substantial warranties to ensure that compliant emission rates
are sustained over more of the useful life of the truck and over the full set of duty cycles will
provide significant benefit to the Seattle area. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 5]
Historically, the Louisville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has been challenged with
meeting the ozone NAAQS.8 The area was designated as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015
ozone NAAQS and has recently been proposed by EPA to be bumped up to Moderate
nonattainment since the area failed to meet the standard by the Marginal nonattainment deadline
of August 2021. In the meantime, the MSA currently meets the standard (with a 2021 design
value of 69 ppb) and a Request for Redesignation is being prepared for submittal to EPA. Even
so, EPA's proposed rule provides an important opportunity to address HD truck emissions now
and protect public health by reducing emissions of ozone precursors, particulate matter and toxic
air pollutants. HD truck emissions are a significant contributor of ozone precursors, NOx and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). The impact of this vehicle sector was apparent recently with
respect to meeting transportation conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets; variations in HD
truck speeds were found to be critical in staying under the 2020 NOx budget (established in
2007). As with most medium- and large-size cities in the U.S., the HD trucks in the mobile
emissions category are a critical source over which the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District (APCD) has little control, so meaningful federal controls are very important to APCD's
attainment planning for ozone and subsequent maintenance of the standard. Onroad heavy-duty
diesel vehicles represent the third largest overall NOx emissions sector in the area (after EGUs
and onroad non-diesel light-duty vehicles).9 In addition, should EPA revise the PM NAAQS, as
EPA staff and CASAC have recommended to the Administrator, reductions in NOx emissions
from HD trucks will be equally important for Louisville's attainment planning for that standard.
Although APCD has instituted a voluntary cooperative program, the Air Quality Action Partners
Program, 10 for businesses to reduce emissions, including mobile source emissions, HD trucks
continue to be an ongoing concern, especially from an environmental justice standpoint. Further,
a stringent HD truck rule will further reduce risk from emissions of toxic air pollutants not
addressed by APCD's Strategic Toxic Air Reduction (STAR) Program. This is especially
important since HD truck traffic travels through many fenceline communities and adds to the
cumulative exposures of those who live nearby. The strictest version of this rule will benefit
Louisville in many ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 5-6]
8. https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Lville-Ozone-History.jpg
9. https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Lville-HD-Diesel.jpg
75
-------
10. https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/air-quality-
action-partners-program
Although Maryland has made significant progress over the past 30 years in improving air quality
for its citizens, there is still much work needed to reduce NOx emissions and meet air quality and
public health goals. Maryland has implemented aggressive NOx reduction measures such as
adopting the California light-duty vehicle emission program and pursuing strong reduction
measures on stationary sources via the state's Healthy Air Act. Despite these efforts, the majority
of Maryland's population resides in areas designated nonattainment for the 70-ppb 2015 ozone
NAAQS, and on April 13, 2022, significant portions of Maryland were proposed to be bumped
up in nonattainment status. In Maryland, and the Northeast region, medium- and heavy-duty
trucks are the second leading contributor of NOx emissions. To attain the federal ozone
standards, emission reductions from HD trucks are needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-
Al, p. 6]
The Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency was designated as nonattainment for PM10 and is now
in its second 10-year maintenance plan. The area is now in jeopardy of becoming nonattainment
for PM2.5. If EPA revises the PM2.5 NAAQS to 30 or 32 micrograms per cubic meter (|i/m3)
the area will most likely be designated as nonattainment. Hence, Yakima needs reductions in
NOx - a PM2.5 precursor - from HD trucks along area highway corridors to reduce its PM
levels. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 6]
The Denver Metro/North Front Range needs reductions in emissions from heavy-duty truck
traffic to aid in attainment and address environmental justice concerns. Recent source
apportionment modeling for 2023 demonstrates that NOx emissions are driving ozone formation
at monitors throughout the regionl 1 and that medium- and heavy-duty truck traffic is a
significant contributor to ozone formation.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 6]
11. https://raqc.egnyte.com/dl/mQUvLxQUWs/Dashboard_mda8_v_2021.03.05_(
l).xlsx
12. https://raqc.egnyte.com/dl/VHRCCkBuru/Dashboard_LocalAPCA_mda8_v20
21.03.17_(l).xlsx
Reductions in HD truck NOx emission would be a proactive measure for the Kansas City
metropolitan area. While the county and Greater Kansas City metro area would obviously benefit
from cleaner heavy-duty trucks, Johnson County, KS does not have data that indicate the need
for NOx reductions specifically from HD trucks. That being said, the last photochemical
modelling, a fairly dated data set, showed the Johnson County metro area to be a mix of VOC-
and NOx-limited areas. The Kansas City metro area is in the early stages of developing a local-
scale neighborhood monitoring effort, perhaps a network, that may reveal need for these
reductions at a neighborhood scale. It is anticipated this monitoring will aid in confirming those
suspected EJ communities in the greater metro area and within Johnson County that the regional
scale monitoring does not capture. The recent trends in increased industrial warehousing across
the Kansas City metro area is anticipated to increase truck traffic and bring it closer to residential
neighborhoods, including environmental justice communities. Unfortunately, the area does not
76
-------
have targeted data to show the potential impact of this clearly beneficial program for cleaner
heavy-duty trucks. However, the anticipated reductions from the proposed HD truck rule would
be preventative and help keep the Kansas City metro area from needing to explore future NOx
reduction strategies. Although the situation is not as dire as in other parts of the country, cleaner
heavy-duty trucks would certainly help in improving and maintaining our air quality to be more
protective of our residents' health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 6-7]
The District of Columbia continues to have annual ozone fourth highest values above the 70-ppb
2015 ozone NAAQS, except in 2020 when vehicle congestion in the Washington, DC, area was
significantly reduced due to the COVID-19 health emergency. NOx emissions from highway
trucks are major contributors to unhealthy levels of ground-level ozone and fine PM. In fact,
modeling conducted by the Ozone Transport Commissionl3 found that onroad diesel vehicles
are the second largest contributor to ozone in the District, behind only onroad gasoline vehicles.
Onroad diesels were modeled to contribute 16 percent of anthropogenic ozone on exceedance
days and throughout the ozone season in the District, which is a higher percentage than all of the
District contributes to itself (12 percent on average and 10 percent on exceedance days). NOx
reductions from diesel vehicles are necessary in order for residents of the District to breathe
healthy air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 7]
13. https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Reports/OTC%20MANE-
VU%202011%20Based%20Modeling%20Platform%20Support%20Document%2
00ctober%202018%20-%20Final .pdf
Many key environmental justice communities in Washington are located near high-traffic
roadways well used by heavy-duty trucks. One such community is Seattle's Chinatown-
International District, which sits next to the interchange of two major interstates (1-5 and 1-90).
This community is home to Seattle's near-road NOx monitoring site, which records the highest
NOx concentrations in the region. Monitoring results demonstrate that ambient concentrations of
NO and N02 are highly correlated with peak traffic patterns on these interstates. As a key
precursor to ozone formation, NOx also impacts air quality in communities with elevated ozone
concentrations such as Washington's Tri-Cities. Previous research indicates that onroad vehicles
are the dominant source of NOx in this community, which experiences some of Washington's
highest ozone concentrations in the summer months. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 7]
For almost 50 years, Connecticut's citizens have suffered the public health and economic
impacts of ozone nonattainment. This past year, Connecticut experienced 21 days with unhealthy
ozone levels, and on April 13, 2022, EPA proposed to reclassify Fairfield, New Haven and
Middlesex Counties as Severe nonattainment with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
importance of reducing NOx emissions to address ozone nonattainment is critical for
Connecticut. A recent national report, Asthma Capitals 2021,14 ranked New Haven (#5) and
Hartford (#17) among the 100 largest U.S. cities where it is most challenging to live with
asthma. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection recently issued an
assessment of onroad medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions, 15 which included the finding
that in 2020 onroad HD vehicles accounted for 36 percent of total onroad NOx emissions but are
projected to increase to 57 percent of total onroad NOx emissions by 2045 without the adoption
77
-------
of new emission standards. Connecticut urgently needs stringent, technology-forcing federal
emission standards for HD trucks now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 7]
14. https://www.aafa.org/media/3040/aafa-2021-asthma-capitals-report.pdf
15. https://portal.ct.gov/-
/media/DEEP/air/mobile/MHD/MHD_Whitepaper_030822.pdf
California's population closely overlaps its air quality challenges driven in large part by
transportation emissions that often differentially affect the state's most vulnerable communities.
Redoubled efforts to address the air quality needs of every California resident have seen focused
Community Air Protection programs targeting the stationary and mobile sources impacting these
communities. The communities adjacent to railyards, ports, warehouses and freight corridors
experience heavy truck traffic characterized by idling, driving slowly and frequent stops -
conditions under which today's HD trucks do not control NOx emissions effectively. California
has spent $8 billion to date on technology advancement and early market development of cleaner
and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). New vehicles sold in California are being brought under
stringent near-term tailpipe and zero emission requirements while fleet rules like the Truck and
Bus regulation are driving accelerated turnover of the oldest remaining trucks by the end of this
year. Despite these aggressive and sustained efforts to achieve emission reductions, a similar
amount of heavy-duty truck emissions in California comes from trucks initially sold under
federal jurisdiction. The necessity of dealing with "both halves" of heavy-duty truck emissions
(under California's jurisdiction and under federal jurisdiction) is paramount as outlined in
California's EPA-approved State Implementation Plans and underlying the state Mobile Source
Strategy and local Air Quality Management Plans. It is crucial that EPA's federal HD truck
standards drastically cut truck emissions, including during low load conditions, to reduce adverse
health impacts and improve air quality throughout the state, especially in those areas that are
already disproportionately impacted by truck emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p.
8]
In 2016, state and local air agencies from around the country joined together to petition EPA to
adopt "ultra-low NOx" emission standards for highway heavy-duty trucks and engines.
Petitioners, who based their case on their need for the related NOx reductions, included the
South Coast (CA) Air Quality Management District; Pima County (AZ) Department of
Environmental Quality; Bay Area (CA) Air Quality Management District; Connecticut
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Air Quality; Washoe County (NV) Health
District, Air Quality Management; New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; New
York City (NY) Department of Environmental Protection; Akron (OH) Regional Air Quality
Management District; Washington State Department of Ecology; Puget Sound (WA) Clean Air
Agency; Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management; Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection; Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation; New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation; and Sacramento (CA) Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 8]
78
-------
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
In 2020, approximately 97 million people nationwide lived in counties with pollution levels
above the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1290-A1, p. 5]
17. U.S. EPA, Air Quality - National Summary, https://www.epa.gov/air-
trends/air-quality-nationalsummary (last updated May 26, 2021).
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
Heavy-duty vehicles are a key contributor to ozone and PM National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment in air basins across the country. This is of particular concern
in states like California, where NOx pollution from HD vehicles is an outsized source of ozone
and PM2.5 in regions such as the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basins. When it
comes to meeting the CAA's NAAQS, The San Joaquin Valley is now in extreme nonattainment
with the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone standards, serious nonattainment with the 1997 annual and
24-hour and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and moderate nonattainment with the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standard. The San Joaquin Valley is also home to the environmental justice communities
of Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield, which are ranked by American Lung Association (ALA) as
being three of the most polluted cities in the country for ozone, annual PM2.5, and short-term
PM2.5 pollution.26 In terms of the economic impact, one study found that '[i]n the San Joaquin
Valley overall, the cost of air pollution is more than $1,600 per person per year, which translates
into a total of nearly $6 billion in savings if federal ozone and PM2.5 standards were
met.'27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.4-5]
26 ALA, 2019 State of the Air Report: Most Polluted Cities. Available at,
https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-
cities.html.
27 Jane V. Hall, et. al., The Benefits of Meeting Federal Clean Air Standards in
the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins 2008), at 5. Available at
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/AsthmaCoalition/docs/BenefitsofMeetingCl
eanAirStandardsl l_06_08.pdf.
When viewed alongside other heavily impacted areas, like West Oakland or communities in the
South Coast Air Basin, the total impact to vulnerable populations in the state is enormous, both
from an economic and public health standpoint. Attaining statewide standards for PM and ozone
just in California would annually prevent 9,000 premature deaths—more than the total number of
deaths from second-hand smoke and motor vehicle crashes combined—and avoid the annual
$2.3 billion price tag in the State's economy associated with hospitalizations and treatment
related to air pollution.28 The uneven distribution of health, social, and livelihood costs of the
freight sector is one of California's deepest forms of environmental injustice, where freight hubs
and corridors disproportionately poison the State's low-income communities and communities of
color.29 In West Oakland, where CARB attributes 71% air pollution risk to truck traffic,30
residents have life expectancies as much as 24 years shorter than their neighbors in the Oakland
79
-------
Hills.31 This story will sound familiar to communities in Wilmington, Roseville, Shafter,
Fresno, Commerce, North Richmond, rural Riverside, and many other predominantly low-
income communities and communities of color that live near freight hubs and truck
corridors.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.5]
28 CARB, Quantification of the Health Impacts and Economic Valuation of Air
Pollution from Ports and Goods Movement in California, (Mar. 21, 2006)
https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/plan/appendix_a.pdf
29 See, e.g. Pacific Institute, Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight
Transport in California, (Nov. 2006). Available at https://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/paying-wi th-our-health-full-report.pdf.
30 CARB, Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for the West
Oakland Community, (Dec. 2008) at 3. Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/communities/ra/westoakland/documents/westoaklandr
eport.pdf.
31 Virgina Commonwealth University, Neighborhood-Level Determinants of Life
Expectancy in Oakland, CA, (Sept. 2012) at 20. Available at
https://societyhealth.vcu.edu/media/society-health/pdf/PMReport_Alameda.pdf.
32 Pacific Institute, Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transport
in California, (Nov. 2006). https://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/paying-wi th-our-health-full-report.pdf.
EPA must quickly move forward with this rule and strengthen it to ensure California can fulfill
its various NAAQS commitments already included in various state ozone and PM2.5 SIPs.
For instance, California has approved a combined San Joaquin Valley SIP for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 standards that relies on an expected 7 tons per day (tpd) of NOx reductions
through a California specific low-NOx engine standard and 8 tpd of NOx reductions through a
federal low-NOx engine standard.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.5]
33 CARB, San Joaquin Valley Supplement to the Revised 2016 State Strategy for
the State Implementation Plan. See table 3, at 7. (plan awaiting EPA approval).
Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sjvpm25/2018plan/20180828_sjv_supplemen
t_sip_strategy.pdf.
Similarly, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) SIP for attainment
with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 2006 24-hr PM2.5 standard, and the 2012 annual PM2.5
standard ( approved by EPA last year), lays out an expected 5 tpd of NOx reductions through a
California low-NOx engine standard and an expected 7 tpd through a federal low-NOx engine
standard.34 Because heavy-duty NOx makes up such a large amount of the expected tpd
emission reductions seen in state plans like these, it's clear that EPA cannot afford to waiver on
80
-------
moving forward with strong standards without also jeopardizing future clean air goals for
millions of California's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.6]
34 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan. See table 4.5, at 4-35. Available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf.
Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Several counties within the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Planning Area are currently in
nonattainment for the pollutant ozone under both the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone standards.
NCTCOG supports efforts for clean air that will develop an aggressive program which takes into
consideration the capabilities of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) while at the same
time not disrupting commerce given the current state and future uncertainty of the economy.
NCTCOG is currently implementing several programs to reduce emissions in North Texas, and
these comments are informed by this experience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.l]
Transportation Conformity is a planning requirement carried out by a regional Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) to ensure long-range transportation plans are consistent with air
quality goals established to bring a region into compliance with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Due to increases in truck population and urban congestion, emission
inventories are beginning to show increases over time. Addressing engine standards now can aid
in maintaining the reduction trend of future year emission inventories which will allow for
successful USDOT conformity determinations. The chart below shows this emerging future year
situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.4]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
NESCAUM strongly supports EPA's development of new engine and vehicle emission standards
and test procedures that will reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from heavy-duty
vehicles. NOx emissions are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and
secondary fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and contribute to acid deposition, eutrophication, and
visibility impairment in the NESCAUM region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 1]
In 2016, many of the NESCAUM member state agencies and the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection joined with the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) and other agencies in petitioning EPA to undertake a rulemaking to revise the on-
road heavy-duty engine exhaust emission standards for NOx from 0.2 g/bhp-hr to 0.02 g/bhp-
hr.l Also in 2016, NESCAUM requested that the Secretary of Energy incorporate research
into advanced NOx reduction technologies in the Department of Energy (DOE) SuperTruck
Program, given the substantial contribution heavy-duty trucks make to NOx pollution in the
region.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 1-2]
81
-------
1. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. "Petition to EPA for
Rulemaking to Adopt Ultra-Low NOx Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Road
Heavy-Duty Trucks and Engines," June 3, 2016. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
09/documents/peti tion_to_epa_ultra_low_nox_hd_trucks_and_engines.pdf.
(accessed May, 12, 2022).
2. NESCAUM letter to Dr. E. Moniz, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, re:
SuperTruck II Initiative, May 18, 2016. Available at
http://www.nescaum.org/documents/nescaum-doe-supertruckii-nox-tech-lttr-
20160518.pdf/.
EPA's response to the 2016 petition clearly acknowledges the importance of NOx reductions to
the Northeast and other states.3 In addition, EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 final
regulation also detailed the importance of NOx reductions to the Northeast, stating that: EPA
received compelling letters and comments from [NACAA, NESCAUM, OTC, and SCAQMD],
explaining the critical and urgent need to reduce NOx emissions that significantly contribute to
ozone and fine particulate air quality problems in their represented areas. The comments describe
the challenges many areas face in meeting both the 2008 and recently strengthened 2015 ozone
NAAQS. These organizations point to the significant contribution of heavy-duty vehicles to NOx
emissions in their areas.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 2]
3. U.S. EPA, "Memorandum in Response to Petition for Rulemaking to Adopt
Ultra-Low NOx Standards for On-Highway Heavy-Duty Trucks and Engines,"
December 20, 2016. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nox-
memorandum-nox-petition-response-2016-12-20.pdf (accessed April 25, 2022).
4. 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (October 25, 2016), at 73523.
While it is now six years since EPA received the petition, NESCAUM welcomes this proposal to
improve the emissions performance of on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles. Below we
describe the Northeast's need for EPA to promulgate a final rule that maximizes the pollution
reductions achievable from these pollution sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 2]
The NESCAUM region includes the New York City (NYC) Combined Statistical Area (CSA)
with over 20 million people living across portions of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and
Pennsylvania. It is the largest CSA by population in the United States. While air pollution levels
have dropped over the years across much of the United States, the NYC metropolitan area and
surrounding regions continue to persistently exceed federal health-based air quality standards for
ground-level ozone.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-Al, p. 2.]
For several decades, ozone concentrations in the Northeast trended downward due to the
adoption of measures that reduce emissions of ozone precursors. In recent years, however,
air quality monitoring data have shown a flattening trend. Figure 1 plots the number of days in
82
-------
Connecticut where maximum 8-hour ozone was measured above the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS for each year from 1976 to 2021. After significant improvements in the earlier years,
the number of ozone exceedance days in Connecticut have remained level or have slightly
increased since 2011. Similar patterns have been recorded in other parts of the Northeast
Corridor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
In addition to the stalling trend in ozone improvements, the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island ozone nonattainment area saw an unusually high peak 1-hour ozone average of 143
ppb in July 2018, a level not seen in the NYC region in more than 10 years. This ozone
nonattainment area was classified as a serious nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
but failed to meet its attainment deadline of July 20, 2021. As a result, on April 13, 2022, EPA
proposed reclassifying it from serious to severe nonattainment status. The NYC metro area will
need additional pollution reductions to meet the 2015 NAAQS.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1249-A1, p. 4]
10. 87 Fed. Reg. 21825 (April 13, 2022).
Also on April 13, 2022, EPA proposed reclassifying the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area
from marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS to moderate. EPA also proposed to
reclassify a number of other areas in the Northeast Corridor from marginal to moderate
nonattainment status for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including the nonattainment areas of
Baltimore, MD; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE; and Washington, DC-
MD-VA. 11 These areas failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by August 3, 2021, as required
for marginal classifications, and similarly to the NYC reclassification for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, these areas will need additional pollution reductions, particularly from NOx emission
sources, in order to meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 4 -
5.]
11. 87 Fed. Reg. 21842 (April 13, 2022).
Figure 1 also includes an extensive list of requirements that have been adopted by Connecticut
and other states in the NESCAUM region to reduce emissions of ozone precursors from
stationary sources, area sources, fuels, mobile sources, and consumer products. Imposing further
control requirements on many of these source categories can be more costly than controlling
heavy-duty engine emissions and create disproportionate economic burdens for those sources.
For example, estimates of the costs for additional NOx controls on industrial, commercial, and
institutional boilers that are 100 million British Thermal Units per hour in size range from $2,700
to $21,000 per ton of NOx reduced as compared to a cost range of $1,000 to $5,000 per ton of
NOx reduced from heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs).12,13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p.
5]
12. OTC/Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), "Evaluation of
Control Options for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Boilers," May
2010.
83
-------
13. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, "Technology Feasibility for
Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027,"
February, 2020. Available at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf
(accessed May 12, 2022).
In 2018, NESCAUM launched the Long Island Sound Tropospheric Ozone Study (LISTOS) to
investigate the evolving nature of ozone formation and transport in the NYC region and
downwind. LISTOS involves a large group of researchers from state and federal agencies and
academia that bring a diverse set of resources, expertise, and instrumentation skills. LISTOS has
provided detailed imagery and data on ozone and its precursors in the Northeast. To illustrate the
relative scale of NOx emissions during the LISTOS effort, Figure 2 readily shows enhanced
nitrogen dioxide (N02) concentrations (N02 is a major component of NOx) observed by
satellite along the Northeast Corridor during the 2018 ozone season, with the highest weekday
(Mon-Fri) N02 concentrations in the New York City area. Much of this N02 is associated with
transportation sources, and these mobile source sectors are projected to continue to be significant
contributors to ozone in future years. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 5]
14. Zawacki, M., et al., "Mobile source contributions to ambient ozone and
particulate matter in 2025." Atmos. Envt. 188: 129-141 (2018).
Figure 3 shows satellite imagery of N02 emissions in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic on a single
day in February during the 2019 winter. In addition to region-wide stagnation on this particular
day, the strength of the N02 signal also reflects the longer N02 lifetime in winter. N02 levels
are abundant and dominant along transportation corridors and in large cities across the region,
again indicating a strong mobile source NOx contribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1,
p. 5]
The N02 levels shown in Figure 3 align with the road major arteries where goods are being
transported by truck from the ports of New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. Note also how
clearly defined the area of red is along Interstate 91 in central Connecticut and
Massachusetts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 7]
To address the region's persistent air quality problems, reducing NOx emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles is of the utmost importance due to its role in local and regional ground-level ozone
formation, as well as its contributions to PM2.5 (especially in the winter). As shown in Figure 4,
on-road diesel vehicles, including HDVs, are the third largest NOx emissions source in the
Northeast. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 7]
15. National Emissions Inventory Collaborative, "2016vl Emissions Modeling
Platform," 2019. Retrieved from http://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10202.
Absent adoption of stringent new engine NOx standards, emissions from HDVs will increase in
the future as truck ton miles travelled is projected to increase by approximately 30 percent over
the next 25 years (Figure 5). This growth in activity, if not counteracted by increased stringency
of new engine and vehicle emissions standards, will result in significantly increased HDV
84
-------
emissions. We also note that highway trucks often travel long distances and can be registered
in states far from where they operate. Therefore, a strong national program is needed to reduce
highway truck emissions and maximize public health benefits in the Northeast and
nationally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
Due to the importance of heavy-duty vehicles to the overall NOx inventory, states in the
Northeast have for decades measured, quantified, modeled, and published information on heavy-
duty vehicle emissions in the region and articulated the need for further heavy-truck NOx
reductions. Independently, and collaboratively with EPA and industry, states have conducted in-
use emissions testing and data logging, implemented early heavy-truck periodic and roadside
inspection and maintenance programs, and piloted technologies to reduce emissions from HDVs.
In 2020, NESCAUM coordinated the signing of the Multi-state Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero
Emission Vehicle (MHD ZEV) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) through the Multi-state
ZEV Task Force. 18 Pursuant to the MHD ZEV MOU, 17 states, the District of Columbia, and
the Canadian province of Quebec are working collaboratively to accelerate electrification of
MHD trucks and buses to eliminate harmful emissions from these vehicles. Their collective goal
is to ensure that 100 percent of all new truck and bus sales are ZEVs by no later than 2050, with
an interim target of at least 30 percent by 2030. To provide a framework for meeting these goals,
the participating jurisdictions, working through the Multi-State ZEV Task Force facilitated by
NESCAUM, have developed a draft MHD ZEV Action Plan. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-
Al, p. 8]
18. Multi-state Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum
of Understanding (announced July 14, 2020, most recent state signing on March
29, 2022). Available at https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-
20220329.pdf.
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Millions of OTR residents live in areas that violate the ozone NAAQS. Many areas of the OTR
are designated as in nonattainment with the 2015 8-hour average ozone NAAQS of 70 parts per
billion (ppb) (Figure 1). These nonattainment areas are struggling to achieve the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, and on April 13, 2022, EPA proposed reclassifying a number of them from 'marginal'
to 'moderate' nonattainment status for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including Baltimore, MD;
Greater Connecticut; Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE; and Washington,
DC-MD-VA.4 These areas failed to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by August 3, 2021, as
required for 'marginal' classifications, and will need additional pollution reductions, particularly
for NOx, in order to meet the 2015 ozone NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.2]
4 87 Fed. Reg. 21842 (April 13, 2022).
The OTR also includes the New York City (NYC) Combined Statistical Area (CSA). With over
20 million people, it is the largest CSA by population in the United States. It not only violates the
2015 ozone NAAQS, but also the less stringent 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. On April
13, 2022, EPA proposed to reclassify the New York City/Long Island-Northern New Jersey-
85
-------
Southwest Connecticut area from 'serious' to 'severe' nonattainment because it failed to meet its
'serious' attainment deadline of July 20, 2021.5 This large metropolitan area will need additional
pollution reductions to achieve both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1250-A1, p.2]
5 87 Fed. Reg. 21825 (April 13, 2022).
The Clean Air Act requires ozone NAAQS attainment as 'expeditiously as practicable,' and
EPA's proposed Options 1 and 2 do not meet this requirement. The introduction of effective and
available heavy-duty engine and vehicle pollution reduction technologies will assist jurisdictions
in the OTR in reaching attainment of the ozone standards. This is the most 'expeditiously as
practicable' path called for by the Clean Air Act and anything less than this will not be
acceptable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 13]
Parts of the OTR continue to experience persistently high ozone levels affecting tens of millions
of people. While air pollution levels have dropped over the years across much of the United
States, the portions of the OTR listed in Table 2 continue to persistently exceed both past and
recently revised federal health-based air quality standards for ground-level ozone. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.4]
Organization: Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry
The PA Chamber recognizes substantial NOx reductions may be achievable through cost-
effective controls on the heavy-duty mobile source sectors, which according to EPA data is
responsible for approximately 17% of nationwide NOx emissions. EPA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection have noted the significant reductions in both direct
emissions of NOx (an ozone precursor) and recorded ambient air quality readings of ozone
across the state that have occurred over the past two decades. This is the product of technological
innovation and efficiency measures being deployed by industry in conjunction with a predictable
regulatory environment from state and federal regulators. Despite this progress, as major point
sources of criteria emissions, Pennsylvania's industrial and manufacturing facilities remain under
substantial regulatory pressure. While almost the entirety of the state is in compliance with the
2015 ozone standard, a few counties remain in non-attainment. These counties are situated in
close proximity to major interstate corridors. Given that mobile sources are responsible for
approximately half of NOx emissions in Pennsylvania, according to EPA estimates, and that
EPA has not updated heavy truck NOx standards in nearly two decades, it is certainly timely to
move forward with a collaborative process to address achievable reductions. We believe a
workable, cost-effective heavy-trucking rule can facilitate attainment for the few regions of the
state that are above federal ozone NAAAQS goals. As a result, the operating environment for all
of Pennsylvania's industries can be improved, coinciding with an improvement in air
quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1319-A1, p.2]
Organization: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
Despite achieving significant emissions reductions through decades of implementing the most
stringent stationary and mobile regulatory control program in the nation, significant additional
86
-------
reductions in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are needed to attain the latest health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1291-A1, p.l]
NOx is the main precursor pollutant contributing to the formation of both ozone and secondary
PM2.5 in the Valley. The District has jurisdiction over stationary and area sources, which now
make up less than 15% of the total NOx emissions inventory. In contrast, over 85% of the
Valley's NOx emissions come from mobile sources under federal jurisdiction, with heavy-duty
trucks being the single largest NOx emissions source. While the District will continue to review
all existing stationary source categories and regulations for additional emission reduction
opportunities, attaining the federal standards is not possible without significant reductions in
emissions from mobile source categories. Failure to meet the federal Clean Air Act NAAQS
requirements would lead to devastating public health and economic consequences for the San
Joaquin Valley. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.2]
Federal action to reduce emissions is critical if we are to attain the NAAQS. It is clear that
without significant progress in reducing mobile source emissions, especially at the federal level,
it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet our air quality mandates. Absent strong
federal action, extreme nonattainment areas such as the San Joaquin Valley face Clean Air Act
penalties and sanctions due to mobile source emissions under federal jurisdiction. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.2]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast AQMD is the agency responsible for improving air quality in the South Coast
Air Basin (Basin), a region in Southern California with 17 million residents that EPA has
designated extreme nonattainment for ozone pollution. As a result of the Basin's historical and
ongoing air quality challenges, EPA rulemaking to secure further reductions of emissions from
heavy-duty truck engines is a matter of exceptional urgency for the District. In 2016, the District,
allied with multiple other local air quality planning agencies, petitioned EPA for rulemaking to
adopt ultra-low NOx standards for heavy-duty trucks and engines. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1201-A1, p.l]
1 South Coast AQMD, 2016 Petition for Rulemaking, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
09/documents/peti tion_to_epa_ultra_low_nox_hd_trucks_and_engines.pdf.
The South Coast Air AQMD is the regional agency responsible for control of air pollution from
non-vehicular sources in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin).4 Specifically, the South Coast
AQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the
Basin, and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air
Basin. The Basin, which encompasses all of Orange County in addition to the non-desert
portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, is home to over 17 million
people and approximately 11 million motor vehicles.5 The Basin has also experienced rapid
growth over the course of the past century. The population of the region is expected to see
continued growth through 2023 and beyond. 6 The meteorology, topography, and climate of the
87
-------
Southern California region combine to create a concentration of high air pollution potential in the
Basin. 7 Additionally, the four counties of the Basin comprise one of the largest and fastest-
growing local economies in the United States, with rapid growth in the shipping, trade, service,
and logistics sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.2]
4 See Cal. Health & Safety Code Sections 40410 & 40412.
5 South Coast AQMD, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V, Final Report
(August 2021), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/planning/mates-v/mates-v-final-report-9-24-21 .pdf?sfvrsn=6, pg. 1-2.
6 South Coast AQMD, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-
aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15, pg. 1-5, Figure 1-3.
7 See e.g. South Coast AQMD, Overview of 2022 Air Quality Management Plan
(2022 AQMP Overview) (March 4, 2022), available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2022/2022-
Mar4-020.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Slide 3 (Ozone Trends in the South Coast Air Basin).
The combined impact of air quality control programs at the local, state, and federal levels have
provided significant reductions in emissions of harmful pollutants over time. As a consequence
of regulations and efforts enacted to date, ozone planning inventory emissions are projected to be
379 tons per day (tpd) of VOC and 255 tpd of NOx by 2023.8 By 2031, emissions are projected
to be further reduced to approximately 362 tpd of VOC and 214 tpd of NOx.9 Total NOx
emissions in the Basin will have been reduced by nearly 51% between 2012 and 2023 due to
state and local efforts alone. However, reaching attainment in 2023 without corresponding
reductions from federal sources would require total elimination of nearly all AQMD and CARB
regulated sources. This is neither reasonable nor feasible. It is simply not possible for State and
local reductions to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone without
reductions from federal sources. The Basin is in extreme nonattainment for the 8-Hour Ozone
(2015) NAAQS.10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp. 4-5]
8 Id. at Slides 5-6 (Key Pollutants for Ozone Attainment & NOx Emissions and
Reduction Goals).
9 Id.
10 EPA, 8-Hour Ozone (2015) Nonattainment Areas, available at
https ://www3. epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/j nc.html.
For the 1997 ozone standard alone, the Basin needs a total of 67-69 tpd of NOx reductions from
federally-regulated sources by 2023 in order to meet its attainment goals on time. In fact, it is
projected that the Basin will need a 45% reduction in NOx emissions beyond existing regulations
by 2023, a 55% reduction by 2031. Emissions must be reduced to a carrying capacity of 141 tpd
88
-------
by 2023.11 As a result, the Basin must reduce expected 2023 emissions by 128 tpd. The region
also needs approximately 54 tpd of NOx reductions from federally-regulated sources by 2037 to
attain the 2015 standard. Overall, emissions must be reduced by 72% beyond the 220 tpd
baseline NOx emissions in 2037 to achieve the 62.8 tpd carrying capacity. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1201-A1, p.5]
11 South Coast AQMD, Final Contingency Measure Plan (2019), available at
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-
management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/1997-ozone-contingency-
measure-plan/1997-8-hour-ozone-draft-contingency-measure-plan—
100819.pdf?sfvrsn=10, pg 17.
12 2022 AQMP Overview at Slides 5 & 6 (Key Pollutants for Ozone Attainment
& NOx Emissions and Reduction Goals).
Per California's EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2021 emissions inventory model, nearly two
million heavy duty vehicles operate in California each year. These include long-haul trucks,
transit buses, and drayage trucks, which are a significant source of NOx emissions. In California
alone, these sources account for 31% of all statewide NOx emissions. 13 Existing mobile source
programs are expected to reduce NOx emissions by over 50% in the Basin by the 2031.14 Still,
on-road heavy-duty vehicles will remain one of the largest contributors to the state's NOx
emissions inventory as well as a sizeable portion of the Basin's emissions inventory. 15 As noted
in the EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), heavy-duty engines are expected to
represent 32% of mobile source NOx emissions in Calendar Year (CY) 2045 and 89% of the on-
road NOx inventory in CY 2045.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.5]
13 CARB, Omnibus Regulation, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking
(ISOR) (2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslown
ox/fsor.pdf, pg. ES-2, Figure ES-1.
14 Id.
15 Id. at ES-2; see also 2022 AQMP Overview at Slide 8 (NOx Reductions
Needed for Attainment).
16 87 Fed. Reg. at 17418.
California is not alone in its need for more stringent regulation of NOx emissions. For instance,
during public testimony on the NPRM, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management indicated that a significant portion of its region, which covers New England,
New York, and New Jersey, 'struggles to comply' with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 17 The
National Association of Clean Air Agencies also testified that over a third of the nation's
population lives in areas of the country designated non-attainment for the ozone NAAQS, while
'many others live in areas just on the cusp of non-attainment.'18 Testimony from Maryland's
Department of the Environment indicated that although the state has taken aggressive measures
89
-------
to meet its air quality goals, including adoption of California's Light-Duty Vehicle Emission
Program, a majority of the population continues to reside in areas designated as non-attainment
for the 2015 ozone standard, with a significant additional portion of the state set to be bumped up
to non-attainment status this year. 19 Echoing similar sentiments, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality noted that in spite of adoption of several more stringent California rules,
increases in ozone concentrations are likely, with Oregon at risk of losing its attainment status in
several communities.20 Numerous other examples exist but the sentiment remains the same - a
strong nationwide low-NOx standard is essential. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp.5-6]
17 EPA, Proposed Rule and Related Materials for Control of Air Pollution from
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, Virtual Hearing
Transcript (Day 3 Testimony), (April 14, 2022), available at
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-public-
hearing-transcript-2022-04-14-day3.pdf, pg. 74, lines 3-7.
18 Day 1 Testimony, (April 12, 2022), available at
https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-public-
hearing-transcript-2022-04-12-dayl.pdf, pg. 35, lines 3-7.
19 Day 2 Testimony (April 13, 2022), available at
https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-public-
hearing-transcript-2022-04-13-day2.pdf, pg. 16, line 22 - pg. 17, lines 1-11.
20 Id. atpg. 196, lines 15-22.
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
As stated, heavy-duty engines are a significant source of inhalable particulate matter PM2.5 and
NOx emissions in the country. The CAA requires EPA to set and regularly review and revise
federal health-based ambient air quality standards for "criteria pollutants," including PM2.5,
NOx, and ground-level ozone.28 These National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) aim
to provide States with achievable goals to protect the health of their residents from air pollution
resulting from emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. The NAAQS for ozone,
established in 2015 and retained in 2020, is an 8-hour standard with a level of 70 parts per
billion, although EPA recently announced that it may reconsider the previous administration's
decision to retain the ozone NAAQS.29 EPA is also implementing the previous 8-hour ozone
standard, set in 2008 at a level of 75 parts per billion. For PM2.5, there are two NAAQS that
were set in 1997, revised in 2006 and 2012, and retained in 202030: an annual standard (12.0
micrograms per cubic meter) and a 24-hour standard (35 micrograms per cubic meter). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
28. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7408-7409.
29. See EPA, "EPA to Reconsider Previous Administration's Decision to Retain
2015 Ozone Standards," available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-
pollution/epa-reconsider-previous-administrations-decision-retain-2015-ozone.
90
-------
30. On June 10, 2021, EPA announced that it will reconsider the previous
administration's decision to retain the PM NAAQS. See Press Release, EPA, EPA
to Reexamine Health Standards for Harmful Soot that Previous Administration
Left Unchanged (June 10, 2021), available at
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-reexamine-health-standards-harmful-soot-
previ ous-admini strati on-1 eft-unchanged.
Depending on whether the air quality in an area meets the NAAQS for a particular pollutant,
EPA designates the area as being in "attainment" or "nonattainment." EPA further classifies
areas that are in nonattainment according to the severity of their air pollution problem, and areas
with more severe pollution levels are given more time to meet the standard while being subject to
more stringent control requirements under State Implementation Plans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1255-A1, p. 10]
As of May 31, 2021, there were 34 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
50 ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which amounts to 122 million people
living in ozone nonattainment areas. 31 Sixteen of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are
located in California and the only two extreme nonattainment areas in the nation are located in
the South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley of California.32 Indeed, for the South Coast
Air Basin to meet the federal ozone standards, overall NOx emissions need to be reduced by 70
percent from today's levels by 2023, and approximately 80 percent by 2031.33 The Greater
Connecticut and New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment areas failed
to meet the deadline for moderate nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and were re-
designated to serious nonattainment status for that NAAQS. These areas must now meet the
attainment date of 2021 for the 2008 standard. Many areas of the country are also currently in
nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS standards, and as of May 31, 2021, more than 32 million
people live in PM2.5 nonattainment areas.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 10]
31. Draft RIA at § 6.1.1.
32. 2016 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan for Federal Ozone and
PM2.5 Standards (Cal. SIP Strategy), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2016-state-strategy-state-
implementation-plan-federal-ozone-and-pm25-standards.
33. CARB, Staff Report, Initial Statement of Reasons - Public Hearing to
Consider the Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and
Associated Amendments, at II-2 (June 23, 2020), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0632 ("Omnibus ISOR").
34. Draft RIA at §6.1.1.
Given the extraordinary challenges that California and many States are facing to attain and
maintain ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, substantial emission reductions beyond those currently
being achieved by state regulatory programs are critically necessary. Reducing emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles will help States attain and maintain NAAQS for these pollutants.
91
-------
According to California's EMission FACtors (EMFAC) 2017 emissions inventory model, almost
a million heavy-duty vehicles operate on California roads each year and contribute 31 percent of
all statewide NOx emissions.35 In the South Coast Air Basin, heavy-duty vehicles are
responsible for 32 percent of mobile source NOx emissions.36 In New York, medium and heavy-
duty vehicles are responsible for 52 percent of the NOx and 45 percent of the PM2.5 emitted by
on-road vehicles. Further, regulating only heavy-duty engines certified for use in California and
other States is not sufficient because heavy-duty vehicles play an important role in the transport
of goods for interstate commerce and frequently cross state borders. 3 7 Therefore, the Proposed
Rule would assist States with attaining and maintaining the NAAQS, and ease the burden on
nonattainment areas that already have stringent state and local regulations.3 8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 10-11]
3 5. Omnibus ISOR at ES-1.
36. CARB, Measures for Reducing Emissions from On-Road Heavy-Duty
Vehicles (June 3, 2021) available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-
management-plan/heavy-duty-trucks-presentations-06-03-21.pdf?sfvrsn=8 (last
accessed May 16, 2022).
37. See Omnibus ISOR at ES-17.
38. See Draft RIA at § 6.1.2
The emission reductions achieved by Option 1 are also critical for States seeking to attain and
maintain the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. For example, given California's extraordinary
challenges in attaining both the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, its state implementation plan is
designed with stringent emissions reductions across all sources. But even with the expected
emission reductions from California's mobile source programs, on-road heavy-duty vehicles are
projected to remain one of the largest contributors to the state's NOx emissions inventory.64
And operators in many States, including in California, purchase used heavy-duty vehicles that
have been certified to meet federal, not state, standards. Indeed, federally certified heavy-duty
vehicles account for over half of the total miles traveled by heavy-duty vehicles in California. 65
For the heaviest vehicles (Class 8 vehicles over 33,000 pounds GVWR), over 60 percent of
vehicle miles traveled in California are by federally certified heavy-duty vehicles.66 Thus, the
adoption of Option 1 is critical to provide the maximum emission reductions necessary for
California and other States to attain and maintain the NAAQs for ozone and PM2.5. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 15]
64. Omnibus ISOR at ES-2.
65. Omnibus ISOR at ES-17.
66. Id.
92
-------
Organization: Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)
Mobile emissions represent approximately 65% of the current NOx inventory in the 13
contiguous WESTAR states. For clarification, mobile sources include on-road, non-road, rail,
and commercial marine. Comparatively, oil and gas sources contribute 11.7% and electrical
generating units contribute 9.1%>. For additional perspective, percentage contributions from all
source sectors are shown in Figure 1. The Western states projected that the mobile source NOx
emissions will still comprise 44.5% of the western inventory in 2028. Most of the reductions in
this sector will come from the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards program
established in 20142. However, the Tier 3 program is projected to be fully implemented by 2025
and it is important to continue reducing mobile source emissions to reduce particulate matter and
ozone concentrations in the west. Additional mobile source emissions reductions will be
necessary for western states to continue to improve visibility in Class I areas as well. Of the 156
Mandatory Class I Federal areas, 118 (75 percent) are in the West. Western states have made
considerable progress in controlling stationary source emissions. Mobile source emission
reductions must be accomplished at a similar pace. Reductions in emissions that can be
controlled are particularly important as catastrophic wildfire smoke impacts western states with
increasing severity and frequency. A recent study by the National Center for Atmospheric
Research shows that the increase in wildfires has begun to reverse the last ten years of clean air
gains and is changing the annual pattern of air quality in North America.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1230-Al,pp.l-3]
2 WRAP Technical Support System (TSS); The Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA),
19 Apr 2022, http://views.cira.colostate.edu/tssv2
3 Buchholz, R.R., Park, M., Worden, H.M. et al. New seasonal pattern of
pollution emerges from changing North American wildfires. Nature
Communications 13, 2043 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29623-8
One of EPA's stated goals with this proposed rule is to help states comply with the ozone
NAAQS and improve visibility as part of the Regional Haze program. The proposal states that
"The proposed Option 1 standards would significantly decrease ozone concentrations across the
country, with a population- weighted average decrease of over 2 ppb in 2045.4 " In terms of
emissions reductions, EPA estimates that Option 1 would reduce NOx emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles in 2040 by more than 50 percent and by 60 percent in 2045. Most nonattainment
areas for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS are required to attain the standard within the next six
years (2028). While the proposed emission reductions are welcome, they will be too late to
impact current ozone nonattainment areas and won't prevent the short-term transport of pollution
throughout the western states. For this reason, we encourage EPA to find ways to foster quicker
adoption of heavy-duty engine controls and technology within the industry through incentives
and the proposed early adoption credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1230-Al,pp.3-4]
4 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed Reg. 17427 (March 28, 2022)
93
-------
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
This proposed rule would provide critical relief to Wisconsin's ozone nonattainment areas by
reducing NOx emissions from heavy-duty trucks by up to 90%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1162-A1, p. 1]
Wisconsin's Lake Michigan shoreline experiences complex, persistent ozone issues due to a
combination of emissions, meteorology, and geography. As a result, Wisconsin's lakeshore has
historically struggled to attain federal ozone standards, and the state currently has multiple areas
in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone standard. Ensuring Wisconsin can attain current and future
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) requires a long-term, multi-sector
strategy that reduces region-wide NOx and VOC emissions. Since Wisconsin does not have the
authority to regulate emissions from on-road sources, the state relies upon federal action to
reduce NOx and VOC emissions from this sector. It is therefore crucial that EPA exercise its
authority to develop and implement the most stringent, technically feasible NOx standards for all
mobile sources, including heavyduty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 1]
The on-road mobile sector is the largest contributor of NOx emissions in Wisconsin, with the
2017 National Emissions Inventory reporting that the on-road mobile sector accounted for 38%
of the NOx inventory in Wisconsin; this percentage is typical of other states in the region. 1
Heavy-duty diesel vehicles constitute nearly half of the emissions from that sector, a sector only
the federal government is able to regulate. Additionally, recent ozone modeling done by the Lake
Michigan Air Directors Consortium indicates on-road diesel vehicles, most of which are heavy-
duty vehicles, contribute up to 8 parts per billion or 11% of ozone at Wisconsin's lakeshore
nonattainment monitors. EPA's air quality modeling done to support this proposal shows
Sheboygan County would remain in nonattainment through at least 2045 without this rule, 30
years after the standard was promulgated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, pp. 1-2]
1. 2017 National Emissions Inventory
Wisconsin's ozone nonattainment areas are located downwind of major population centers,
including transportation and freight hubs that are a significant source of heavy-duty vehicle
emissions, the vast majority of which originate outside of Wisconsin. Based on EPA's recent
transport modeling, Wisconsin contributes only 8-16 percent of the ozone in its own
nonattainment areas while other states directly contribute between 42-48 percent of the ozone to
these areas. A comprehensive federal rule to address heavy-duty NOx emissions is therefore
needed to reduce upwind state emissions from this sector and help Wisconsin meet its attainment
obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 2]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters stated that the emissions reductions from this rule are needed to reduce ozone
concentrations and attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS. Commenters indicated that NOx
emissions are driving their ozone concentrations and that heavy-duty trucks are significant
94
-------
contributors to the NOx emissions and ozone concentrations in their areas, including heavy-duty
traffic associated with freight movement and ports. Commenters mentioned that satellite data is
helping illustrate the onroad NOx emissions which contribute to ozone and PM concentrations.
Commenters also described the contribution to their ozone from NOx emissions from heavy-duty
trucks from upwind states, and a commenter from California pointed out that most of the trucks
on roads in the state are registered in other states, so this rule is important to their attainment
plans. Several states and other organizations noted that other cost-effective state and local
regulatory options for reducing emissions of NOx have been exhausted and remaining options
are less cost-effective than federal heavy duty vehicle standards. Some commenters also noted
that additional NOx emission reductions will help them demonstrate transportation conformity.
Several commenters highlighted that their area is in the process of having their ozone
classification bumped up, meaning that they are not able to meet the ozone NAAQS by their
attainment deadline. Commenters specifically noted that EPA proposed to bump up 30 areas that
were not attaining the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS in April 2022. Commenters said that
reductions in NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles will help those areas as well as other
areas struggling to maintain the ozone NAAQS. A commenter noted that EPA was required to
use modeling to help put into place more stringent standards so that areas would actually attain
the NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. Another commenter felt that EPA should optimize the
emission reductions needed from HD on-road vehicles to ensure attainment of the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS within the deadlines established by the CAA.
One commenter mentioned that much of the country has NOx-limited chemistry, which means
that reductions of NOx are needed to reduce ozone, and that in some East Coast areas reducing
one pound of NOx leads to reductions of greater than one pound of ozone. Another commenter
highlighted that even ozone concentrations below the level of the standard contribute to risk of
premature death in sensitive populations.
Numerous commenters mentioned that EJ communities are located in nonattainment areas or
areas at risk of becoming nonattainment areas. A commenter noted that NAAQS monitors are
often not cited to protect EJ communities and that makes it difficult to understand their risk and
suggested that EPA should include in the rule additional requirements for increased air
monitoring for pollutants of concern near transportation corridors in overburdened communities
to document whether these existing and proposed regulatory approaches are working.
A commenter also stated that EPA is currently reconsidering the ozone NAAQS, and that
regardless of whether the standard is strengthened, many areas across the country need NOx
reductions just to meet the current standards and provide clean air to their citizens. Commenters
also noted that NOx reductions are important for decreasing PM concentrations and meeting the
PM NAAQS as well. One commenter mentioned that EPA is currently reconsidering the PM
NAAQS as well and CASAC has recommended making the standards more protective. A few
commenters provided satellite data showing NO2 concentrations along highways and illustrating
how N02 emissions have a longer lifetime in winter and can contribute to PM and visibility
concerns in the winter. Commenters pointed out that reducing emissions of NOx can help reduce
ozone concentrations in the summertime and PM2.5 concentrations in the wintertime as well as
helping improve visibility. Commenters concerned with meeting the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
95
-------
asked for the most stringent and timely rule possible. A commenter noted that the rule is needed
for ozone attainment but that there is also need for flexibilities. A commenter also stated that
zero emission standards are needed to help all areas of the country attain the NAAQS and that
EPA should analyze more stringent alternatives.
Response:
EPA agrees that reductions in NOx are generally necessary to attain and maintain the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS across the country and that NOx reductions will help with other CAA
responsibilities like the regional haze rule and transportation conformity. EPA also agrees that
monitoring is important to helping EPA and the general public understand the quality of the air
they are breathing and its potential impacts on their health. The comments requesting additional
monitoring are outside the context of this specific rule, which is more narrowly focused on
setting emission standards under CAA section 202. The monitoring objectives, requirements, and
network design criteria for Ozone, PM, NO2, and CO are specified in 40 CFR part 58 appendix
D. Monitoring objectives include providing data to the general public in a timely manner,
supporting compliance with the NAAQS, and providing data for research purposes. The
monitoring requirements include monitoring sites that serve a variety of needs and are often
higher than EPA's minimum requirements provide. In addition to the existing regulatory
network, EPA is improving ambient air quality monitoring for communities with American
Rescue Plan funds (see https://www.epa.gov/arp/enhanced-air-qualitv-monitoring-funding-
under-arp).
This final rule will reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines that contribute to ambient levels
of ozone, PM, NOx, and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health-
based NAAQS, and we agree that there is a significant need for the emissions reductions, air
quality improvements, and health benefits provided by this final rule. As documented in our RIA
for this final rule (Chapters 5 and 6) and described in the Preamble (Sections VI and VII), the
HD2027 program will significantly reduce heavy duty truck emissions, leading to significant air
quality improvements and helping state and local areas attain and maintain the existing health-
based air quality standards in a cost-effective and timely way.3
In setting heavy-duty highway engine emission standards for NOx, PM, HC, and CO, Clean Air
Act section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set standards that "reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of
such technology." EPA's authority to set such standards must be based on appropriate
consideration of these specified factors, and EPA has fully analyzed and explained the basis for
the final standards under this authority, as discussed further in the Preamble (Sections I and III).
We recognize and acknowledge the concerns raised by several commenters related to attaining
and/or maintaining the NAAQS. As discussed in this section and preamble Section VII, we
3 In response to the commenter requesting that EPA include in this final action direction to states that would
encourage collaborative management of mobile emissions from heavy duty trucks, we note that such direction is
outside the scope of this final rule; however, as discussed in this section and preamble Section VII, we expect the air
quality improvements of this rulemaking to be widespread across the country.
96
-------
expect this final rule to result in widespread reductions in ozone and PM, which will assist many
areas across the country with NAAQS attainment or maintenance. However, the amount of
reductions necessary for each area to attain the NAAQS is not a factor used to determine the
stringency of heavy-duty engine emissions standards.
States with ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are required to take action to bring those areas
into attainment. Since this rule will reduce emissions of NOx from trucks across the country, this
rule will help states and municipal areas in their efforts to attain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
"as expeditiously as practicable" and may relieve areas with already stringent local regulations
from some of the burden associated with adopting additional local controls. The final rule could
also assist counties with ambient concentrations near the level of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
who are working to ensure long-term attainment or maintenance of the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. The air quality modeling done for the proposed rule illustrates the impact on projected
concentrations of ozone and PM2.5. Our air quality modeling indicates this action will
meaningfully decrease ozone concentrations in many areas of the country. Furthermore,
numerous state air quality agencies and organizations representing geographic groups of these
state agencies have affirmed in their comments that air quality improvements from this rule will
be a critical part of areas' strategies to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Our analysis of the air
quality impacts of the proposed standards clearly shows these improvements. While we agree
that understanding the impact of the rule on future attainment is important, due to time and
resource constraints, we focused our air quality modeling on a future year with substantial fleet
turnover (2045) rather than on years with specific attainment deadlines.
Responses to comments about the EJ need for this rule are in Section 23.EPA is not taking final
action at this time as part of this final rule on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. For the comments received on this portion of
the proposal, see Section 28 of this document.
2.3 Human and environmental health impacts of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and climate change
Comments by Organizations
Organization: 350Marin
The IPCC's 2022 report warns that irreversible climate impacts are happening now. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2474, p.l]
We in California are feeling the effects of Climate Change for five years already. Eight of the
largest wild fires in state history have occurred since 2017. Additionally, we are dealing with
increased drought and longer fire seasons. We are in a Climate Emergency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2474, p.l]
To stop global heating and stabilize the climate, Greenhouse gas emissions have to be cut
drastically. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2474, p.l]
97
-------
Here in California transportation is the largest instate source of such emissions. Nationwide
transportation makes up 29% of the carbon footprint, with heavy-duty vehicles emitting nearly
one-third. Reducing vehicle GHG emissions is key. New trucks covered by these new EPA
standards will be on the road long beyond 2050; they should be zero emission starting as soon as
possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2474, p.l]
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
In addition, American biofuels like ethanol reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 46
percent compared to regular gasoline and are key to achieving any climate goals.2 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, p. 3]
2. https://growth energy, org/2022/04/12/growth-energy-thanks-biden-for-
delivering-lower-cost-fuel-options-for-families/
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
Biomass-based diesel offers lower emissions solutions in the transportation sector and as the
Administration seeks to move toward an electric vehicle-focused approach to lowering
greenhouse gas emissions, biomass-based diesel can offer greenhouse gas emissions reductions
of at least 50% compared to petroleum diesel in aging vehicles that still require liquid fuel and in
heavy-duty vehicles that are more difficult to electrify. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1,
p.2]
As the federal government seeks to address climate change both today and long-term, biomass
based diesel will remain an important tool in the toolbox in both existing diesel engines and new
ultra-low carbon liquid fuel engine technologies. Carbon emissions continue to accumulate, and
increased utilization of biomass-based diesel and other biofuels can help mitigate increasing
emissions occurring at present. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes in its
sixth assessment report that using existing low carbon technologies is a crucial component to
avoiding catastrophic temperature increases, stating that 'biodiesel and renewable diesel
fuels.. .could offer important near-term reductions' for a number of technologies, including
buses, rail, and long-haul trucking.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1, p.2]
2 Jaramillo, P., S. Kahn Ribeiro, P. Newman, S. Dhar, O.E. Diemuodeke, T.
Kajino, D.S. Lee, S.B. Nugroho, X. Ou, A. Hammer Stramman, J. Whitehead,
2022: Transport. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_ChapterlO.pdf
Organization: Anne Mellinger-Birdsong
4. C02 is one of the main greenhouse gases causing climate change. Numerous health agencies
and medical institutions have declared that climate change is a public health emergency
(https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2113200). The World Health Organization states that "Climate
98
-------
change is the single biggest health threat facing humanity." (https://www.who.int/news/item/! 1-
10-2021 -who-s-10-calls-for-climate-action-to-assure-sustained-recovery-from-covid-19) [EP A-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
Organization: CALSTART
The climate crisis is also at a critical stage. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) document the urgency to reduce global warming emissions. In the IPCC's
recently released Sixth Assessment Report, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions peak
between 2020 and 2025 in pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with a 50 percent probability
and no or limited overshoot (IPCC, 2022). Global warming emissions must be reduced by 43
percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C with a 50 percent probability (IPCC,
2021). Aligned with this emission target is the commitment by the United States to reduce
national net GHG emissions by 50-52 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030.2 If emissions
are not reduced to these levels by 2030, it will be even more difficult to limit warming later this
century (IPCC, 2018). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.2]
2 50 percent below 2005 levels (7,435 MMT C02e) of US emissions corresponds
to roughly the same level of reductions as 43 percent below 2019 levels (6,571
MMT C02e) (UNFCCC, 2021; EPA, 2022).
The global decline in emissions must occur despite emissions continuing to grow globally over
the last decade (IPCC, 2022a). While we are behind the pace needed to stabilize global
temperatures at safe levels, we can still limit warming to 1.5°C through actions in the next
couple of years (IPCC, 2021). If global carbon dioxide emissions continue at current rates, the
remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C will likely be exhausted before 2030
(IPCC, n.d.). About 410±30 Gt of C02 were emitted between 2010 and 2019. This is about the
same size as the remaining carbon budget for keeping global warming to 1.5°C with a 67 percent
probability (about 400 Gt C02 from 2020 onwards or a 500 Gt C02 budget with a 50 percent
probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C) (IPCC, 2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
pp.2-3]
Organization: ChargePoint, Inc. (ChargePoint)
With 21% of all transportation sector GHG emissions traced to MHDVs (including buses),3
continuing to target the lowering of MHDV emissions through thoughtful regulatory action will
aid tremendously in improving air quality nationwide, especially in roadside communities.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1294-A1, p. 1]
3 Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles
Cost Analysis, March 2022, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF)
In addition, the devastating effects of climate change have solidified the need to drastically
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.l]
99
-------
The increasingly dramatic impacts from climate change have begun and will continue to add
stress to the Bay.36 In November 2018, Volume II of the Fourth National Climate Assessment
found 'that climate change is affecting the natural environment, agriculture, energy production
and use, land and water resources, transportation, and human health and welfare across the U.S.
and its territories.'3 7 The Bay region has already experienced several of these impacts, including
increased temperatures and sea level rise.38 Like excess nitrogen, warm waters contribute to
dead zones due to their decreased capacity to hold dissolved oxygen. Rising sea levels have
submerged islands and coastline, including CBF property. Some scientists predict that the Bay
region could see as much as a three- to four-foot sea level rise this century.39 The 2014
Chesapeake Bay Agreement sets a goal to improve climate resiliency in the Bay, and EPA is
charged with ensuring states make progress toward achieving and maintaining this
goal.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.9]
37 New Federal Climate Assessment for U.S. Released, NOAA (Nov. 23, 2018),
https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-federal-climate-assessment-for-us-released.
38 Climate Change, Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
https://www.cbf.org/issues/climate-change/.
39 Id.
40 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement at 14.
Climate change will also make it more difficult to reduce nitrogen loads to the Bay as rainfall
becomes increasingly extreme and sporadic, pouring nutrients and sediment into Bay
waterways.41 In 2018, the Bay experienced record-setting rainfall, which was followed by one
of the Bay's largest dead zones in 35 years.42 The impacts from climate change threaten the
Bay's recovery and future, and will require even greater pollution reduction efforts to maintain
the progress made through the Bay TMDL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.9]
41 2014 National Climate Assessment, U.S. Global Change Research Program,
'Northeast' Chapter, available at
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northeast (describing impacts
from 'increasingly intense precipitation events' and that in the Northeast 'rainfall
events have increased more than in any other region of the country') (citing
Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, and O. G. Zolina, 2013: Recent trends in regional
and global intense precipitation patterns. Climate Vulnerability, R.A. Pielke, Sr.,
Ed., Academic Press, 25-55).
42 Scott Dance, Record Rain + Heat = Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone Among
Biggest in Decades: Crabs, Fish Are Suffocating, Baltimore Sun (Aug. 29, 2020),
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/environment/bs-md-chesapeake-dead-zone-
20190829-5vjzwjb3ine7rlgscndd6ucvta-story.html.
100
-------
EPA must finalize a rule that accelerates the transition to a zero-emission truck fleet that will
drastically reduce the sector's emissions of greenhouse gases and its contribution to the
devastating impacts of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.9]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Strong emissions standards are also necessary to curtail HDVs' outsized contribution to climate
change. Over twelve years ago, based upon a massive scientific record, EPA found that new
motor vehicles and engines contribute to the GHGs that force climate change and endanger the
public health and welfare of current and future generations. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).
The Endangerment Finding specifically included emissions from heavy-duty trucks and buses.
74 Fed. Reg. at 66,499. At the time, the transportation sector was responsible for 23% of total
annual U.S. GHG emissions. Id. Since then, transportation sector emissions have only increased
as a share of U.S. emissions, surpassing the electric power sector as the largest U.S. source of
GHG emissions, contributing 29% of total GHG emissions in 2019 and 27.2% in 2020.29 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 17]
29 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks atES-21 (Apr.
15, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-
inventory-2022-main-text.pdf.
On April 29, 2022, EPA denied four petitions to reconsider the Endangerment Finding. 87 Fed.
Reg. 25,412 (Apr. 29, 2022). In denying the petitions, EPA stated: The science supporting the
Administrator's finding that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future U.S.
generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling, and has been strongly affirmed by recent
scientific assessments of the National Academies, the US Global Change Research Program, and
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.30 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 17]
30 EPA, Decision Document, EPA's Denial of Petitions Relating to the
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 1 (Apr. 1, 2022),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/decision_document.pdf;
see also id. at 11-13 (documenting the continued advances in climate science that
bolster the Endangerment Finding).
HDVs are the second largest domestic contributor of GHGs in the transportation sector. From
1990 to 2019, transportation GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion increased by 20.9%.31
Medium- and heavy-duty truck GHG emissions nearly doubled between 1990 and 2019.32 This
increase was driven, in part, by substantial growth in medium- and heavy-duty truck vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), which increased by 107% between 1990 and 2020.33 Transportation
sources also produce other climate-forcing pollutants such as CH4, N20 and HFCs.34 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 17]
101
-------
31 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks at 3-23 (The
COVID-19 pandemic led to a 13.7% decrease from 2019-2020 and is considered
an outlier.). See Energy Information Agency (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2022
(Narrative) 11 (Mar. 2022),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf (discussing the
outlier nature of 2020).
32 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks at 2-36.
33 Id. at 3-26
34 Id.
These comments incorporate and build upon the comments submitted by environmental and
public health NGOs, including some signatories here, on EPA's Proposed Rule
Regarding Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards.3 5 Those comments were a continuation of a series of comments updating the record
underlying the Endangerment Finding with increasingly dire evidence of the current and future
impacts of climate change and the transportation sector's outsized contribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.17-18]
35 Comments of Center for Biological Diversity et al., Regarding Proposed Rule
Regarding Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0208) (Sept. 27,
2021).
Since the NGOs' most recent set of transportation comments were filed, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released several constituent pieces of the
Sixth Assessment Report.36 The report warns that the world must quickly and drastically cut its
dependence on fossil fuels or face climate disaster. GHGs from human activities are the most
significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century.37 As GHG emissions
from human activities increase, they build up in the atmosphere and warm the climate, leading to
increasingly destructive changes around the world—in the atmosphere, on land, and in the
oceans.38 Steep and swift reductions in GHG emissions are essential to avoid the most
catastrophic consequences of climate change.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.18]
36 IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2022,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/.
37 See generally IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability: Summary for Policymakers (Feb. 27, 2022),
https://report.ipcc. ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.p
df.
38 Id. at SPM-7-SPM-8.
102
-------
39 Id. at SPM-13.
In 2019, GHG emissions from the global transport sector accounted for 23% of global energy-
related C02 emissions—with 70% of those emissions coming from road vehicles.40 Overall
global transport emissions have increased 57% since 1990, growing at an average of 2% per year
between 2010 and 2019, and faster than any other sector.41 Global freight transport grew 68%
between 2000 and 2015.42 To have a chance at limiting global temperature increase to 1.5a,,/
and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, current GHG emissions from the transportation
sector must drop by 59% by 2050 as compared to 2020 emissions.43 Analysis conducted by
ICCT finds that new HD ZEV sales of 45% or higher by 2030 is necessary to avoid greater than
2a,,/ of warming.44 Meanwhile, the IPCC predicts that without intervention, C02 emissions
from transport could grow in the range of 16% to 50% by 2050.45 The IPCC concluded that
'[l]and-based, long-range, heavy-duty trucks can be decarbonised through battery-electric
haulage... complemented by hydrogen[-based],. .fuels in some contexts.'46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 18]
40 IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change 10-4 (Apr. 4,
2022) (Draft),
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf.
41 Id. at 10-9.
42 Id. at 10-11.
43 Id. at 10-5.
44 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-
Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022),
https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
45 IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change at 10-5.
46 Id.
In another report issued since the last set of NGO comments, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) assessed the costs of climate change to the federal government, estimating that
they could grow to as much as $128 billion annually due to disaster relief, flood insurance, crop
insurance, healthcare expenditures, wildland fire suppression, and flood risk.47 OMB considered
costs that damage physical infrastructure, social conditions, health of people and ecosystems, and
economic productivity. The OMB report underscores the IPCC's stark warnings. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp. 18-19]
47 See generally OMB, Federal Budget Exposure to Climate Risk (Apr. 2022),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/04/ap_2 l_climate_risk_fy2023 .pdf.
103
-------
To stave off the worst impacts of climate change, the U.S. has set a goal of reaching net zero
emissions no later than 2050.48 This commitment, along with the Clean Air Act's commands,
require reducing and ultimately eliminating GHG emissions from the heavy-duty truck sector as
rapidly as feasible. This rulemaking is an important step in achieving that critical goal. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 19]
48 The White House, FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and
Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies (Apr. 22, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-
sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-
aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-
energy-technologies/.
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
Heavy-duty vehicles are also a significant source of GHG emissions. Despite accounting for only
10% of total U.S. vehicle-miles traveled, 13 medium- and heavy-duty trucks account for 23% of
the total GHG emissions from transportation. 14 In 2019, according to the EPA, medium and
heavy-duty vehicles emitted 456.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (C02) in the United
States. 15 Stringent GHG emission standards are needed to achieve president Biden's goal to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% compared to 2005 levels by 2030.16 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.3]
13 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Vehicle Miles, Available at:
https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles
14 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019
(EPA-430-R-21-005, published April 2021). Accessed at: https://
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-usgreenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
15 Congressional Research Service, Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Air Pollution, and
Climate Change, (February 11, 2022). Available at:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF 12043#:~:text=Further%2C%20a
ccording%20to%20EPA's%20Inventory,from%20the%20U.S.%20transportation
%20sector).
16 The White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Steps to Drive
American Leadership Forward on Clean Cars and Trucks, (August 5, 2021).
Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/05/fact-
sheet-president-biden-announces-steps-to-drive-american-leadership-forward-on-
clean-cars-and-
trucks/#:~:text=Together%2C%20today's%20announcements%20would%20put,g
as%20emission%20reductions%20below%202005.
104
-------
Under the CAA, the Administrator is authorized to prescribe standards applicable to the
'emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines... which in his judgment cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'54 The EPA has issued numerous
findings showing that GHGs are reasonably anticipated to both endanger public health and to
endanger public welfare.55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.9]
54 42 U.S.C. 7251(a)(1).
55 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gasses
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule 74 F.R. 66495 (January 14.
2010). Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-
15/pdf/E9-29537.pdf.
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
The mix of resources used to generate electricity in the United States has changed dramatically
over the last decade and is increasingly cleaner. 2016 marked the first year that natural gas
exceeded coal as the main source of electricity generation in the United States. In 2021, natural
gas powered about 38 percent of the country's electricity, compared to coal-fired generation at
about 22 percent. 1 Renewables2 generated approximately 21 percent of total generation. 3 In
total, approximately 40 percent of America's electricity came from clean carbon-free resources
in 2021, including nuclear energy, hydropower, solar, and wind.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1282-A1, p. 2]
1. See Energy Information Administration (EIA), Electric Power Monthly: with
Data for December 2021 12 (Feb. 2022),
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/february2022.pdf.
2. Renewables here are defined as wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and
geothermal energy.
3. See n. 3, supra.
4. See id.
Energy storage is a key asset in helping the grid integrate increasing amounts of renewables and
offering resilience and reliability. Electric companies are the largest users and operators of the
approximately 25 gigawatts (GW) of operational storage in the country—representing 96 percent
of active energy storage projects.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 3]
5. See EEI, Harnessing the Potential of Energy Storage (June 2021),
https J/www. eei. org/-/media/Proj ect/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Energy-
Storage/Harnessing_Energy_Storage_Factsheet.pdf?la=en&hash=FlAB8CC768C
880975C5AD28DA798B2AAF01DA2FF.
105
-------
Renewable energy deployments will continue. By 2025, EIA projects approximately 125 GW of
renewables capacity will be online.6 Further, EIA projects that in the United States the share of
renewables in the electricity generation mix will more than double by 2050.7 EIA projects that
wind will continue to be responsible for most of the growth in renewables generation
through 2024, accounting for more than two-thirds of those increases in electricity generation
during that period and that solar will dominate deployments thereinafter until 2050.8 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
6. See EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2022: Reference Case Projections Tables -
Table 16. Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation (Mar. 3, 2022),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=16-
AEO2022&cases=ref2022& sourcekey=0.
7. See EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2022: With Projections To 2050 - Narrative
17 (Mar. 3, 2022),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf. EIA estimates are
intentionally conservative, focusing on policies currently on the books and not
other potential drivers of increased renewable energy deployment, including a
suite of clean energy tax credits currently being considered by Congress. These
credits will drive reductions in the costs of a range of clean energy sources,
increasing both deployment and emissions reductions relative to the EIA base
case. See, e.g., Michael Greenstone, et al., Assessing the Costs and Benefits of
Clean Electricity Tax Credits, Build Back Better Act Policy Memo, Energy Policy
Institute, University of Chicago, and Rhodium Group (Feb. 9, 2022),
https://rhg.com/research/assessing-the-costs-and-benefits-of-clean-electricity-tax-
credits/#:~:text=Building%20on%20previous%20modeling%20conducted,a%20s
cenario%20without%20these%20policies.
8. See id.
These changes have profoundly decreased the sector's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions, the
primary greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production. Preliminary full-year
estimates are that electric power sector emissions were 36 percent below 2005 levels as of the
end of 2021, as low as they were in 1984.9 These reductions will continue. Fifty EEI members
have announced forward-looking carbon reduction goals, two-thirds of which include a net-zero
by 2050 or earlier equivalent goal, and members are routinely increasing the ambition or speed
of their goals or altogether transforming them into net-zero goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1282-A1, p. 4]
9. See EIA, Monthly Energy Review, Table 11.16—Electric Power Sector (Mar.
29, 2022), https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/.
In addition, the electric industry has significantly reduced air pollutants such as mercury,
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), sulfur dioxide (S02), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). As of 2021,
S02 and NOx emissions have declined 94 and 88 percent, respectively, since 1990.10 In
addition, mercury emissions have declined by 90 percent since 2010,11 and total HAPs—
106
-------
including all acid gas emissions—declined by 96 percent between 2010 to 2017.12 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 4]
10. See EPA, EPA Issues Power Plant Emissions Data for 2021 (Feb. 22, 2022),
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-issues-power-plant-emissions-data-2021.
11. See id.; EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards 2-7 (Dec. 2011), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-
11/documents/matsriafinal.pdf
12. See 84 Fed. Reg. 2,670, 2,689 (Feb. 7, 2019).
EEI's member companies see a clear path to continued emissions reductions over the next
decade using current technologies, including nuclear power, natural gas-based generation, energy
demand efficiency, energy storage, and deployment of new renewable energy—especially wind
and solar—as older coal-based and less-efficient natural gas-based generating units retire. These
technologies will continue to enable significant, cost-effective carbon reductions. In addition,
EIA notes that coal use will continue to decline with the retirement of most of the relatively old
and inefficient coal-fired electricity generating units in the United States. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 5]
13. See n. 9, supra at 18.
In the long term, reaching net-zero carbon emissions also will require the deployment of next-
generation, carbon-free, 24/7, dispatchable technologies not currently available commercially.
Developing a broad range of advanced clean energy technologies can help further expedite the
transition of the electric power sector to one that is low- or non-emitting while keeping
electricity affordable and reliable for customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Elders Climate Action
EC A, its chapters and members have a stake in this decision both because 2) we are the parents
and grandparents of children who will be compelled to live their lives in the extreme conditions
that are now occurring and will worsen as a result of the climate heating caused by the GHG
pollutants emitted from combustion of carbon fuels in motor vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 1]
ECA requests this action to -
1) respond meaningfully to the urgency of the climate crisis that threatens to destroy the future
for our children and grandchildren by turning the planet into an unsustainable Hell on
Earth; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 1]
EPA's proposed Heavy duty vehicle (HDV) rule will allow millions of polluting diesel heavy
duty vehicles to be sold in the U.S. in 2027 and beyond without requiring any manufacturer to
sell a single zero emission vehicle. The proposed standards fail to implement the call from the
107
-------
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for immediate action to transform the transportation
sector to zero C02 emissions as soon as possible to avoid the worst impacts of the looming
climate disaster. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
The transportation sector is the leading source of climate pollution in the US, but the proposal
fails to make any progress toward ending C02 emissions from transport to avoid the worst
consequences of a warming climate. Your proposal allows millions more new diesel trucks and
buses in 2027-29 that will lock-in over the next 20 years 1.7 billion tons of additional
C02. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
EPA acknowledges that the proposed rule reduces C02 emissions by only 221,000 metric tons
(MT) (0.75%) compared to the current rule (from 29.088 million MT to 28.867 million MT in
2027), allowing new HDVs sold in 2027, 2028 and 2029 to emit an estimated 86.6 million MT
annually after 2029, totaling 1.78 billion metric tons of C02 over the 20 year useful life of those
HDVs. C02 from these vehicles would be equivalent to adding 21 new large coal-fired power
plants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
Total C02 emissions from future vehicles will double these emissions for each additional three
to four model years that these standards apply after 2029. If Congress blocks further rulemaking
after 2022, or a President opposed to climate action is elected, these may be the last C02
standards adopted for a decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
C02 from these model years will effectively prevent the US from achieving the IPCC's call for a
50% cut in C02 by 2030, and make it difficult to achieve the zero emission economy promised
by President Biden by 2050. These vehicles will remain on the road for at least 20 years, add to
C02 and prevent the U.S. from achieving the C02 reductions identified by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as necessary to keep within the 1.5o C
target to avoid a climate catastrophe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
The Nation needs strong action from EPA now to achieve sharp reductions in C02 emissions to
slow the warming. Losses from climate related events cost the Nation an estimated $145 billion
in 2021. Damage is expanding rapidly year over year. Delaying major reductions from the
transport sector will have devastating consequences. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 2]
The warmer climate has triggered a massive increase in damage from wildfire in the American
West where an average of 1 million acres burned just 20 years ago, to over 15 million acres each
in 2020 and 2021. Thousands of families have lost homes to fire, businesses were destroyed and
communities lost schools, health care facilities, water and power supplies and other
infrastructure. Smoke pollution smothered much of the West with dangerous levels of air
pollution that added thousands of premature deaths across the region. The record setting heat
wave in the Pacific NW last year also took hundreds of lives. Wildfire studies estimate
deepening drought in the West will likely double the annual area destroyed by fire in this decade.
We submit a review of the impacts of wildfire in the West and the expected impacts this decade
because the social cost of carbon developed by the Interagency Working Group does not include
wildfire impacts when estimating the damages associated with GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-0AR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 2-3]
108
-------
In other regions of the U.S. more powerful hurricanes, extreme floods and massive tornadoes
have caused devastation to hundreds of communities across the Gulf Coast, Mid- West and
Northeast. These extreme weather events have become more powerful, more frequent and more
destructive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 3]
The Nation needs your help now to slow the warming to protect our families and communities.
Medium and heavy-duty vehicles are a major contributor to the warming. Medium- and heavy-
duty trucks emit a quarter of climate pollution from transportation despite being only 10% of
vehicles on the road. You must take action now that accelerates the transition to a zero emission
transport sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 3]
A zero emission standard also promotes the health protection purpose of the Act by reducing the
adverse impacts on health caused by climate warming. The Administrator's 2009 Endangerment
Finding4 found that GHG emissions have a significant direct adverse impact is on health as a
result of fatalities caused by heat waves, and indirect effects through reductions in food
production and rising concentrations of air pollutants such as ozone which forms more quickly in
a warmer atmosphere. HDVs with zero emission power trains protect public health by slowing
the warming caused by C02 emitted from fossil fuel vehicles. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCVs) powered by hydrogen do not involve combustion of C
fuels, and do not create or emit the pollutants that are the products of C combustion. The recently
issued IPCC Impacts report5 makes clear that growing harm to public health and welfare caused
by GHG pollutants cannot be avoided without reducing vehicle emissions to zero. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
4. The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and
welfare of current and future U.S. generations. See 74 Fed. Reg. 66496,
December 15, 2009. The Administrator recently reviewed and re-affirmed this
Finding in response to Petitions to vacate the Finding. See 2204-21 decision doc
deny PET re Endgmnt Fndg.pdf. 5. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability | Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
(ipcc.ch) (April 2022).
The science is clear: stabilizing the climate before it becomes too hot to support human
civilization is another reason beyond attaining the ozone NAAQS in all of America's 230
nonattainment counties why GHG emissions from on-road vehicles must be reduced to zero as
soon as possible. In his Climate Executive Order President Biden declared that the policy of the
United States is to "put the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economywide,
by no later than 2050." 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 17]
11. Executive Order to Tackle Climate Change (January 27, 2021). Sec. 201.
Policy. Even as our Nation emerges from profound public health and economic
crises borne of a pandemic, we face a climate crisis that threatens our people and
communities, public health and economy, and, starkly, our ability to live on planet
Earth. Despite the peril that is already evident, there is promise in the solutions —
opportunities to create well-paying union jobs to build a modern and sustainable
109
-------
infrastructure, deliver an equitable, clean energy future, and put the United States
on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050.
We must listen to science — and act. We must strengthen our clean air and water
protections. We must hold polluters accountable for their actions. We must
deliver environmental justice in communities all across America. The Federal
Government must drive assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of climate
pollution and climate-related risks in every sector of our economy, marshaling the
creativity, courage, and capital necessary to make our Nation resilient in the face
of this threat. Together, we must combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive
action that combines the full capacity of the Federal Government with efforts
from every corner of our Nation, every level of government, and every sector of
our economy. It is the policy of my Administration to organize and deploy the full
capacity of its agencies to combat the climate crisis to implement a Government-
wide approach that reduces climate pollution in every sector of the economy;
increases resilience to the impacts of climate change; protects public health;
conserves our lands, waters, and biodiversity; delivers environmental justice; and
spurs well-paying union jobs and economic growth, especially through
innovation, commercialization, and deployment of clean energy technologies and
infrastructure. Successfully meeting these challenges will require the Federal
Government to pursue such a coordinated approach from planning to
implementation, coupled with substantive engagement by stakeholders, including
State, local, and Tribal governments.
The President's declared policy responds to and is supported by the science which makes clear
that the climate will continue to heat up so long as humanity continues to increase GHG levels in
the atmosphere. The global mean temperature reached 1.2 o C above the pre-industrial baseline
in 2020 12 which has produced massive damage and destruction to property and natural systems,
and caused hundreds of deaths, displacement, homelessness and loss of livelihoods for tens of
thousands of Americans from extreme floods, drought, wildfires, hurricanes and
tornadoes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 17]
12. World Meteorological Organization, State of the Global Climate, 6 (April
2021); available at doc_num.php (wmo.int). WMO uses the "1850-1900 baseline
as an approximation of pre-industrial levels." Id.
The latest climate modeling report (AR6) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) now makes clear that exceeding 1.5o C before 2050 is "more likely than not" even with
implementation of the most aggressive GHG reduction scenario, but that the excursion above
1.5o C can be limited to a few decades if we reduce GHG emissions by half before 2030,
and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But if we fail to meet either of those targets, it is "more
likely than not" that global temperatures will reach 2.0 o C with dire consequences for
humanity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
To achieve net-zero emissions economy wide by 2050, zero emission technologies currently
available must be deployed as soon as possible to put GHG emissions from our largest source of
emissions - transportation - on the path toward zero. EPA's proposed rule merely reduces
110
-------
carbon fuel combustion by less than 1%. A zero emission economy cannot be achieved if
vehicles continue to burn carbon fuels. Internal combustion engines (ICEs) must be replaced as
quickly as possible by zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
18]
EPA's proposed HDV rule does not chart a course toward implementing either the national
policy declared by President Biden or reflect the urgent need to cut GHG emissions in half by
2030 to avoid much worse future climate catastrophes. The rule preamble acknowledges that the
proposed rule changes will reduce HDV C02 emissions by only .2 MMT during MY 2027 from
29 MMT to 28.8 MMT. Over the 20 year useful life of vehicles sold in MYs 2027-29 the rule
will allow millions of diesel and gasoline vehicles to be added to the Nation's highways which
will emit an estimated 1.7 billion MT of C02. These emissions will wipe out more than half of
the 3.1 billion MT of C02 reduction achieved by EPA's SAFE 2 rule for light duty vehicles.
These HDV emissions are the equivalent of operating 21 new coal-fired power plants. A large
fraction of these emissions could be avoided if EPA adopted the CARB zero emission standard
for HDVs in the ACT rule. The rule does not achieve, or describe how it will contribute to
achieving, zero emissions by 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 18]
Harm to public health and the environmental, property and economic resources of our
communities incorporated into the CAA definition of "public welfare" was anticipated and
comprehensively described in the Administrator's Endangerment Finding that established the
basis for regulating six GHGs under the CAA. 14 All of the harms anticipated in 2009 have now
been demonstrated to varying degrees, and are accelerating rapidly as the planet continues to
heat up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19]
14. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (December 15, 2009).
Since the Endangerment Finding, EPA's catalogue of risks have been augmented by much more
comprehensive modeling of warming trends, the warming expected from a range of global
emission scenarios, and a description of the emission limitations that must be implemented to
avoid more catastrophic climate outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19]
The IPCC's 2018 report reviews and analyzes the then-available scientific literature to provide
the best information available to answer two critical questions posed by world leaders at the
Paris Climate conference: 1) What are the differences between the consequences of allowing the
planetary climate system to rise 1.5o C compared to 2o C above the pre-industrial background?
2) What limitations on C02 and other GHG emissions must be achieved to avoid overshooting a
1.5o C or a 2o C rise in global temperature? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 20]
The IPCC's 2018 report catalogues numerous expected adverse consequences of both a 1.5o C
and a 2o C rise and in global mean temperature. 15 Some of the effects of greatest concern are -
1) increases in mean summer temperatures and the frequency of hot days above the 99th%ile of
the baseline temperature range, and the increased duration of the summer dry season that,
together, will more quickly desiccate the coastal and Cascade forests each year, increase the
ignitability of forest fuels, increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, increase the
production of hazardous concentrations of fine particle pollution (smoke), and increase the
111
-------
adverse health consequences of public exposure to multi-day extreme hazard pollution
episodes; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 20]
15. Global Warming of 1.5o C, Chapter 3: "Impacts of 1.5o C of global warming
on natural and human systems."
2) diminished summer stream flows that force curtailment of water for agricultural operations
dependent on irrigation water, and contribute to warmer surface water temperatures that interfere
with the survival of cold water fish species (e.g., salmonids) and contribute to algal blooms that
produce toxic contamination of municipal and agricultural water supplies and fishery
habitats; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 20]
3) increasing ocean acidification and ocean temperatures that together prevent reproduction and
survival of some marine species, cause some native local species to abandon Oregon waters in
search of cooler waters, and diminish productivity of species remaining in the local water
column which in turn will reduce the catch, make commercial fishing unprofitable, and further
reduce the food supply for human populations dependent on marine sources of protein and
resident coastal orca populations that are now starving because of diminished food
supply; [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 20]
4) the frequency and duration of extreme precipitation events that cause flooding, erosion,
displacement of human populations in flood-prone areas, the destruction of freshwater and
anadromous fish spawning habitat and contamination of municipal water supplies; [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 20]
5) warmer winter temperatures that convert winter snow precipitation events to rainfall thereby
reducing the high altitude storage of water which diminishes water resources available for
agriculture and municipal uses during the spring and summer, and increases the severity of
drought by reducing stream flows, causing crop loss, loss of fishery habitat, and inadequate
water supplies for residential and industrial users and fire fighting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1218-A1, pp. 20-21]
6) longer wildfire seasons and expanded burn zones that increase human exposure to hazardous
levels of air pollution, including multi-week exposure to levels of fine particles (smoke) known
to cause pre-mature death and other adverse health outcomes among vulnerable populations, and
elevated concentrations of ground level ozone harmful to public health exacerbated by warmer
summer temperature regimes that govern the chemistry of ozone formation in the
atmosphere. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 21]
16. "More Days With Haze: How Oregon is Adapting to the Public Health Risks
of Increasing Wildfires," p. 5 (Oregon Health Authority, 2019) available at OHA
2688 More Days with Haze (oregon.gov).
All of these effects are occurring now, and are expected to increase in severity as the climate
warming accelerates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 21] The IPCC found that global
mean temperature was about l.Oo C above the pre-industrial baseline in 2010. By 2010, the
112
-------
climate regime had not yet triggered large increases in wildfire conditions compared to historical
fire patterns in the American West. But as the global mean advanced from 1.1 o C to 1.2 o C,
new records were being set. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concluded that
"[i]n 2020 - one of the three warmest years on record - the global average temperature was 1.2
°C above the pre-industrial baseline."17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 21]
17. World Meteorological Organization, State of the Global Climate, 6 (April
2021); available at doc_num.php (wmo.int). WMO uses the "1850-1900 baseline
as an approximation of pre-industrial levels." Id.
As the global temperature approached 1.2 °C, the frequency, intensity, areal extent and duration
of wildfires have increased significantly in the last five years. In 2020 burns set records across
the American West. California's burn area grew to nearly 5 million acres, and the total area
burned in the 11 Western states exceeded 10 million acres: 2020 Western United States wildfire
season - Wikipedia. The increasing area burned by wildfire in the American West tracks the
Australian experience where annual fire zones expanded rapidly in response to drought leading
to a massive wildfire season burning 46 million acres (an area equal to the State of Washington)
during their 2019-20 austral summer.18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 21]
18. List of major bushfires in Australia - Wikipedia, see Sept. 2019-March 2020.
During the 2017 fire season, wildfire in Oregon destroyed one-half million acres for the first time
in the State's history. In 2018 wildfire consumed 660,000 acres of forest. In 2020 Oregon
wildfires consumed 1.2 million acres, 19 forced 500,000 Oregonians to evacuate their homes
ahead of the flames, incinerated 4,000 homes displacing 10,000 Oregonians, leaving many
families homeless, and killed 11. The 2020 burn area doubles the 2017 burn area, and is an order
of magnitude greater than the statewide average of 120,000 acres burned during the 1990-2010
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_0regon_wildfires (1,221,324 acres
burned in 2020).
The 2018 IPCC report states that the global mean temperature is rising about 0.2o C per
decade,20 twice the warming rate during the 20th Century. This accelerated warming rate
suggested in 2018 that 1.5o C rise would be reached about 2035 unless large reductions in GHG
emissions were achieved before 2030. New modeling performed for the 2021 IPCC report, AR6,
indicates that 1.5o C above the pre-industrial baseline will be reached by 2030 if GHG emissions
are held to current rates, and 2o C rise reached by 2050.21,22 WMO has since announced its
estimate that the first annual 1.5o C rise in global temperature will likely occur by
2026.23 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 22]
20. Global Warming of 1.5o C, Chapter. 1 (Section 1.2.1.3).
21. "Analysis: When might the world exceed 1.5C and 2C of global warming? |
Carbon Brief (Dec. 4, 2020).
113
-------
22. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Basis (IPCC, 2021), Summary for Policy
Makers, B.1.2. available at 2108-09 IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
23. World Meteorological Organization, press release (May 27, 2021) available at
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/new-climate-predictions-increase-
likelihood-of-temporarily-reaching- 15-%C2%B0c-next-5.
Given that the frequency and ferocity of wildfire in the American West began to increase
significantly after 2015 under the climate conditions associated with 1.1 ° C to 1.2° C rise above
the 1850-1900 baseline, the march higher toward a 1.5o C rise between 2025 and 2030 can be
expected to accelerate the frequency, severity and areal extent of damage caused by
wildfire. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1 ]
The Oregon Climate Assessment (OCAR5.pdf | Powered by Box, January 5, 2021) anticipates
that the destruction of property, disruption of daily life, large costs to the economy, pollution of
the atmosphere and water supplies, impairment of human health, and damage to wildlife, the
environment and habitats will worsen in coming years as the climate continues to warm more
rapidly. The Assessment cites studies predicting the effects of warming on seasonal heat causing
a six-fold increase in hot days (>90o F) in Oregon counties west of the Cascades during future
Oregon summers (pp. 12-13), and reductions in summer precipitation (Table 2). Summers will be
hotter and drier, and summer heat will start earlier and persist longer.24 The Assessment
concludes that these conditions are conducive to "high-severity" wildfires: High-severity fires
dominate wet, cool forests, including remnant old growth forests, in Oregon's Coast Range and
western Cascade Range. High-severity wildfires in wet, cool forests typically are ... facilitated
by extremely dry and warm springs and summers or high winds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1218-A1, p. 22]
24. Id., 3.
As these conditions become more extreme, the area incinerated by wild fires is expected to
increase (pp. 48-54). A 2017 forest modeling analysis "projected a 200% increase in median
annual area burned in Oregon" during the 2010-2039 period compared to 1961-2004.25 Another
2017 study looking at fires across the American West estimates a 200-400% increase in the
"annual probability of very large fires "26 Going forward, the Assessment makes clear that all
"empirical models ... consistently project that the area burned in Oregon will increase "27 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 22 - 23]
25. Climate Assessment, 53.
26. Id., 54.
27. Id., 53.
The fire zone doubled between 2017 and 2020. As predicted by forest science modeling, another
doubling of the acres burned annually by 2025-30 is highly plausible as global temperature
approaches 1.5° C above the pre-industrial baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
114
-------
If fire zones expand to predicted levels in the Pacific NW, 25% to 40% of Oregon (15 to 25
million acres) and Washington (11 to 20 million acres) will be incinerated during this decade,
economic activity will collapse and hazardous air quality will make the Northwest inhospitable
to human habitation for most residents during the fire season. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-
Al, p. 23]
The data and modeling estimates presented in the Oregon Climate Assessment and other sources
predict a future in which the destruction of Oregon's forest resources by wildfire will continue
until either 1) the cool and wet conditions that sustained Cascadia's forests during the 8,000
years before 1980 are restored, or 2) most of the standing forests are reduced to shrub or
grasslands. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 23]
The climate will need to be stabilized as soon as possible to - o protect public health from the
deadly effects of heat waves and wildfire smoke particles; o preserve the health, safety and
quality of life in the American West from the devastation caused by massive uncontrollable
wildfires; o preserve the health, safety and quality of life for millions of Americans living along
the Gulf Coast from the devastation caused by super hurricanes, o preserve the health, safety and
quality of life for hundreds of millions of Americans living in the Mid-West and Northeast from
the deaths and devastation caused by massive flooding, o to protect the health, safety and quality
of life for millions living in Tornado Alley from the Great Plains to the upper South; o to protect
forests so that they may serve as a sink for C02 rather than as an emission source; o preserve
habitat for wildlife and a resource for forest products and other industries dependent on them,
and o protect the vitality of the marine web of life from collapse as a result of
acidification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 25]
The IPCC provided clear guidance in its 2018 report that to stop the warming and stabilize the
climate, the economy must transition to a zero carbon (C02 and methane) emission energy
system, and forests must be expanded to extract C02 from the atmosphere. Climate stability can
be achieved only by reducing GHG emissions to net-zero. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1,
p. 25] To stabilize global temperature at any level, 'net' C02 emissions would need to be
reduced to zero. This means the amount of C02 entering the atmosphere must equal the amount
that is removed. Achieving a balance between C02 'sources' and 'sinks' is often referred to as
'net zero' emissions or 'carbon neutrality'.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 25]
34. Global Warming of 1.5o C, Chapter 2, FAQs.
Limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net zero C02 emissions globally around 2050 and
concurrent deep reductions in emissions of non-C02 forcers, particularly methane35 (high
confidence). Such mitigation pathways are characterized by energy-demand reductions,
decarbonization of electricity and other fuels, electrification of energy end use, deep reductions
in agricultural emissions, and some form of CDR [carbon dioxide reduction] with carbon storage
on land or sequestration in geological reservoirs.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
25]
35. Methane (CH4, i.e, unburned natural gas) is 20 times more powerful than
C02 as a climate forcer.
115
-------
36. Id., Exec, Summary.
Zero GHG emissions to stabilize the climate must be achieved sooner than later to minimize the
losses and deaths associated with devastating warmer climate effects. Zero emissions cannot be
achieved without transforming transportation which is the largest source of GHG emissions. For
most transportation sources such as on-road vehicles, zero emissions can be cost-effectively
achieved by electrification with batteries or fuel cells. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
26]
The latest IPCC modeling report (AR6, 2021) concludes based on the latest climate data and
updated modeling that - Under the five illustrative [GHG emissions] scenarios, in the near term
(2021-2040), the 1.5°C global warming level is very likely to be exceeded under the very high
GHG emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), likely to be exceeded under the intermediate and high GHG
emissions scenarios (SSP2-4.5 and SSP3-7.0), more likely than not to be exceeded under the low
GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-2.6) and more likely than not to be reached under the very low
GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9).37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 26]
37. Climate Change 2021, Summary for Policymakers, B.1.3. (available at
IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.)
The opportunity to stay below 1.5°C and to prevent the additional devastation that such level of
warming will cause, has been frittered away by inaction and delay. At the current global mean
temperature, the climate has warmed enough to endanger public health, cause devastating
destruction of homes and businesses, loss of life and the disruption of natural systems by extreme
floods, drought, wildfires, hurricanes and tornadoes. The harm we will experience above 1.5°C
will be orders of magnitude greater. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 26]
But the IPCC offers the hope that "for the very low GHG emissions scenario (SSP1-1.9), it is
more likely than not that global surface temperature would decline back to below 1.5°C toward
the end of the 21st century, with a temporary overshoot of no more than 0.1 °C above 1.5°C
global warming."38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 26]
38. Id.
That hope turns on cutting global C02 emissions in half by 2030, and to net-zero by 2050 along
with large reductions in non-C02 climate forcers such as methane. EPA has not set out a
regulatory path for achieving those reductions. EPA's current proposed rule will not achieve
anywhere near those reductions, and fails to identify any future strategy for achieving those
reductions. To fulfill the Agency's statutory mission to protect public health and welfare it must
issue regulations that achieve these targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 26]
Based on these data and other available evidence, we petition the Administrator to find that - 1)
climate warming already caused by GHG emissions harms the public health and is causing
unacceptable adverse impacts on public welfare and the human environment, and 2) the expected
increase in the severity and frequency of harms to health and the public welfare that will be
caused by more extreme events that will occur as the global mean temperature advances toward
116
-------
and above the 1.5°C level resulting from growing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere,
establish the need for a zero GHG emissions standard for HDVs pursuant to section 202(a)(1)
and (3)(A) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 27.]
We petition the Administrator to make this finding as the predicate for re-opening this
rulemaking for the purpose of promulgating a zero emission standard for HDVs, and a phase-in
schedule that prescribes for each automaker a share of total HDV sales that must be ZEVs
beginning with the 2027 MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 27-28.]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
The climate crisis is wreaking havoc on weather, ecosystems, agriculture, water supplies, and
public health, and the timeline for reducing emissions to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius is now perilously short. The two most recent working group contributions to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (from Working
Groups II and III) make clear societal choices and actions taken this decade will determine our
collective climate future.ii The transportation sector remains the largest contributor to U.S. GHG
emissions, constituting 29 percent of total emissions, with 24 percent coming from heavy-duty
vehicles.iii From 1990 to 2019, GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks increased
92.9 percent, and during that time GHG emissions from buses increased 162 percent.iv [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, pp. 1-2]
ii IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers [H.-O. Portner, D.C. Roberts, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S.
Loschke, V. Moller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O.
Portner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegria, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Loschke, V.
Moller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Summa
ryForPolicymakers.pdf and IPCC, 2022: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III
to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. A1 Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D.
McCollum, M. Pathak, S.
Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J.
Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001,
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.
pdf.
iii EPA Proposed Rules, 17440.
117
-------
iv U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990-2019, December 2021, 2,
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P 1013NR3 .pdf
Such trends are inconsistent with a climate stable future and must be reversed as quickly as
possible. The EPA can and should promulgate more stringent GHG tailpipe standards that align
with the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Climate Agreement and
achieve the emissions reductions in 2030 required for a 1.5°C trajectory. Strong tailpipe
standards will also ensure compliance with Executive Order 14037, Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, aimed at making zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including
EVs, 50 percent of all new cars sold in 2030.v They will help achieve the goals of Executive
Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, as well, reducing economy-wide
GHGs by 50 to 52 percent by 2030.vi [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.2]
v Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14037 of August 5, 2021:
Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, Federal Register,
National Archives and Records Administration, August 10, 2021,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/10/2021-
17121/strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-trucks; and White
House, FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Steps to Drive American
Leadership Forward on Clean Cars and Trucks, August 5, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/05/fact-
sheet-president-biden-announces-steps-to-driveamerican-leadership-forward-on-
clean-cars-and-trucks/.
vi White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S.
Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies, April 22, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/04/22/fact-
sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-
aimed-at-creating-good-payingunion-
jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/; and Executive
Office of the President, Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021: Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Federal Register, National Archives and
Records Administration, February 1, 2021
https://www.federalregister.gOv/documents/2021/02/01/2021-02177/tackling-the-
climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
As a climate scientist, I know we have no time to wait to act on climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
The transportation sector is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Trucks and buses are responsible for 25 percent of total transportation sector greenhouse gas
118
-------
emissions, despite accounting for only 4 percent of vehicles on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1134-A1, p.2]
To keep our climate as safe as possible for our children and other vulnerable people, including
people of color who are disproportionately exposed, we need Strong vehicle standards to provide
relief from the burden of diesel fumes and air pollution and help address climate change. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
Organization: Jessica Stevens
I am writing in support of the Environmental Protection Agency in the proposed regulation to
reduce air pollution from highway heavy duty vehicles and engines. Greenhouse gasses, ozone,
and other particulate matter are primary contributors in our current climate crisis, so any
recommendation to reduce these is urged. In addition, these have direct consequences in public
health and environmental justice, which was put under consideration in constructing this report. I
will outline why this regulation is essential in taking steps against climate change and why it is
important in our quality of life, as well as providing some recommendations and other items to
take under consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Transportation is currently the greatest source of greenhouse gasses in the United States. In 2020,
it accounted for 27% of the emissions produced, mostly coming from petroleum based fuel for
trucks, cars, planes, etc. (Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Over half of the emissions in
this industry come from cars, light, medium, and heavy duty trucks, while the other half result
from other forms of transportation like planes, ships, and trains. The National Institute of
Environmental Health Services (NIEHS) outlines the air pollution produced by the transportation
sector and the potential health impacts this has. The NIEHS states that Traffic Related Air
Pollution (TRAP) includes ground level ozone, carbon, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter (Air
Pollution and Your Health). This can result in various forms of respiratory disease, like asthma
or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Additionally, air pollution increases the risk for
cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, particularly breast and lung cancer. The NIEHS also
found that nine out of 10 people living in urban areas worldwide were found to be affected by air
pollution (Air Pollution and Your Health). This report specifically mentions that lower income
families and people of color possess higher risk for air pollution by being more likely to be
located near truck routes. This is a public health and environmental justice problem that needs to
be addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Not only are their human health impacts from emissions, but the environment, and therefore our
existence as a species, suffers as well. Global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius would be extremely
dangerous for the survival of our planet, but a warming of 2 degrees Celsius would be even more
vital to prevent. Effects of warming from greenhouse emissions include extreme weather patterns
like heat waves, rising sea levels from melting ice glaciers, changes in precipitation patterns
leading to floods and droughts, and in general more unpredictable and severe weather events
(Human health impacts of climate change). These changes can directly or indirectly lead to
illness or death. The changes in precipitation and temperature can have effects on animal and
insect living patterns, affecting their own survival or behaviors. Changes in their interactions and
interactions with humans can give rise to the spread or prevalence of infectious diseases. Rises in
119
-------
water related infections may also be a result of changes in rain patterns, increase in storms, and
rising sea levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection
The transportation sector is also the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the
United States, with heavy-duty vehicles being the second-largest contributor within that sector.
Reducing GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is an important step in addressing the
growing climate emergency that is already impacting our residents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1288-Al,p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Lung Association (248)
Trucks and buses are also a source of the greenhouse gas emissions fueling climate change. The
most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear that the
world remains incredibly vulnerable to catastrophic impacts of a warming climate. We see this in
our communities. From extreme heat to flooding to wildfires, individuals' lives and livelihoods
are at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Evangelical Environmental Network
(EEN) (67,755)
Pollution from transportation is a major cause of air-pollution-related death and disease, and
recently transportation became the top source of global warming pollution in the United States.
Heavy-Duty Trucks, like tractor-trailers, are a leading source of lung-damaging air pollutants—
including smog-forming NOx pollution and particle pollution (soot). In 2020, trucks emitted an
estimated 561 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and 38,000 metric tons of particulate matter (soot) (PM), filling the air we breathe with
life-threatening air pollution. The largest single source of these pollutants is heavy duty
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1610-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
The climate crisis is harming our families and our communities today and medium and heavy-
duty vehicles are a major contributor to this pollution. In fact, despite making up only 10% of the
total number of vehicles on the road, medium- and heavy-duty trucks contribute a quarter of the
total climate pollution from the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Neighbors for Clean Air and Elders
Climate Action (43)
The warmer climate has triggered a massive increase in wildfire in Oregon from an annual
average of 120,000 areas burned just 20 years ago, to over 1 million acres each in 2020 and
2021. Wildfire studies reported in Oregon's Climate Assessment (2021) estimates wildfire will
likely double in this decade to 2 million acres annually. Thousands of families lost homes to
120
-------
fire, businesses were destroyed and communities lost schools, health care facilities, water and
power supplies and other infrastructure. Smoke pollution smothered the state with dangerous
levels of air pollution that added hundreds of premature deaths. The record setting heat wave last
year also took more than one hundred lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-Al,pp.l-2]
Oregon needs your help now to slow the warming to protect our families and communities.
Medium and heavy-duty vehicles are a major contributor to this pollution. Despite making up
only 10% of vehicles on the road, medium- and heavy-duty trucks emit a quarter of climate
pollution from the transportation sector. Oregon has adopted the California rule to reduce heavy
duty vehicle emissions, but Oregon's emissions are a small fraction of C02 emitted from
vehicles nationwide. National emission reductions are needed to slow climate warming. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-Al,p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The Climate Reality Project (10,820)
Robust national standards will not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a critical time,
but prevent thousands of asthma cases - especially among children - hospital visits, and even
deaths. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1083-A1, p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 1 (2,443)
Heavy-duty vehicles are also one of the nation's top sources of climate pollution. Nearly all of
America's national parks are threatened by the symptoms of a warming climate including more
frequent heat waves, drought, sea level rise, coastal flooding, and extreme wildfires. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1594-A1,p. 1]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Add to all of this the reality that these same communities are also most at risk from the coming
climate disaster. Today, global freight transport accounts for about 36 percent of overall
transportation emissions, which itself accounts for one-quarter of overall C02 emissions, and
therefore has a direct and significant impact on climate change.26 Put another way, while road
transport makes up only 18 percent of total freight activity, it constitutes more than half of all
freight-related C02 emissions. So, in addition to the clear need to address the health and air
quality issues from the freight industry, there are also massive climate benefits to decarbonizing
this sector. In its 2022 report "Zeroing in on Healthy Air," the American Lung Association found
that a nationwide transition to zero-emission light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, powered
by non-combustion electricity, would save 110,000 lives and secure $1.2 trillion in public health
benefits nationwide from 2020-2050.27 These are health and economic savings that we cannot
afford to waste. Yet this trend is even more worrisome than current figures indicate, since global
freight traffic is accelerating substantially and emissions levels are therefore continuing to
increase at an alarming rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 10]
26. IEA. "Tracking Transport 2020." IEA, 2020.
https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-transport-2020. 27
121
-------
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/13248145-06f0-4e35-b79b-6dfacfd29a71/zeroing-
in-on-healthy-air-report-2022. pdf
The effects of a growing climate crisis are already being felt by port-adjacent communities in
deadly and dangerous ways. These effects range from deadly heat waves, to flooding, to
superstorms, and hurricanes.28 Indeed, storm surge and hurricane events have significantly
increased in severity and frequency in recent years. These superstorms, like Superstorm Sandy,
have forced port-adjacent communities to confront new issues that are a direct result of an under-
regulated freight transportation system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 10]
28. https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/docman-lister/resource-pdfs/116-environmental-
justice-stakeholder/file
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
Federal vehicle standards are central to addressing climate change as well as state, regional, and
local air pollution problems, which in many cases are severe. It is clear that action is needed and,
in the U.S., the transportation sector generates the largest share of GHG emissions (29 percent of
2019 GHG emissions). 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 4]
14. U.S. EPA, Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sourcesgreenhouse-gas-emissions (last
updated Apr. 14, 2021).
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
National parks are incredibly vulnerable to the changing climate. 15 As the temperature warms in
the national parks at twice the rate of the United States as a whole, climate effects are felt across
all park geographic regions and locations, from coastal areas to mountain ranges. 16 Climate
effects include: (1) rising sea levels; (2) increasingly intense wildfires; (3) threat and harm to
wildlife habitats and lifestyles; (4) the rapid growth of disruptive, invasive species; (5) extreme
weather damage; (6) drier conditions leading to difficult droughts; (7) loss of snow and ice; (8)
changing landscapes and disrupted ecosystems; (9) destruction of irreplaceable park structures
and artifacts; and (10) altered visitation patterns and significant losses to valuable tourism
revenue. 17 Due to the propensity of so much further damage being done to national parks
including historic and cultural sites , climate change has been cited as a significant concern for
80 percent of the nation's parks. 18 If climate change continues at this rate and the climate effects
continue to wreak havoc across the nation, wildlife and plant species' populations will plummet,
and possible additional extinctions could occur. 19 However, this EPA rule can help address the
climate crisis and in so doing, protect our parks'—reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles is a massively helpful step to slowing climate change, as the transportation
section is now the largest source of these emissions in the United States.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.3-4]
122
-------
15 Patrick Gonzalez et al., Disproportionate Magnitude of Climate Change in
United States National Parks, 13 ENVTL. RES. LETTERS 1,6-10 (2018),
https://perma.cc/99FL-CA3S.
16 Id. at 3.
17 NPCA, How the Climate Crisis Is Affecting National Parks, NPCA.org (last
visited Apr. 30, 2022), https://www.npca.org/reports/climate-impacts; see also
Patrick Gonzalez et al., Disproportionate Magnitude of Climate Change in United
States National Parks, 13 ENVTL. RES. LETTERS 1 (2018),
https://perma.cc/99FL-CA3S.
18 NPCA, Air and Climate Report: Polluted Parks, NPCA.org (2019),
https://www.npca.org/reports/air-climate-report.
19 Id.
20 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018 at
ES-25 (2020), https://perma.cc/98ZR-XNTR.
Organization: National Religious Partnership for the Environment
Transportation is the largest contributor to climate change in the U.S. Trucks and buses, which
only account for 4 percent of vehicles on the road, produce nearly 25 percent of the
transportation sector's greenhouse gases.
Organization: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
The Administration's Clean Trucks Plan, and this proposed component of that plan are
exceedingly important to sovereign Tribes and the millions of Indigenous people who suffer
from breathing unhealthy air. Additionally, we are all threatened by climate change. Emissions
from trucks, buses, large engines, and internal combustion engines of all types are major
contributors to these unacceptable conditions and well-documented threats. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1382-A2, p.l]
Our organization has consistently urged the U.S. EPA, Congress and States to do more to protect
the health and quality of life of our members. Concurrently, Tribes are doing their part to reduce
emissions including the many harmful pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles. For example, 119
Tribes and Alaska Native Villages have reduced diesel emissions through use of the VW
settlement fund. Even more have participated, and continue to participate, in EPA's Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1382-A2, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Next Level Farmer, LLC
There are multiple other factors affecting climate. 'Contact Info@Biochar-International.Org for
credible research information'. What about forest fires? They produce toxic gasses, hazardous
123
-------
smoke, and airborne ash particles. What efforts are being made to stop forest fires in their tracks?
Not enough I would say if 50,000 to 100,000acres are burned per fire. What about Third World
Populations like China and Inda that burn wood to cook their food? This is a large percentage.
However, if global efforts were made to provide a Pyrolylic Wood Burning Stove that burns
wood in an oxygen-limiting environment this would have a huge impact on emissions. Plus, by
burning wood or biomass through a Pyrolysis Furnace in an oxygen-limiting environment you
get way more heat energy from the wood than from burning it with oxygen. What about
countries in Africa that run diesel engines with limited to no pollution control devices? How is
the United Nations Influencing their part in limiting pollution? What about holes in the Ozone
Layer created by repeated rocket launches to put satellites in space? The heat from the rocket
engines and heat from capsules re-entering the earth's atmosphere destroy the Ozone Layer. As
an example NASA's launchpad is in one place and I am sure they use a simular flight pattern
every time which punches holes into the earths Ozone Layer in one location. This would cause
weak areas in the Ozone Layer and Sun Light would be get more and more intense on heating the
ocean and affection the amount of evaporation and storm systems created at sea. Studies suggest
that climate change is linked to the rise of the Industrial Revolution. The Space Race and Rocket
tecnology has the same growth curve as the Industrial Revelution. Also, Tesla is planning 1,000
rocket launches to put his Global Satilite Internet Service into space. This is a 1,000 more holes
in the Ozone Layer. What about the effects of the Moon on our weather? Why aren't those
studies published? The Moon's Gravitational Pull effects our weather. What about the effects of
Volcanos? One volcano eruption creates more ash and pollution than man does in a year. There
are over 100 volcanos globally. What about the effects of large cities? Large cities put off a lot of
heat. Many storm systems that come through Minnesota often go around Minneapolis and the
surrounding suburbs because, of all the heat that is generated by the city. This is diverting the
natural flow of weather systems. What I am saying is that it is not just one thing that is causing
climate change. There are multiple factors that influence our weather. 'Contact Info@Biochar-
International.Org for credible research information'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2785, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Our Children's Trust
These proposed rules will allow 'air pollution from highway heavy duty vehicles and engines,
including ozone, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases,' (i.e., climate pollution) at levels that
continue to endanger the climate system, locking in harm for the youngest generation. The RIA
and Federal Register analysis of the proposed rule paint a very skewed picture of the real
economic and health toll on children by continuing to unlawfully discount their lives and their
health and by relying on economic analyses that by the agency's own admission do not attempt
to quantify some of the most significant economic costs and cost to lives by continuing to permit
vehicles and engines to be fueled with fossil for the foreseeable future, with no plan in sight to
cease this unconstitutional conduct that is quite literally destroying the quality of the air and the
health of children. The science is clear—every ton of greenhouse gas emissions matters and
causes more danger, more temperature rise, and more harm to children's health and safety.2
While cast as a rule 'to reduce air pollution,' with no comprehensive standards for climate and
air protection, this is another piecemeal authorization of ongoing unsafe levels of air pollution
that are destroying our climate system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, pp. 1-2]
124
-------
2 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis, 28 (2021) ('Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global
warming.').
EPA makes no finding that the proposed regulation will protect public health and welfare and air
quality, namely our climate. EPA makes no finding that these regulations are aligned with what
is necessary to stabilize the climate system by preventing additional contributions of air pollution
that push our climate system to further dangerous instability. These proposed regulations do not
appear tied to any standard for protecting our nation's children or future generations. Instead, this
rule purports to consider 'lead time, costs, and other [unidentified] factors, including market
shifts to zero-emission technologies in certain segments of the heavy duty vehicle sector.' Instead
of setting protective standards and leading the way to health and welfare, which are already
compromised, EPA continues to follow the lead of the polluting technologies themselves. Please
describe what scientific standards this proposed rule will meet in protecting air and human health
and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.2]
EPA '.s Actions Must Be Aligned with Restoring Earth '.s Energy Imbalance and Cease
Infringing the Constitutional Rights of Youth. EPA has Public Trust and Constitutional
Obligations to use its Authority to Protect the Atmosphere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-
Al, p.4]
Please explain how the proposed rule aligns with restoring Earth's Energy Imbalance? [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.4]
Excess accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere results in an Earth energy
imbalance and thus an accumulation of heat in our climate system.7 The best available science
informs that Earth's energy balance can only be restored by returning the atmospheric C02
concentration to below 350 ppm by 2100.8 Experts have opined that it is economically and
technically feasible to achieve the science-based greenhouse gas emission reduction target of
close to 100% by 2050, while simultaneously enhancing sequestration capacity of sinks to
drawdown historical cumulative C02 emissions, placing the U.S. on an emissions trajectory
consistent with returning atmospheric C02 to below 350 ppm by 2100.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1317-A1, p.4]
7 Karina von Schuckmann et al., Heat Stored in the Earth System: Where Does
the Energy Go?, 12 Earth Sys. Sci. Data 2013 (2020).
8 James Hansen et al., Assessing 'Dangerous Climate Change': Required
Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and
Nature, 8 PLOS ONE e81648 (2013),
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648; Karina von Schuckmann etal.,
Heat Stored in the Earth System: Where Does the Energy Go?, 12 Earth Sys. Sci.
Data 2013, 2014-15 (2020), https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2013-2020.
9 See Our Children's Trust, Government Climate and Energy Policies Must
Target <350 ppm Atmospheric C02 by 2100 to Protect Children and Future
125
-------
Generations (Mar. 2021); Mark Z. Jacobson et al., 100% Clean and Renewable
Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50
United States, 8 Energy & Env't Sci. 2093 (2015); Ben Haley et al., Evolved
Energy Research, 350 PPM Pathways for the United States (2019),
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.Org/s/350-PPM-Pathways-for-the-United-StateS"
gk6k.pdf; James H. Williams et al., Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United
States, 2 AGU Advances e2020AV000284 (2021); Ben Haley et al., Evolved
Energy Research, 350 PPM Pathways for Florida (2020),
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.Org/s/350-PPM-Pathways-Florida-Report-pa2t.pdf;
Mark Z. Jacobson, Zero Air Pollution and Zero Carbon From All Energy Without
Blackouts at Low Cost in the Whole United States (2021),
http ://web. Stanford, edu/group/efmh/j acobson/Articles/I/21 -US States-PDF s/21 -
WWS-USATotal.pdf.
Current increased average temperatures of 1°C and greater (now 1.2°C) are already dangerous.
Basing policies and decisions that align with temperature targets of 1.5°C is exponentially more
catastrophic for our children and posterity. 10 The IPCC special report on Global Warming of
1.5°C (2018) stated that allowing a temperature rise of 1.5°C 'is not considered 'safe' for most
nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors and poses significant risks to natural and human
systems as compared to the current warming of 1°C (high confidence).' 11 Medical experts have
recently recognized that '[t]he science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1.5°C above the pre-
industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will
be impossible to reverse.' 12 As such, 1.5°C should not be used to guide U.S. policy that is
required to be based on best available science. The EPA should not be advancing policies that
knowingly make the climate crisis worse, and potentially unsolvable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1317-A1, p.5]
10 See IPCC, Overarching Frequently Asked Questions: FAQ 3: How will
climate change affect the lives of today's children tomorrow, if no immediate
action is taken? in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
(2022) ('[TJoday's children and future generations are more likely to be exposed
and vulnerable to climate change and related risks such as flooding, heat stress,
water scarcity, poverty, and hunger. Children are amongst those suffering the
most. . . [CJhildren aged ten or younger in the year 2020 are projected to
experience a nearly four-fold increase in extreme events under 1.5°C of global
warming by 2100[.]')
11 M.R. Allen et al., Technical Summary, in Global Warming of 1.5°C, at 44
(2018); see also Assessing 'Dangerous Climate Change'. This was similarly noted
in the IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, at 15 (2022): 'Global warming, reaching 1.5°C in
the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and
present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans (very high confidence).'
126
-------
12 Lukoye Atwoli et al., Call for Emergency Action to Limit Global Temperature
Increases, Restore Biodiversity, and Protect Health, The Lancet (2021) (emphasis
added), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01915-2.
Climate change is causing a public health emergency that is already adversely impacting the
physical and mental health of American children through, among other impacts, extreme weather
events, rising temperatures and increased heat exposure, decreased air quality, altered infectious
disease patterns, and food and water insecurity. 13 Children are uniquely vulnerable to climate
change impacts because of their developing bodies, higher exposure to air, food, and water per
unit body weight, unique behavior patterns, dependence on caregivers, political powerlessness,
and longevity on the planet. 14 The protection of constitutional rights of children, by following
the science, is of the utmost importance and must be incorporated in all relevant EPA rulemaking
and policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.5]
13 IPCC, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2022: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability, at 11, 17 (2022). This summary found that the
current level of global warming is already driving heat waves that cause human
morbidity, heavy rains, flooding, extreme fires and drought, coral bleaching and
demise, massive shifts in species habitats, loss of glaciers, snow and permafrost,
as well as more destructive hurricanes. Id. at 11.
14 Samantha Ahdoot, Susan E. Pacheco & Council on Environmental Health,
Global Climate Change and Children's Health, 136 Pediatrics el468 (2015);
Rebecca Pass Philipsborn & Kevin Chan, Climate Change and Global Child
Health, 141 Pediatrics e20173774 (2018); Wim Thiery et al., Intergenerational
Inequities in Exposure to Climate Extremes, 374 Science 158 (2021).
Our Children's Trust represents twenty-one youth plaintiffs, including eleven Black, Brown, and
Indigenous youth, in the constitutional climate lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, in which the
Administrator, in his official capacity, and EPA are defendants. This case asserts that, through
the government's past and ongoing affirmative actions that cause climate change, it has violated
the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of
the law, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources. In this litigation, federal
courts have affirmed 'that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite
knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change' 15 and 'has long understood the risks of
fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions'. 16 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
found that there was evidence showing that the federal government was a substantial factor in
causing the youth's constitutional injuries because '[a] significant portion of [GHG] emissions
occur in this country; the United States accounted for over 25% of worldwide emissions from
1850 to 2012, and currently accounts for about 15%.'17 Without immediate effective action, our
children and future generations will continue to suffer injury with long-lasting and potentially
irreversible consequences. 18 These judicially-recognized facts should guide EPA's policies and
practices so they can identify, and alter, those policies that exacerbate American youth's existing
climate change injuries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, pp.5-6]
15 Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2020).
127
-------
16 Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th Cir. 2020).
17 Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2020).
18 See Assessing 'Dangerous Climate Change'; James Hansen et al., Ice Melt, Sea
Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate
Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming Could be
Dangerous, 16 Atmos. Chem. & Phys. 3761 (2016); U.S. Global Change
Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. II (2018).
Our children and future generations are suffering injury with long-lasting and potentially
irreversible consequences at present levels of heating and thus EPA must do everything in its
power to facilitate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in line with best available science.
Moreover, all young people seeking environmental and climate justice, especially youth from
frontline and environmental justice communities that have contributed the least to emissions and
have long suffered from systemic environmental racism and social and economic injustices, must
not only have their voices heard, but have their rights protected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1317-A1, p.6]
We seek to emphasize the need for EPA to align its rulemaking, policies, and initiatives with
protecting the fundamental, constitutional rights of children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-
Al, p.6]
To learn more about how young people are being harmed, please watch the award-winning,
independent feature-length documentary film now streaming on Netflix, YOUTH v GOV. These
stories constitute just a small sample of what American children are experiencing due to the
climate crisis the federal government continues to exacerbate by and through its national energy
system. We request that the EPA incorporates the protection of children's fundamental rights to a
safe climate system, defined by the best available science, into future rulemaking, policies, and
initiatives. Human laws must respect the laws of nature; our government ignores the natural laws
of energy imbalance and climate destabilization at the peril of our children. We encourage you to
consider additional details on our position as noted in Our Children's Trust's prior September 27,
2021 Comment to the EPA on the Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards - Proposed Rule (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0208) attached below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, pp.6-7]
Please include all cited evidence in the administrative record. We are also happy to provide any
of the cited evidence on request. All Juliana v. United States expert reports and related
evidence are in the files of the Department of Justice, which represents EPA and the
Administrator in the case, as its clients. Thus, you have access to all of those documents and
evidence, along with the legal bases for the comments made herein. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1317-A1, p.7]
128
-------
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
The threat of climate change is a critical issue that must be addressed with urgent action, which
includes the implementation of effective climate change mitigation policies. Since heavy-duty
transportation is a major source of GHG emissions in the United States, federal standards that
reduce vehicular GHG emissions are a critical tool in the fight against climate change. It is also
important for these standards to be updated to accurately track against any major shift or trends
in the transportation market to ensure that these standards continue to reduce as much GHG as is
technologically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.6]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Air quality can also be worsened by rising temperatures, one of the many effects of climate
change. GHG emissions are a major driver of climate change, and the transportation sector is the
largest source of GHG emissions in the nation. 13 This is also true for most states in the South.
The transportation sector is the largest source of carbon dioxide (C02)—a significant component
of GHGsl4—in every state in SELC's region except for Alabama, where it is the second largest
source. 15 Within the transportation sector, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are the second
largest contributor of GHG emissions—behind only light-duty vehicles—accounting for about
24 percent of emissions. 16 This amounts to roughly 7 percent of the nation's total GHG
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.3]
13 U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2019, EPA-420-F-21-076, 1 (Dec. 2021),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P 1013NR3 .pdf.
14 U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY, Overview of Greenhouse Gases,
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overviewgreenhouse-gases (last visited Apr.
13, 2022).
15 Based on 2018 C02 emissions. U.S. ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., State Carbon
Dioxide Emission Data Tables, tbl. 4 (Mar. 2, 2021),
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/. For example, the
transportation sector produces 48.6 percent of Virginia's C02 emissions. Id.
16 U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2019, EPA-420-F-21-076, 1 (Dec. 2021),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013NR3.pdf.
The U.S. is already experiencing climate change impacts beyond worsening air quality. Sea level
rise is affecting coastal communities around the country, and the South is particularly vulnerable.
For example, the Hampton Roads region in Virginia has one of the highest rates of sea level rise
on the East Coast, with scientists predicting a rise of 1.5 to 2 feet by 2025.17 The frequency of
extreme weather events, including heavy precipitation, high tides, storm surges, and heat waves,
also continue to increase. 18 These weather events can lead to public emergencies and
infrastructure disruptions, stressing health services and communities. There is also an economic
129
-------
cost to climate change. Studies have found that climate change could cost the U.S. approximately
1.2 percent of the gross domestic product for every additional degree of warming, with the South
expected to experience greater impacts than other part of the country. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1247-A1, p.3]
17 NAT'L OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF
COMMERCE, Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United
States (2017), https://bit.ly/2EUv033.
18 Tom Steinfeld & Chris Coil, GEORGETOWN CLIMATE CTR., and Hans-
Peter Plag, OLD DOMINION UNIV., Understanding Virginia's Vulnerability to
Climate Change, https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/report/
understanding-virginias-vulnerability-to-climate-change.pdf (last visited Apr. 13,
2022).
19 Robinson Meyer, The American South Will Bear the Worst of Climate
Change's Costs, THE ATLANTIC (June 29, 2017),
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-
south/532200/.
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The transportation sector is also the largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the
United States, with heavy-duty vehicles being the second-largest contributor within that sector.
Reducing GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is thus an essential element of addressing
the growing climate emergency that is already impacting our residents. For instance, during the
summer of 2021, multiple deadly heatwaves with record-breaking high temperatures ravaged the
western United States while hurricanes of historic force swept across the southern and eastern
United States, resulting in mass power outages and producing record-breaking rainfall and fatal
flash floods. Scientists project climate change-related impacts like these to worsen, and climate
harms will disproportionately impact historically marginalized communities underscoring the
urgent need for reductions in GHG emissions from this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-
Al, p. 2]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
In addition to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles being one of the largest sources of other
pollutants that negatively impact public health, including PM and NOx, they are also major
emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases (GHGs). As EPA acknowledges: Transportation
is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States, making up 29 percent of all
emissions. Within the transportation sector, heavy-duty vehicles are the second largest
contributor, at 23 percent. Reducing GHG emissions is a critical step in reducing the probability
of impacts from climate change, including heatwaves, drought, sea level rise, extreme climate
and weather events, coastal flooding, and wildfires.44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.7]
130
-------
44 EPA, Heavy-Duty 2027 and Beyond: Clean Trucks Proposed Rulemaking
(March 2022) at 3.
As EPA has already determined, vehicle GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare.45
Since the issuance of the Endangerment Finding continued peer-reviewed scientific analysis has
further elucidated the level of GHG emission reduction needed to adequately protect the public
welfare. Per EPA's request for comment,46 the agency should look first toward the consensus
UNFCCC and IPCC goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably
to 1.5 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels as its baseline.47 The U.S. has adopted an
international commitment to put policies in place consistent with this protective aim. 48 To meet
this new target the U.S. has committed is to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels
in economy wide GHG pollution in 2030.49 This commitment is part of the national effort to
prevent significant domestic impacts from climate change50 and embodies near term action
commensurate with meeting this benchmark. 51 As part of this effort, numerous studies have
highlighted that electrifying the medium- and heavy-duty fleet as rapidly possible will enable the
U.S. to meet its commitment and equitably contribute to emissions reductions that adequately
protect the country's health and welfare.52 For example, a central component of the U.S. long-
term climate strategy in transportation is the 'rapid expansion of zero-emission vehicles—in as
many applications as possible across light-, medium-, and heavy-duty applications.'53 More
specifically, 'addressing legacy diesel vehicles and emissions associated with ports, including
from ships, port equipment, and trucks, would further contribute to meeting national climate,
health, and climate justice goals.'54 Moreover, ALA found that the environmental benefits from
electrifying the transportation in the form of avoided climate change impacts, as expressed as the
Social Cost of Carbon,55 could surpass $113 billion in 2050 as the transportation systems
combust far less fuel and our power system comes to rely on cleaner, non-combustion renewable
energy.56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp.7-8]
45 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Endangerment Finding).
46 87 Fed. Reg. at 15585.
47 See generally, UNFCCC, Key aspects of the Paris Agreement.
48 The United States of America Nationally Determined Contribution Reducing
Greenhouse Gases in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target (date) at 23.
('As noted above, the United States' NDC is consistent with the Paris Agreement
temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well
below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,
recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate
change (Article 2.1(a)).'
49 White House: FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas
Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and
Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies (April 22, 2021).
131
-------
50 See, President Biden, Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619 (Feb. 1,2021).
51 See Nature, Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just
below 2 °C (April 13, 2022) (Limiting warming not only to 'just below' but to
'well below' 2 degrees Celsius or 1.5 degrees Celsius urgently requires
policies and actions to bring about steep emission reductions this decade, aligned
with mid-century global net-zero C02 emissions.)
52 See e.g., IPCC, AR 6, Working Group III, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of
Climate Change (date) at 10-89 (finding in al.75 degrees scenario
decarbonization happens primarily through a switch to hybrid electric and full
battery-electric trucks, which leads to a 60% reduction in GHG emissions from
freight in 2050 relative to 2015. Khalili et al. 20 (2019) also find substantial shifts
to alternative fuels in HDVs under aggressive climate mitigation scenarios.
Battery electricity, Hydrogen fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
constitute 50%, 30%, and 15% of heavy-duty vehicles, respectively, in 2050.
They also find 90% of buses would be electrified by 2050.); See also, UNFCCC,
Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement; Synthesis report
by the secretariat (Feb. 26, 2021) at 32 (In terms of specific technologies that
Parties intend to use for achieving their adaptation and mitigation targets, the
most frequently identified were energy efficient appliances and processes,
renewable energy technologies, low- or zero-emission vehicles and hydrogen
technologies)(emphasis added).
53 United States Executive Office of the President, The Long-Term Strategy of
The United States Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050
(November 2021) at 31.
54 Id. at 42.
55 See White House, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990
(Feb. 2021).
56 ALA, The Road to Clean Air Benefits of a Nationwide Transition to Electric
Vehicles, at 6.
Further, numerous studies show that the medium- and heavy-duty trucking sector must rapidly
decarbonize beginning this decade to meet the U.S. commitments. A recent ICCT study found
that a 2030 target of 45% zero emission sales in the U.S. heavy-duty vehicle sector is compatible
with limiting warming to less than 2°C.57 Even more is needed to ensure that the protective
limiting of overall warming to 1.5°C is reached.58 Another recent analysis found that if 70% of
the Class 8 regional haul tractors in the US and Canada were electrified, it would result in the
avoidance of almost 29 MMT C02e annually.59 Other analyses indicate reaching net zero
132
-------
emissions requires 100% BEV sales in the heavy- duty sector by no later than 2045.60 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.8]
57 ICCT, Emissions Reduction Benefits of a Faster, Global Transition to Zero-
Emission Vehicles (Mar. 8, 2022).
58 Id.
59 NACFE, HD Regional Haul Tractors (Dec. 15, 2021).
60 Energy Innovation, The Cost of Delays (Feb. 3, 2020); See also, McKinsey,
Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take (April 30, 2020); WHO,
COP26 Special Report on Climate Change and Health (Oct. 12, 2021).
Organization: United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
The United Methodist Church affirms the importance of efforts to 'conserve energy and increase
energy efficiency' understanding that a just transition 'to energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources will combat global warming, protect human health, create new jobs, and ensure a secure,
affordable energy future' (2016 Book of Resolutions, 1001: Energy Policy Statement). Trucks
and buses, which account for only 4 percent of vehicles on US roadways, produce 25 percent of
the nation's total transportation related greenhouse gas emissions. These proposed regulations
would capitalize on existing cleaner, more affordable zero-emissions medium and heavy-duty
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1042-A1, p.l]
Organization: University of California, Berkeley, The Goldman School, Center for
Environmental Policy
Our research shows that EPA proposed truck rules fall significantly short in meeting President
Biden's climate commitment, as detailed in the attached working paper, "Clean truck
deployment consistent with President Biden's climate commitment can save $1 trillion for
consumers and avoid 70,000 premature deaths by 2050". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1,
p. 1]
Organization: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department
Climate Change has directly impacted the Tribal Reservation lands. The Four Corners Area is
home to the methane hot-spot and temperatures have risen almost two degrees in the last 100
years, with an accelerated increase since 1980. Water, which has historically been a scarce and
valued commodity in the southwest is now even more threatened resource with the 'mega
drought' the area is experiencing. Emissions from trucks, buses, large engines, and internal
combustion engines of all types are major contributors to these unacceptable conditions and
well-documented threats. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 2]
133
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
Similarly, we believe the Paris Climate Accord goals must be realized to minimize the negative
societal impacts of climate change. The Volvo Group acknowledges that it must work
aggressively to achieve these goals and believes the best solution to jointly solve our climate
change and air quality challenges lies in the acceleration of zero-emission vehicle penetration in
the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 2]
Organization: William F. Limpert
The recent UN International Panel on Climate Change sixth report also underscores in very
frightening, yet scientifically accurate terms, how fossil fuel driven climate change will continue
to negatively impact us, especially in the future. Among other impacts the report states:
• It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and
land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and
biosphere have occurred.
• The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase
from 1850-1900 to 2010-2019 is 0.8C (centigrade) to 1.3C, with a best estimate of
1.07C.
• Global warming will exceed 2C this century unless deep reductions in
GHG emissions are made.
• Under the very high emission scenario a 2.4C increase is likely by around 2050,
and a 4.4C increase by around 2090.
• Under the very low emission scenario a 1,6C increase is likely by around
2050 dropping back to 1.4C increase by around 2090.
• C02 levels are the highest in 2 million years.
• Methane levels have increased 154%, and are at the highest level in the
past 800,000 years
• Weather extremes are more frequent and intense, including heat, precipitation,
and category 3-5 tropical cyclones.
• Heavy precipitation events are likely to continue to increase with rising
temperatures, including more category 3-5 tropical cyclones.
• The global water cycle is expected to become more variable and extreme
134
-------
• Natural carbon sinks in the land and ocean will be less effective in removing
carbon emissions, leaving more carbon in the atmosphere.
• Sea level is up 0.2 meters since 1900.
• Relative to 1995-2014, the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is 0.41
meters under the very low emissions scenario, and 0.82 meters under the very high
emissions scenario. A meter rise cannot be ruled out due to uncertainty about ice sheet
processes.
• Sea level will be up 13 feet by 2300 even under the very low emissions scenario.
• Sea level is committed to rise for centuries to millennia due to continuing deep
ocean warming and ice sheet melt, and will remain elevated for thousands of years.
• Changes in sea level, ice sheets and glaciers, and ocean acidification
and deoxygenation will occur, and be irreversible for centuries or
millennia.
These changes will especially negatively impact the very young, and the yet to be born. Those
who will follow us will inherit a diminished and hostile world that we have passed on to them.
These changes could very well end civilization as we know it. We need to make reducing the
causes of climate change our biggest national priority, and these rules for the heavily polluting
transportation sector will help move us in that direction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055]
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
EPA studies confirm that medium- and heavy-duty vehicles also generate 23 percent of the
transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), contributing to the severity of climate
change impacts, including heat waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme climate and weather
events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. Some populations may be especially vulnerable to these
and other climate change impacts, including low-income communities, people with disabilities,
people of color, and Indigenous populations. Furthermore, studies (such as the recent 'Zeroing in
on Healthy Air' from the American Lung Association) show that regulations and policies
designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as through accelerating electric transportation, will
have the added benefit of reducing other forms of pollution, such as air toxics and particular
matter, that impact public health and disproportionately impact overburdened
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time as part of this final rule on the portion of the HD 2027
NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a
separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG
Phase 3 standards).
135
-------
3 Criteria pollutant standards
3.1 General comments criteria pollutant standards
3.1.1 General comments on stringency of criteria pollutant standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's effort to reduce emissions, specifically nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
particulate matter (PM) from this important segment of the transportation sector.
AVE supports EPA's proposed Option 1 standard, with a modification of the proposed full
useful life timelines and warranty requirements, as the best option for driving more rapid
adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. In 2020 at the commencement
of this rulemaking, AVE urged EPA to use this last in a generation opportunity to vastly improve
air quality across the country. 1 Since EPA's prior rulemaking in 2001 for NOx emissions for
heavy-duty (HD) vehicles, automotive suppliers have continued investing in new engine and
emission control technology to improve performance and emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1280-A1, p. 2]
1. See https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0460
Today, new engine architecture and advanced emission control technologies are available as
cost-effective options for manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions by over 90% from current
standards. Since January of 2020, data has emerged that confirms the readiness of technology to
meet the most aggressive low-NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2]
Without continual developments in ICE technology, the U.S. could miss out on environmental
gains that could significantly advance our nation's climate goals. ICE engine advancements can
help make faster, impactful improvements, particularly for at-risk communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
AVE urges EPA to adopt a true "all-of-the-above" strategy that fosters all types of automotive
innovation. In 2012, EPA contended that at times it is ".. .worthwhile to forego modest additional
emissions reductions in the near term in order to lay the foundation for the potential for much
larger "game-changing" GHG emissions and oil reductions in the longer term." 8 We believe
such a trade-off can actually stifle innovation and could easily lead to technology backsliding.
Supporting improvements to ICE vehicles will also benefit technologies being manufactured in
the U.S. that provide hundreds of thousands of direct jobs, making it the nation's largest sector of
manufacturing jobs with employees in all 50 states.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
136
-------
8 See Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 199 / October 15, 2012; Federal Register / Vol. 86,
No. 151/August 10, 2021
9 U.S. Labor and Economic Impact of Vehicle Supplier Industry, MEMA and IHS
Markit. February 2021.
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Allison believes a single-phase approach to the imposition of emission standards, as in
Option 2, is a better long-term strategy given technology disruptions and need for
industry to focus on research and development needs associated with reducing carbon
dioxide ("C02") emissions as required by the proposed revisions to the Phase 2 rule and
the scheduled Phase 3 rule to address Model Year ("MY") 2030 and later year vehicles.
A two-phase approach to new standards would lead to serious gaps in the availability of
technology for many segments of the fragmented vocational vehicle market. In the
proposed rule, EPA does not account for necessary periods of time, often several years in
length, that are needed to validate new technology in the vocational vehicle sector. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.5]
• EPA has proposed two-different options with regard to the stringency of new standards to
control emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") from heavy-duty vehicles ("HDVs"). EPA
is also taking comments on the range of alternative standards that lie between the two
options.5 On the whole, Allison supports the single-phase regulatory structure of Option
2, rather than imposing two different sets of standards in Model Years ("MYs) 2027 and
2031 under Option 1. As indicated in more detail below, the imposition of new standards
for heavy-duty commercial vehicles has historically been preceded by a "pre-buy" period
where trucking companies and other fleet and individual purchasers seek to avoid a step-
up in price and change in emissions architecture for vehicles that will be used in their
business. This is followed by a downturn in business after the new standards take effect
(the "low-buy" period). Thus, rather than smoothing out any pre-buy period by phasing-
in two sets of standards taking effect within four years of each other, Allison believes that
EPA's Option 1 would likely exacerbate the turmoil that normally attaches to the
imposition of new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.7]
Should EPA determine to have a phased-in program, the four-year period between
implementation of the MY 2027 and 2031 standards under Option 1 is far too short. While it may
comply with the minimum statutory period provided for in the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), for most
vehicle categories, the stringency level of NOx standards will be reduced by 50% or more during
the second-phase of the Option 1 standards. 6 In that four-year timeframe, many OEMs and
component suppliers will simply have insufficient resources to accommodate the necessary
research, development and testing required to ensure compliance with the MY 2031 standards.
This is especially true given that companies will need to allocate their resources on two different
pathways for improvement in conventional engine/vehicle emissions and developing new ZEV
technology. OEMs will struggle to support installation refreshes of conventional powertrain
technology across all vehicle classes in multiple steps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
p.7]
137
-------
6 The sole exception would be for low-load performance for heavy heavy-duty engines in
2031.
While Allison recognizes that EPA has proposed various flexible compliance mechanisms during
this period, all segments of the HDV industry will need to simultaneously prioritize their
economic resources towards lower GHG technology, rather than incremental improvements in
NOx reduction technology. EPA risks segmenting the industry into "haves" and "have nots"
based on the sheer financial capacity of larger companies and OEMs to invest in a broader range
of lower NOx and lower GHG technology at the same time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, pp.7-8]
After reviewing EPA's proposed rule and the supporting documentation available in the docket,
Allison believes the Option 2 stringency levels of 50 mg/hp-hr (0.05 g/hp-hr) for all HDV
engines as measured by the FTP and the SET duty cycles and 100 mg/hp-hr (0.1 (g/hp-hr) as
measured pursuant to the new Low- Load Conditions ("LLC") cycle is most consistent with
EPA's authority under CAA section 202. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1 p.8]
EPA is proposing to set standards pursuant to CAA section 202(a) and 202(a)(3)(A). The first
authority allows EPA to set standards that "take effect after such period as the Administrator
finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." The second authority
specifies that with regard to certain criteria air pollutants, including NOx, standards are to
"reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through application of technology
which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards
apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology."7 Option 2 standards best reflect this statutory balancing of the
factors EPA must take into account when specifying standards that will cover a wide range of
commercial vehicles designed specifically to accomplish numerous work tasks and conditions.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.8]
7 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17420.
Option 2 standards are also the preferable option for the final rule due to the inherent challenges
and lead-time required for the validation of new emission control technologies. In this regard,
EPA is concurrently proposing to extend useful life periods for both spark-ignition and
compression ignition HDVs. Like the stringency of required NOx emission levels, useful life
periods are more aggressive under Option 1 than Option 2 when fully phased-in by MY 2031,
although the first phase of Option 1 is somewhat less aggressive than Option 2 as applied to MY
2027 and later MY vehicles.8 Whatever useful life periods are contained in the final rule,
however, the longer useful life periods will impose substantial upfront engineering and materials
costs. As EPA is aware, systems will need to be designed and built to ensure sufficient "head
room" for compliance over many years, which in the case of EPA's proposed standards, may be
up to 15 years. Companies that supply original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") with various
systems, like Allison, will need to ensure that the lengthy proposed mileage/time periods can be
accommodated. Because EPA intends to move this regulation forward to completion in 2022,
there will be only four years (perhaps less) time from the finalization of the regulation to the time
138
-------
where fully-engineered vehicle systems will need to be developed, produced, and sold to
ultimate purchasers. This means that interim dates for design, testing, validation, production, and
distribution will be challenging even under the least stringent options being considered by EPA.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.8]
8 Table 1 - Proposed Options 1 and 2 Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty CI and SI
Engines on Specific Duty Cycles, Id. at 17,422.
The final Southwest Research Institute ("SWRI') report9 contained in the docket for this
rulemaking indicates that a diesel engine platform "presents] a much greater challenge to
achieving ultra-low NOx emissions. As with all diesel engines, the combination of lean exhaust
and lower exhaust temperatures makes NOx control particularly difficult." 10 In the SWRI
analysis, traditional approaches to NOx control were not capable of meeting the target 0.02 level;
advanced technology approaches were necessary to even approach, much less achieve this level
on a consistent basis. 11 And, while the advanced approaches examined by the SWRI achieved
results showing the potential to even go below 0.02, considerable alterations were necessary to
address various issues, including cold start. Relatedly, despite a long-standing California
program to allow for certification of vehicles as 0.02, to date, it is notable that only natural gas
and liquefied petroleum gas engines have been certified to this level, 12 not the diesel and
gasoline-powered engines that are the explicit focus of this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.9]
9 Evaluating Technologies and Methods to Lower Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Heavy
Duty Vehicles, Final Report, April, 2007, Prepared for California Air Resources Board
("CARB Final Report").
10 Id. at xxxv.
11 Id. atxl.
12 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,433
In the SWRI analysis, there were even more issues with maintaining the 0.02 level over time.
While a "full useful life" duration of 435,000 was used - substantially less than proposed by
EPA in this rulemaking — the results from this study showed that aged parts achieved levels
above 0.02 — approximately 0.035 — on a composite FTP duty cycle.13 EPA's Draft Regulatory
Impact Analysis ("RIA") also showed measured values above the 0.02 standard after 1,000 hours
of accelerated thermal and chemical aging to simulate 435,000 miles of operation. While not at
the level of SWRI, EPA's results were above the level of the proposed Option 1.14 Finally,
while EPA has proposed longer useful life periods apply, data showing compliance with the 0.02
standard over such time periods were not available in the docket upon Federal Register
publication. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.9]
13 CARB Final Report at xlvii, xlix.
139
-------
14 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, Table 3-7, at 115 ("Draft RIA").
15 EPA indicates that data for 800,000 miles of operation is not available yet, but will be
added to the docket when completed. Draft RIA at 129.
EPA should keep in mind several additional perspectives when determining the final standards to
apply to MY 2027 and later HDVs:
• Allowing for an adequate compliance margin is absolutely necessary for near-term
standards, given the costs, engineering challenges, required testing and verification
efforts that are needed to address both stricter standards and longer useful life periods that
require increased part durability. Thus, in seeking to impose standards starting in MY
2027, EPA must allow for sufficient "headroom" that is reflective of real-world
production and not base standards solely on the thorough - but selective — testing that
has been performed by SWRI or other organizations.
• Setting standards that reflect more stringent levels in the near term could actually inhibit
the development of new emission control technologies by incentivizing industry to utilize
only the most conservative approaches to controlling emissions. Industry will logically
pursue the most tested and verified technologies to reduce compliance risk even if newer
technologies could result in additional reductions over the near and long term. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1 pp.9-10]
EPA must also create a regulatory environment that encourages industry innovation to develop
best technology for customer needs and environmental targets over the long-term which can
require an assessment and balancing of near-term priorities to improve air quality and reduce
GHGs with longer term goals to ensure that the best technology choices are available and
sustainable reductions in air pollution are achieved. Different technological approaches can result
in different environmental benefits within different timeframes. EPA should not mandate (or
preclude) in the final rule the ability for industry to utilize different technological options such as
vehicle electrification or alternative fuel pathways like hydrogen. And requirements and
timeframes should allow sufficient time and flexibility for private sector investment in different
options which may have different tailpipe and "upstream" emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.34]
EPA should strive to better analyze this larger picture for the development and deployment of
vehicles in the vocational vehicle sector where several factors (e.g., the carbon content of
electricity used, the production process for hydrogen, the availability of charging/fueling
stations) can determine the level of overall emissions. In some cases, longer timeframes may be
necessary to allow for full development and market confidence in different equipment and
fueling approaches, but these longer timeframes would result in better overall environmental
outcomes. In addition, as cited above, it is essential to fully validate new technologies in
vocational vehicle applications prior to commercial sale. Further consideration of the timeframes
and effort involved in transition to cleaner medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will pay off in the
end; it will help obtain the most cost-effective transition for vehicle owners while ensuring that
emission reductions can be sustained.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.35]
140
-------
One current example of this dynamic lies within EPA's own experience with the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act program ("DERA"). EPA's most recent assessment of this program
indicates that $629 million in funding was awarded in Fiscal Years 2008-2016 resulting in
approximately $19 billion in monetized health benefits, producing a cost-to-benefit ratio of
27:1.70 These health and environmental gains have largely been achieved through the funding of
various technologies, including aerodynamic technologies, diesel oxidation catalysts ("DOCs"),
diesel particulate filters, DOC+ Closed Crankcase Ventilation, engine replacement, idling
reduction technologies, truck stop electrification and vehicle replacement.71 In other words, no
one particular pathway was taken and incremental improvements to the medium- and heavy-duty
diesel fleet produced substantial, cost-effective benefits. EPA should consider this past
experience in designing programs that will apply prospectively to newly manufactured engines
and vehicles and not selectively favor one technological approach to reducing NOx. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.35]
70 DERA Fourth Report to Congress, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, July
2019 at 1.
71 Id. at 4.
• Allison does not support Option 1 and further believes that attempts to make Option 1
more flexible in implementation (e.g., by shortening useful life or warranties or allowing
for additional compliance margins) would not overcome the fundamental issue of the
stringency of the NOx standard being imposed. As detailed above, Allison believes that
the stringency of the Option 1 NOx standard will dictate that only limited technological
pathways will be adopted, excluding other potential options to reduce emissions on a
more cost-effective basis over the longer-term. OEMs and vendors will necessarily have
to design "to the number" of the final emission standard and will only choose options that
have the most proven performance. This dynamic will forfeit the possibility of industry
investing in a broad range of alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.37]
• EPA will likely receive comments questioning the technical feasibility of engines,
vehicles and equipment meeting the Option 1 20 mg/hp-hr (0.02 g/hp-hr) standard. As a
transmission manufacturer, Allison does not seek to offer specific comments on the
ability of vehicles and equipment to meet the Option 1 standard on an engine-out basis,
but believes that the wide variety of vehicle applications and vehicle options in the
vocational vehicle sector strongly favors the adoption of Option 2. As pointed out in our
comments this is due to several factors including: (a) allowing for a variety of
technological options; (b) allowing sufficient time for research, development and
validation of technology; (c) recognition that not all options will be available/validated in
the vocational vehicle sector at the same time; and (d) our concerns that the two-phase
structure of Option 1 will exacerbate issues of pre-buy and low-buy. If EPA proceeds
with finalization of a 0.02 g/hp-hr standard, it should strongly consider limiting
application of this standard to segments of the market outside of the vocational vehicle
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, p.37]
141
-------
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
In terms of the Proposal, ABA comments are in response to the proposed revisions to the
emissions control program outlined in the Notice, and do not address the proposed changes to the
Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 program. Specifically, ABA has a number of specific concerns relating
to the effect the Proposal will have on feasibility, cost, and operational reliability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.5]
As repeated throughout the Notice, EPA must also consider technological feasibility, compliance
cost, and lead time, in addition to reducing pollution when establishing or revising standards as
part of its statutory mandate. In terms of technological feasibility, based on discussions with
engine manufacturers and by reviewing prior submissions to the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Omnibus rulemakingl, ABA is concerned about the technological feasibility of the
Proposal, particularly with regard to EPA's favored Option 1. The ABA, as representatives of
heavy-duty vehicle users and lacking resources to evaluate the technical complexities involved in
developing engines and emissions control systems, must rely on the expertise of such
manufacturers. Based on the opinions expressed by the engine manufacturing and the vehicle
components manufacturing industries, there remain questions as to the feasibility of complying
with the proposed revised standards, particularly Option l's step 2. Although we understand
research conducted by the Southwest Research Institute demonstrated promise, in terms of
establishing feasibility for the proposed revised standards pursuant to Option 2, we further
understand the research was limited and not actually evaluated in terms of an actual vehicle, let
alone a fully loaded motorcoach, or other real-world scenario. Based on the lack of consensus of
whether the proposed revised emissions standards are technically feasible, ABA believes EPA
should reconsider the underlying data and focus on its proposed Option 2. As the vehicle
components manufacturing industry noted in their comments to the CARB Omnibus regulation,
technologies continue to develop and can be improved as they are implemented. Since the
technology evaluated by the Southwest Research Institute has yet to be actually deployed in an
actual vehicle, of any sort, it seems premature for EPA, even with its "technology-forcing"
authority, to attempt to impose standards beyond MY 2031, per Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1308-Al,p.6]
1 "Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments," California Air Resources Board, Aug. 2020.
EPA should also consider that by acting prematurely, relying on its "technology-forcing"
approach, it may again find itself in the position it is now in, seeking revisions to its 2016
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 program. As noted in the Notice, EPA premised the 2016
rule on the unlikelihood of the heavy-duty market becoming electrified in the time frame of the
program. However, the Agency's outlook has now apparently changed regarding targeted
segments of the heavy-duty market. As technological advancement is sure to occur during the
proposed Option 2 timeline, as engine and component manufacturers heavily invest in research
and development, ABA believes EPA should not consider imposing standards beyond Option
2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.6]
142
-------
If EPA determines to proceed with the Proposal, ABA supports Option 2 only. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1308-A1, p.6]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
New NOx Standard. Based on a review of information provided by HDE and CMV
manufacturers (OEMS), ATD urges EPA to adopt proposed "Option 2," which will require
dramatic but arguably feasible HDE NOx reductions starting with MY 2027. ATD strongly
opposes proposed "Option 1" which would mandate an unacceptable two-step set of new
standards in MY 2024 and MY 2031 that will not be feasible to comply with without
significantly compromising expected vehicle performance characteristics, including fuel
economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 3]
Zero Emission CMVs: Almost daily an HDE or CMV OEM announces a new alternative fuel or
technology (natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, battery-electric, etc) product they are developing.
ATD's members are committed to educating prospective new CMV customers about these
exciting new products, to selling, leasing, servicing, and repairing those products as they come to
market, and to making the investments in on-site fueling, tooling, and education necessitated by
those products. And as evidenced by activities at the March 2022 NAD A/ATD Show6, and by its
work with the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Energy on the deployment of critical
public charging facilities, ATD is likewise committed. But ATD urges EPA to recognize that,
while alternative fueled and new technology vehicles are on coming, this NOx rulemaking
should focus exclusively on feasible and cost-effective strategies for reducing NOx emissions
from the significant number of new CMVs powered by ICE diesel and gasoline HDEs that also
will be coming to market in MY 2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 3]
6. See Attachment C, NAD A, Everything Electric at NAD A/ATD Show 2022 (2022).
As discussed above, ATD urges EPA to move forward with a single set of technologically
achievable and customer acceptable national HDE NOx standards for MY 2027 and later, while
relegating any consideration of new HDE GHG mandates to a separate "Phase 3"
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 8]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
Standards should not adversely impact existing or future regulatory requirements
currently in effect whether by EPA or other federal agencies.
• New emission standards should be uniform across the country.
The wide diversity in truck operations, duty-cycles, and fleet turnover rates must
be considered.
Technologies under consideration should be thoroughly tested in a multitude of
fleet operations under varying duty cycles under all climatic conditions.
143
-------
The rule should not impede the transition towards the purchase of ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
HD2027 is closely intertwined with the forthcoming Phase 3 rule to be implemented beginning
in 2030. The current low-NOx effort will likely be the final Agency NOx emissions standard for
fossil-fueled trucks as our industry begins it efforts towards decarbonization. HD2027 serves as
one final step towards clean diesel technology improvements as the future focus of trucking will
be redirected towards ZEV technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 6]
Manufacturers need certainty in terms of planning, timing, research and development, and
investments. Establishing NOx emission milestones beyond 2030, as envisioned under Option 1,
creates another layer of technological difficulty as resources will be stretched thin to ensure
technology pathways are achievable between both rules. Research and development are never
free. Fleets ultimately pay for new technologies as OEMs recoup their investments one increased
invoice at a time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 6]
ATA appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on HD2027. We ask that the agency
continue to proceed in a deliberative manner that weighs science over empathy and facts over
speculation. EPA's proposed Option 1 is not technologically or economically feasible and we
urge that the final rule be set at a place where EPA, fleets, and manufacturers can successfully
develop the next pathway for a cleaner tomorrow and keep the nation's supply chains
strong. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 20]
Organization: Anonymous 1035
Reducing the emissions of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter, and greenhouse
gases (GHG) in heavy-duty vehicles is critical. While heavy-duty vehicles make up less than 5%
of vehicles on the road, they contribute 20% of transportation emissions because commercial
heavy-duty vehicles tend to drive further than passenger vehicles [1], While passenger
transportation slowed during the pandemic, freight demand has only grown. The heavy-duty
truck market is set to grow by 7% in the next five years, making the regulation of NOx and other
emissions in these vehicles a high priority [2], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1035]
Oxides of nitrogen have detrimental effects on both environmental and human health. It can
damage human respiration and sense of smell [3], As the docket covers in detail, people of color
and low-income communities are the most likely populations to be exposed to NOx and suffer
from its effects, yet another example of the large trend of environmental harm disproportionately
affecting already socially marginalized groups. On the environmental side, high levels of
nitrogen dioxide have been known to damage vegetation and reduce crop yields [3]; this
threatens growing regions, many of which are already projected to shrink and buckle under
demand due to climate change [4], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-103 5]
I support the EPA's recommendation of proposed Option 1. Option 1 takes the most aggressive
stance on reducing NOx emissions; it is projected to cut the emissions of nitrogen oxides from
heavy-duty vehicles in half by 2040, and by 60% in 2045. It is important to note that the world is
currently not on track to meet most environmental targets, such as the UN Sustainable
Development Goals or the Paris agreement [5], It is important to overshoot and take an ambitious
144
-------
stance against NOx and other emissions with this reality in mind. To this end, I encourage my
fellow readers to weigh both options' economic potential by considering the lower discount rate
of 3%. Discount rates take into account that future generations will be wealthier than today's;
thus, a dollar today has higher marginal utility than one in the future. Discount rates also take
into account reduced future value due to inflation. A higher discount rate signals that we would
much rather limit our spending against climate change today, even if it pushes higher expenses to
the future because it assumes we will value future dollars less. However, we would err to use a
high discount rate when weighing policy towards nitrogen oxides emissions. Firstly, these
emissions will have long-term ramifications that we may not fully understand or foresee. Second,
the assumption that future generations will be much more prosperous and able to absorb the costs
of today's emissions on their society is dubious: global growth is expected to slow through 2023,
particularly in developing countries [6], In some future time, we may hit a breaking point where
expenditures may only focus on addressing the immediate severe effects of climate change. To
affirm the belief in intergenerational environmental justice, we should apply a prescriptive
approach and use a lower discount rate. This would also return to the standard 3% discount rate
used by the Obama administration to calculate the social cost of carbon [7], [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-1035]
I would like to react to a few particular topics in the docket. It is commendable that Option 1 has
followed the guidance of Executive Order 12898, and is suggesting an option they believe will
not adversely impact minority and low-income populations. By enacting the emissions
reductions, it would actually disproportionately benefit the marginalized populations currently
most heavily subject to transportation emissions. These policies would also reduce the
atmospheric concentration of ozone and particulate matter, resulting in "avoidance of many
adverse environmental and human health impacts in 2045, including reductions in premature
deaths and many non-fatal illnesses" (p. 17643). This is important because, in addition to having
worse health outcomes [8], minority populations experience the impact of emissions
disproportionate to their own consumption [9], One thing I would have liked to see is more
analysis of the impacts of these policies on the Global South, both from an economic and
environmental viewpoint. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1035]
This docket is a step in the right direction, but I also encourage the EPA to continue exploring
zero-emissions vehicles and trends in the trucking industry. As trucking demand explodes, a
growth not even stifled by the pandemic, the freight industry has considered pivoting to more
efficient solutions such as powertrains [10], The EPA should assess that new transportation
technologies are also properly and aggressively regulated, especially as more companies may
turn in this direction amidst trucker shortages. On the bright side, interest in fuel-efficient fleets
and optimized trucking routes (ie. shorter and less fuel-intensive) from the industry side may
lead to a useful collaboration with the EPA toward environmental goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
1035]
[1] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-vehicle-efficiencv-and-emissions-
standards
[2] https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industrv-reports/heavv-dutv-trucks-market
145
-------
[3]
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/monitoring/air/air-
pollution/pollutants/nitrogen-oxid
es#:~:text=Environmental%20and%20health%20effects%20of%20nitrogen%20oxides&t
ext=Hig
h%201evels%20of%20nitrogen%20dioxide%20are%20also%20harmful%20to%20vegeta
tion,visi
bility%2C%20and%20react%20with%20surfaces
[4]
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-
wi thin-10-
years-nasa-study-finds/
r51https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/the-world-is-still-falling-
short-of-meeti
ng-its-climate-goals
r61https://www. worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/01/ll/global-recovery-
economics-deb
t-commodity-
inequality#:~:text=Global%20growth%20is%20expected%20to,is%20unwound%20
across%20the%20world
[7] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-clash-over-cost-of-carbon/
[8]
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequitv/racism-
dispari ties/index.html#:~:text=The%20data%20show%
20that%20racial,compared%20to%20their%20White%20counterparts.
[9]
https://greenaction.org/what-is-environmental-
justice/#:~:text=Environmental%20racism%20refe
rs%20to%20the,being%20disproportionately%20exposed%20to%20toxic
[ 101(https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/03/30/a-forecast-of-the-
trucking-crisisas-
we-head-into-2022/? sh=3 c041 be44475
Organization: Arizona Public Health Association
The Arizona Public Health Association urges USEPA to select Option 1 for heavy and medium
duty truck emissions. We also urge EPA to include emission limits on particulate pollution in
addition to the NOx standards. As it stands, the current rule only sets new goals for NOx - not
particulate matter. While cutting NOx emissions can cut particulate matter emissions including
146
-------
more stringent particulate standards will motivate engineers to ensure that both goals are
achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2114, p. 1]
Organization: BorgWarner
2. EPA's proposed Option 1 standards are technically feasible, once the caveats above on
FUL and warranty have been recognized. The proposed Option 1 has the potential to drive
more rapid adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies, benefitting both the
environment and economy. In addition, we appreciate EPA's consideration for the following
factors for the final rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 2]
Option 1 represents better harmonization of future national standards with California's
Omnibus rules, which would bring the country together to a more unified national
program. Vehicle performance and emissions are determined by fundamental vehicle and
propulsion architectures which should not change from one state to another. Decisions regarding
long-term investment in R&D, capital and tooling are challenging for suppliers like BorgWarner,
who support all major automakers in all U.S. markets. Therefore, state-to-state variations in
emissions standards create the need for automotive suppliers to invest in multiple technology
solutions to meet our customers' needs. With several states already choosing to adopt
California's low-NOx Omnibus rules, harmonization of the standards is necessary to provide
industry with certainty for investments and efficiencies in product development and
manufacturing, and a common technology approach for the full national market. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
BorgWarner opposes technology mandates, including any Zero-Emissions Vehicle (ZEV)
mandate. We consistently urge regulators to develop standards that are technology neutral and
performance based to encourage innovation. All technology pathways with practical applications
should be included as potential solutions to assist the U.S. in achieving its environmental goals.
Regulations based on the end goals of a clean environment, minimizing C02 emissions and
preserving resources should not give preferential treatment to a specific technology. Public
policies should let innovation and market dynamics determine the most effective
solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 3]
Technologies to meet the most stringent NOx standards are available today and ready to deploy
to improve air quality across the country. These engine and emission control technologies, if
deployed quickly, present an opportunity to significantly lower NOx emissions. This quick
deployment is urgently needed in disadvantaged communities, located near highways and heavy
truck traffic, that experience poor air quality and the associated health risks. EPA should allow
for a review of increased stringency should technology pathways demonstrate earlier readiness to
maximize environmental benefits in the near-term as EV trucks become a larger part of the
marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 4]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Ultimately, the future of heavy-duty vehicles is a full transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEV).
But there will be a substantial number of combustion vehicles placed into service even under
147
-------
California's nation-leading ZEV rules, and there are no such rules nationally. Though CARB
urges U.S. EPA to accelerate efforts to promote ZEVs, the agency must also ensure combustion
emissions are as low as possible. To achieve the needed oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reductions and
healthy air for Californians, future heavy-duty trucks must be dramatically lower emitting than
today's new trucks and must stay clean over their entire useful lives. Heavy-duty trucks comprise
the largest NOx emission source category in the State, contributing a third of all statewide NOx
emissions and over a quarter of total statewide diesel particulate matter emissions. It is also the
category that has the biggest impact on our disadvantaged and low income communities. With 50
percent of the heavy-duty truck NOx emissions in California originating from federally certified
trucks, it is crucial for U.S. EPA to adopt stringent standards and test procedures that protect our
communities as those federal compliant trucks drive through our neighborhoods and
highways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.l]
U.S. EPA's proposal includes three sets of proposed emissions standards: Option 1, Option 2,
and Alternative standards. The most stringent standards are associated with the Alternative
standards, followed by the proposed Option 1 standards and the least stringent Option 2
standards. CARB staff is pleased that the proposed Option 1 standards incorporate many
elements that are generally aligned with California's Omnibus regulation, although on a delayed
timetable, and additionally include some elements that establish requirements that are more
stringent than the requirements in the Omnibus regulation. U.S. EPA indicates that its preferred
standards for final consideration are either the proposed Option 1 standards, the proposed Option
2 standards, or standards that are in-between those standards. It is clear that Option 1 is feasible
for many reasons, including the fact that one major HD manufacturer, Ford, publicly stated at
U.S. EPA's public hearing on April 13, 2022, that Option 1 is feasible and should be
selected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.31]
As set forth in greater detail below, CARB staff strongly opposes the adoption of any standards
that are less stringent than the proposed Option 1 standards, but additionally urges U.S. EPA to
incorporate CARB staff recommended modifications to Option 1 that are needed to both ensure
the associated emissions benefits are not unduly diluted and to better align the Option 1
standards with the Omnibus regulation. CARB staff additionally believes that the proposed
adoption of the Option 2 standards is unlawful, because it is directly inconsistent with CAA
Section 202(a)'s mandate that U.S. EPA must adopt emissions standards that reduce emissions
from heavy-duty engines and vehicles to the greatest extent possible, and is also arbitrary and
capricious, in light of U.S. EPA's findings that the emissions technologies needed to comply
with the Option 1 standards will be available by the applicable model years, that the Option 1
standards will produce greater emissions reductions and provide greater public health benefits
than the Option 2 standards. Option 1 would be more cost effective due to the overall lower costs
and greater benefits compared to Option 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.31]
The adoption of the Option 2 standards would be unlawful because such standards are
inconsistent with CAA Section 202(a)'s mandates that U.S. EPA must adopt emissions standards
that reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles to the greatest extent possible,
through the application of technology that U.S. EPA '[determines will be available ... giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of
such technology,'60 and that U.S. EPA must also ensure such emission standards are sufficiently
148
-------
protective of the public health and welfare. 61 The adoption of the Option 2 standards would also
be arbitrary and capricious, in light of U.S. EPA's findings that the emissions technologies
needed to comply with the Option 1 standards will be available by the applicable model years,
that the Option 1 standards will produce greater emissions reductions and provide greater public
health benefits than the Option 2 standards, and thus Option 1 would be more cost effective than
Option 2. CARB staff therefore urge U.S. EPA to adopt the Option 1 standards, in conjunction
with CARB staff recommended modifications to Option 1 that are needed to ensure that the
emissions benefits associated with Option 1 are not unduly diluted, and to better align the Option
1 standards with the standards of the Omnibus regulation. CARB staffs comments regarding the
recommended modifications are set forth in Comments [2.b, 3.a, 4.b, 5.f, 6.f, 9.a, and
10.k.] [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.32]
60 CAA section 202(a)(3)
61 CAA section 202(a)(1).
Applicable Legal Standards
Courts determine the propriety of U.S. EPA's interpretations of the federal CAA using the
standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984)62 or the 'statute is silent or ambiguous with
respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on
a permissible construction of the statute.' [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.32]
62 Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 315 (2014).
467 U.S. 837, 842-843.
'The question for a reviewing court is whether in doing so the agency has acted
reasonably and thus has 'stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority.'63 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.32]
63 Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U.S. 302, 315 citing Arlington v. FCC, 133 S.Ct.
1863, 1868 (emphasis deleted).
Section 307(d)(9) of the CAA authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
to reverse a U.S. EPA action that is 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations,
or short of statutory right,' or that is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise
not in accordance with law.' Blue Water Network v EPA, 370 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2004). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.33]
The 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review specified in section 307(d)(9) is essentially the
same standard of review as specified in the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
706(2)(A). Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)
requires a reviewing court to 'ensur[e] that EPA has 'examine[d] the relevant data and
articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a rational connection between the
facts found and the choice made,' that the Agency's 'decision was based on a consideration of
the relevant factors,' and that the Agency has made no 'clear error of judgment.' ' Blue Water
149
-------
Network, 370 F.3d 1,11 quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 43, (1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), (hereinafter 'State
Farm'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.33]
An agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency relies on factors which Congress has
not intended it to consider, the agency has entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the
problem, offers an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the
agency, or its explanation is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference of view or
the product of agency expertise. State Farm 463 U.S. at 43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.33]
An agency that is proposing a change in preexisting policy must show that 'the new policy is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to
be better...' FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). (Emphasis in
original removed). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.33]
The Proposed Adoption of the Option 2 Standards Is Unlawful Because Such Standards Are
Directly Inconsistent With CAA 202(a)'s Directives That U.S. EPA Must Reduce Emissions
From Heavv-Dutv Engines and Vehicles to the Greatest Extent Possible [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.33]
CAA section 202(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the Administrator of U.S. EPA shall
prescribe emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines in order to
protect the public's health and welfare. CAA section 202(a)(2) provides that '[a]ny regulation
prescribed under paragraph (1) of this subsection (and any revision thereof) shall take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of
the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.' CAA Section 202(a)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that emissions standards applicable to
HC, carbon monoxide (CO), NOx and PM emitted from heavy-duty engines or heavy-duty
vehicles must 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, pp.33-34]
Although CAA section 202(a)(2) provides that U.S. EPA must determine that the technology
needed to comply with proposed standards will be available within applicable time periods,
considering associated compliance costs, and CAA section 202(a)(3) provides that U.S. EPA, in
determining the availability of technology needed to achieve the greatest degree of reductions
can consider cost, energy, and safety factors associated with such technologies, it is clear that the
overriding directive of CAA section 202(a)(1) is the protection of the public's health and
welfare, and the nation's air quality. Motor and Equipment Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. v EPA, 627 F.2d
1095, 1117-1118 (D C. Cir. 1979); Massachusetts v EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532, 533 (2007) (stating
202(a)(1) obligates U.S. EPA to protect the public health and welfare). Courts have interpreted
CAA section 213(a)(3), which contains virtually identical language to section 202(a)(3),64 to
require U.S. EPA, in determining appropriate compliance technologies and associated emissions
150
-------
standards, to primarily consider the impacts on air quality. 'The overriding goal of the section is
air quality and the other listed considerations, while significant, are subordinate to that goal.'
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001); American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA,
52 F.3d 1113, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.34]
64 'Such standards shall achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available ... giving appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology
within the period of time available to manufacturers and to noise, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology.' CAA section 213(a)(3).
Section 202(a)(3)'s express directive that U.S. EPA must achieve 'the greatest degree of
emission reduction possible' is reinforced by legislative history that reflects Congress' clear
intent that U.S. EPA must affirmatively act to reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines and
vehicles to the greatest extent possible. Although U.S. EPA was first authorized to regulate
heavy-duty vehicle emissions by the CAA Amendments of 1965,65 it apparently had 'done little'
to regulate such emissions by the mid-1970's.66 Congress accordingly enacted mandatory
emissions standards for 1979 through 1982 model year heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and
emissions targets for 1985 and later model year heavy-duty vehicles or engines in the 1977
Amendments to the CAA.67 The legislative history indicates Congress' impatience with U.S.
EPA's failure to promulgate sufficiently stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. at 271-273 (1977) (noting that 1977 federal
standards required no reduction of HC, CO or NOx emissions from uncontrolled diesel engines,
and citing reports that 'inadequate' truck emissions standards will cause emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles to comprise 'more than half of all transportation emissions,') 68 and expresses
Congress' insistence that U.S. EPA promulgate technology-forcing emissions standards for
heavy-duty vehicles to achieve needed reductions in emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.34-35]
65 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 414 (D.C. Cir. 1986),
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-272 202(a), 84 Stat. 992
66 805 F.2d at 414
67 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub.L. No. 95-95, Title II, 214, 224, Title
IV, 401(d), 91 Stat. 765, 767, 791; See 805 F.2d 414 to 416.
68 H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 272 (1977)
69 Id. at 273-274.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted the structure and
legislative history of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA that explicitly directed U.S. EPA to
regulate heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicle engines as evidencing Congress' intent that
U.S. EPA establish heavy-duty emission standards that are technology forcing.70 'That the
provisions at issue in this case seek to promote technological advances while also accounting for
151
-------
cost does not detract from their categorization as technology-forcing standards.'71 U.S. EPA
acknowledges that CAA section 202(a)(3) constitutes a technology forcing provision that reflects
Congress' intent that U.S. EPA establish standards achievable as a result of future advances of
pollution control technology.72 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.35]
70 NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 430 (D.C. Cir, 1986).
71 Id. at 428, fn. 30.
72 NPRM at 17436.
That congressional directive to achieve needed emissions reductions is also evidenced by the
technology-forcing directives of CAA section 202(a). Courts interpreting section 202(a) of the
CAA have recognized that Congress intended U.S. EPA to rely upon projected future
developments and advances in pollution control technology in establishing emission standards,
and expected U.S. EPA to 'press for the development and application of improved technology
rather than be limited by that which exists today.' Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S.
EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (NRDC). The NRDC court noted that a longer lead
time 'gives the EPA greater scope for confidence that theoretical solutions will be translated
successfully into mechanical realizations,'73 and further stated that 'the presence of substantial
lead time for development before manufacturers will have to commit themselves to mass
production of a chosen prototype gives the agency greater leeway to modify its standards if the
actual future course of technology diverges from expectation.'74 Furthermore, in assessing the
feasibility of developing and applying technology needed to comply with proposed standards,
U.S. EPA may determine whether such standards are attainable by a predominant segment of the
regulated industry.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.35]
73 NRDC, 655 F.2d 318, 329 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
74 Ibid.
75 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 423 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
In this NPRM, U.S. EPA has considered two distinct sets of emissions standards that it has
determined can be achieved by heavy-duty engines and vehicles in the 2027 and subsequent
model years, through the application of technology it has determined will be available by
specified years, referred to as Option 1 and Option 2.76 The emissions standards associated with
Option 2 are less stringent than the emissions standards associated with Option 1, and it would
accordingly be unlawful to adopt the Option 2 standards, because that action would be directly
inconsistent with CAA 202(a)'s directives that U.S. EPA must reduce emissions from heavy-
duty engines and vehicles to the greatest extent possible, through the application of emission
control technology that U.S. EPA has determined will be available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.36]
76 NPRM at pp. 17436, 17440, 17458, 17459, 17461-17464, 17467-17468, 17475-
17476, 17481, 17487, 17489, 17495-17496, 17500, and 17550.
152
-------
The proposed adoption of the Option 2 standards would be unlawful because it would necessarily
rely upon an interpretation of CAA section 202(a)(3) that is unambiguously precluded by the
statutory phrase 'the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of
technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply.' That statutory mandate is clear - it requires U.S. EPA to prescribe
standards associated with the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable through
technologies that U.S. EPA finds will be available by applicable future years. The proposed
adoption of the Option 2 standards would necessarily contravene that mandate and would
accordingly be precluded, because U.S. EPA has determined that the Option 1 standards
represent 'the greatest emission reductions achievable for the model years to which they are
proposed to apply, pursuant to CAA section 202(a)(3),'77 and that the technology needed to
achieve compliance with the Option 1 standards will be available by the specified model
years.78 Given those findings, the proposed adoption of the less stringent Option 2 standards
impermissibly contravenes both the text and the purpose of section 202(a)(3). Chevron, 467 U.S.,
842-843.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.36]
77 NPRM at 17436.
78 See Section III.B.3 of NPRM; NPRM at 17436, 17475.
79 Further note that any proposed interpretation of CAA 202(a)(3) that disregards the
phrase 'greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable' is impermissible, since ' [i]t is
axiomatic that a statute must be construed to avoid that result so that no provision will be
inoperative or superfluous.' Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d. 1095, 1108
(D C Cir. 1979) cert denied, 446 U.S. 952, 100 (1980).
Both of U.S. EPA's findings are now discussed in greater detail. In the NPRM, U.S. EPA
determined that the emissions standards associated with Option 1 are both more stringent than,
and are also applicable over longer useful life periods, than the emissions standards of Option 2,
80 and also determined that the Option 1 standards will achieve significantly greater reductions
of exhaust emissions than the Option 2 standards. U.S. EPA estimated that the Option 1
standards will produce greater reductions of pollutants than the Option 2 standards,
approximately 121,000 short tons per year of NOx reductions and approximately 149 short tons
of PM 2.5 reductions, as compared to the Option 2 standards in calendar year 2045.81 U.S. EPA
also determined that the Option 1 standards are also more protective of the public health and
welfare than the Option 2 standards; the Option 1 standards are estimated to provide present
values of monetized health benefits resulting from Option 1 in 2045 between $52 to $150 billion
dollars,82 while Option 2 is estimated to provide present values of monetized health benefits in
2045 between $ 41 billion and $ 120 billion dollars.83,84 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.36-37]
80 See, e.g., NPRM at 17422 '[we consider proposed Option 2 to be less stringent than
the standards in the proposed Option 1 because proposed Option 2 has higher numeric
NOx emission standards with similar useful life periods as the proposed Option 1 in MY
2027, and shorter length of useful life periods than the proposed Option 1 in MY 2031'.
Also see NPRM at pp. 17422-17423, 17427, 'Table 5 -Projected Heavy-Duty Emission
153
-------
Reductions in 2045 From The Proposed Options 1 and 2 Standards', 17578, and p.
17427.
81 NPRM at pp. 17579-17580; Tables VI-1 and VI-2
82 At a 7 percent discount rate, (2017$), Table IX-1, NPRM at p. 17589.
83 Ibid.
84 The health benefits account for the reduction of premature deaths and illnesses
resulting from the reductions of ozone and PM2.5 emissions associated with Options 1
and 2. NPRM at 17588.
U.S. EPA has additionally reasonably determined that the technologies needed to comply with
the Option 1 standards will be available by the requisite time periods.85 U.S. EPA determined
that technology packages comprised of cylinder deactivation (CDA) or other valvetrain-related
air control strategies and dual selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems have demonstrated
capabilities to reduce emissions of NOx from CI engines by 90 percent.86 CARB also evaluated
the same emission control technologies when it developed the California Omnibus regulation,
and determined that the technologies that manufacturers will likely use to comply with the
California 2024 model year NOx emission standards from CI engines are presently commercially
available, and that manufacturers will have sufficient time to develop and implement future
technologies or to refine existing emission control technologies needed to comply with the
California 2027 and subsequent model year NOx emission standard,87 which is equivalent in
stringency to U.S. EPA's Option 1 NOx standard for 2031 MY engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.37]
85 See Section III.B.3 of NPRM; NPRM at 17436, 17475.
86 NPRM at 17467; See also Sections III.B.3 and III.C.3 of NPRM
87 CARB, 2020, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider
the Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments, (hereinafter Omnibus Staff Report) Section III. A. 1.2; HD Omnibus ISOR:
Revised on 7-9-2020 for Errata (ca.gov); Appendix I to Omnibus Staff Report; Appendix
I: Current and Advanced Emission Control Strategies and Key Findings of CARB/SwRI
Demonstration Work
For SI engines, U.S. EPA has reasonably determined that the Option 1 standards are currently
nearly achievable through the application of existing emissions control technologies.88 In
developing the Omnibus regulation, CARB determined that SI engines could comply with
California's 2027 MY NOx standard, which is equivalent in stringency to U.S. EPA's Option 1
NOx standard for 2031 MY engines, by incorporating minor refinements to existing compliance
technologies.89 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.38]
88 NPRM at 17480; See Section III.D.3
154
-------
89 See footnote 86
U.S. EPA has estimated the projected costs of compliance for the proposed emission standards
associated with both Option 1 and Option 2. Although the incremental technology costs for the
Option 1 emission standards are generally higher than the corresponding technology costs for the
Option 2 emission standards, the difference in such costs is minor (the maximum difference in
technology costs between Options 1 and 2 is $716 in technology costs for a Class 8 heavy heavy-
duty vehicle), and the largest incremental costs associated with the Option 1 standards only
constitute a fraction of the base technology costs of new vehicles,90 thereby falling within the
range of allowable cost increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.38]
90 For example, the incremental cost of the Option 1 2031 MY standards for Class 8
heavy heavy-duty diesel vehicles is $3931; the base price of a Class 8 heavy heavy-duty
diesel vehicle is $8465 (NPRM at 17570).
Furthermore, it is especially notable that U.S. EPA has also determined that the total technology
and operating costs associated with Option 1 are lower than the costs associated with Option 2.
91 The total technology and operating costs associated with Option 1 and Option 2's
criteria pollutant standards are similar in the early years, but overall (during the 2027 to
2045 time period) the costs for Option 1 are lower than the costs for Option 2 over the
2027 though 2045 time period by $2 to $3 billion dollars.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp.38-39]
91 Compare Table V-16, (Option 1 costs), 17576, with Table V-17 (Option 2 costs),
17577.
92 Discounted at 3 and 7 percent rates, ($2017)
Given those findings, U.S. EPA cannot justify its adoption of the less stringent Option 2
standards on the basis that weaker standards are warranted because the Option 1 standards are
associated with higher costs. In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.
1979), the court addressed issue regarding the cost of compliance associated with CAA section
202(a)(2) and stated:
Section 202's 'cost of compliance' concern, juxtaposed as it is with the requirement that the
Administrator provide the requisite lead time to allow technological developments, refers to the
economic costs of motor vehicle emission standards and accompanying enforcement. See S. Rep.
No. 1922, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-8 (1965); H.R. Rep. No. 728 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1967),
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1967, p. 1938. It relates to the timing of a particular emission
control regulation rather than to its social implications. Congress wanted to avoid undue
economic disruption in the automotive manufacturing industry and also sought to avoid doubling
or tripling the cost of motor vehicles to purchasers. It therefore requires that emission control
regulations be technologically feasible within economic parameters. Therein lies the intent of the
'cost of compliance' requirement. 627 F.2d at 1118. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.38]
155
-------
Finally, the emissions standards for both Options 1 and 2 are not anticipated to adversely impact
safety, because they can be achieved through the use of emission control technologies that are
largely being used today.93 Consequently, it is clear that the adoption of the Option 2 standards
would contravene the directives of CAA section 202(a), because those standards do not reduce
the emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles to the greatest extent possible, considering
the technology that will be available within the requisite model years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 39]
93 NPRMat 17460.
As explained in detail above, U.S. EPA has determined that the technology needed to comply
with the Option 1 standards will be available within the times needed to comply with Option l's
2027 and 2031 MY requirements, that the Option 1 standards will achieve greater emission
reductions than the Option 2 standards, that the Option 1 standards will only fractionally increase
the costs of new vehicles, that the total technology and operating costs of the Option 1 standards
are lower than the comparable costs of the Option 2 standards, and that the Option 1 standards
will produce greater societal benefits than Option 2 standards. These findings fully support U.S.
EPA's multiple determinations that Option 1 appears to be more consistent with U.S. EPA's
obligation under CAA section 202(a)(3) than Option 2.94 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p. 39]
94 NPRMat pp. 17417,17440, 17459.
The rulemaking record contains no information that would support a determination that the
adoption of the less stringent Option 2 standards instead of the more stringent Option 1 standards
would be consistent with the text, intent, or goals of CAA section 202(a). It is therefore apparent
that any proposed decision to adopt weaker standards that would only increase emissions and
consequential harms to the public health and welfare compared to Option 1, while also imposing
greater costs to regulated entities and producing fewer benefits, compared to Option 1, could
only occur if an agency improperly failed to examine relevant data, failed to consider the factors
in section 202(a), or made a clear error of judgment. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. 95 CARB staff
accordingly reiterates its recommendation that U.S. EPA adopt the Option 1 standards, in
conjunction with CARB staff recommended modifications to Option 1 that are needed to ensure
that the emissions benefits associated with Option 1 are not unduly diluted, and to better align
the Option 1 standards with the standards of the Omnibus regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, pp. 39-40]
95 Chemical Mfs. Ass'n v. EPA, 217 F.3d 861, 867 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (EPA regulation
was arbitrary and capricious because it did not advance statutory objectives - EPA
conceded it had no evidence indicating the regulation was consistent with 'ascertainable
legislative intent.')
As discussed in the NPRM and as demonstrated in the CARB Stage 3 and U.S. EPA Stage 3
rework (Stage 3 RW) low NOx demonstration programs, the proposed Option 1 standards
together with CARB staffs recommended modifications are technically feasible and cost
effective. The proposed Option 1 NOx and PM standards are identical to CARB's Omnibus
156
-------
standards for MYs 2031 and later HDEs. However, for MYs 2027 through 2030, they are less
stringent than the corresponding Omnibus standards and fall short of realizing the maximum
technically feasible emission reductions for those MYs. CARB staff strongly urges U.S. EPA to
adopt in its final rulemaking the proposed Option 1 standards with the following recommended
modifications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.40]
In fact, significant industry activity has occurred since CARB adopted the Omnibus regulation,
and a number of additional technologies, not considered in the Stage 3 demonstration programs,
are currently being evaluated by suppliers that are showing potential to further reduce both NOx
and GHG emissions. As summarized below, these efforts and ongoing activities further support
the feasibility and timing for 2027 MY alignment with California's Omnibus standards:
• Development of integrated high efficiency diesel aftertreatment systems is not limited to
CARB and U.S. EPA sponsored demonstrations cited in the Omnibus package. In
Europe, the emissions control trade association has fielded an advanced demonstrator
showing similar emissions controls NOx reduction efficiency results despite not
necessarily having exploited engine calibration to the extent of the CARB and U.S. EPA
sponsored demonstrations or adding the additional engine technology levers available to
engine manufacturers.98 They report In Service Conformity test trips averaging below
0.030 g/bhp-hr and discuss how the trips that exceed that are due to their engine hardware
set's lack of thermal management capability (such as CDA or opposed piston architecture
affords for examples) needed to maintain continuous control across numerous stop and go
repetitions. These corroborative results were accomplished from an approximately 4
g/bhp-hr average engine out NOx rate—somewhat higher than the CARB and U.S. EPA
demonstration engine calibrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.42]
98 Mendoza Villafuerte, Pablo, J. Demuynck, D. Bosteels, P. Recker, T. Wilkes, L. Menne-
Robb, 'Ultra-Low NOx Emissions with a Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a
Heavy-Duty Truck Application' SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-1228, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2021-01-1228
• Achates Power has announced that the cleaner, HD diesel opposed piston engine it
developed in a project funded by CARB and several partners has entered fleet service
with Walmart Corporation in a Peterbilt 579 tractor. It is a diesel engine operating on the
road currently capable of meeting CARB's 2027 Omnibus regulation, which requires a
90 percent reduction in NOx compared to current standards.99 Work has progressed with
the Achates opposed piston Class 8 tractor demonstration program, and early reports of
field portable emissions monitoring system (PEMS) testing is demonstrating significant
reduction of NOx and GHG emissions. PEMS emissions data evaluated using the three-
Bin Moving Average Window (3B-MAW) methodology showed average in-use
emissions of 0.15 g/hr for the idle bin, 0.042 g/hp-hr for the low load bin, and 0.020 g/hp-
hr for the medium- and high-load bin. These results are significantly lower than what is
proposed in the CTP's 2031 MY off-cycle standards. The Class 8 opposed piston
demonstration tractor is currently in revenue service and is showing a cost-effective path
for meeting both California's 2027 MY Phase 2 GHG and Omnibus NOx
levels. 100,101,102 CARB and South Coast Air Quality Management District have
157
-------
funded an add-on $1.4 million full UL emissions demonstration for the subsequent next
generation version of this engine. 103 This adds to the growing body of work on opposed
piston technology including $5M of 2020 DOE VTO funding to adapt this technology as
a two-cylinder engine for Class 3-6 vehicle applications and another $5M of 2021 DOE
VTO funding for hybridization of a two-cylinder opposed piston engine. 104,105 The
U.S. Army has made significant investments in the related four-cylinder 1000 hp opposed
piston Advanced Combat Vehicle Engine that is nearing production under an $87 million
contract. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.42-43]
99 Ultralow NOx Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Enters Fleet Service FINAL.docx
(achatespower.com) April 6, 2022
100 Salvi, A. 'Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration,' CRC Real World
Emissions Workshop. March 15, 2022.
101 Achates Power Heavy Duty Diesel In-Use Testing Results. April 2022.
102 Ultralow NOx during Low-loads and Idle. June 2021.
103 Amend Contract for Emission Testing for Near-Zero Emission Opposed Piston Engine.
SCAQMD Board meeting date: November 5, 2021 AGENDA NO. 5
104 DOE announces $139M in funding for 55 projects to advance innovative vehicle
technologies. July 17, 2020
105 DOE awarding $71M to 20 RD&D projects to cut GHG emissions, expand EV
infrastructure; $5M to Achates for opposed-piston 2-stroke hybrid. November 2. 2021
• Demonstration work on full engine/aftertreatment systems continues looking at various
means of providing heat directly to diesel exhaust aftertreatment systems to improve
efficiency and broaden the duty-cycle range of highest conversion efficiency
operation. 106,107,108 In addition, manufacturers are continuing to report on their
development activities toward standards and the individual means they are developing to
meet the challenges of cold start, low load and idle.' 109 Manufacturers are also publicly
referencing their prowess in the advanced aftertreatment development space. 110 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.43-44]
106 Dhanraj, F., Dahodwala, M., Joshi, S., Koehler, E. et al., 'Evaluation of 48V
Technologies to Meet Future C02 and Low NOx Emission Regulations for Medium Heavy-
Duty Diesel Engines,' SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0555, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0555.
107 Harris, T., Bellard, R., Muhleck, M., and Palmer, G., 'Pre-Heating the Aftertreatment
System with a Burner,' SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0554, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0554.
158
-------
108 McCarthy, Jr., J., Matheaus, A., Zavala, B., Sharp, C. et al., 'Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional Aftertreatment
System,' SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0539, 2022
109 Singh, N., Adelman, B., and Manis, J., 'Methodology for Controlling Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions during Cold Start,' SAE Int. J. Commer. Veh. 14(3):365-374, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.4271/02-14-03-0030
110 Achelpohl, Scott. 'Preparing for dual SCR.' FleetOwner. Jan. 11, 2022
• Active work is also progressing on how sensors can be leveraged for better emissions
control as well as on the actual sensors and emerging measurement technologies for
improving the intrinsic sensor ultimate performance. 111,112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.44]
111 Funk, S., 'Real World NOx Sensor Accuracy Assessment and Implications for REAL
NOx Tracking,' SAE Int. J. Adv. & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 3(6):2761-2769, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2021-01-0593
112 Sur, R., Peng, W., and Kempema, N., 'Laser-Based In-Exhaust Gas Sensor for On-Road
Vehicles,' SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0535, 2022.
CARB staff strongly supports the proposed Option 1 PM, HC, and CO standards and
recommends that they be included in the final rule, since they are technically feasible as
demonstrated in the Stage 3 RW testing and from current certification data. 116 The proposed
Option 1 PM standards would also align with the Omnibus requirements, allowing manufacturers
to produce a single PM aftertreatment design nationally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.46]
116 Sanchez, James. 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Demonstration'. Memorandum to
Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. February 10, 2022.
CARB staff believes the proposed Option 2 is too weak to be considered as reasonable on all
aspects of the requirements, especially regarding the proposed emissions standards, UL, and
warranty period requirements. The proposed Option 2 standards are not technology forcing
standards and undermine the maximum feasible emission reductions achievable as demonstrated
in CARB and U.S. EPA led Stage 3 engine testing programs. Based on U.S. EPA emission
impacts analysis, in 2045, proposed Option 2 would result in approximately 22 percent less NOx
emission reductions nationally compared to Option 1.117 CARB staff strongly opposes U.S.
EPA's consideration of the proposed Option 2 standards for the final rule. In fact, as discussed
above, CARB staff opposes the adoption of any standards that are less stringent than the
proposed Option 1 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.47]
117 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-D-22-001 March 2022. (Table 5-
159
-------
34: National Heavy-duty Vehicle NOx Emissions (Annual US Tons) For Calendar Years
Between 2027 and 2045. Page 262
The proposed Alternative standards are the most stringent compared to both proposed Options 1
and 2. Although the Alternative has the potential to provide much needed NOx emission
reductions, CARB staff understand that U.S. EPA believes that currently no data exists to
unequivocally establish the feasibility of the Alternative 20 mg/hp-hr standard over the proposed
longer 850,000 mile UL for MY 2027. However, CARB staff strongly supports that U.S. EPA
adopt in its final rulemaking the proposed Option 1 standards with CARB staff recommended
modifications that would align it with the Omnibus standards as well as strengthen the LLC and
idling NOx standards to reflect recently demonstrated emissions performance in the CARB Stage
3 and U.S. EPA Stage 3 RW engine testing as well as the On-Road PEMS demonstration and
further engine testing results from the Achates 10.6L Class 8 engine project. Ongoing work is
expected this summer from both a second EPA low NOx engine configuration at SwRI and from
a CARB and South Coast Air Quality Management District sponsored 800,000 mile aging
follow-on emissions demonstration utilizing the second generation Achates engine and
simplified aftertreatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.47]
Similar to the proposed Option 2 requirements for CI engines, the proposed Option 2 for SI
engines is also a very weak proposal on all aspects of the requirements including the proposed
numeric standards, UL, and warranty period requirements. The proposed Option 2 standards are
not technology forcing standards and undermine the maximum feasible emission reductions
achievable as demonstrated by U.S. EPA's own testing as well as CARB certification data for
optional low NOx engines. CARB staff strongly opposes U.S. EPA's consideration of the
proposed Option 2 standards for the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.48]
CARB staff supports that U.S. EPA adopt the proposed Option 1 SI engine standards including
CARB staff proposed modifications that would align federal and CARB requirements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.49]
The NOx and PM SI engine standards for the Alternative proposal are numerically identical to
MY 2027 Omnibus standards. However, they are applicable for UL periods that are slightly
longer than those in the Omnibus, making the Alternative proposal slightly more stringent than
the Omnibus standards. Based on the analysis of optional low NOx engine certification data
discussed above, the Alternative proposal seems to be technically feasible for MY 2027, since
optional low NOx SI engines are currently being certified to the existing CI test procedures
which includes more rigorous durability demonstration and longer UL periods. Since the
Alternative proposal is technically feasible, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA adopt it in
its final rulemaking. This would be identical to Omnibus except for the slightly longer UL
periods. If U.S. EPA does not feel comfortable with increasing the UL periods, CARB staff
urges U.S. EPA to at least align NOx standards and UL periods for SI engines with the Omnibus
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.49]
160
-------
Organization: CALSTART
The Clean Trucks Plan represents a critical opportunity and milestone in the pursuit of a clean
transportation system. The emissions and economic benefits of strong standards for combustion
engines and the transition to zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are well
documented (Sen, 2022; Ledna, 2022). The urgency to reduce global warming and criteria
emissions is paramount to human health and the economy. While analyses show we must
achieve widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles to attain healthy air and limit the most
severe impacts of global warming, combustion vehicles will comprise significant vehicle sales
within this decade and will remain on the road for decades more. For this reason, we strongly
support NOx emission standards in the final rule that are technology forcing, reflect best-in-class
technologies, and result in a net 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions compared to today's
engines and vehicles. Option 1 in the proposal is a step in this direction. The larger the fraction
of combustion vehicles expected into the future, the stronger the emissions standards must be for
these vehicles and their engines. CALSTART supports policy that brings the best available
technologies to the marketplace, drives global leadership, and continues to encourage
innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.2]
Many combustion engines will continue to be sold in the transition to zero-emission vehicles.
EPA's assessment of the Class 4-8 market indicates just 1.5 percent of vehicles sold in model
year 2027 will be zero-emission (below we discuss why we think this estimate is low and should
be accelerated). Even in states that have adopted the ACT standard, for example, combustion
trucks will comprise a majority of Class 4-8 vehicle sales until model year 2031 and roughly
one-third of sales in 2035 and onward.3 Absent federal policy, sales of combustion vehicles will
comprise even greater fractions of Class 4-8 vehicles in states that have not adopted the ACT,
i.e., 44 states with roughly 80 percent of the national Class 2b-8 vehicle population.4 Thus,
combustion engines must incorporate the best available emissions reductions
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.4]
3 In model year 2031, zero-emission vehicles will comprise 55 percent of Class 4-8
straight vehicles and 35 percent of Class 7-8 tractors, or a sales-weighted average of
roughly 50 percent. In model year 2035, those percentages increase to 75 percent and 40
percent, respectively, or a sales weighted average of roughly 67 percent.
4 Class 2b-8 vehicle registrations are based on Atlas' evaluation of 2019 IHS Markit
registration data, available at: https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/medium-and-heavy-
duty-vehi cl eregi strati ons- dashb oard/.
A strong NOx emission standard will result in significant emission reductions, health benefits,
and bring innovative best-in-class emissions technologies to the market. Figure 1, for example,
shows the annual emission reductions expected if 12 states and the District of Columbia adopted
NOx standards in the Heavy-Duty Omnibus regulation compared to those achieved from
potential adoption of the ACT. The Heavy-Duty Omnibus results in roughly two times the NOx
emission reductions as the ACT through 2050 (ICCT, 2022).5 In some states, such as California,
the Heavy-Duty Omnibus will achieve 2.5 times or more cumulative NOx emission reductions as
the ACT (CARB, 2019; CARB, 2020). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.4]
161
-------
5 Based on ICCT's analysis of emission reductions from the Heavy-Duty Omnibus and
Advanced Clean Trucks standard in Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington based on policies taking effect in 2025.
CALSTART supports a final rule that results in engines and vehicles with net NOx emissions
that are 90 percent lower than engines in today's vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
p.5]
In addition, it is important for this policy to ensure emission reductions are achieved over the life
of the vehicle and that engine warranties protect fleets from liabilities associated with emission
controls over similar timeframes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.5]
The final rule should result in engines and vehicles with net NOx emissions 90 percent lower
than engines in today's vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.26]
Organization: Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and Central Texas Clean Air
Coalition (CAV)
The CAC further supports the proposed Option 1 over Option 2 as it represents a greater 03 and
PM2.5 reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1274-A1, p.l]
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network
In addition, in order to prevent increased emissions, EPA should preserve the Phase 2 stringency
requirements for ICE vehicles and phase out advanced technology credit multipliers as soon as
feasible. Finally, a recent Ceres analysis [https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/electrifying-
american-trucking-promise-and-challenges] concluded that, while shifting to electric vehicles
increasingly makes economic sense for manufacturers and suppliers, as well as fleet owners and
shippers, a federal ZEV mandate and fleet purchasing requirements, similar to California's
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)l and Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) standards, will be necessary to
accelerate this transition at the rate and scale necessary to meet climate goals, and to ensure the
global competitiveness of the U.S. truck industry. Accordingly, we urge you to adopt a ZEV
mandate consistent with the targets outlined above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1, pp.l-
2]
1 The ACT has drawn significant business and investor support. Importantly, given that
MHDVs are the largest source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the transportation sector, it is
critical to strengthen the proposed NOx standards.
Disadvantaged communities, located near highways, ports and distribution centers, have long
borne the brunt of negative health and air quality impacts from truck pollution, and it is
necessary to reduce this pollution as quickly as possible during the transition to electrification
(which in turn, will have additional health benefits). Accordingly, EPA should adopt a
strengthened Option 1, requiring a 90% reduction in NOx by 2027, and phase out advanced
162
-------
technology credit multipliers for NOx as soon as feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1,
p.2]
Further, given that medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are the largest source of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) in the transportation sector, it is critical to strengthen the proposed NOx standards, which
were last updated twenty years ago. Disadvantaged communities have long borne the brunt of
negative health and air quality impacts from truck pollution, and we need to reduce these
pollutants to the maximum extent possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A2, p.l]
Further, given that MHDVs are the largest source of NOx in the transportation sector, it is
critical to strengthen the standards to the maximum extent possible in order to reduce air
pollution from MHDVs during the transition, which disproportionately increases health and air
quality risks in disadvantaged communities located near truck routes, ports, and distribution
centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A3, p.2]
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF)
This rulemaking is an opportunity to achieve considerable reductions in both NOx and GHG
pollution, and their associated harms. CBF urges EPA to seize this opportunity by swiftly
finalizing a rule that is a modified version of Option 12 requiring achievement of a 90%
reduction of NOx by model year 2027. CBF also urges EPA to quickly finalize a rule that
accelerates the transition to an entirely zero-emissions heavy-duty fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1295-A1, pp. 1-2]
2 87 Fed. Reg. at 17417.
While NOx emissions have decreased since the 1990s, EPA acknowledges that '[h]eavy-duty
engines will continue to be one of the largest contributors to mobile source NOx emissions
nationwide in the future, representing 32 percent of the mobile source NOx emissions in calendar
year 2045.' 87 Fed. Reg. 17418. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA must finalize a rule that
protects public health, especially disproportionately impacted communities near major roadways
and in areas with high levels of ozone pollution. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1); see also Exec. Order No.
14,008, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,619 (Jan. 27, 2021) ('Agencies shall make achieving environmental
justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the
disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other
cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic
challenges of such impacts.'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, pp.9-10]
As the federal signatory to the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, and as discussed above, EPA
also has an ongoing requirement to ensure that the goals of the Agreement are achieved. NOx
emissions from heavy-duty trucks contribute algae-fueling nitrogen to the Bay watershed and
therefore interfere with the Agreement's water quality and habitat goals. Because heavy-duty
trucks travel nationwide, it is critical that EPA implement a standard that will reduce NOx from
interstate, heavy-duty trucks travelling within the Bay airshed and watershed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1295-A1, p.10]
163
-------
EPA's obligation to protect water quality also stems from the Clean Air Act's directive to issue
emission standards for pollutants that threaten environmental resources, including water quality.
See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1) (directing Administrator to prescribe standards for pollutants from
motor vehicles which endanger public health or welfare); see also 42 U.S.C. 7602(h) (defining
effects on welfare to include effects on 'waters'). In July 2020, six Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions—Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and the District of Columbia—
signaled the importance of reducing NOx and GHG from the heavy-duty vehicle sector by
signing the Multi-State Zero Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding ('MOU').43 In an effort to reduce harm to public health and the devastating
impacts of climate change, signatories to the MOU agreed to 'strive to make sales of all new
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles' in their jurisdictions 'zero emission vehicles by no later than
2050.'44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.10]
43 Multi-State Zero Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding (July 2020), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-
20220329.pdf/.
44 Id.
In the Proposed Rule, EPA notes that 'Option 1 may be a more appropriate level of stringency as
it would result in a greater level of achievable emission reduction for the model years proposed,
which is consistent with EPA's statutory authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3).' 87
Fed. Reg. at 17417. While CBF agrees that Option 1 is more stringent and because these human
health and environmental benefits are urgently needed, long overdue, promote the
administration's environmental justice priority, and are technically and economically feasible45,
we urge EPA to swiftly adopt a modified Option 1 requiring reductions of 90% NOx in model
year 2027.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, pp. 10-11]
45 See, e.g., Energy.gov, DOE Projects Zero Emissions Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Electric Trucks Will Be Cheaper than Diesel-Powered Trucks by 2035 (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-duty-
electric-trucks-will-be-cheaper-diesel ('by 2030, nearly half of medium- and heavy-duty
trucks will be cheaper to buy, operate, and maintain as zero emissions vehicles than
traditional diesel-powered combustion engine vehicles.').
46 This standard is achievable. See, e.g., California Air Resources Board, Heavy-Duty
Omnibus Regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox;
California Air Resources Board, Facts about the Low NOx Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation, at 2,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/files/HD_NOx_Omni
bus_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Organization: City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability & Environment
Seattle strongly encourages EPA to finalize stringent NOx engine standards this year. EPA
has proposed two options for setting new engine standards:
164
-------
• Option 2 is deeply problematic because it does not reflect a technology-forcing standard
that sufficiently protects public health and welfare.
• Option 1 comes closer to realizing technology potential and provides for a transition
period from 2027-2030, where higher emitting engines would continue to be sold. Since
we know that trucks sold in 2030 will be on the road and polluting for decades, it is our
hope that Option 1 can be strengthened to achieve greater NOx reductions and improve
the health of our most-impacted communities. Please consider building on the success
of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule adopted by six states, including
Washington, and set expectation that at least 50 percent of sales should be zero-
emission by 2030, putting the United States on track for all truck sales to be zero-
emission by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1287-A1, p.l]
Through our city partnership with The International Council on Clean Transportation, we have
learned that the U.S. must achieve at least 45% zero-emission truck sales in 2030 and 100% no
later than 2040 to meet domestic and global climate goals to limit warming to below 2 degrees
Celsius. EPA risks not meeting these goals if the agency waits until 2030 to require zero-
emission HDV sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1287-A1, p.2]
We know that the transition to zero-emission vehicles will not be easy, and funding will be
needed to expedite the transition and ensure that drivers benefit from the transition. Seattle
has set a goal of 30% of goods delivery to be zero-emission by 2030 to set a clear target for our
own electrification effort, and we are deeply committed to a just-transition for workers. We
understand there are some 2,000 drayage trucks operating regularly in Seattle, many of which are
operated by independent African immigrant drivers. We are committed to ensuring that
independent operators/owners are not left behind in the technology transition. In 2021, to begin
to tackle the issue, the City established funding for first-in-the-nation city-funded heavy duty
electric truck incentive program specifically aimed at electrifying Heavy Duty Trucks in the
Duwamish Valley, with a focus on independent and small operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1287-A1, p.2]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
EPA is proposing two regulatory options for NOx. We support Option 1, which will implement
stronger NOx standards in two steps. The first improvement would be required in 2027 with a
second more stringent standard 2031 (a NOx standard that would be 90% lower than today's
standards). We support Option 1 with longer useful life and warranty periods. Ensuring that the
warranty and useful life requirements meet 100% of the expected life of these vehicles will
ensure health benefits throughout the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate emissions standards that prioritize
public health and welfare. To enable EPA to carry out this mandate, Congress directed the
Agency to set technology-forcing standards that spur improvements in emissions control
165
-------
technologies. The record of HDVs' negative impacts on public health, environmental justice,
climate change, and national parks and wilderness areas shows that protective emissions
standards are desperately needed. To satisfy its statutory mandate and to fulfill its duty to engage
in reasoned decision-making, EPA must promulgate standards that are supported by the record
and that reduce emissions of dangerous air pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles and engines as
much as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.7]
Beyond making those changes, Commenters urge EPA to adopt Option 1 with further
improvements to testing provisions, numerical emissions standards, warranty and useful life
periods, and implementation schedule. In addition, EPA should revise the proposed durability
demonstration, strengthen the proposed anti-tampering and inducement provisions, reject
exemptions for vocational vehicles, and finalize the proposed particulate matter (PM) standard
and closed crankcase requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.8]
To carry out its statutory mandate in this rulemaking, EPA must promulgate emissions standards
that prioritize public health and welfare by harnessing advancements in emissions reduction
technology. The Clean Air Act makes clear that EPA's primary duty is to protect public health
and welfare by minimizing harmful air pollution. Congress declared that the express purpose of
the Clean Air Act is to 'protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare.' 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.9]
Section 202(a)(1), the source of EPA's general authority to regulate motor vehicles and engines,
directs EPA to promulgate standards that 'prevent or control' emissions of air pollutants that
'cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts that
Congress clearly provided EPA with 'the statutory authority to regulate the emission of
[greenhouse] gases from new motor vehicles' pursuant to Section 202(a)(l)-(2). Massachusetts
v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007) (concluding that there is 'nothing counterintuitive' to EPA
regulating GHG emissions from vehicles considering the statutory factors). Under the terms of
the statute, then, EPA must choose a regulatory response commensurate with the
' endanger[ment]' that pollution from heavy-duty vehicles and engines cause to public health and
welfare. C.f. id. at 532 (noting that Section 202(a) 'charge[s] [EPA] with protecting the public's
'health' and 'welfare"); Coal, for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 117, 122 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (stating that EPA must carry out 'the job Congress gave it in 202(a)—utilizing
emission standards to prevent reasonably anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete
harm.'). Any 'balancing' of factors, such as costs, availability of technology, and lead time, must
prioritize the principal harm-reduction mandate animating the statute. See Husqvarna AB v.
EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (emphasizing, in case involving similar statutory
language in Section 213, that '[t]he overriding goal of the section is air quality and the other
listed considerations, while significant, are subordinate to that goal'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.9]
Section 202(a)(3), which gives EPA specific authority to set standards regulating criteria
pollutant emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines, affirms the central importance of this
protective mandate. The Act requires that these standards reflect the 'greatest degree of
166
-------
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply.' 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i) (emphasis added). While EPA must also consider 'cost, energy, and
safety factors associated with... such technology,' id., it must place primary importance on
achieving the greatest degree of emissions reduction. See Husqvarna, 254 F.3d at 200
(concluding that "EPA did not deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional will
by placing primary significance on the 'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable' and by
considering cost, noise, energy and safety factors as important but secondary factors'). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.9-10]
To bring about critical air quality improvements, Congress authorized EPA to set technology-
forcing standards that require manufacturers to develop entirely new technologies or
significantly improve existing ones. See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
(stating that 'Congress intended the agency to project future advances in pollution control
capability'); 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,436 & n.97. Section 202(a)(2), which pertains to EPA's general
motor vehicle and engine authority, provides that emissions standards 'shall take effect after such
period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2). This language embodies Congress's intent that
EPA 'press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be limited
by that which exists today.' NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d at 328 (quoting S. Rep. No. 1196, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1970)). EPA embraced this 'technology-forcing approach' in its Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 Rule (the subject of targeted updates in this Proposal),
promulgating standards 'predicated on performance of technologies not only currently deployed
but those which reasonably can be developed during the phase in period.' 81 Fed. Reg. 73,478,
73,493, 73,809 (Oct. 25, 2016). Similarly, Section 202(a)(3)(A)(i) prescribes a technology-
forcing approach by directing EPA to establish standards that are 'achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i); Crete Carrier Corp. v. EPA,
363 F.3d 490, 491 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (stating that this section 'is a technology-forcing provision; it
mandates regulations with which manufacturers can comply only by adopting new technologies
as they become available'); NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 428-30 & n.30 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
('Congress intended the EPA.. .to engage in reasonable predictions and projections in order to
force technology.'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.10]
While EPA has considerable discretion to set emissions standards that rely on ambitious
technological developments, Congress made the important policy decisions. Congress directed
EPA, the expert agency with authority over air pollution from vehicles and engines, to develop a
record and apply the Section 202(a) criteria to the facts to develop standards. See Gundy v.
United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116, 2136 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). In doing so, the Agency is
'not obliged to provide detailed solutions to every engineering problem, but ha[s] only to identify
the major steps for improvement and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry will be
able to solve those problems in the time remaining.' Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v.
EPA, 287 F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Indeed, courts have consistently upheld EPA's technology-forcing vehicle and engine
regulations over manufacturers' objections about technological readiness. Id. at 1136-41
(upholding NOx and PM regulations predicated on future developments in pollution control
167
-------
technology); NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d at 428-34 (upholding PM regulation
over manufacturers' concerns about the feasibility of trap-oxidizer technology); NRDC v. EPA,
655 F.2d at 331-36 (same). And manufacturers have consistently risen to the challenge, later
complying with the very standards they previously claimed were impossible to meet. See, e.g.,
87 Fed. Reg. at 17,536 (explaining that manufacturers deployed technologies that EPA had not
predicted to meet the 2001 heavy-duty criteria pollutant standards, which they had
unsuccessfully challenged in National Petrochemical & Refiners Association). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1 pp.10-11]
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA's action may be reversed if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, not in accordance with law, or in excess of statutory authority. 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(9)(A), (C). 'To withstand review, the agency must have examined all relevant
facts and data and articulated a rational explanation for its decision, including a reasonable
connection between the facts and ultimate outcome.' Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Ass'n v. EPA, 11
F.4th 791, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2021). 'A rule is arbitrary and capricious if the agency: (1) 'has relied
on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,' (2) 'entirely failed to consider an
important aspect of the problem,' (3) 'offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to
the evidence before the agency,' or (4) 'is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise." U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43 (1983) and applying the same standard of review under the CAA as under the
Administrative Procedure Act). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.11]
The Proposal's underestimate of the baseline market penetration of HD ZEVs and its failure to
propose standards that further drive adoption of zero-emission technologies ignores the Agency's
obligations under the Clean Air Act and weakens the proposed standards in several ways:
1. Considering more accurate (higher) baseline HD ZEV market penetration 'could lead to a
more stringent NOx emission standard,' as EPA acknowledges. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.
2. Underestimating the baseline market penetration of HD ZEVs will lead to the generation
of a significant amount of credits that will dramatically undermine the goals of the NOx
standards and fail to protect public health and welfare. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.55
Allowing for ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits is a significant departure from
EPA's prior rules,56 and a revised, more accurate baseline HD ZEV penetration estimate
would require reconsideration of these credits to ensure that the rule reflects the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable, as is EPA's statutory mandate.
3. Disregarding the feasibility of zero-emission technologies in establishing the stringency
of the proposed criteria pollutant standards unjustifiably takes proven emission reduction
technologies off the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.20-21]
55 EPA notes that it includes an FEL cap on NOx emissions to help limit the impact credits
generated from BEVs or FCEVs could have in enabling vehicles to exceed the NOx standard.
However, if HD ZEV market penetration is higher than EPA projects, 'there is the potential
for a greater portion of CI engines to emit up to the level of the FEL cap,' 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,560, further undermining the goals of the regulatory program. EPA notes the importance
of 'considering] what impact NOx emissions credits generated from BEVs and FCEVs
168
-------
might have on the NOx emission reductions expected from the proposed rulemaking. Id. at
17,561. Further, as discussed in Section IV.D.2.C of these comments, EPA's proposed FEL
cap is unreasonably high.
56 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,556 ('However, under the current criteria pollutant program,
manufacturers do not have a pathway to generate NOx emission credits for HEVs, BEVs, or
FCEVs. For BEVs and FCEVs, current 40 CFR 86.016-l(d)(4) stipulates that these
technologies may not generate NOx emission credits..id. at 17,561-62 (proposing to
allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits); 40 CFR 86.016-l(d)(4) ('Electric heavy-
duty vehicles may not generate NOx or PM emission credits.').
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.21]
EPA's inaccurate estimate of baseline HD ZEV market penetration undermines its proposed
criteria pollutant standards, but the Agency must also remedy other aspects of its criteria
pollutant proposal. EPA must reject proposed Option 2, which fails to achieve the emissions
reductions necessary to protect public health and welfare and flouts the Clean Air Act's
technology-forcing directive. EPA should incorporate zero-emission technologies into its
feasibility analysis, setting stronger emissions standards that both account for the technological
feasibility and baseline market penetration of zero-emission technologies and accelerate the
deployment of those technologies. In addition, EPA must modify its crediting proposal to ensure
that credits for electric vehicles and 'transitional' credits do not undermine the effectiveness of
its criteria pollutant program. Apart from making those changes, EPA should finalize Option 1,
with Commenters' recommended improvements to testing provisions, numerical emissions
standards, warranty and useful life periods, and implementation timelines. Finally, regardless of
which option it ultimately selects, EPA should revise the proposed durability demonstration,
strengthen the proposed anti-tampering and inducement provisions, reject exemptions for
vocational vehicles, and finalize the proposed PM standard and closed crankcase
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.49]
In setting emissions standards, EPA 'must also provide a reasoned explanation of its basis for
believing that its projection is reliable. This includes a defense of its methodology for arriving at
numerical estimates.' Blue water Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting
NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d at 328). To comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Agency
must examine the relevant data and show that the data is accurate and defensible. See Dist. Hosp.
Partners v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Courts require agencies to use 'the best
information available.' Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2009). If the agency
receives new and better data, it must deal with it in a reasonable fashion and cannot blindly
accept outdated or inaccurate information. See Dist. Hosp. Partners, 786 F.3d at 57; Flyers
Rights Educ. Fund v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738, 745 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ('Agency reasoning.. .must adapt
as the critical facts change.'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 11] Finalizing proposed
Option 2 would be arbitrary and capricious because it embodies a wholly inappropriate balancing
of the statutory factors set forth Section 202(a)(3)(A)(i). See 42 U.S.C 7521(a)(3)(A)(i)
(requiring 'appropriate consideration' of cost, energy, and safety). In comparison to Option 1 and
the alternative approaches we advocate for in Sections IV.B-H below—all of which would
achieve greater public health and welfare gains without imposing unreasonable costs or
169
-------
technological challenges—Option 2 is contrary to EPA's statutory mandate and unsupported by
the record. Cf. Bluewater Network v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1, 21-22 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that
EPA had not adequately explained its balancing of technological feasibility against cost and
other statutory factors in setting emissions standards under Section 213). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.49]
Second, Option 2 falls far short of the Clean Air Act's technology-forcing directive 231 by
letting manufacturers off the hook from improving the durability of emission control
components, thereby eroding Option 2's already limited emissions benefits. See 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,437-38. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.50]
231 As discussed in Section IV.B below, both Options 1 and 2 fail to reflect the
superiority and feasibility of electrification and other zero-emission technologies that
eliminate criteria pollutant tailpipe emissions from HDVs.
In sum, Option 2 amounts to an industry giveaway that sacrifices critically important public
health and welfare benefits in favor of political expediency and technological complacency. EPA
understands this, flatly admitting that 'Option 1 may be a more appropriate level of stringency as
it would result in a greater level of achievable emission reduction for the model years proposed,
which is consistent with EPA's statutory authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3).' 87
Fed. Reg. at 17,417, 17,440. Because Option 2 fails to achieve the statutory mandate, finalizing it
would constitute an abuse of discretion and arbitrary and capricious agency action. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.51]
Finally, Option 2's inferior performance on emissions reduction, public health, and technological
feasibility grounds cannot be justified by cost, energy, safety, or lead time considerations.
Despite its leniency, Option 2 manages to produce higher costs, and fewer net benefits, than
Option 1. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,589; DRIA at 403. Sufficient lead time also exists for manufacturers
to comply with both options. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,436. And both options present the same
safety and energy profiles, with neither having a negative impact on those factors relative to the
baseline. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,440, 17,459-60. Because the Clean Air Act's 'overriding' goal of
improving air quality weighs against Option 2, and the Act's 'subordinate' considerations of
cost, energy, safety, and lead time point in the same direction or are neutral, EPA must reject
Option 2. Husqvarna AB, 254 F.3d at 200; see Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 21 (explaining
that EPA's standards 'must be grounded in 'appropriate consideration' of the relevant statutory
factors,' with support from 'analysis and evidence' in the record). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.50-51]
Second, notwithstanding the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of zero-emission technologies,
EPA has failed to account for BEV and FCEV technologies in proposing the stringency of its
underlying emissions standards. The Proposal's treatment of those technologies is therefore
inappropriately asymmetric: EPA excludes their emergence from its assessment of the 'greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable,' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i); but it allows that
emergence to result in higher-polluting engines through its crediting mechanism. See U.S. Sugar
Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 631 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (The Clean Air Act 'demands that [EPA] take
the bitter with the sweet,' so that 'if the EPA includes a source in a [regulated category]' it must
170
-------
'take into account that source's emissions levels in setting' standards.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.53]
EPA must remedy these flaws. EPA requests comment on the following scenario: if 'BEV and
FCEV technologies' are 'projected to reach a greater degree of market penetration than [the
Agency's current] projections,' could EPA 'incorporate that [higher] level of BEV and FCEV
penetration into [its] calculation of an appropriate numerical standard to represent the combined
benefits of achieving NOx control from engines along with zero tailpipe NOx emissions from
BEV and FCEV technologies.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561. BEV and FCEV technologies are indeed
projected to reach far greater market penetration than EPA has assumed. See Section III, supra.
The availability and cost-competitiveness of those technologies alone warrants their inclusion in
EPA's standard-setting analysis. See Section IV. B, supra. The need for such inclusion is
substantially more acute if EPA allows BEVs and FCEVs to generate credits for use in the
standards' Averaging, Banking and Trading (ABT) program. EPA cannot permit compliance
with the standards through technologies that will be relatively widely adopted in the relevant
model years, while ignoring those technologies in its standard-setting analysis. A 'combined'
standard, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561, if appropriately based on foreseeable levels of BEV and FCEV
penetration (as well has HEV development), would allow the standards and credits to function as
they should, and bring EPA's standards into conformity with the Clean Air Act's command to
require the greatest achievable emission reduction. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.53]
In addition to incorporating zero-emission technologies into its feasibility analysis and rectifying
its BEV and FCEV crediting proposal, as described in Sections IV.B-C above, EPA should
improve several features of its proposed Option 1. Below, Commenters recommend changes to
EPA's proposed testing provisions and emissions standards that would achieve greater emissions
reductions through the application of feasible technologies. We also highlight the importance of
adopting warranty and useful life provisions at least as stringent as those proposed in Option 1,
and implementing standards and testing procedures that better control NOx emissions that occur
when engines are operating at low speeds or idling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.54]
EPA determines whether engines comply with emissions limits using two types of tests,
laboratory-based and in-use testing, neither of which currently captures the higher emissions
happening at lower speeds when trucks are often nearest to people. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.55]
EPA's laboratory-based test procedure measures emissions while an engine is operating over
precisely defined 'duty cycles.' The current duty cycles involve operating under sustained high
load, or transitioning from low to high loads, 'but do not provide for demonstrating emission
control under sustained low-load operations.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,422. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.55]
EPA also requires compliance with 'Not-To-Exceed' (NTE) standards to be shown while engines
are in use on the road in the real world. Measurements of emissions occurring below certain
torque, power, and speed values are currently excluded from consideration, however, as are data
occurring in certain ambient conditions or when aftertreatment temperatures are below a certain
171
-------
level. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,472. EPA's Proposal notes that less than 10% of the data collected
during a typical in-use test is actually subject to EPA's current in-use emissions standards, and
that in-use testing data indicates that low load operation could account for more than half of a
vehicle's NOx emissions during a typical workday. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,472. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.55]
While Commenters prefer the more stringent numerical emissions standards of Option 1 to the
unjustifiably lax standards of Option 2, we urge EPA to further strengthen the standards in
certain key areas: (1) duty cycle and in-use (off-cycle) standards, (2) idle standards, and (3) the
FEL cap. EPA should also reject its proposed two-step approach for Option 1, finalizing the
more stringent standards in MY 2027 instead of delaying their application until MY
2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.57]
Commenters urge EPA to consider setting stricter duty cycle and in-use standards. While Option
1 is far superior to Option 2, it still fails to fully capture the emissions reductions that can be
achieved by various diesel engine technologies. As outlined in the technical comments of MFN,
EPA's feasibility analysis does not give sufficient credit to the emissions reduction capabilities
of variable valve actuation strategies (such as cylinder deactivation), mild hybridization, and
opposed-piston engines. See Comments of MFN, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055 on May 16, 2022. Similarly, a recent analysis by Roush Industries confirmed the
technological feasibility of cylinder deactivation, mild hybridization, and limiting auxiliary
emissions control devices.239 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.57]
239 Vishnu Nair & Gary Rogers, Reducing Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Consumption
and Criteria Pollutants 6, 8, 23-28, 38-40, Roush Industries (Sept. 2021).
Life-saving emissions reductions must be achieved as swiftly as possible in light of the public
health crisis wrought by HDV emissions and the availability of feasible and cost-effective
pollution control technologies. Commenters urge EPA to apply the NOx emissions standards for
both laboratory-based duty cycle testing and in-use 'off-cycle' testing in a single step, finalizing
the more stringent standards in MY 2027 instead of delaying their application to MY 2031. See
87 Fed. Reg. at 17,421-22. There is no reason to wait until 2031. The proposed Option 1 FTP,
SET, and LLC NOx standards for MY 2027 are too lenient because they fail to reflect the
application of feasible technologies that are already available or can be refined well in advance
of that model year, let alone MY 2031. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Commenters support
and incorporate by reference comments by MFN and CARB demonstrating the technological
feasibility of implementing the more stringent standards in a single step in MY 2027. See
Comments of (1) MFN and (2) CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May
16, 2022. And while Commenters urge EPA to strengthen its off-cycle standards, see Section
IV.D.2.a, supra, at the bare minimum, the Agency should apply its proposed MY 2031 off-cycle
numerical requirements to MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.59]
Commenters also agree with the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) and
the Advanced Engine Systems Institute that the technology required by Option 1 is neither new,
nor untested, but rather reflects the 'evolution of familiar technology.'268 As these organizations
correctly point out: '2027 is not like 2007/2010 when emission controls were put on trucks for
172
-------
the first time. Truck manufacturers and operators have 20 years of experience with hardware and
maintenance of systems.'269 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.72]
268 Rasto Brezny (Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association) & Patrick Quinn
(Advanced Engine Systems Institute), Supporting EPA's Clean Trucks Rule 8 (Jan. 18,
2022).
269 Id. at 5.
This rulemaking presents an opportunity for EPA to set a strong foundation for ambitious future
rules that will achieve significant emissions reductions through widespread deployment of zero-
emission technologies within the heavy-duty sector. Given HDVs' contribution to widespread
public health problems and dangerous climate change, it is critical that this sector transition to
zero-emission technologies as rapidly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.72]
While this Proposal should do more to accelerate the deployment of those technologies to bring
about greater emissions reductions, Commenters welcome the opportunity to comment on the
goals and principles EPA should follow as it undertakes a series of future rulemakings to clean
up the transportation sector. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,420 (referencing future light- and heavy-duty
rulemakings and requesting comment 'on how the Agency can best consider the potential for
ZEV technologies to significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector'). Each
rulemaking must be viewed as a stepping stone for the next and with recognition of the
interrelationship with other sectors to adequately protect public health and welfare. This
rulemaking will be followed by another to set new stringent GHG emissions standards for heavy-
duty engines and vehicles starting in MY 2030, and EPA must lay the groundwork now for a rule
that protects human health and welfare and leads to the necessary acceleration of zero-emission
technologies. Setting insufficiently stringent standards in this rulemaking could jeopardize
EPA's ability to fulfill its statutory obligations not only now but in future rulemakings. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.72-73]
EPA must finalize a strong rule this year to curtail dangerous emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. Adopting Commenters' recommendations would result in a feasible, cost-
beneficial, and technology-forcing rule that fulfills EPA's statutory duty to protect public health
and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.76]
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
Specifically, CE supports EPA's proposed 'Option 1' NOx standard which takes a two-step
approach by implementing a 0.035 g/bhp-hr standard starting in 2027 and a 0.02 g/bhp-hr
standard starting in 2031. Near-zero heavy-duty truck engines, certified by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), meet or exceed the proposed 2031 standard today and are being
deployed in the thousands by American fleets. In-use testing has revealed that NOx emission
reductions are greater than their 0.02 g/bhp-hr certification, achieving reductions of up to 98
percent. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.l]
173
-------
1 'Ultra-Low NOx Natural Gas Vehicle Evaluation,' University of California Riverside,
CE-CERT, November 2016. Available at: https://cngvc.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/UCR-Ul traLow-NOx_NGV-Evaluation_Final-Report.pdf.
Clean Energy supports U.S. EPA's 'Option 1' which establishes a NOx standard of 0.035 g/bhp-
hr in 2027 and later lowered to 0.02 g/bhp-hr in 2031. Near-zero engines are already certified by
CARB to meet the 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard and we believe compliance with the proposed EPA
standard will be met well in advance of 2031. With close to a decade of lead time for other types
of engines to comply with the 2031 standard, Clean Energy finds Option 1 both reasonable and
necessary given climate and air quality challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.4]
Organization: CleanAirNow (CANKC)
ANKC supports the following recommendations from the Moving Forward Network:
• EPA to pass stringent and protective emission standards that require mandatory emission
reduction in EJ communities as well as a sales mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1239-A1, p.2]
• EPA to have 100% zero emission across the freight sector by 2035 at the latest
• Retirement of all combustion trucks, trains and ships on or before 2045. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
• The EPA truck rule should be moving towards zero emission solutions to address the
freight and logistics system. These policies need to center EJ communities and
frontline workers [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
• EPA must move towards a Zero Emissions agenda now. This agenda must cross the
freight sector and prioritize environmental justice communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1239-A1, p.2]
• EPA to reduce emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle fleet through the most protective
and stringent emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
• The cumulative impacts from freight need to be considered and addressed. EPA should
be requiging lifetime pollution regulations for new trucks as well as legacy pollution
from aging diesel polluting trucks [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.3]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame)
We strongly urge you to include Option 1 in your final Rule, which will reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) more quickly and provide deeper reductions than Option 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 2]
As EPA knows, disadvantaged communities have suffered the health impacts of disproportionate
levels of diesel exhaust for decades. These health impacts include increased asthma, bronchitis,
cancer, heart disease, and premature death. These communities need NOx reductions as soon as
possible. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1261- A 1, p. 2]
More broadly, more than 127 million Americans, spread across 209 counties in 23 states and the
District of Columbia, live in areas that either have not attained the 8-hour National Ambient Air
174
-------
Quality Standard for ozone or that are required to take ongoing steps to maintain their attainment
of this standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 2]
For both of these reasons, we support Option 1. We are confident that we will be able to produce
our engines at the NOx levels and on the MY 2027 timetable that has been proposed in Option
1. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1261- A 1, p. 2]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
With respect to reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines, we strongly support Option 1. Option 1 will provide deeper, faster NOx emission
reductions that are critical to protecting air quality and human health. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-
0055-1329-A2, p. 2]
We strongly encourage the Agency to finalize Option 1 for NOx emissions. We encourage the
Agency to adopt fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, and performance-based GHG emissions
standards that allow industry members to choose how to meet emissions goals, while creating
opportunities for technology developers to advance novel solutions. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-
1329-A2, p. 4]
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Given the advances in emissions control technology and the need for strong national standards to
achieve the significant health benefits estimated from the proposed rule, we strongly urge EPA to
pursue and strengthen Option 1 for the proposed NOx engine standards. We recommend EPA
consider the following improvements to Option 1 to achieve the greatest health benefits possible,
and align with the Low NOx Omnibus rule wherever possible:
• The rule considers a "Potential Alternative" more stringent than Option 1 of 0.020 g
NOx/hp-hr engine standard for MY 2027, but requests data on the feasibility of achieving
this standard in the MY 2027 time frame. Several studies from CARB, EPA, and other
research institutes support the feasibility of introducing a 0.020 gram NOx standard in
2027.1,2,3,4,5,6 Adoption of this standard would align with the Low NOx Omnibus rule
nationally, which ICCT modeling estimates would avoid $1.3 trillion in health damages
associated with ambient PM2.5 and ozone pollution from 2027-2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
1 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty
Diesel Trucks in Achieving
90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027," February, 2020.
2 Southwest Research Institute, "Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration Programs
at SwRI," November
2019.
175
-------
3 Sharp, Chris; Neely, Gary; Rao, Sandesh; Zaval, Bryan, "An Update on Continuing
Progress Towards Heavy-Duty
LowNOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond," Southwest Research Institute, WCX, Detroit,
Michigan , April 5-7 2022.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles, Regulatory Impact Analysis," March 28, 2022.
5 Achates Power, "Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration," CRC Real World
Emissions Workshop, March
15, 2022
6 Villafuerte, Pablo Mendoza; Demuynck, Joachim; Bosteels, Dirk, "Ultra-Low NOx
Emissions with a Close-Coupled
Emission Control System on a Heavy-Duty Truck Application," Society of Automotive
Engineers See
2021-01-1228.pdf (aecc.eu).
• Additionally, truck manufacturers have already developed the technology to prepare for
and comply with California's standards, and all states could benefit from this research
and development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
Organization: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)
CTDEEP believes that EPA must establish a stringent, technology-forcing federal rule that will
reduce HD truck NOx emissions by at least 90 percent and implement other key requirements to
ensure that these reductions will continue to be realized over the full useful life of vehicles
beginning not later than model year (MY) 2027. The outcome of this regulatory action is
critically important for Connecticut as a state struggling with a persistent ozone non-attainment
problem which is due in part to HD NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.l]
While Connecticut continues to implement programs above and beyond those required by the
Clean Air Act, EPA has waited two decades to update its HD truck standards. There is a clear
and compelling public health need for much tighter restrictions on HD truck NOx emissions. In
the past 20 years, the technical capacity to identify and reduce these emissions has flourished and
tremendous experience has been gained. The opportunity to require and achieve deeper
reductions in NOx emissions is enormous as reaffirmed through the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation, which was adopted in August 2020, and
ultimately finalized in December 2021, after an extensive public process that was preceded by
several years of informal stakeholder input. 8 EPA should be leveraging the early experience with
the already-final Omnibus 2024-2026 phase-in as well as the finalized 2027 Omnibus standards
to the benefit of the final rule rather than ignoring the engineering and commercialization
progress made in order to comply with the Omnibus in California and in other states like New
York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other states that have adopted it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1306-A1, p.5]
176
-------
8 Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation | California Air Resources Board
EPA includes two options in the proposal for HD engine emissions standards, one more stringent
than the other. The agency notes that Proposed Option 1, the more stringent of the two, would
come with greater public health and environmental benefits; nonetheless, as proposed, this option
is insufficient. Proposed Option 2 is wholly unacceptable as the requirements do not reflect the
level of control technology that is possible, nor would it lead to meaningful emission reductions.
Connecticut supports modifications that would strengthen the overall stringency of Proposed
Option 1 by aligning it with the technology-forcing mandate of the CAA and the recently
adopted Low NOx Omnibus regulation in California. Specifically, Connecticut recommends that
EPA should revise Proposed Option 1 to pull forward to 2027 the 20 mg/hp-hr NOx emission
standardfor all classes with an interim useful life standard of435,000 miles for heavy HD
engines. In fact, the Clean Air Act under CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA when setting
federal NOx emission standards for HD trucks to reflect 'the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines
will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.' [emphasis added] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.5]
Connecticut citizens have suffered from unhealthy air quality for generations, the magnitude of
the State's ozone noncompliance and the impact on the public health and welfare of our citizens,
especially the most vulnerable demands EPA's action to adopt a rule that achieves a 90%
reduction in NOx emissions by 2027. Connecticut strongly supports the comments submitted by
NACAA, NESCAUM and OTC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1306-A1, p.5]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
For the NOx emission standards, EPA is proposing two options, Option 1 and Option 2. EPA's
obligations under the CAA to set standards that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable5 require the agency to adopt Option 1. Compared to Option 2, Option 1 sets stronger
NOx emission standards and sets more stringent useful life and warranty periods and is
economically and technologically feasible, a. EPA should ensure that credits do not limit the
effectiveness of the NOx standards. To this end, EPA should eliminate all multipliers, lower
family emission caps, and eliminate or minimize the use of credits for ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1285-A1, p.2]
5 The CAA requires the Administrator to set standards that 'reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of a technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the modely year to which such standards
apply. 43 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
EPA must adopt Option 1 of the proposed rule; Option 2 simply does not go far enough. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.3]
Section 202(a) of the CAA requires the Administrator to prescribe 'standards applicable to the
emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
177
-------
vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' 17 Both NOx and GHG have
been found to endanger public health and welfare. Section 202(a)(3)(A) of the CAA further
requires standards for emissions of NOx, particulate matter, hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
to 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of a
technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, given appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology.'18 This language authorizes the
Administrator to set performance levels that, 'while not achievable immediately, are
demonstrated to be achievable in the future based on information available today.' 19 Zero-
emission technology for many classes of heavy-duty vehicles currently exists,20 and ZEV
technology is rapidly advancing.21 By underestimating market penetration of ZEVs, the current
proposed standards do not account for this technology, thus do not represent the 'greatest degree
of emission reduction achievable,' and thus do not meet EPA's obligations under the
CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.4]
17 43 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
18 43 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A).
19 EPA, Setting Emission Standards Based on Technology Performance. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/setting-emissions-standards-based-
technology-performance
20 CA1- Start, Zero-Emission Technology Inventory. Available at:
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventorv/
21NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission
Vehicles Cost Analysis, (March 2022). Available at:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
EPA must meet its obligations under the CAA by setting standards that reflect 'the greatest
emission reduction achievable.' To do so, standards must accurately reflect both current and
future technology. Moreover, standards should encourage growth of this technology in the
future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.5]
As stated, CR supports EPA's efforts to reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.
Because it is technologically and economically feasible, EPA must adopt Option 1.37 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.6]
37 California Air Resources Board, Facts about the Low NOx Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/files/HD_NOx_Omni
bus_Fact_Sheet.pdf
178
-------
As stated above, section 202(a)(1) of the CAA requires the Administrator to 'prescribe standards
applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or
new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.' 38 Section 202(a)(3) of the
CAA further states that the standards prescribed under paragraph (1) applicable to emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter from classes or
categories of heavy-duty vehicles or engines must 'reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines
will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors.'39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.6]
38 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1)
39 42 U.S.C. 7251(a)(3)
As proven by EPA's own regulatory analysis, as well as California Air Resource Board (CARB)
studies, Option 1 is both technologically and economically feasible.40 Compared to Option 2,
Option 1 sets more stringent NOx emissions standards, and requires longer useful life and
warranty periods. Option 1 will result in a 90% reduction in NOx emissions by 2030, whereas
Option 2 will only result in a 75% reduction in emission standards by 2030.41 As such, Option 1
reflects 'the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable... given appropriate consideration
to cost, energy and safety factors.' Moreover, the benefits of Option 1 more
significantly outweigh the costs than is the case with proposed Option 2.42 As such, Option 2
simply does not meet EPA's obligations under the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1,
pp.6-7]
40 California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board Staff Current
Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower NOx Standards and Associated Test
Procedures for 2022 and Subsequent Model Year Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines, (April 18, 2019). Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_0418201
9a.pdf
41 ICCT, ICCT Proposal on EPA's Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards.
Available at: https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/public-
webinar_10May2022.pdf
42 87F.R. 17414, 17415-17416.
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins has decades of experience using a proprietary methodology to assess the design targets
needed for engines to comply with standards of varying stringency, throughout the regulated
useful life. The design target represents our own upper limit for the mean emissions of a sample
of the population of production engines in an engine family to ensure compliance with an
emissions standard throughout useful life. Sufficient margin, called compliance margin, is
179
-------
necessary between our design target and the standard to account for additional factors required
by regulation (including deterioration factors and infrequent regeneration adjustment factors, as
applicable), as well as production variability, test procedure and measurement variability, and in-
use variables that are not within an engine manufacturer's control. Using inputs for the elements
of compliance margin based on Cummins' experience and historical data, plus results from
EPA's own ongoing research at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), we can calculate design
targets for various combinations of potential NOx standards and emissions useful life
periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 3]
Cummins shared our methodology and an initial analysis as confidential business information
(CBI) with EPA in September 2021, six months before EPA's proposal was published. Our
analysis concluded that a 20 mg/hp-hr NOx standard at 435,000 miles useful life, which is both
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) model year (MY) 2027 heavy-heavy duty
intermediate useful life standard and EPA's proposed Option 1 MY 2031 corresponding
standard, results in a negative NOx design target for diesel engines, which, of course, is not
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 3]
Now that EPA's proposal, plus additional data from EPA's ongoing research at SwRI, have been
made public, Cummins has completed additional design target analyses with updated inputs.
Again, the results show that EPA's Option 1 2027 and 2031 NOx standards and associated
emissions useful life periods are not feasible. The calculated design targets are lower than can be
achieved by diesel engines in production without placing undue compliance risk of recall and
other penalties on the manufacturer, due to insufficient compliance margin. That is true even
after applying the most optimistic assumption that variability decreases entirely in proportion to
the design target. Cummins is prepared to share results of our recent analyses with EPA as
CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
Since Option 1 is not achievable with diesels, it would have negative impacts on the environment
if finalized. In the absence of new diesel engines, some customers looking to purchase new
diesel engines could switch to purchasing natural gas engines, gasoline engines, or zero emission
vehicles (ZEV), which are capable of meeting the Option 1 standards. However, most customers
cannot readily switch to those alternatives, due to product capabilities, costs, refueling and
recharging infrastructure, and other limitations. Those customers would be left with buying new
diesel engines before the new standards take effect or holding on to their older diesels much
longer. In either case, the environment does not benefit from improved emissions, which would
have been driven by feasible standards that can be met with reliable technologies customers can
readily adopt. Option 1 even could be worse for the environment than no new standard at all.
With no new standard, customers at least would be able to continue to replace older higher
emitting products with current advanced clean diesels. Cummins therefore does not support the
adoption of EPA's proposed Option 1 NOx standards, in the same way that Cummins never
supported CARB's adoption of its Omnibus 2027+ standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-
Al, p. 4]
EPA additionally proposed an alternative option (called the "Alternative"), which is even more
stringent than EPA's proposed Option 1 or CARB's Omnibus standards. Among the elements
included in the Alternative is a 20 mg/hp-hr FTP/SET NOx standard for MY 2027 Heavy HDE
180
-------
engines at 850k miles UL. EPA was unable to conclude that the Alternative is feasible in the MY
2027 timeframe due to deterioration in the emission control technologies that EPA has evaluated
to date. Given Cummins' design target analysis discussed above and negative impacts to the
environment, we agree with EPA that the Alternative is not feasible and warrants no further
consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 4]
Based on Cummins' technology evaluations, EPA's proposed Option 2 NOx standard of 50
mg/hp-hr will drive a range of additional technologies onto diesel engines, similar to the ones
evaluated by EPA and SwRI, e.g., cylinder deactivation (CDA) and dual selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) systems, which can achieve NOx improvements over a wide range of real-world
operation. While technologies such as CDA and dual SCR are in production already in light-duty
applications, they are not in production for heavy-duty vehicles at these emission levels, so
considerable effort is still needed to develop, package, and validate the new components,
especially considering the more diverse drive trains and vehicle configurations, duty cycles,
applications, and much longer useful life of heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 4]
Cummins supports a stringent but feasible single-step NOx standard in 2027. Further NOx
reductions should come from zero and near-zero emission technologies, and EPA's anticipated
Phase 3 GHG rule should deliver those NOx reductions. Setting aside Option l's infeasible
standards, Option l's second step in 2031, at any stringency, would be especially disruptive for
manufacturers' investments that currently are committed to the development and implementation
of zero and near-zero emissions technologies in that same timeframe. A 2031 NOx step would
force manufacturers to decrease investments in zero and near-zero technologies in order to
increase investments to implement another step of internal combustion engine NOx control
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 5]
In these comments, Cummins has discussed the reasons why Option 1 is not the right solution to
achieve such a goal. We have also discussed changes that are needed to Option 2 to ensure
manufacturers can offer products that are not only compliant to the challenging 50 mg/hp-
hr NOx standard but also cost-effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 20-21]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
The zero-emission transition is best achieved by encouraging technological innovation in a cost-
effective manner that is realistic in terms of timing and implementation. Environmental
regulators such as EPA and CARB have an important role to play in facilitating this transition by
balancing requirements and incentivizes in their regulatory programs. Unfortunately, the
Proposed Rule does not strike the proper balance because, among other things, it:
• Introduces significant technical risk for manufacturers—particularly with respect to long-
term recall liability and in-use testing—and contains numerous standards and
requirements that are likely not achievable within the timeframes given;
• Dramatically under-estimates technology costs and the anticipated market impacts
(including pre-buy, low-buy, and no-buy scenarios) associated with the high costs of
compliance that will threaten jobs and increase the cost of transporting goods, impacts
181
-------
that ultimately will be felt at every level of society and will exacerbate existing inflation
and supply chain challenges;
• Will require manufacturers to divert finite resources into development of conventional
vehicle technology to meet the Proposed Rule requirements within the timeframes
proposed, which has limited environmental benefits and detracts from ZEV research and
development (R&D); and
• Proposes stringent emission standards that are based upon a technology demonstration
that does not reflect real-world conditions, account for appropriate design margins,
cannot be packaged on an actual vehicle, ignores the effects of fuel quality issues on
aftertreatment effectiveness, and fails to address the complexities of N0x/C02 emission
tradeoffs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 1-2]
Congress has given EPA clear direction for setting emission standards for new motor vehicles
and new motor vehicles engines under Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) Section 202(a), and the
bounds of EPA's authority have been well-established in case law interpreting the provisions of
this section. As EPA acknowledges in the Proposed Rule, CAA Section 202(a) sets forth the
following key requirements for and limitations on emissions standard-setting for new vehicles
and engines:
• First, emission standards promulgated under Section 202(a) may only take effect after the
period of time necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite
technology, giving 'appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'1
• Second, EPA regulations governing HC, CO, NOx, and PM emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles or engines must contain standards reflecting the 'greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable' through the application of technology that EPA determines will be
available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving 'appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.'2
• Third, in revising heavy duty vehicle or engine emission standards to address public
health effects of air pollutants from the sector, EPA must 'tak[e] costs into account.'3
• Fourth, EPA must give consideration to lead time and stability in setting heavy-duty
emission standards, as any standard promulgated under CAA Section 202(a) must apply
for a period of no less than three model years and begin no earlier than the model year
commencing four years after any revised standard is promulgated.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.5-6]
1 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(2).
2 Id. at 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
3 Id. at 7521(a)(3)(B)(i).
4 Id. at 7521(a)(3)(C).
While EPA has discretion in weighing the various statutory factors that it is to consider in heavy-
duty emission standard-setting, there are limits to this discretion. EPA may, for example, look to
the future to project anticipated advances in pollution control capability, but these projections are
'subject to the restraints of reasonableness' and do not 'open the door to 'crystal ball' inquiry.'5
182
-------
Further, the Agency 'must. . . provide a reasoned explanation of its basis for believing that its
projection is reliable. This includes a defense of its methodology for arriving at numerical
estimates.'6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.6]
5 See National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C.
Cir. 1981) ('NRDC') (citing International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615,
629 (D.C.Cir. 1973)).
6 Id.
With respect to technical feasibility, 'where the facts pertinent to [a] standard's feasibility are
available and easily discoverable by technical means,' EPA is held to a higher standard of
demonstrating achievability by relying upon available data.7 Where the feasibility of an
emissions control standard turns on the development of a particular technology, the Agency must
identify the major steps that are necessary for the development of this technology and must 'give
plausible reasons' for its belief that industry will be able to solve any impediments to its
implementation 'in the time remaining' before the standard will be enforced.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.6]
7 National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 454 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
8 NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333.
The Company believes that EPA's proposal disregards key considerations, including failure to
analyze certain costs, for new heavy duty vehicle and engine emission standard-setting, in
contravention of the specific congressional directives in CAA Section 202(a). Specifically, if
finalized, EPA's Proposed Rule would:
• Impose inordinate costs on manufacturers and consumers that EPA has not accounted for
in its cost analysis. These costs would have significant adverse effects on the heavy-duty
transportation market by causing 'pre-buy' and 'no-buy' scenarios, leading to significant
job losses, major market and freight disruption, and other adverse economic impacts.
Because its cost analyses are flawed, EPA has not fulfilled its statutory duty to give
'appropriate consideration' to costs.
• Be infeasible in implementation and thus impose standards that are not commensurate
with the greatest degree of emission reduction that is 'achievable' giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, safety, and other factors.
• Undermine regulatory stability if EPA determines to increase stringency of the Phase 2
GHG standards for certain vocational vehicles and tractor categories starting in MY
2027, upsetting manufacturer reliance on those standards coming out of the Phase 2
rulemaking.
• Disincentivize ZEV development and commercialization, as the Proposed Rule would
require manufacturers to invest in conventionally-powered vehicle programs to achieve
compliance with the upcoming standards instead of focusing on ZEV technology, which
would have significantly greater environmental benefit. Each of these concerns are
explained in more detail elsewhere in these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.7]
183
-------
Daimler Truck believes that any new HD emission standards that EPA develops in this
rulemaking process must be guided by the following principles:
• One-Step NOx Stringency. A one-step program for sensible increases in NOx stringency
is key to ensuring manufacturers are able to deliver the technologies needed to develop
and commercialize the ZEVs of the future. Daimler Truck strongly believes that ZEVs
are the future of the commercial vehicle industry. Keeping next-tier EPA regulations to
one NOx standard down-step will help manufacturers focus on the development of ZEV
technology, instead of diverting resources to meet an interim NOx standard for
conventionally-powered vehicles that has little environmental benefit and may not be
technologically achievable.
• Feasibility and Cost-Effectiveness. EPA's next-tier standards must be technologically
feasible and cost-effective and, to this end, must be based upon accurate and realistic
technical, cost, and market analyses. In evaluating the relative costs and benefits of its
proposal, the Agency must take into account widely available literature on cost impacts
associated with standard stringency, as well as key manufacturing cost drivers such as
meeting extended regulatory useful life and emission warranty requirements.
• Realistic NOx Standards. EPA's next-tier NOx standards should be realistic and
achievable and should be developed in recognition of the inevitable trade-offs between
NOx and C02 emission reductions. The Agency's standards should present manageable
and predictable risk in terms of in-use emissions and compliance evaluations, and they
should reflect real-world operations and performance.
• Lead Time, Stability, and Certainty. The timing of standard implementation should allow
for sufficient R&D, and should give long-term consideration to manufacturer investments
in the technologies of the future.
• Incentivizes for ZEV Market Penetration. EPA should build upon the successes of the
compliance flexibility programs that have long been a part of its vehicle emissions
regulations. The Agency's NOx and C02 regulations should enhance (and not diminish)
opportunities for manufacturers to generate credits for ZEV development and
commercialization and should appropriately incentivize ZEVs with credit
multipliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 10]
In proposing adoption of NOx standards below 0.050 g/bhp-hr, EPA has failed to account for
appropriate design margins and the inherent technical challenges of meeting the standards as
proposed. Since the evolution of 0.2 g/hp-hr NOx standards and related selective catalytic
reduction (SCR)-based aftertreatment technologies, Daimler Truck has consistently found it
necessary to account for design margins to meet the relevant standards. The Company endorses
the section of EMA's comments on this topic entitled 'EMA Assessment of Technical Feasibility
of Complying with a 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx Standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines' and adopts
such comments as its own.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.24]
63 See Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, Comments on EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055 (May 13, 2022) ('EMA Proposed Rule Comments').
DTNA strongly believes that a one-step approach, with an aggressive 75% increase in NOx
stringency, no earlier than 2027, is the feasible, economical, and environmentally sound
184
-------
approach to emissions reductions for diesel vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.53]
Two steps of increasing stringency, as EPA has proposed under Option 1, will force
manufacturers to invest in two development programs, closely spaced in time, doubling the
necessary investment in R&D, validation, and verification of the new systems needed for
compliance with each set of standards. Additionally, releasing new products in both 2027 and
2031 will leave orphaned products sold by manufacturers for the three interim model years
before the second tier standards take effect. Under a 'two-step' scenario, manufacturers will
struggle to recapture their investment in MY2027-MY2030 vehicles and will not have adequate
time to optimize product performance and cost through ongoing improvement efforts.
Manufacturers will also have to split their resources between two different programs, likely
leading to increased quality issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.53]
Similarly, a two-step approach to increasing emission standard stringency will double the
adverse economic effects anticipated from the Proposed Rule (and detailed in Section II.B.2), as
the market will likely face two pre-buy scenarios, and fleet operators will face the adoption and
integration of new technology twice, in rapid succession. Or worse, a two-step approach may
simply cause a more dramatic one-time pre-buy effect, if fleet owners choose to delay new
purchases altogether until after 2031 to avoid having to integrate new technology into their fleet
twice. Either way, a two-step approach to emissions stringency as EPA has proposed under
Option 1 will cause more significant job losses, economic damage, and market frustration, and
these adverse effects may further reduce the emissions benefits of EPA's proposed
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.53]
We firmly believe that the future of the commercial trucking segment is in ZEVs—namely,
battery-electric and hydrogen powertrains. Daimler Truck is making significant investments in
these technologies, and—as EPA notes in the Proposed Rule—Daimler Truck AG, our parent
company, has set a goal that all new vehicles sold in Europe, North America and Japan be C02-
neutral by 2039. However, this aggressive strategy for decarbonization requires unprecedented
investment in the development of new technologies to meet the wide array of commercial vehicle
applications. Further investment in incremental improvements to conventional powertrains, as
will be needed to comply with EPA's Option 1 approach, competes with the investments
necessary for ZEVs. In other words, EPA's proposal to have two stringent emission reduction
steps directly reduces investments OEMs can make in ZEVs, and thereby will slow their market
penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.53]
Organization: David Luedtke
The trucking industry has made great strides in pollution control & will move to gain on those
strides without further mandates. If there are new mandates the Fed's want to add made they need
to look at a long faze in process to get the old equipment out of production. Look at a 10 year
process that will allow the older trucks to retire & scrap out. This same time frame will allow
manuf. the time to ramp up pollution items so the cost isn't astronomical! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1541]
185
-------
Organization: David Wong
Third, the guidelines seem too gradual and reasonable to be considered radical, when a radical change is
needed for the radical improvement in air quality we seek. I am recommending the EPA add
amendments to increase the strictness of emission guidelines exponentially every year, or at least
every 2 or 3 years for implementation.
Organization: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
The rule should be stringent and technology forcing. The rule should reduce HD truck NOx
emissions by at least 90 percent and implement other key requirements to make sure these
reductions will continue to be realized over the full useful life of vehicles, beginning no later
than MY 2027. Such standards should require not only advanced and emerging technologies, but
also technologies consistent with CAA Section 202(a)(3)(A): NOx emission standards for HD
trucks are to "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application
of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
In the proposed action, EPA is co-proposing two regulatory options for new NOx standards:
Proposed Option 1 and Proposed Option 2. EPA seeks comments on the two options and seeks
comment on an alternative option for different numeric levels of the standards and lengths of
useful life and warranty periods. Delaware prefers the numeric standards, extended useful life
periods and warranty periods of Proposed Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
Proposed Option 1 is expected to reduce NOx emissions from HD vehicles in 2040 by more than
50%; by 2045, a year by which most of the regulated fleet would have turned over, HD NOx
emissions would be more than 60% lower than they would have been without this action.
Proposed Option 2 is expected to reduce HD NOx emissions by 47% in 2045. Proposed Option 1
would result in total annual monetized ozone- and PM2.5-related benefits of $12 and $33 billion
at a 3% discount rate, and $10 and $30 billion at a 7% discount rate by 2045. Proposed Option 2
would result in total annual monetized ozone- and PM2.5-related benefits of $9 and $26 billion
at a 3% discount rate, and $8 and $23 billion at a 7% discount rate for the same year. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
Given the analysis presented, Delaware believes that Option lis a more appropriate level of
stringency as it would result in a greater level of achievable emission reduction, health benefits
and monetized benefits than Proposed Option 2. Delaware urges EPA to revise Proposed Option
1 to require the 20-mg/hp-hr NOx standard for HD trucks beginning in 2027 with an
intermediate useful life of 435,000 miles (versus EPA's Proposed Option 1 approach of 35
mg/hp-hr NOx in 2027); these requirements are entirely feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1200-A1, p.3]
EPA should not exempt any engines from complying with the adopted new emission standards
for any amount of time and, therefore, should not adopt the production volume allowance option
186
-------
described in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Delaware supports an increase to the Option 1
regulatory useful life mileage values for new HD engines to better reflect real-world usage,
extend the emissions durability requirement for HD engines, and ensure certified emission
performance is maintained throughout an engine's operational life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1200-A1, p.3]
For all these reasons, Delaware urges EPA to act quickly to fully adopt a federal regulation
requiring a 20-mg/hp-hr NOx standard for HD trucks by the end of this calendar year so that it
will take effect with MY 2027 to reduce air pollution from highway HD vehicles and
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.3]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
DOEE has submitted comments to the EPA on this matter before, writing in October 2021 to
urge the EPA to accelerate their proposal after the January 2020 Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. DOEE remains concerned about the delays in issuing stricter heavy-duty engine
standards because delays harm the health of the residents of the District, especially historically
disadvantaged communities that have long had to live with poor air quality levels due to their
proximity to highways such as those in Southeastern Washington, DC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1299-A1, p. 1]
When EPA finalizes this proposed rulemaking it will mark the first time since 2001 that EPA has
taken action to cut harmful NOx emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. There is a
clear and compelling public health need for much tighter restrictions on heavy-duty truck NOx
emissions. In the past 20 years, technical capacity to reduce these emissions has flourished and
the opportunity to require and achieve deeper reductions in NOx emissions across the many
operations would be enormous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 4]
Ideally, EPA's proposed "Alternative Option" would be adopted. The Alternative Option has
stricter emission standards implemented four years earlier, compared to the 2031 second-step
implementation date in "Option 1." The Alternative Option most closely aligns with the
California Heavy-duty NOx Omnibus Regulation, which has been demonstrated as
technologically feasible through joint research with the EPA, conducted by the Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI). The Alternative Option would give the District a head start in
reducing transportation emissions in the District. We understand the reservations the EPA has
about implementing the Alternative Option, particularly regarding the timeline for putting this
regulation into effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 5]
If the Alternative Option is not possible, then Option 1 should be selected over Option 2. Option
1 best represents the available emission control technologies that "reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology," as is mandated by under
Clean Air Act § 202 (a)(3)(A)(i). Option 1 requires heavy-duty vehicles and engines to meet
strict emission standards for NOx and provides for extended warranties and other provisions that
ensure trucks are able to meet this strict emission standard for over 800,000 miles of operation.
Because Option 1 meets stricter emission standards and is feasible, Option 2 cannot be
considered. If EPA decides not to implement the Alternative Option, DOEE urges the EPA to
187
-------
implement Option 1 in accordance with the Clean Air Act § 202 (a)(3)(A)(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 5]
It is vital that the EPA promulgates new emission standards for heavy-duty engines in a timely
fashion, but the rules must also be strict enough for tangible and significant emission reductions.
The final rule should be as strict as possible, and the Alternative Option is the strictest option that
EPA has presented. The timeline is also an important factor; our residents need cleaner air now.
To that end, Option 1 provides real emission reductions on an acceptable timeline, and this is the
option EPA should implement if the alternative cannot be implemented in a timely fashion. The
EPA has already demonstrated the technologies exist for Option 1 to become a reality and should
act without haste. EPA should also set a mandatory idle standard and maintain a strong SCR
inducement schedule. DOEE urges the EPA to take immediate action to adopt Option 1 for the
health and safety of District residents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
3. Long term regulatory certainty allows the transportation industry to continue to invest in
product development and deploy needed capital. Emissions levels must be set such that societal
needs for air quality, including GHG and future non-attainment, are in fact achieved without the
need of additional local restrictions or short-term changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1,
p.4]
The transportation industry needs long term regulatory certainty to enable investments in both
Low NOx and Zero Emissions technologies and allocate capital to bring these to the market. A
standard that does not resolve the long-term needs of air quality would insert uncertainty and
thus inhibit the bold investments that are needed. For example, the Green House Gas rule in
effect from 2014 to 2030 drove significant benefits, technology and cost-out, all possible because
of (a) long term and (b) societal-acceptable stringencies. We recommend the Agency apply the
same approach to the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.4]
Organization: Elders Climate Action
Elders Climate Action requests that EPA revise the standards for HDVs to set a zero emission
standard for nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM2.5 and C02 for the classes of HDVs or types of HDVs
that operate in duty cycles for which zero emission power trains are currently in use or which
EPA expects will be available by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 1]
The CAA declares that the primary purpose of the Act is "to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C. §7401(b)(l). To implement this purpose, section 202(a)(3)
requires that for HDVs EPA "shall [set] standards which reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of [available] technology...." The proposed rule
does not satisfy that test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 4]
By setting zero emission standards for NOx beginning in 2027 for the vehicle types currently
available as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), EPA could avoid an estimated 20,440 tons of NOx
188
-------
in South Coast and 22,630 tons in San Joaquin Valley. A zero emission standard for C02 would
avoid 54 million MT of C02 from these three model years between now and 2050. The urgency
of the public health and climate crises demands that the U.S. must not forego those
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 5.]
We include a legal analysis that demonstrates EPA's failure to set standards that will achieve the
maximum deployment of zero emission technologies fails to achieve the public health purpose of
the Act, and is not consistent with the statutory text and the legislative history of the Act. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 5]
The proposed rule violates numerous duties established by law, including -
1) the statutory duty to set for HDVs "standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of [available] technology... "
2) the duty to identify, evaluate and propose for consideration a rule that will optimize
the implementation of the primary purpose of the Act declared by Congress, to wit,
standards that will most effectively "promote the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C. §7401(b)(l). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 5]
3) the duty to make available to the public when a proposed action is published for
public comment the data developed by the Agency and used for making its
decision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 5]
4) the duty under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to avoid actions that create disparate
impacts on communities of color and low income communities that are most at risk of
suffering the adverse health outcomes caused by exposure to emissions from
HDVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 6]
The proposed standards for NOx and GHGs are not consistent with CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)
that mandates the standards for HDVs — "regulations ... applicable to emissions of hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter from classes or categories
of heavy duty vehicles or engines ... shall contain standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of
such technology." 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 6]
The standard setting authority granted to EPA by section 202 must be viewed in light of the
statutory framework which declares the purpose of the Act is "to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of its population." 42 U.S.C. §7401(b)(l). Under the structure of the Act, the NAAQS
promulgated pursuant to section 109 provide the relevant benchmarks for determining whether
the primary purpose of the Act, i.e., protecting public health, is being implemented. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 8.]
189
-------
Here EPA has investigated the impact that the proposed standards will have on attainment and
found that 1) controlling emissions from HDVs are necessary for attainment in many ozone NAs
because the reductions required by the proposed rules will contribute to attainment in some NAs,
but 2) that the reductions are not enough to demonstrate attainment in the worst polluted air
pollution control regions.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 8.]
3. The modeling analysis results reported in the Technical Support Document are useful
for drawing these inferences, but the modeling is not adequate to determine the emission
reductions needed for timely attainment by the statutory deadlines for each NA. Regional
modeling for NAs that are not expected to attain before the statutory deadline should be
performed, in collaboration with regional air quality planning agencies, to obtain more
precise data regarding the emission reductions needed for attainment.
This statutory mandate to achieve "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable.. ."for
heavy duty vehicles does not apply to standards for light duty vehicles (LDVs). Section 202(i)
specifically authorizes EPA to forego more stringent standards for LDVs if they are not needed
for attainment, but that provision does not apply to HDVs. For HDVs, the duty to set standards
that reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable..." is continuing, and is not
limited by the need for reductions to attain NAAQS. These differences imply 1) that standards
for both HDVs and LDVs must continue to be strengthened as necessary to support the states in
developing implementation plans that can attain the NAAQS; and 2) that for HDVs the
progressive emission reductions that become available from more advanced technology must
continue to be reflected in more stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 9.]
Prior to the 1977 Amendments, section 202(a) contained general language first enacted in 1963
that authorized the predecessor to EPA to promulgate regulations establishing emission standards
for motor vehicles. The statutory directive to set standards for HDVs that "reflect the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable" was first added to the Act in the 1977 Amendments.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 9]
That language came from the House bill which enacted authority for the Administrator to
"prescribe regulations [that] ... shall contain standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
appropriate consideration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time
available to manufacturers,..."6 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 9]
6. House Report, bill text adding paragraph 202(a)(3)(A), at 407.
The Senate bill only required that "regulations shall contain standards which require a reduction
of emissions of such pollutants established by the application of the best available control
technology, taking into account the cost of compliance... "7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-
Al, p. 9]
7. Senate Report, at 92.
190
-------
The differences between the House and Senate provisions are significant for this rulemaking.
The Senate language only required the "application" of "control technology" which limited
EPA's authority to considering technology that could be applied to control emissions from an
engine. In contrast the House language was broadly written to allow the Administrator to
consider not only control technology, but also engine technology or alternative technologies that
can achieve "emission reduction[s]." The House language also authorized the Administrator to
consider technology that would become available by the model year when the standard would
apply, whereas the Senate language limited EPA to considering control technology that was
"available" when the standard was set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
In conference, the Senate accepted the House language.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1,
p. 10]
8. Clean Air Act Conference Report,
The 1977 Amendments applied the "greatest degree of emission reduction" test to interim
standards promulgated by EPA during the period prior to the statutory deadline for achieving
percent reduction targets enacted by Congress. That language applied percentage emission
reduction targets for CO, VOCs and NOx, but "[r]ecognizing that attainment of the 1985 targets
levels may not be achieved in time, the Committee adopted a provision which permits the
Administrator to revise these standards temporarily." 9 The bill required that to revise any
standard "the Administrator shall determine the maximum degree of emission reduction that can
be achieved by means reasonably expected to be available for production for such period and
shall prescribe a revised emission standard in accordance with such determination." Thus the
"greatest degree of emission reduction" test was not a continuing obligation. Once the statutory
emission reduction targets were met, EPA's authority to set additional more stringent standards
was at an end. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 10]
9. House Report, at 274.
When the 1990 Amendments were enacted, the statutory emission reduction targets enacted in
1977 had been met. Those targets were repealed, but the "greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable" language was retained as the current test for standard setting under section
202(a)(3)(A). This history demonstrates congressional intent to progressively continue to
advance the stringency of standards as technology improvements make further emission
reductions "achievable." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 10]
The question the Administrator is required to answer when setting standards for HDVs is what
standard "reflects] the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application
of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year [2027] to
which such standards apply"? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 10]
For these reasons, Elders Climate Action asks that EPA adopt zero emission standards for NOx,
PM and C02 for HDVs that EPA has identified in short-haul duty cycles for which zero
emission power trains are currently available, and for which zero emission power trains are
expected to be available by 2027. At a minimum, zero emission standards should apply to the
191
-------
share of HDVs covered by the ZEV requirement in the CARB ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 13.]
As discussed above in section II, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set emission standards for
HDVs that "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable... " [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
Given the science informing the world that the climate cannot be stabilized short of achieving
"net zero" GHG emissions, and the Presdient's commitment to achieving a net zero economy by
2050, we ask the Administrator to make the determination that emissions of both GHGs and
precursors to the criteria pollutants PM and ozone emitted from light duty vehicles must be
reduced to zero to protect the public health and welfare from the many adverse effects of climate
warming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
The Act provides that "[a]ny such [standard] under this subchapter may provide for a phase-in of
the standard."13 We ask the Administrator to begin phasing in a zero emission standard by
establishing a sales mandate that requires each manufacturer to achieve ZEV sales during the
2027 MY that are comparable to CARB's ACT rule with the goal of achieving 100% HDV ZEV
sales by 2035 in order to achieve zero emissions from on-road vehicles by 2050. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
13.Id.
Commenters understand that additional rulemaking will be required to establish a zero emission
standard and phase-in schedule for HDV classes not addressed by this rule. However, the current
proposal can be revised to incorporate this approach for the HDV classes and categories
addressed by this proposal. We ask that the Administrator not delay completion of the current
proposed rule so that it can apply to 2027-29 MY vehicles. We ask that the Administrator open a
rulemaking for the additional vehicle classes to promulgate a zero emission standard and a
phase-in schedule that begins with the 2027 MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
The EPA's leadership on climate and clean air is more critical than ever. We appreciate the
EPA's efforts to initiate a long-overdue update to heavy-duty vehicle pollution and emissions
standards. Because vehicles sold over the next few years will remain on the road for decades, the
EPA should seize the opportunity to adopt the most stringent standards for greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants for heavy duty trucks (HDTs)
Model Years 2027-2029 (MY 2027-2029), aligning these standards with science-based
emissions targets and relevant policy goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.l]
While the HDT market is still evolving to include more electric models and lower upfront
vehicle costs, current market trends and potential consumer savings support the adoption of
strong standards. Performance standards are a powerful tool for leveraging accelerated
technology advancements and sending clear market signals that spur the private sector to
192
-------
increase deployment of zero-emission, heavy-duty electric vehicles (HDEVs) within this
decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.l]
The EPA should adopt the most stringent NOx standard for HDTs, while also considering the
role zero-emission electric vehicles can and should play in eliminating NOx and other pollutants
altogether. Proposed Option 1 is a start and should be significantly strengthened. Similarly, the
EPA should forgo any credit approaches that erode the strength of the standard. We elaborate on
these points herein. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.l]
In the context of this and future rulemakings, we encourage the EPA to set a higher standard to
prompt private sector investments and accelerate the adoption of proven technologies that can
mitigate the climate crisis and improve public health, especially in the most burdened
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.4]
However, the EPA need not wait for major breakthroughs in technologies to reduce NOx from
combustion engines. Zero-emission electric vehicles emit no NOx emissions or other harmful
pollutants, and their scaled adoption in the heavy-duty sector offers a streamlined path to reduce
not just GHG emissions but all transportation air pollution throughout the U.S. Proposed Option
1 is a start but should be significantly strengthened, and the EPA should consider how to further
facilitate the adoption of HDEVs in the context of the NOx rule. Along similar lines, the EPA
should forgo any credit approaches that significantly erode the standard to avoid further
burdening communities and individuals with future pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-
Al, p.7]
Organization: Engine and Truck Organizations
The U.S. EPA has proposed a new rule to significantly increase the stringency of the national
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standard for medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicles. As
a Mack Trucks dealer, I fully support clean air improvements and healthier communities for all.
But my concern EPA's proposal risks significant unintended consequences for our medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle customers, for the trucking industry generally, and for the U.S. economy as a
whole. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l]
Based on our assessment, EPA's "Option 1" rule as proposed will be:
• Cost prohibitive. The additional technology required for diesel engines will drive new
and used vehicle prices higher, reducing or delaying fleet turnover to newer, cleaner,
safer trucks. Higher operating costs will also deter the attractiveness of those trucks.
• Disruptive of business. The additional costs and downtime associated with increased
repairs and maintenance will directly impact our customers' day-to-day operations and
inhibit their ability deliver goods and services.
• Bad for jobs. As was caused by previous EPA NOx rules, we anticipate a pre-buy/no
buy scenario, that could result in dramatic job losses for our employees.
• Counter to environmental goals. When new truck prices rise and their costs of
operation increase, customers will hold onto older, higher emitting trucks longer,
undermining the continuous improvements in air quality we all seek. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l]
193
-------
I urge EPA to reject "Option 1" and to instead work with industry stakeholders to develop a final
is workable and cost-effective, that keeps the trucking industry healthy, and that accelerates, not
undermines, environmentally beneficial fleet turnover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-A1,
p.l]
[Additional comment provided by two companies that joined this letter campaign:] Based on our
assessment, EPAs "Option 1" rule as proposed will be ... Product Limiting. Our truck
manufacturer suppliers may be forced to reduce their product portfolios, limiting the options we
can make available for our customers, and their ability to provide vital freight transportation for
their customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1179 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1235]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
EPA has clear authority to establish technology-forcing emission standards for medium and
heavy-duty trucks under Section 202(a)(1). The text of Section 202(a)(1) directs EPA to
promulgate 'standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines'.73 Such regulations are to 'take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of
the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period.'74 Authority to regulate GHGs under this section was confirmed in 2007, with
Massachusetts v. EPA.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.17]
73 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
74 Id. at 7521(a)(2).
75 549 U.S. 497 (2007).
EPA has a long history of promulgating technology-forcing emission standards that have driven
innovation and secured pollution reductions. For instance, EPA standards under section 202
resulted in the development and proliferation of the catalytic converter in 1975 and the three-way
catalyst in 1981.76 Particulate and NOx standards for heavy-duty vehicles also resulted in the
development of the diesel particulate filter and NOx aftertreatment.77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1265-A1, p.17]
76 See, e.g., David Gerard and Lester B. Lave, Implementing technology-forcing
policies: The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments and the introduction of advanced
automotive emissions controls in the United States, 72 TECHNOLOGICAL
FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 761 (2005), available at
http ://repository. emu, edu/tepper/1356/
77 See, e.g., Chris Wold, Climate Change, Presidential Power, and Leadership: We Can't
Wait, 45 CASE WESTERN RESERVE J. OF INT'L LAW 303, 346, available at
http://law.case. edu/journals/jil/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlLl&2.15. Article.Wold.pdf.
194
-------
Courts have consistently and specifically affirmed EPA's authority to establish technology-
forcing standards under section 202(a)(l)78 Section 202(a)(3), which addresses emissions of
NOx and certain other pollutants, but not GHGs, from medium and heavy duty vehicles, directs
EPA to promulgate standards 'reflect[ing] the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for
the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy,
and safety factors associated with the application of such technology.'79 Courts have interpreted
this to mean that section 202(a)(3) authorizes EPA to force the development of new technology
that does not yet exist.80 EPA's authority under section 202(a)(1) is similar: in promulgating
standards under 202(a)(1) EPA may make projections about future technology 'subject' only 'to
the restraints of reasonableness,'81 and a 'finding that the requisite technology exists or may be
feasibly developed'.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.17-18]
78 See, e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C.
Cir. 1981) (upholding EPA's technology-forcing standards under Section 202(a)(l)-(2)
authority); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Reilly, 983 F.2d 259, 268 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
(referencing Natural Res. Def. Council v. Envtl. Protection Agency, 655 F.2d at 322 and
affirming EPA's technology-forcing authority under Section 202(a)(l)-(2)).
79 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i) (emphasis added).
80 For an example of the D.C. Circuit upholding 202(a)(3) regulations which forced the
development of new technology, see Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410
(1986). In that case, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's 1985 regulations for PM emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles, and emphasized that Section 202(a)(3) authorizes EPA to force
development of new technology to meet EPA's standards. Id. at 429. The 'PM standards
provision, on its face, does not constrict the agency to technology that is 'now' available,'
wrote the court. Id. Further, it was 'impossible for [the court] to conclude that Congress
clearly intended to restrict PM standards to adequately demonstrated technology.' Id. at
430. Instead, noting that 'Congress intended the EPA in promulgating standards with an
adequate lead period to engage in reasonable predictions and projections in order to force
technology,' the court 'recognize[d] a Congress concerned with promoting advances in
emissions control technology for PM as well as other substances.' Id; See also Nat'l
Petrochemicals & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(upholding EPA's MY 2007 PM and NOx emissions standards against industry challenge
because 'EPA is authorized to adopt 'technology-forcing' regulations, [and] a petitioner's
evidence that current technology is inadequate is not enough to show that the EPA was
arbitrary in predicting future success.').
81 655 F.2d at 328 (citing International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 629
(D.C.Cir. 1973)).
82 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Reilly, 983 F.2d 259, 268 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
In 1980, for example, EPA promulgated PM emission standards for light-duty diesel vehicles
and trucks under Section 202(a)(1) authority, requiring that emissions decrease to 0.20 grams per
195
-------
mile in the 1985 model year.83 EPA determined that the standard would be achievable in 1985
with the perfection of a particle trapping device (a 'trap oxidizer'), which at the time had
achieved only partial success in a prototype stage.84 In NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit upheld
these standards, holding that EPA 'will have demonstrated the reasonableness of its basis for
prediction if it answers any theoretical objections to the . . . method, identifies the major steps
necessary in refinement of the device, and offers plausible reasons for believing that each of
those steps can be completed in the time available.'85 Further, although EPA had identified a
number of other technological strategies in addition to the trap oxidizer, the court acknowledged
that the standard had been 'set in reliance on [that] one preferred method.'86 In upholding the
rule, therefore, the court established that the existence and utility of the trap-oxidizer alone was
sufficient for the rule to survive.87 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 18]
83 655 F.2d at 328. The regulation was promulgated by the agency under 202(a)(3)(iii),
but the court held that the agency should have cited Section 202(a)(1).
84 655 F.2d at 328 (citing International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d at 629).
85 655 F.2d at 331.
86 Id. at 332.
87 Id. at 332 n.25.
We urge EPA to strengthen its NOx standards to ensure they deliver the maximum possible
reductions in harmful NOx pollution, consistent with reductions California and other states need
to protect public health, and in a manner that ensures diesel vehicles are fully deploying available
technologies to reduce harmful NOx pollution and that the standards drive adoption of ZEV
technologies. EPA's standards must be strengthened in several important regards to achieve
these goals. First, we urge EPA to adopt a multipollutant approach that considers the availability
of ZEV technologies in reducing NOx pollution. We then discuss a series of critical
improvements to EPA's proposed NOx standards for diesel vehicles, including recommended
adjustments to the ZEV NOx credits, and the importance of strengthening the idle standards.
Finally, we address and rebut claims by other stakeholders that protective NOx standards will
result in a pre-buy of high-polluting diesel vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.21]
If EPA relies on just the GHG standards to drive the deployment of ZEVs in its final rule, it must
strengthen its proposed NOx standards for diesel vehicles to deliver the maximum possible NOx
reductions, ensuring full technology development. EPA must strengthen its proposed NOx
standards for diesel vehicles to deliver maximum possible NOx reductions, consistent with the
needs of California and other section 177 states. In particular, EPA should adjust its approach to
ZEV NOx credit generation. And regardless of whether EPA adopts multipollutant standards, we
urge the agency to finalize stronger idle standards, consistent with those in the Omnibus Rule.
We discuss each of these recommendations more fully below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.22]
196
-------
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
EPN recommends that EPA's decision be guided by the demonstrated need for very large NOx
reductions from the heavy-duty (HD) sector. This need is especially great for those populations
living near major traffic areas. The goal should be to achieve the lowest feasible NOx standard,
which will provide California, other states, and disadvantaged communities the NOx reductions
they desperately need. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
EPN advocates that decisions on the level of the standards, the useful life period, the applicable
Model Years (MY), and other standard-setting and compliance related issues should all be
guided by this goal. This means that when EPA balances the various relevant factors, EPN
recommends that EPA place great weight on the clear need for major NOx reductions to protect
public health and welfare. EPN suggests that EPA should be clear in its reasoning that this factor
appropriately carries great weight, and that it is an important part of EPA's justification for
deciding to make changes in the direction of more, not less, reduction of NOx emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
With so many lives and so much of our future dependent on heavy-duty truck pollution
reduction, we strongly urge EPA to require maximum NOx and PM2.5 standards in a single-
phase rulemaking to be in effect model year 2027. Secondly, we urge 100% zero emission
medium and heavy-duty trucks sales by 3035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.2]
These standards are achievable and readily available today and will deliver critical cost savings
for operators and drivers.
o Dozens of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks already available or coming to
the market within a couple of years,
o Today, electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting most freight, delivery,
and transit uses and needs,
o Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to
be cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.2]
In fact, a recent DOE study predicts that by 2030, zero-emission trucks could grow to 42% of
sales just based on the fact that they will be cheaper to buy and own, but we need strong policies
to incentive this reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.2]
The reality is that trucks regulated by this standard will be on the road for decades, so these
vehicles must be cleaned up as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
Zero-emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both reduce harmful NOx and
carbon pollution. The EPA must put our national bus and truck fleet on a clear path to 100%
zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035 - as a matter of life and a matter of justice. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
197
-------
While the proposed rules are a good start, they must be strengthened. Specifically
o Regarding proposed Option lof the NOx part of the rule. As written, it would result in higher
emissions of smog and soot-causing NOx pollution than California's Heavy Duty Omnibus rule,
which should be the bare minimum baseline for smog and particulate matter reduction goals.
EPA must also eliminate credit giveaways that significantly erode the standard and proposed
Option 2 shouldn't be seriously considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
Organization: Evergreen Action
We offer support for Proposed Option 1 to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in a manner
that is consistent with the need to reduce the public health burdens caused by heavy duty vehicle
emissions, and align emissions standards with the administration's climate goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1289-A1, p.l]
This is why we support Proposed Option 1 for reducing NOx emissions, as this plan would
provide greater pollution reduction over Option 2, thereby better protecting Americans from
MHDV pollution while reducing greenhouse gas emission while maintaining technological and
financial feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1289-A1, p.l]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Ford supports EPA's effort to increase the stringency of the heavy-duty emission and greenhouse
gas standards, starting in 2027 model year. We believe that the Option 1 alternative, along with
the recommendations outlined in our attached comments, represents the appropriate level of
stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 2]
Ford supports the criteria emission standards in Option 1. The standards proposed in Option 1
would reduce NOx and particulate matter (PM) standards to the same level as the California Low
NOx regulation by 2031 MY. In addition, the EPA proposal would reduce hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions by 71% and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions by 60% versus the current
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 3]
Ford believes that complying with the 2031 model year and later 20 mg/bhp-hr NOx standard
will require the same robust and durable technological solutions as are needed to comply with
the CARB requirements in 2027 model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 3]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
GM supports EPA's effort to finalize more stringent criteria emissions regulations than today's
standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, in 2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.2]
GM supports efforts to improve air quality and is committed to a zero emissions future. Diesel
and gasoline engines can reduce real world emissions of the fleet today and meet customer
requirements in many medium- and heavy-duty applications. Reasonable updates to criteria
198
-------
emissions standards can recognize advancements in emissions reducing technologies, while
markets mature for ZEV deployment and widespread adoption. GM supports more stringent
criteria emissions regulations than today's standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.3]
When finalizing standards, EPA should consider that manufacturers may have limited time to
recoup the investment in internal combustion engine technologies incorporated to comply with
the standard. Developing new products and production capacity to meet higher standards takes
years of development. Major markets may adopt ZEV mandates, curtailing the addressable
market for internal combustion engine vehicles and limiting the number of years that emissions
reducing internal combustion engine technologies may be sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1246-A1, p.3]
Other technologies, such as battery electric vehicles or fuel cell vehicles will be necessary for
manufacturers to meet high stringency standards. EPA does not fully consider the cost of
these technologies in the technology pathways considered in the proposal. These technology
pathways, with an ABT program, are appropriate to consider for cost-benefit analysis of high
stringency proposals, though the costs of equipment and costs of fuel will differ significantly
from those considered by the agency in Option 1 and Option 2 of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1246-A1, pp.3-4]
In Option 1, the EPA proposes to decrease NOx emissions from the current standard by 82.5% in
2027, and 90% In 2031. At the same time, the agency proposed to revise upwards the useful life
and warranty of new equipment in 2027, and then again in 2031. Different technology packages
may be necessary to achieve these different requirements.7 Proposed restrictions to averaging,
banking, and trading credits decrease a manufacturer's ability to respond to these stepped
changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.4]
7 Engine hardware, emissions systems, on-board diagnostic software, electrification, etc.
GM encourages the agency to consider a one-step standard that considers technological
feasibility, and the air quality goals of the standard. A program with a straightforward one-step
structure, with full ABT, that includes ZEVs is preferred.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1,
p.4]
GM supports EPA's effort to finalize medium- and heavy-duty emissions regulations that are
more stringent than today's standards. As the market matures for infrastructure, and as operators
get more comfortable with ZEVs in many applications, battery electric vehicles and fuel cell
vehicles will be increasingly attractive, and adoption will accelerate over time. Over the next
decade, new gasoline and diesel engines can reduce transportation emissions, especially when
replacing older vehicles. GM encourages EPA to finalize standards that are technologically
feasible, and economically practicable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.7]
199
-------
Organization: Hyliion, Inc.
We encourage new HD NOx emissions standards and additional test cycles that will drive
additional NOx emissions reductions on the road and encourages best-in-class technologies.
These standards should be performance-based and technology-neutral and the test-cycles should
reflect real use of vehicles. Both the standards and test cycles should enable multiple technology
paths to achieve compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, pp. 4-5]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
In the Proposed Rule, EPA presents two regulatory options, as well as one more stringent
alternative. Because EPA is statutorily required to set standards for heavy-duty vehicles
reflecting the "greatest degree of emission reduction achievable," at a minimum it should select
Option 1 in the Final Rule, as this regulatory proposal is feasible, net beneficial, and would
produce the largest emission reduction of the options considered in the Proposed Rule. However,
given the numerous overly conservative economic assumptions outlined below, EPA should also
revise its cost-benefit and distributional analyses to better reflect the considerable benefits to
society from strong emission standards for heavy-duty trucks. This revised analysis may show
that even more stringent alternatives beyond Option 1 are feasible and net beneficial. EPA
should presumptively select the alternative that maximizes net benefits, and, if it does not select
that policy, should offer an adequate justification for rejecting the alternative that is most
economically efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 1]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA acts under the authority of the Clean Air Act section 202.3 Unlike the
open-ended discretion provided to EPA in setting standards for light-duty vehicles, EPA is
required to set standards for heavy-duty vehicles that "reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable" for the model year, with "appropriate considerations to cost, energy, and
safety factors associated with the application of such technology."4 Also in contrast to its
discretion with respect to lead time in setting standards for light-duty vehicles, EPA is required
to provide at least 4 years of lead time when it sets new standards for heavy-duty vehicles. 5 This
extended lead time evidences Congress' intent that EPA set stringent, technology-forcing
standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1,
p. 4]
3. 85 Fed. Reg. at 17,420.
4. Clean Air Act § 202(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3).
5. Compare Clean Air Act § 202(a)(2) (standards "shall take effect after such period as
the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the
requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance") with §
202(a)(3)(B) (heavy-duty vehicle standards "shall apply... beginning no earlier than the
model year commencing 4 years after such revised standard is promulgated").
200
-------
6. See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ("The
legislative history of both the 1970 and the 1977 amendments demonstrates that Congress
intended the agency to project future advances in pollution control capability. It was
'expected to press for the development and application of improved technology rather
than be limited by that which exists today.'") (quoting S.Rep.No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. 24 (1970)).
Congress has prioritized the dangers of heavy-duty truck pollution since it amended the Clean
Air Act in 1977, recognizing that EPA needed to "require rigorous control of heavy-duty
vehicles... which have become an increasing pollution problem."7 While the 1970 Clean Air Act
required a 90% reduction in light-duty vehicle emissions, it did not set a comparable target for
heavy-duty vehicles.8 Congress addressed this shortcoming in 1977 when it required EPA to set
initial heavy-duty vehicle standards reflecting the "best available control technology" that were
designed to achieve a 90% reduction in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, and a 75%
reduction in nitrogen oxides by 1981.9 EPA failed to act as Congress directed until March 1985,
when it promulgated heavy-duty regulations for the 1991 and 1994 model years—a decade later
than Congress intended, and only upon court order. 10 Thus, Congress once again intervened,
amending the Clean Air Act's heavy-duty provisions in 1990 to limit the sulfur content of diesel
fuels after significant testimony regarding the dangers of diesel exhaust and other pollution from
heavy-duty vehicles. 11 The Proposed Rule is the first time EPA has acted to reduce heavy-duty
vehicle emission in more than two decades, since it last issued standards in 2000. This history of
intermittent agency action, continually pushed by Congress and the courts to go further, shows
the necessity for EPA to act now by issuing strong, protective standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1256-A1, p. 4]
7. S.Rep.No. 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) at 15.
8. Id. at 65.
9. Id. at 66.
10. S.Rep.228, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. (1989) at 111.
11. Id.
Instead, even the most stringent of the two options EPA has proposed can hardly be said to be
the "greatest emission reduction achievable" when California has already issued similar heavy-
duty vehicle standards that are being implemented three years earlier. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1256-A1, p. 5]
12. See Cal. Air Res. Bd., Comparison of CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation
(Omnibus) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Clean Trucks Plan
(CTP) Proposed Options, ("Option 1 includes many elements of CARB's Omnibus
program and is approximately as stringent, although it takes effect about three years
later... Option 1 is significantly weaker and the standards do not reflect the performance
of demonstrated emission control technologies."), https://perma.cc/9PNB-JNPY.
201
-------
EPA has "co-proposed" two regulatory options, along with one more stringent alternative for
which EPA was unable to determine feasibility. 13 Option 2 is the "less stringent" of the two co-
proposals. 14 EPA found that the more stringent emission standards in Option 1 are "achievable"
and "feasible." 15 And EPA acknowledges that proposed Option 1 will result in greater emission
benefits,16 lower costs,17 and higher net benefits.18 Thus, as EPA acknowledges, Option 1 is
the "more appropriate level of stringency as it would result in a greater level of achievable
emission reduction for the model years proposed, which is consistent with EPA's statutory
authority[.]"19 Yet EPA "co-proposes" both options as "potentially appropriate."20 This cannot
be true. Finalizing standards equivalent to Option 2—when at least one other regulatory option
produces greater emission benefits, has higher net benefits, and is feasible—would be
inconsistent with EPA's statutory duty under the Clean Air Act. At a minimum, EPA must
finalize standards that are at least as stringent as Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1,
p. 5]
13. 85 Fed. Reg. at 17,420.
14. Id. at 17,421.
15. Id. at 17,438-39.
16. Id. at 17,438 (projecting that Option 1 would reduce NOx emissions by 44% by 2040,
while Option 2 would reduce NOx emissions by 55% over the same period).
17. Id. at 17,589 (annualized costs at 3% discount rate of $1.9 billion for Option 1 versus
$2.1 billion for Option 2).
18. Id. (net present benefits at 3% discount rate of $61-220 billion for Option 1 versus
$41-170 billion for Option 2).
19. Id. at 17,440
20. Id.
EPA should fully evaluate the costs and benefits of all regulatory options presented and should
strongly consider including at least one more stringent alternative than proposed. In order to
fulfill its statutory duty, EPA should compare the costs and benefits of all regulatory alternatives
under consideration in order to ensure that it selects the net-beneficial alternative that will
generate the greatest emission reduction. It should also consider whether more stringent
alternatives would also be cost-justified and generate greater emission reductions than the
options in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 1]
It is well established that agencies should consider a range of regulatory alternatives in order to
properly evaluate the costs and benefits of a regulatory proposal. Executive Order 12,866
explains that "agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits" when
"choosing among alternative regulatory approaches."21 Accomplishing such a goal of
maximizing net benefits is impossible without first considering a broad range of alternatives at
202
-------
different levels of stringency.22 The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") Circular A-4
directs agencies to "describe the alternatives available to [the agency] and the reasons for
choosing one alternative over another."23 When, as here, there is a continuum of possible
alternatives based on the level of stringency, agencies "generally should analyze at least three
options: the preferred option; a more stringent option that achieves additional benefits
(and presumably costs more) beyond those realized by the preferred option; and a less stringent
option that costs less (and presumably generates fewer benefits) than the preferred option."24
Circular A-4 makes clear that an analysis that, as here, does not discuss the incremental costs and
benefits of alternatives is not adequate.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 5-6]
21. 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 §l(a) (Oct. 4, 1993).
22. See Richard L. Revesz & Samantha P. Yi, Distributional Consequences and
Regulatory Analysis, 52 ENV'T L. 53, 91-92.
23. OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, CIRCULAR A-4: REGULATORY
ANALYSIS 16 (2003).
24. Id.
25. Id.
Since the Supreme Court held in State Farm that the National Highway Traffic Administration
("NHTSA") had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to consider a "technological
alternative within the ambit of [its] existing standards,"26 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit has repeatedly held that rational decisionmaking by administrative agencies requires
consideration of "significant alternatives to the course it ultimately chooses."27 Agencies must
consider "obvious" alternatives and provide an explanation when alternatives are rejected.28
And in explaining why alternatives are rejected, agencies may not "put a thumb on the scale by
undervaluing the benefits and overvaluing the costs of more stringent standards."29 EPA's
failure to fully evaluate alternatives is particularly egregious here, where proposing and
evaluating alternative performance standards with varying levels of stringency is such a "familiar
tool in [EPA]'s tool kit."30 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 6]
26. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
463 U.S. 29, 51 (1983).
27. Allied Local & Reg'l Mfrs. Caucus v. EPA, 215 F.3d 61, 80 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
28. Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donovan, 722 F.2d 795, 816 n.41
(D.C. Cir. 1983).
29. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538
F.3d 1172, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008).
203
-------
30. See Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 412 F.3d 133, 144
(D C. Cir. 2005).
With a full analysis of only Option 1,31 and only a limited analysis of the less-stringent Option
232 and the more stringent alternative, EPA cannot rationally determine which of its proposed
regulatory options is the most reasonable approach. At a minimum, EPA should fully evaluate
the costs and benefits of Option 2 and the more stringent alternative described in the Proposed
Rule, as Circular A-4 recommends.33 The agency should presumptively select the alternative
that maximizes net benefits,34 and, if it does not select that policy, should offer an adequate
justification for rejecting the alternative that is most economically efficient.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 6]
31. Even EPA's analysis of Option 1 is oddly incomplete, as it acknowledges that
there are differences between the scenario modeled in the DRIA and the standards
presented in the rule. See 85 Fed. Reg. at 17,589 n.781("As noted in draft RIA
Chapter 5.4, there are differences between the standards, emission warranty, and
useful life provisions of proposed Option 1 presented in Sections III and IV and
those included in our control case scenario modeled for the air quality analysis (as
noted in Section VII, due to resource constraints we only conducted air quality
modeling for the proposed Option 1). As detailed in draft RIA Chapter 8,
estimates of health benefits are based on our air quality analysis, and thus
differences between proposed Option 1 and modeling are not reflected in the
benefits analysis.") (emphasis added).
32. See id.
33. CIRCULAR A-4, supra note 23, at 16.
34. Exec. Order 12,866, supra note 21, §l(a) ("[AJgencies should select those
approaches that maximize net benefits..., unless a statute requires another
regulatory approach.").
35. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 1-4 (2010) ("The policy
that maximizes net benefits is considered the most efficient").
EPA's draft regulatory impact analysis ("RIA" or "DRIA") indicates the strong potential that
more stringent regulations would produce additional social benefits.36 It is important that EPA
consider more stringent alternatives than Option 1 in order to identify whether the agency is
leaving incremental net benefits on the table.37 In the Proposed Rule, EPA introduces one more
stringent alternative, but cannot determine whether it is technologically feasible and therefore
does not analyze its costs and benefits.38 Instead of ending its analysis there, EPA should
consider other options in between Option 1 and the more stringent alternative. Showing whether
a more stringent alternative would, or would not, produce higher net benefits would improve the
overall transparency of the rulemaking process. Further, consideration of more than three
alternatives would be consistent with past regulatory practice, such as the SAFE Rule's
204
-------
contemplation of eight different regulatory options.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p.
7]
36. See, e.g., 85 Fed. Reg. at 17,438 (a more stringent alternative will reduce NOx
emissions by 44% by 2040, as compared to 55% over the same period for a less
stringent alternative); Id. at 17,589 (net present benefits at a 3% discount rate of
$61-220 billion for more stringent alternative versus $41-170 billion for less
stringent alternative).
37. See CIRCULAR A-4, supra note 23, at 16.
38. 85 Fed. Reg. at 17,589 n.782.
39. 83 Fed. Reg. 42,986, 42,990 (Aug. 24, 2018) (proposing 8 different regulatory
alternatives).
EPA's distributional and employment analyses of the regulation further support the consideration
of strong alternatives. Specifically, EPA's current analysis demonstrates that strong regulation as
represented by Option 1 improves the air quality faced by disadvantaged groups in the most
polluted areas. A wider distributional analysis as recommended in Section II, infra, combined
with a wider set of alternatives would allow EPA to analyze the extent to which stronger
regulations could benefit disadvantaged communities already suffering from high levels of air
pollution. Moreover, since the current analysis finds little to no negative impact on sales or
employment from Option 1,40 the additional benefits of further reducing air pollution could
substantially increase the incremental net benefits of more stringent regulation. Indeed, the effect
of building and installing the necessary technologies for vehicle improvements required by more
stringent standards could even lead to higher levels of employment at the manufacturing level
and overall. Ideally, EPA should quantify the overall employment impacts along with the wider
set of alternatives to determine the direction and magnitude of these employment effects, though
EPA could consider making these points qualitatively at a minimum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1256-A1, p. 7]
40. See sections V & VI, infra.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
EPA has proposed two options for setting new engine standards for nitrogen oxides. Since
Option 2 does not require maximum technically feasible emission reductions, we recommend
this option be dismissed. Option 1 is technically feasible and is cost effective, with a benefit-to-
cost ratio of 5.3. Option 1 comes closer to realizing technology potential, but it would allow for a
transition period from MY2027-2030 where higher emitting engines continue to be sold.
Strengthening Option 1 to align with state HDV omnibus rules for model year 2027 would avoid
this delay in NOx emission benefits. We disagree with concerns expressed by the Engine
Manufacturers Association with respect to cost, warranty and compliance margin. We view this
engine standard as the most important opportunity EPA has under this Administration to address
transportation-related environmental injustice and exposure disparities in disadvantaged
205
-------
communities across this country. We find that adopting and strengthening EPA's Option 1 will
especially benefit communities exposed to high traffic emissions near major roadways across all
states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3] RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA
dismiss Option 2 and adopt a strengthened Option 1 to fully align with a 90% NOx reduction in
MY2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
Combination long-haul trucks, combination short-haul trucks, and single unit short-haul trucks
account for nearly 89% of estimated NOx reductions in 2035 under EPA's Option 1.
Combination long-haul trucks alone account for more than 60% of the NOx benefits of EPA's
Option 1. Our analysis of the spatial patterns of vehicle emissions shows that securing these
benefits would especially reduce the impacts of transportation pollution in communities living
near interstates and highways. Since each of these segments have distinct spatial patterns, any
relaxation of requirements for any one of these modes in EPA's final rule - such as for
combination unit long-haul vehicles - would be expected to generate an unequal and
disproportionate burden in disadvantaged communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
6]
Full alignment of federal NOx requirements with state HDV Omnibus rules and the adoption of
GHG requirements consistent with 100% zero-emission HDV sales by 2035 could avoid $5.7
billion in health damages annually in 2035, 46% of which would benefit communities that meet
at least one of the criteria defined by the EPA Climate and Environmental Justice Screening
Tool. This estimate represents a 15% increase in NOx benefits in 2035 compared with Option 1
benefits in this year. These additional benefits are approximately evenly divided among
combination unit long-haul trucks, combination unit short-haul trucks, and single-unit short-haul
trucks. These combined emission reductions would benefit communities across the U.S.,
especially population centers and areas near major freight corridors. The most populous states
such as California and Texas have among the highest potential health benefits in absolute terms.
Yet multiple states are projected to experience outsized benefits compared to their population,
such as Pennsylvania, Delaware and several states in the Midwest and South, including Indiana,
Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, and Georgia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
6]
Technical feasibility. EPA has provided a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of the
proposed Option 1 NOx standards in its technical support document. Its conclusion is clear: The
standards proposed for all three test cycles for large, long-life engines are feasible. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 7]
The Stage 3 SWRI test programs sponsored by California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
EPA demonstrate that the NOx standards can be met with available technologies, using
optimized SCR aftertreatment and cylinder deactivation. EPA has provided proof of feasibility
that goes far beyond that provided in previous rulemakings, such as the rulemaking for the
current 2010 NOx and PM standards. The remaining issues are proof of emission durability
beyond 600,000 miles to the full useful life of 800,000 miles, with early results showing NOx
levels below the standard at 800,000 miles, and the emission margin available to assure
production and in-use compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 8]
206
-------
Regarding durability beyond 600,000 miles, an EPA test program with aftertreatment aged to full
useful life is nearing completion. The proposed 2031 NOx standard for 800,000 miles is double
the mid-life standard at 435,000 miles, providing room for emission deterioration as the engine
ages. Projecting the data at 600,000 miles to full useful life, EPA shows that the demonstration
engine will emit below the full life standard on the FTP (Figure 3-16, EPA TSD). The projected
2031 NOx emissions for the new, low-load cycle are about 25% below the proposed mid-life
standard and more than 50% below the proposed full life standard (Figure 3-17, EPA TSD),
suggesting adequate margin for compliance. The EPA figures are reproduced below. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 8]
Manufacturers also claim that the Stage 3 aged-engine does not consistently meet the in-use NOx
standards when laboratory tested on "road-cycles" that mimic real-world operation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 10]
Based on a thorough review of the EPA proposal and the most recent findings from SwRI, we
draw the following conclusions:
• The research conducted by SwRI provides compelling evidence of the feasibility of achieving
the EPA proposed Option 1 FTP emission standards for both MY2027-2030 and MY2031 and
later models. Compliance margins are sufficient for Option 1, especially given the 8 years
remaining to increase margins if needed.
• Adoption of a supplemental low-load cycle with corresponding emission standards is necessary
to assure emission reductions during urban driving, and the SwRI data show emission levels well
below the proposed standards throughout the full useful life.
• A highly capable single research group with limited funding and only a few years working with
a suitable technology package (Stage 3) was able to demonstrate emission levels at or below the
EPA's most stringent proposed standards. Based on its results, SwRI has pointed out additional
possible advancements that could result in further reduction in NOx emissions, such as catalyst
size increases and reformulations, and control algorithm improvements. EPA has provided proof
of feasibility that goes far beyond that provided in previous rulemakings, such as the rulemaking
for the current 2010 NOx and PM standards. It is reasonable to conclude that the industry as a
group, with their enormously greater resources and 8 more years of time before the final
standards and useful life go into effect, will be able to produce durable engines with even lower
emissions and greater emission compliance margins both in certification and in-use over the
future extended UL.
• By law, heavy-duty engine standards must reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available for the model year to which standards apply". The technologies developed by SwRI
and their demonstrated ultra-low NOx emissions are consistent with the technology-forcing
statutory requirements and the EPA proposed Option 1 standards for 2027 and 2031. The
statutory requirement would not be met if EPA chose to adopt less stringent standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 11]
207
-------
The NOx benefits of EPA's proposal are determined, in part, by the degree of future ZEV uptake.
To understand this relationship, we modeled several scenarios for ZEV uptake under both
proposed Options for new NOx engine standards. More detailed modeling methodology and
scenario descriptions can be found in Attachment 1 - Appendix A. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 15]
We find that EPA Option 1 and 2 standards combined with faster future ZEV deployment can
lower overall NOx emissions, as shown in Table 3. We estimate EPA's Option 1 would reduce
NOx emissions by 0.4 to 5.1 million tonnes over the period 2027-2050 compared to EPA 2010
standards. Strengthening EPA's Option 1 to align with state HDV Omnibus rules would increase
NOx emission benefits by an additional 0.1- 0.5 million tonnes over this period. We find the
greatest NOx reductions - up to 5.9 million tonnes - would come from both accelerating ZEV
uptake in line with the most ambitious Alternative 3 scenario and adopting requirements similar
to state HDV Omnibus rules (compared to Baseline EPA 2010). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 15]
The Clean Air Act requires heavy-duty standards for new engines to "reflect the greatest degree
of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator
determines will be available for the model year which the standards apply, ..." (section
202(a)(3)(A) of the Act). EPA has clearly stated its finding (see quote from the NPRM in the
section of our comments on Technical Feasibility) that Option 1 standards are technically
feasible within the lead time provided. The Option 2 proposed NOx standards are much less
stringent than Option 1: 1.4 times higher in 2027 and 2.5 times higher in 2031+ for the FTP
cycle. Clearly Option 2 standards do not meet the Clean Air Act definition of the greatest degree
of emission reduction achievable, given EPA's definitive statement that Option 1 standards are
technically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 16]
Under a scenario in which 17 states adopt and implement an Advanced Clean Trucks Rule, we
estimate that Option 2 standards will result in nearly 1 million additional cumulative tonnes of
NOx emitted from 2027 through 2050, compared to Option 1, as shown in Figure 7. EPA
estimates Option 1 will deliver over 1.25 million additional tons of NOx reductions when
compared with Option 2 (Table 5-34, EPA RIA). The additional health damages of Option 2 are
$9-$ 16 billion (Table 8-8, EPA RIA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
Less stringent emission standards proposed in Option 2 higher proposed FEL caps explain the
emission differences with Option 1. For example, the highest allowed 2031+ FTP FEL in Option
2 is 150 mg NOx for HHD engines —3 times the proposed standard of 50 mg and only 25
percent below the current standard. By comparison, the highest 2031+ HHD FTP FEL under
Option 1 is 70 mg at full useful life—only 1.75 times the proposed standard of 40 mg and less
than half the Option 2 FEL. These are shown in the table below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 17]
One implication of low FELs under Option 2 is many trucks that operate in or near
disadvantaged communities could be allowed to achieve only a 25% NOx reduction compared to
the current standards. Residents living in these communities are already exposed to a higher air
pollution burden. The results of EPA's analysis indicates that environmental justice would not be
208
-------
served by adoption of Option 2, with its laxer standards, much higher FELs, shorter useful life
and a warranty more than 40% shorter in mileage coverage and 50% lower in years compared to
Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 18]
For the above reasons, ICCT recommends Option 2 be dismissed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 18]
Combination long-haul trucks, combination short-haul trucks, and single unit short-haul trucks
are the segments with the greatest potential NOx emissions reductions from strengthened
policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 52]
These 3 segments account in our modeling for nearly 89% of estimated NOx reductions in 2035,
assuming adoption of EPA's Option 1. (Table 18) These segments also account for more than
85%) of the additional NOx reduction potential we assume is still available. Compared to EPA's
Option 1, a strategy to reduce HDV tailpipe NOx emissions by at least 90%> via NOx engine
standards and increase ZEV uptake in line with reaching 100% zero-emission HDV sales by
2035 via GHG standards, could reduce NOx emissions across all vehicle segments by 46,400
tonnes in 2035—a 15% increase in NOx benefits compared to EPA Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 52]
EPA's Option 1 will especially benefit communities living near interstates and highways in all
states. More than 60% of the NOx benefits of EPA's Option 1 are expected to come from
combination long-haul trucks; these emission reductions are estimated to be concentrated on
major roads across the U.S. Securing these benefits is especially important to reduce the impacts
of transportation pollution in communities living near interstates and highways (Figure 15).
EPA's Option 1 would also significantly reduce emissions from combination unit short-haul and
single unit short-haul trucks; the latter are especially concentrated in densely populated
areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 52.]
Adopting requirements similar to state HDV Omnibus rules and accelerating ZEV uptake would
further benefit communities all over the U.S., including in densely populated areas and
communities near interstates and highways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 54.]
Compared to EPA's Option 1, the additional benefits of EPA action represented by our modeling
scenarios Federal omnibus + Alternative 3 are approximately evenly divided among combination
unit long-haul trucks, combination unit short-haul trucks, and single-unit short-haul trucks. Since
each of these segments have distinct spatial patterns, these combined emission reductions would
benefit communities across the U.S., especially population centers and areas near major freight
corridors (Figure 16). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 54.]
We analyzed health benefits at a census tract level for communities meeting select environmental
justice criteria versus all others. The definitions of these groups of census tracts are mostly based
on criteria in EPA's Climate and Environmental Justice Screening tool83:
209
-------
1. Disadvantaged: Communities designated as disadvantaged are considered overburdened both
in terms of environmental or climate indicators and underserved socioeconomically. This
definition is not limited to impacts from transportation;
2. High diesel particulate exposure (diesel PM): Communities at or above the 90th percentile for
diesel particulate matter exposure, or the top 10% that are adversely impacted by diesel
particulate matter exposure in the U.S., and above the threshold for socioeconomic indicators;
3. High traffic (traffic): Communities at or above the 90th percentile for traffic proximity and
volume and above the threshold for socioeconomic indicators;
4. High ambient PM2.5 exposure (PM): Communities at or above the 90th percentile for PM2.5
in the air on an annual average basis and above the threshold for socioeconomic indicators;
5. High rates of air pollution related diseases (disease): Communities at or above the 90th
percentile for asthma OR diabetes OR heart disease OR low life expectancy and above the
threshold for socioeconomic indicators;
6. High proportion of low-income households (income): Communities at or above the 65th
percentile for low income versus all others. Low income is defined as 'Percent of a census tract's
population in households where household income is at or below 200% of the Federal poverty
level';
7. High proportion of people of color (POC): Communities at or above the 65th percentile for
percent people of color, people of color defined as Latinos of any race and any non-Latino,
nonwhite people;
8. Meets any criteria (any): Communities that meet any of the criteria above. This group
represents 47.3% of total population in 48 states and the District of Columbia as shown in Table
19. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
83. Methodology. Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool.
https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/methodology
Nearly half of the health benefits of aligning federal NOx engine standards with state Omnibus
rules and accelerating ZEV uptake would occur in EJ communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 55]
Our modeling results show that a scenario represented by Federal omnibus + Alternative 3 could
avoid an additional $753 million in health damages annually in 2035 compared to EPA's Option
1; 47%) of these benefits ($350 million) are projected to occur in communities that meet at least
one of the selected environmental justice criteria, which represent over 150 million people.
Communities with high proportions of people of color and low-income households, two of the
most populous groups we identified, are projected to benefit the most from accelerating ZEV
uptake, followed by disadvantaged communities and those that experience high rates of air
pollution related disease. Those that experience high rates of air pollution related disease are also
210
-------
the group that experience the largest benefits relative to their population, benefitting 13% more
than average on a per-capita basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 55 - 56]
EPA's Option 1 will benefit communities in all states; adopting requirements similar to the
scenario represented by Federal omnibus + Alternative 3 would further increase benefits by
approximately 15% across U.S. states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 57. ]
The most populous states, such as California and Texas have among the highest potential health
benefits in absolute terms from heavy-duty vehicle emission regulations. Yet multiple states are
projected to experience outsized benefits compared to their population, such as Pennsylvania and
Delaware, as well as Midwest and Southern states, including Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Georgia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 57.]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
Commercial vehicle manufacturers are committed to partnering with EPA and other stakeholders
to further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks without diverting resources necessary to
foster a phased transition to ZEVs. We urge you to work with them - not against them - to
finalize a cost-effective rule that will further reduce emissions, protect American jobs, and
result in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1,
p.2]
Please do not discount the concerns expressed by commercial vehicle manufacturers. The
economy of Michigan - indeed, the entire country - is dependent on their continued growth,
research, and reinvestment as we collectively work toward a cleaner environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, p.2]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
The heavy-duty vehicle industry is complex and crafting new regulations on nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and other pollutants for medium and heavy-duty engines and vehicles is an extremely
arduous task for a variety of reasons. For instance, unlike CAFE and GHG (greenhouse gas)
regulations, NOx reductions do not provide a financial benefit to purchasers through improved
fuel efficiency. Despite this additional challenge, we know from experience that it is possible to
craft a regulation that sets reasonable standards while promoting good jobs and protecting public
health and the environment. Striking this careful balance will be difficult and the challenge it
presents should not be understated. We stand ready to work with the EPA and all other
stakeholders on developing standards that are good for working people and our
environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.l]
We are urging the EPA to reject Option 1 and to develop a final rule that is workable, cost-
effective, and minimizes the disruptions in truck production levels that jeopardize good paying
manufacturing jobs that benefit all Americans. Proposed Option 1 raises major concerns about
feasibility, costs, job impacts, unintended consequences, and lack regulatory certainty. The
211
-------
industry has demonstrated its commitment to producing more efficient vehicles and investing in
a zero-emission future, but policies designed with flawed assumptions could inadvertently set
back those goals while doing significant harm to workers and the economy. Option 2 sets
ambitious targets for the industry that lowers the heavy-duty NOx standard by 75% and is better
suited to serve as the basis for crafting final regulations with the understanding that
modifications will be needed as final rules are crafted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1,
p.l]
Over the last decade, UAW members have played a vital role in reaching a hard-fought
consensus among a wide variety of stakeholders to significantly reduce both heavy-duty and
passenger vehicle emissions. We hope that the EPA will pursue a final rule based on a similar
consensus-driven process that incorporates input from a variety of stakeholders. In this, we
encourage all stakeholders to be transparent and keep an open mind as all will need to
compromise to reach a consensus. A standard that does not have buy-in from major stakeholders
makes it even more likely that standard will be held up in the courts and politicized, potentially
creating significant uncertainty and delaying progress. We proudly worked with other
stakeholders to contribute to rulemaking for Phase 2 GHG reduction and fuel efficiency targets.
We again urge the EPA to pursue a consensus-driven process and promulgate rules that reduce
NOx and harmful pollutants, are compatible with Phase 2 requirements, and establish regulatory
clarity and stability for the truck manufacturing industry. This rulemaking process should avoid
extended political or legal battles that create uncertainty, which discourage investment and harm
workers in the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, pp.2-3]
Organization: King County, Washington County Executive
The final rule should strengthen EPA's proposed Option 1 to set the expectation that at least 50
percent of sales should be zero-emission by 2030, and to put the United States on track for all
truck sales to be zero-emission by 2035, in order to support the science-based targets to reduce
global warming. As we advance our goals to transition to zero-emission trucks as quickly as
possible, EPA must ensure the remaining new diesel truck purchases operate as cleanly as
possible to protect public health, especially in our most overburdened communities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.2]
It is critical that EPA's truck rule:
• Provides pollution reduction that is at least as protective as the reductions that are
codified in California's recent Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule. This means, at a minimum,
EPA should meet or exceed California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus program by setting a
standard that achieves a greater than 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions by
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.2]
• Builds on the successes of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule adopted by six states
and sets the expectation that at least 50 percent of new truck sales should be zero-
emission by 2030, putting the United States on track for all new truck sales to be zero-
emission by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.2]
• Offers a unified national program that will provide needed equity and ensure cleaner air
for all communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.2]
212
-------
Organization: Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS)
Specifically, LNS recommends the following actions:
• EPA must not leave emission reductions and requirements to future rule and should
transition to zero-emission trucks and buses by setting stringent emission standards and
zero-emission-vehicle sales mandates now.
• EPA should require that all new trucks have zero emissions beginning in 2035 and retire
all combustion trucks before 2045. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
Lion appreciates the EPA's efforts in estimating the costs and benefits for multiple proposed
options for lowering NOx and GHG emissions starting in Model Year 2027. This gives
stakeholders a clear picture of how each option might affect air quality, health, and fleets. After
reviewing the proposed data, Lion supports several aspects of Option 1, which offers the most
stringent nitrogen oxide (NOx) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions of the two
options presented. We believe that the EPA should take most of the actionable steps presented in
Option 1 to urgently address the need for strong emission controls. However, we encourage the
EPA to consider some flexibility in implementation to accommodate smaller fleets, which might
struggle to meet these proposed regulations without adequate incentives and guidance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 1]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
The Department would first like to commend EPA's efforts to strengthen criteria pollutant
emission standards for heavy-duty engines for the first time in almost 20 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1288-A1, p.l]
In-use testing data suggest that real-world NOx emissions are higher than modeled estimates,
underscoring the need to achieve substantial NOx emission reductions from the heavy-duty
diesel truck sector.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.4]
7 Tan, et al., "On-Board Sensor-Based NOx Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
Vehicles," Environmental Science and Technology, 53: 5504-5511 (2019).
In Maine, heavy-duty on-road vehicles account for 28 percent of mobile source NOx emissions,
exceeded only by the on-road (non-diesel) light duty vehicles as shown in Figure 4. In the
absence of stringent new engine NOx standards, emissions from heavy-duty vehicles will only
increase in future years as truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grows. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) projects that HDV VMT will increase by approximately 20 percent
over the next 25 years, as shown in Figure 5. This growth in VMT, if not counteracted by
increased stringency of new engine emissions standards, will result in significantly increased
heavy-duty truck emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-Al,pp.4-5]
213
-------
Additional NOx reductions from heavy-duty vehicles are critical for addressing public health and
environmental concerns not only in Maine, but throughout the country. Given this, the
Department strongly recommends the adoption of heavy-duty NOx emission limits that are
consistent with those in the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation. More specifically, Maine
supports the adoption of a 0.020 gram NOx engine standard in 2027 at intermediate useful life
and a 0.035 gram NOx standard at full useful life as specified in the Omnibus Regulation. The
heavy-duty NOx limits and useful life requirements established in the Omnibus Regulation have
been thoroughly vetted, and there is a range of data from CARB, EPA, and other research
programs supporting the feasibility of introducing a 0.020 gram NOx standard at intermediate
useful life in 2027. 9,1011,12,13,14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
9 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy -
Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027," February 2020.
Available at
http://www.meca.org/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf
(accessed February 7, 2020).
10 Southwest Research Institute, "Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration
Programs at SwRI," November 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/guest/swri_hd_low
_nox_demo_programs.pdf. (accessed February 7, 2020).
11 Sharp, Chris; Neely, Gary; Rao, Sandesh; Zaval, Bryan, "An Update on Continuing
Progress Towards Heavy-Duty Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond," Southwest
Research Institute, WCX, Detroit, Michigan , April 5-7, 2022.
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, Regulatory Impact Analysis," March 28,
2022, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf
13 Achates Power, "Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration," CRC Real
World Emissions Workshop, March 15, 2022.
14 Villafuerte, Pablo Mendoza; Demuynck, Joachim; Bosteels, Dirk, "Ultra-Low NOx
Emissions with a Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a Heavy-Duty Truck
Application," Society of Automotive Engineers See 2021-01-1228.pdf (aecc.eu)
EPA's Proposed Option 1 Should be Revised to Provide Additional Technologically-Feasible
and Cost-Effective Emission Reductions. Once fully implemented, Option 1, which phases in a
35 mg/bhp-hr NOx limit beginning with model year 2027 and a more stringent 20 mg/bhp-hr
beginning with model year 2031, will reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOx emission by 90% in
comparison with the 2001 (current) standards. While this represents a significant improvement
over the current standards, Option 1 unfortunately fails to fully capitalize on recent technological
advancements for both internal combustion engines and zero emission vehicle (ZEV)
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
214
-------
EPA's Proposed Option 2. The Department is strongly opposed to Option 2 in EPA's proposal.
Technical analyses demonstrate that substantially more stringent NOx controls are feasible and
cost-effective for model year 2027 and later heavy-duty engines and vehicles than would be
required under this option. Certification data from current model year engines show that mass
NOx emissions from some engines are close to the level proposed for the Option 2 FTP and SET
NOx standards for model year 2027 and later engines. 19,20,21 The standards proposed for
Option 2 would only require minor calibration adjustments and minimal hardware modification.
Further, EPA's own analysis found that Option 2 is less cost-effective than Option 1. Option 2
will not deliver the needed emissions reductions in Overburdened Communities or provide
sufficient assistance to states in attaining the ozone NAAQS and would leave substantial and
cost-effective NOx reductions on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.8]
19 Volvo, "Executive Order: 2020 VOLVO GROUP TRUCKS TECHNOLOGY HHDD
A-242-0139 (ca.gov) | California Air Resources Board.
20 Cummins's 0.07 MCEXH0912XCA 151 engine family New Vehicle and Engine
Certification: Executive Orders for MY2021 Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Engines.
21 DDC's 0.06 13L Executive Order: 2019 DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION
HHDD A-290-0168-1 (ca.gov).)
While the Department recognizes that NOx reductions are EPA's top priority for this rule, the
proposed updates can provide benefits in the form of increased fuel efficiency and reduced fuel
consumption, thereby setting the stage for a more ambitious rule to be implemented as soon as
MY2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.8]
In summary, EPA should finalize a stringent and technology forcing rule in accordance with
Section 202(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act23 that will reduce heavy-duty vehicle emissions by at
least 90 percent and implement other key requirements to make sure these reductions will
continue to be realized over the full useful life of vehicles, beginning not later than model year
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.9]
23 CAA Section 202(a)(3)(A): NOx emission standards for HD trucks are to "reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology
which the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such
standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology."
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Technology commercialization has a long cycle, including design, testing, vehicle integration
and real-world deployment across many trucks in the field to make sure systems are reliable and
durable. This cycle is why long-term regulatory certainty and stringent standards are a critical
signal to industry to begin making investments and collaborating with their suppliers of
technologies that will be needed in the future. MECA members have been engaged in developing
a large portfolio of technology options that can be installed on a vehicle to optimize the lowest
215
-------
NOx and C02 emissions. MECA supports standards founded on technologically feasible and
cost-effective solutions that allow communities to meet their air quality goals. In 2013, SwRI
was granted a contract to demonstrate the technical feasibility for achieving a 90% reduction in
NOx emissions below current standards while not negatively impacting C02, N20, methane,
ammonia and other criteria pollutants including PM. This demonstration program has evolved
and grown through EPA's support and continues to yield results to this day. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.4]
MECA supports EPA's proposed phased-in implementation dates beginning with MY 2027 and
fully phased in by MY 2031, as these align with CARB's second phases of the Omnibus
Regulation. The initial implementation starting with MY 2027 coincides with the final step in the
Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 standards. Aligning criteria and GHG standard implementation dates
enables optimization of NOx and C02 emission reductions from engines and aftertreatment
simultaneously. This alignment is the most cost-effective approach for engine manufacturers and
suppliers as many technologies described below offer simultaneous and synergistic reductions in
both NOx and C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.4]
Based on the technical work of Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA), it is
estimated that a 90% reduction in NOx emissions from these mobile sources (to a rate of 0.02
g/bhp-hr) is both technically feasible and cost effective adding only 1% to 1.6% to the cost of a
model year (MY) 2027 Class 8 truck. See 'STATEMENT OF THE MANUFACTURERS OF
EMISSION CONTROLS ASSOCIATION ON THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY'S ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING: CONTROL OF AIR
POLLUTION FROM NEW MOTOR VEHICLES: HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE STANDARDS'
February 20, 2020, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0365. According to MECA's estimate of a cost
benefit of $l,000-$5,000 per ton of NOx reduced is cost effective relative to most remaining
stationary controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.6]
MECA supports regulations that set fuel neutral standards for vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.31]
In conclusion, MECA appreciates EPA's work in demonstrating pathways to meeting future
heavy-duty low-NOx engine standards. We strongly support a modified Proposed Option 1 as
outlined in our comments above. Proposed Option 1 along with our suggested modifications
would result in cost effective air quality benefits for millions of Americans living in ozone and
PM nonattainment areas. MECA believes that the standards in Proposed Option 1 are technically
achievable for implementation by 2027 and stepping down, as proposed, in 2031. The test
program at Southwest Research Institute has shown that engines equipped with advanced
technologies paired with state-of-the-art aftertreatment systems can achieve levels consistent
with the standards in Proposed Option 1 over certification cycles. Off-cycle testing over low load
operation using real-world duty cycles, is showing that comfortable compliance margins exist in
all three compliance bins. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that low load and idle standards
can be tightened to levels below those proposed.. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.34]
216
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environment America (11,390)
We write to urge you to create the strongest possible limits on heavy-duty vehicle
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
Transportation is the largest source of global warming pollution in the United States. To avoid
the worst impacts of climate change, we need to zero out emissions from transportation by 2050.
That means replacing trucks, buses, freight vehicles, delivery vans, and any other vehicle that
relies on fossil fuels with a clean, electric version. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
EPA should strengthen this rule to meet two key goals. 1) reduce deadly NOx pollution 90% by
2027, and 2) put our heavy duty vehicle fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric
vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
Proposed Option 1 for NOx pollution is a start, but it must be strengthened to protect public
health. Environment America supports requiring a 90% reduction in nitrogen oxide pollution
from trucks and buses by 2027. Reducing smog and soot-causing NOx pollution from trucks will
improve air quality and save lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
Cleaner trucks can deliver cleaner air. EPA should go back to the drawing board to create a rule
that will accelerate the market for electric trucks and produce significant reductions in the
pollution that harms our health and climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1,p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
To protect our children's health and future as well as our large Senior citizen population, and to
address environmental injustice, EPA needs to immediately take urgent and bolder action. The
proposed rule for heavy duty vehicle pollution should be strengthened. On the NOx portion of
the rule, Option 1 is a start but is insufficient. It would result in higher emissions of smog and
soot-causing NOx pollution than California's Heavy Duty Omnibus rule, which should be the
baseline for smog and particulate matter reduction goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1,
pp.2-3]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club (11,740)
Sierra Club collected 11,740 public comments urging the Environmental Protection Agency to
pass a rule for curbing emissions from heavy duty trucks by setting a smog reduction target that
makes engines 90% cleaner by 2027 and a greenhouse gas target that puts zero-emission trucks
on the road to protect our climate and the health of our communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1620-A1, p.l]
To deliver on the Biden Administration's environmental justice, public health, and climate goals,
the EPA must finalize a strong heavy-duty vehicle rule this year that sets us on a rapid path to
cleaning up and electrifying the most polluting vehicles on the roads: our trucks and
buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1620-A1, p.l]
217
-------
We appreciate President Biden making clean transportation a day-one priority and EPA moving
quickly to propose long-overdue regulations to clean up pollution from dirty heavy-duty
vehicles. However, our communities and our planet require bolder standards that will reduce
health-harming smog and cut greenhouse gas emissions to a degree that matches the urgency of
the climate and public health crisis. That can only happen if both the NOx standard and the
greenhouse gas standards are strong enough to make trucks cleaner while moving quickly to get
zero-emission trucks on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1620-A1, p.l]
Moreover, the standards must not be undermined by giveaways to an industry that would allow
manufacturers to keep producing fossil fuel trucks far into the next decade. EPA must strengthen
the final rule by accelerating the trajectory towards zero-emission vehicles and eliminating the
various credit giveaways that significantly erode the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1620-
Al, p.l]
Thank you for initiating action on this important issue. We look forward to EPA once again
responding to health, equity, and environmental advocates, and particularly frontline
communities bearing the brunt of the toxic diesel pollution, by making much-needed
improvements to this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1620-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 2 (959)
We, the undersigned scientists, researchers, health professionals, economists, engineers, and
planners respectfully submit this comment in support of the strongest possible heavy-duty
nitrogen oxides (NOx) truck pollution standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1608-A1, p.l]
First, the rule falls short in setting us on a clear path to all electric trucks. The science and
technology, as well as the urgency of this health crisis, are clear on this front: zero-emission
trucks are available today and must be the number one priority.2 This has also long been an ask
of environmental justice communities across the country. Electric trucks are here today, and new
research demonstrates that by 2027, pollution-free trucks will be cost competitive with diesel
over the lifetime of the vehicle. 3 At the same time, as this rule acts to accelerate the deployment
of electric trucks, it must reduce emissions from diesel trucks to the maximum extent possible.
The EPA's own data shows that the strong diesel tailpipe standards adopted by states are
achievable—the EPA must strengthen its 2027 targets to be at least as protective as these state
rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1608-A1, p.l]
2 https://ucsusa.org/resources/electrify-trucks
3 https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-rapidly-declining-costs-zero-emitting-
freight-trucks-and-buses
The urgency of this issue demands a strong response. For far too long, truck pollution has been
devastating the health of communities across the country. 5 The solutions are here—and we urge
the EPA to stand up to this moment and enact the strongest truck pollution standards in
history. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1608-A1, p.2]
5 https://ucsusa.org/resources/diesel-engines-public-health
218
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 3 (605)
As a supporter of the League of Conservation Voters I am urging the EPA to adopt the strongest
rules possible on heavy-duty vehicles and accelerate toward 100% electrification of new big rigs,
trucks, and buses by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1606, p.l]
I'm doing my part. I drive an all electric car, have rooftop solar, compost garbage. But we will
not be able to tackle the climate crisis without cleaner trucks on our roads. The transportation
sector is our countrys largest source of carbon pollution, with heavy-duty vehicles contributing
substantially to our total greenhouse gas emissions. In order to curb our emissions by at least
50% by 2030, a pace that scientists agree is necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate
change, we must adopt the strongest possible standards for trucks and buses. This will promote a
transition to fully electric vehicles and slow the sale of dirty diesel trucks over the next
decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1606, p.l]
We have the technology and the ability to cut pollution and save money today. At this moment,
electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of the United States
freight, delivery, and transit uses and needs and there are dozens more zero-emission vehicles
coming to the market within a couple of years, which are projected to be cheaper to own
and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1606, p.l]
Time is running out fast. We need this administration to get serious about climate change by
setting the strongest standards possible because many lives depend on it. While Option 1 is a
start, the standards should at least align with Californias recent clean trucks rule. These standards
must reduce deadly pollution from nitrogen oxides by 90% by 2027, and put our nations buses
and trucks on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1606, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 7 (4,668)
I urge the EPA to set the strongest standards possible to reduce greenhouse gas and nitrogen
oxides emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks manufactured in 2027 and beyond:
—At a minimum, adopt Option 1 for nitrogen oxide standards to meet the EPAs obligations under
the Clean Air Act and to bring the most benefit to our health, air, and environment.
—Adopt more stringent greenhouse gas standards which are necessary to achieve the nations goal
of a 60% reduction in new vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
—Eliminate credits and loopholes that would severely limit the effectiveness of these standards.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1604]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 10 (1,087)
As a person of faith and conscience, I recognize that we have a moral obligation to cut carbon
emissions and other pollutants that harm our health and our communities. People of all faiths and
219
-------
spiritual traditions share a common bond to care for their neighbor and this planet we all share.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1602]
To stop climate change and ensure our national security we MUST get off fossil fuels! It's NOT
an option! That means electric vehicles. Again, NOT an option. This is a NECESSITY. Stop
denying the obvious, bite the bullet, do what needs to be done, and switch to electric vehicles!
Don't waste our time and money on fossil fuel vehicles when you KNOW our use of fossil fuels
has a very limited shelf life at this point (because if they don't, WE DO). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-
0055-1602]
President Biden's larger climate agenda cannot be accomplished without a strong rule on
America's 13 million heavy-duty trucks and buses. I view much of this rule as a good starting
point, but I would like to see it strengthened given the urgency of the climate crisis, the rapid
advancement of EV technology and the increasingly understood human health impacts,
particularly on communities of color and our most vulnerable residents. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-
0055-1602]
The EPA should use these standards to rapidly accelerate the transition to electric trucks and put
our nation's medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on a pathway to 100% zero-emission electric
vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1602]
I urge the EPA to set the strongest standards possible recognizing the health and well being of
current and future generations who will be impacted by this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1602]
It is essential that the final standards reduce dangerous NOx pollution 90% by 2027 and put our
buses and trucks on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1602]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 11 (1,027)
As EPA develops the final rule on tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the
"Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards," I urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects
American jobs, and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1598]
Specifically, EPA must reject Option 1 and revise Option 2. An overly aggressive standard will
result in higher costs for fleet operators, jeopardize thousands of good-paying jobs, slow the
transition to zero- emission vehicles, and fail to achieve the desired environmental benefits.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1598]
Instead, EPA must recognize the importance of a single-step, national rule. To be effective, the
final rule must be:
220
-------
Customer-acceptable. If truck owners and operators choose not to purchase new trucks
due to cost or reliability concerns that result from a bad federal rule, older trucks will stay on the
roads longer and environment goals will not be achieved.
Economically viable. If the final rule results in higher costs for manufacturers and fleet
owners, manufacturers and small business owners may have no choice but to lay off workers and
eliminate jobs.
Environmentally beneficial. An unworkable rule will delay fleet turnover and prevent
environmental progress, creating greater harm in communities most at-risk for high air pollution.
A bridge to a zero-emissions future. The final rule must not prevent continued progress
toward zero- emission commercial vehicles by forcing excessive, costly redesigns of traditional
combustion engines at the expense of investments in the research and development of zero-
emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1598]
I hope you will listen to this feedback and develop a final rule that meets the needs of the
industry, the environment, and the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1598]
Organization: Mayor, City of Albuquerque, NM et al.
The heavy-duty rule must accelerate deployment of zero-emission vehicles in order to safeguard
clean air and improve public health in our communities. Our residents cannot wait a decade for
cleaner air. Thankfully, due to strong state and local action, the medium- and heavy-duty zero-
emission truck market is growing. Today there are over 100 commercially available models of
zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses, with additional models expected to
enter into production this year.2 EPA has a critical role to play to ensure that zero-emission
technologies for all types of trucks and buses are deployed in all communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1316-A1, p.l]
2 https://californiahvip.org/vehicles
The final rule should strengthen EPA's proposed Option 1 to set the expectation that at least 50
percent of sales should be zero-emission by 2030, and put the United States on track for all truck
sales to be zero-emission by 2035. This target is aligned with the Moving Forward Network's3
zero-emission truck recommendation, which was recently outlined in a
letter [https://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/ll/MFN-Zero-
Emission-in-Freight-Letter-to-EPA-10_26_21.pdf] urging the EPA to prioritize environmental
justice by aggressively advancing zero-emission technology and solutions across the freight
sector. As we advance our goals to transition to zero-emission trucks as quickly as possible, EPA
must ensure the remaining new diesel truck purchases operate as cleanly as possible to protect
public health, especially in our most overburdened communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1316-A1, pp.2-3]
3 The Moving Forward Network (MFN) is a national network of organizations that center
grassroots, frontline knowledge, expertise, and engagement with the communities across
221
-------
the US that bear negative impacts of the global freight transportation system. In
collaboration with allies and partners, MFN identifies local solutions that call for
community, industry, labor, government, and political action that advances equity,
environmental justice, and a zero-emissions focused just transition.
It is critical that EPA's truck rule:
• Provides pollution reduction that is at least as protective as the reductions that are
codified in California's recent Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule. This means, at a minimum,
EPA should meet or exceed California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus program by setting a
standard that achieves a greater than 90% reduction in NOx emissions by 2027.
• Builds on the successes of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule adopted by six states,
and sets the expectation that at least 50 percent of new truck sales should be zero-
emission by 2030, putting the United States on track for all new truck sales to be zero-
emission by 2035.
• Offers a unified national program that will provide needed equity and ensure cleaner air
for all communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.3]
Electric vehicle technology is here and it will be cost competitive with diesel over the lifetime of
the vehicles starting in 2027. Zero-emission trucks produce substantial savings, even more than
zero-emission cars due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs and more predictable maintenance
schedules.5 Municipalities will benefit from transitioning to zero-emission truck fleets based on
truck operation and maintenance cost savings and from local job growth through the deployment
of charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.2]
5 https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf
Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnesota needs NOx reductions from heavy-duty vehicles to reduce ozone formation, address
disparities in air pollution exposure, and improve overall air quality and related health outcomes.
Future NOx reductions from heavy-duty trucks will help Minnesota reach its Regional Haze
targets and reduce ozone transport. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1044-A1, p. 1]
Minnesota has sought and achieved significant NOx reductions at industrial and electric
generation sources, but needs federal leadership to achieve on-road transportation reductions.
The MPCA looks to EPA to develop appropriately protective policies for heavy duty vehicle-
related pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1044-A1, p. 2]
The MPCA requests that EPA adopt Option 1 as an appropriately stringent and feasible standard.
Given the range of available pollution control technologies and the emission reductions already
achieved without regulation, the MPCA feels that EPA has an obligation to pursue standards at
the highest stringency within the proposed range. As described in the proposed rulemaking,
ninety percent reductions by Model Year 2027 (MY27) are technically and economically
222
-------
feasible. Delaying or weakening the standards would allow excess NOx emissions, which would
subsequently negatively impact human health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1044-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA's last update of the HD NOx standards was nearly 20 years ago. EPA's proposed
rulemaking presents a unique opportunity for further reductions in HD NOx emissions standards
and sets a signal for best-in-class emission control technologies that will ultimately preserve U.S.
competitiveness globally. The U.S. has a strong history of being a global leader in HD emissions
technology innovation and is uniquely positioned to continue to lead the world in HD advanced
fuel efficiency and emissions-reducing technologies. A comprehensive federal HD NOx
rulemaking will advance U.S. innovation in these technologies. Maintaining stringency in the
HD NOx standards will improve the environment and support a strong motor vehicle supplier
manufacturing sector, which is the largest sector of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and is critical
for the U.S. to secure its position as the global technology leader.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1322-A1, p. 3]
MEMA supports new HD NOx emissions standards and additional test cycles that will drive
additional NOx emissions reductions on the road and encourages best-in-class technologies.
These standards should be performance-based and technology-neutral and the test-cycles should
reflect real use of vehicles. Both the standards and test cycles should enable multiple technology
paths to achieve compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 3]
MEMA supports a NOx rule that relies on certification cycles and in-use tests that better
represent real-world use and will encourage best-in-class technology adoption while effectively
meeting lower NOx emissions requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 3]
MEMA opposes the Alternative Option as it could harm suppliers, places unnecessary strain on
the industry, and lacks research and technical support as already indicated by EPA. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 3]
MEMA supports an NOx rule that relies on certification cycles and in-use tests that better
represent real-world use and will encourage best-in-class technology adoption while effectively
meeting lower NOx emissions requirements. MEMA supports Option 1 with important
modifications to warranty time period/mileage, covered warranty parts, and FUL. MEMA
believes the technology exists to comply with this emissions standard and it also has a two-step
approach to implementation. The staged approach will be beneficial and allow time to gain
significant additional data as we approach the second step in 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1322-A1, p. 4]
MEMA opposes the Alternative Option as it could harm suppliers, places unnecessary strain on
the industry, and lacks research and technical support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p.
5]
EPA suggests that new emission control technologies (i.e., not based on CDA and a dual SCR)
would be needed to meet the Alternative NOx standards for Heavy HDEs. MEMA opposes the
223
-------
Alternative Option and agrees with EPA that not enough data and research has been done to
support this Option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
Regarding EPA's request for comments on whether technologies are available that would enable
a PM standard lower than 5 mg/bhp-hr, MEMA does not yet view this as a workable option due
to the lack of specific supporting data and the fact that it is even more stringent than the CARB
Omnibus. Further testing is required to determine if current technologies are capable of reaching
this lower PM standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
MEMA supports a NOx rule that relies on certification cycles and in-use tests that better
represent real-world use and will encourage best-in-class technology adoption while effectively
meeting lower NOx emissions requirements. Therefore, MEMA recommends Option 1 with
modifications to warranty time period/mileage, covered warranty parts, and full useful life as
well as modified standards for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
The following section describes how ZE truck requirements must be properly incorporated into
the final rule to meet the Clean Air Act's technology forcing mandate for criteria pollution
standards. EPA's failure to require this available cleaner technology is unconscionable given the
impacts in freight-adjacent communities and will actually undermine combustion engine
emission reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 16]
EPA's proposed NOx emission standards violate the law and must be fixed in this rulemaking.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt "technology-forcing" standards to regulate emissions
of NOx, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3). As courts have explained, EPA cannot satisfy this mandate by
adopting status quo standards. EPA's NOx emission standards should "project future advances in
pollution control capability . . . [and] press for development and application of improved
technology rather than be limited by that which exists today." Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,
655 F.2d 318, 328 (D.C. Cir.1981) (quoting S.Rep. No. 91-1196, at 24 (1970) S.Rep. No. 91-
1196, at 24 (1970)). The Act contemplates strong action to "force substantial change on the
status quo on an industry-wide basis." Cent. Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. v. Goldstene, 529 F.
Supp. 2d 1151, 1178 (E.D. Cal. 2007), as corrected (Mar. 26, 2008). Specifically, the Act
mandates that these regulations "shall contain standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable" by applying technology which "the Administrator determines
will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology." Id. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Importantly, the "overriding goal" of section 202 is
addressing air quality and public health. Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir.
2001).65 "[T]he other listed considerations, while significant, are subordinate to that goal."
Id. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
65 While Husqvarna AB relates to Section 213 of the Clean Air Act, the court's
conclusions are just as relevant here because the statutory text of Section 213 and
224
-------
Section 202 are almost identical, and the court itself relied on cases interpreting
the Section 202 language to support its analysis. Husqvarna AB, 254 F.3d at 201.
In light of this clear directive, EPA must revise its proposed NOx standards because neither
Option 1 nor Option 2 come close to meeting this statutory obligation. MFN urges EPA to adopt
a zero-emission NOx standard that appropriately reflects not merely the current and projected
availability of zero-emission heavyduty truck technology across the United States, but a level of
transition to ZE truck technologies that is technologically feasible. The Clean Air Act plainly
authorizes EPA to propose stringent NOx emission standards that rely on a reasoned prediction
that a particular control technology "will be available for the model year to which such standards
apply," so long as this prediction is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 331-32; 42 U.S.C. §
7521(a)(3). EPA can demonstrate the reasonableness of its technology projections where it
"answers any theoretical objections to the technology, identifies the major steps necessary for
development of the technology, and gives plausible reasons for its belief that the industry will be
able to solve these problems in the time remaining." Nat. Res. Def. Council, 655 F.2d at 331-32.
Critically, EPA is "not required to rebut all speculation that unspecified factors may hinder 'real
world' emission control." Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
(quoting id., 655 F.2d at 334). EPA has made such forward-looking predictions that certain
technology will be available, and should do so again here. See, e.g., Husqvarna AB, 254 F.3d at
201 ("Substantial evidence . . . supports EPA's determination that the continued rapid
development of engine technologies makes it probable that [specified engine technologies] will
enable manufacturers to comply with the emission standards within the phase-in period"). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 17]
If EPA insists on retaining ZE trucks in a vehicle NOx standard,85 EPA must lower the NOx
standard to reflect the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable across the entire truck
fleet based on the feasibility of widespread transition to ZE trucks. As discussed further below,
the current proposed NOx standards, even under the more stringent Option 1, do not reflect the
greatest degree of emission reductions achievable even looking only at feasible combustion
technologies. The addition of ZE trucks to the compliance average entirely undermines any claim
that the standards meet the technology-forcing requirements of the Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 20]
85. EPA's proposed regulations label 40 C.F.R. Part 1036 as standards for heavy-
duty "engines," but as EPA clarifies in the preamble, the standards for all
regulated pollutants apply to all heavy-duty vehicle types including EVs. See 87
Fed. Reg at 17457- 58.
EPA acknowledges that Option 1 of the proposed Criteria Pollutant Program is the strongest of
the two co-proposals it is considering and claims that setting the level of standard outlined in
Option 1 would be consistent with the agency's statutory authority.86 However, even Option 1
contains glaring deficiencies, including failing to match the stringency of state trucks standards
in the Heavy-Duty Omnibus (Omnibus) rule, improperly incorporating ZEV, excessive family
emission limit (FEL) caps, and enabling false solutions through early crediting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 21]
225
-------
86. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17436.
Meanwhile, Option 2 is woefully inadequate and does not warrant serious consideration. By
EPA's own analysis, "Option 1 may be a more appropriate level of stringency, as it would result
in a greater level of achievable emission reduction." Option 2 underperforms on all meaningful
public health, environmental, and economic metrics and would be a disaster if adopted. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 21]
We request comment, including relevant data and other information, on the feasibility of the
implementation model year, numeric levels of the emission standards, and useful life and
warranty periods included in the Alternative, or other alternatives outside the range of options
covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2 standards." (87 FR 17471) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 28]
Data from the CARB Phase 3 and EPA Phase 3 RW projects at SwRI are the most thorough
assessments of the technical capability to reduce diesel emissions in the 2027 timeframe. 118
Additional projects, including those mentioned above, extend some of that capability or provide
manufacturers with alternate strategies to achieve levels of compliance that are at least as
stringent as those in the Omnibus rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 28]
118. See, Sharp, C.A., Further development and validation of technologies to lower
oxides of nitrogen emissions from heavy-duty vehicles: Low NOx demonstration
program - Stage 3. Final report, prepared for California Air Resources Board, April 16,
2021; Sharp, C.A., "Update on continuing progress towards 2027 heavy-duty low NOx
targets," presented to the 32nd CRC real world emissions workshop, March 14, 2022; and
Draft RIA Tables 3-3 through 3-9.
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
NACD appreciates the EPA's transparency in sharing the two options the agency is considering
for implementation of this rule. Giving stakeholders this information in proposed rules allows
impacted entities to understand better the EPA's thought process and tailor comments to what is
being considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 3]
With that said, while NACD is concerned with both proposed options for reasons stated above,
we find the second option to be much more realistic and palatable for the chemical distribution
industry. First, by taking a one-step approach, the EPA builds in necessary flexibility with this
rulemaking. Emission regulation in the vehicle industry has proven to be extremely complicated,
fast moving, and unpredictable. By only taking a one-step approach, the EPA would allow more
information to be gathered prior to future rulemakings. The two-step approach taken in option 1
removes this flexibility until 2031. There may be unforeseen developments that require a shift
from what is expected, making regulating in multiple steps farther into the future less practical.
A pertinent example of this is the reconsideration of Phase 2 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in
this rule as discussed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 3 - 4]
226
-------
Furthermore, when assessing the impacts of both options, there are insignificant differences for
roughly the first decade after implementation. According to EPA estimates, there would be a
difference of only six percent in the reduction of NOx in calendar year 2036 between the two
options. While this deviation widens as option 1 does not have any more requirements after
Model Year (MY) 2027, the EPA can add a second step after option 1 is implemented in a
separate rulemaking that would have the availability of more present data and stakeholder input
from additional comment processes. This additional step would undoubtedly close that gap and
may even lead to more NOx reduction than option 1 in the long term if technology and consumer
behavior points to more stringent measures being possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1,
p. 4]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
On multiple occasions over the past seven years NACAA has urged EPA to set cleaner standards
for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from heavy-duty (HD) trucks. We are pleased that the
agency has now reached the milestone of putting forth a proposal for public comment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 1]
As we have described to EPA over the years, NACAA strongly supports establishment of a
stringent, technology-forcing federal rule that will reduce HD truck NOx emissions by at least 90
percent and implement other key requirements to ensure these reductions will continue to be
realized over the full useful life of vehicles beginning not later than with model year (MY)
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 1]
We have consistently highlighted the importance of such a federal program adopted no later than
2022 so implementation will begin no later than MY 2027. We are now at the "final hour." If
EPA does not finalize a rule before the end of this calendar year it will not take effect with MY
2027. With clean air and public health on the line, our nation cannot afford to sacrifice another
year of NOx reductions from this significant source of emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1232-A1, p. 1]
It has been over 21 years since EPA last set federal NOx emission standards for HD trucks.
Given the interstate nature of trucking - both cross-border operations and downwind atmospheric
transport - federal standards are necessary to achieve the broad NOx reductions needed across
the nation. Over the past two decades, technological advances to reduce HD truck NOx
emissions have soared as has the potential for even further advances, but EPA failed to take
regulatory advantage of the opportunities these advances afford. At the same time, emission
limits for most other major NOx sources have been ratcheted down repeatedly. HD trucks will
continue to be one of the largest contributors to the national mobile source NOx inventory in
2028 without additional regulations to reduce emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1,
p. 2]
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) in Seattle, WA seeks a technology-forcing
standard to reduce NOx emission from HD trucks due to several ozone-related concerns.
Reducing NOx would help reduce exposure in the near-road communities, which are
disproportionately affected by air pollution, and also assist in addressing ozone-impacted areas.
227
-------
More important to PSCAA, however, are the proposed rule's requirements for better longevity of
the PM controls' performance under more-varied duty cycles and for longer warranty
requirements. Combined, these would help alleviate the expensive breakdowns that reports say
are leading truck owners to tamper with the PM controls on trucks used in drayage service,
where the typical duty cycle for these older trucks includes low speeds, lots of queueing and
short trips that clog diesel particulate filters (DPF) designed for long-haul, high-temperature
operation. Over the last decade, EPA has provided millions of dollars in Diesel Emission
Reduction Act (DERA) grants nationwide to replace older diesel drayage trucks with newer,
2007+ trucks to reduce their emissions in, and adverse impacts on, port-adjacent communities;
the U.S. Department of Transportation has also provided millions in funding under the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program for the same purpose.
PSCAA and local ports received over $10M of these grant funds and replaced more than 400
pre-2007 drayage trucks with 2007+ and 2010+ trucks, reducing PM2.5 by 17 tons per year and
NOx by 390 tons per year. Unfortunately, the sustainability of these and other DERA- and
CMAQ-funded emission reductions is in question due to the poor performance of the PM
emissions controls under these duty cycles and the risk of tampering to disable the controls as a
result. Had the PM standards for 2007+ engines included the more-diverse testing scenarios for
meeting emissions standards and the longer warranties that are in EPA's current proposal, the
public's investments would have resulted in more durable emission reductions and health
benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 5]
When EPA finalizes a HD truck rule it will mark the first time since 2001 that EPA has taken
action to cut harmful NOx emissions from these vehicles. There is a clear and compelling public
health need for much tighter restrictions on HD truck NOx emissions. In the past 20 years,
technical capacity to reduce these emissions has flourished and tremendous experience has been
gained; the opportunity to require and achieve deeper reductions in NOx emissions across the
many operations is enormous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 8]
In August 24, 2020, written comments to CARB,16 NACAA supported the state's proposed
Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation, which was adopted on August 27, 2020, and ultimately
finalized in December 2021, after an extensive public process that was preceded by several years
of informal stakeholder input. 17 The research supporting C ARB's Omnibus - including research
jointly funded by EPA and the California Air Resources Board and conducted by the Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) - is rigorous and the data and findings solidly supportive of the
Omnibus standards. Structurally, EPA's Proposed Option 1 numeric standards are similar to the
Omnibus. However, despite the affirmative data and the unyielding nationwide public heath
need, the agency's Proposed Option 1 falls far short in some very critical ways, including by
failing to align with the Omnibus' on a number of key provisions, including, among others, on
the heavy HD NOx emission standard and interim useful life (IUL) in 2027, and by proposing
important program elements that lack the stringency of the Omnibus and/or that severely erode
the benefits of the numerical standards. Moreover, in some cases, which we discuss below,
research and findings that have emerged since adoption of the Omnibus support even more
stringent standards and approaches. EPA's Proposed Option 2 conclusively misses the mark and
leaves on the table critical tons necessary for attainment, maintenance and the protection of
underserved communities while being, by EPA's own analysis, less cost effective. Proposed
Option 2 is inherently unacceptable in light of the CAA mandate for maximum feasible
228
-------
stringency in HD standard setting, as evidenced by EPA's proposal of Option 1 as a viable
option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
16. https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Documents/NACAA_Comments-
CARB_HD_NOx_Omnibus_Proposal-082420.pdf
17. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
Finally, in his August 5, 2021, Executive Order (EO), "Strengthening American Leadership in
Clean Cars and Trucks," 18 President Biden, in calling upon EPA to develop this heavy-duty
truck rule, states, "Given the significant expertise and historical leadership demonstrated by the
State of California with respect to establishing emissions standards for light-, medium-, and
heavy-duty vehicles, the Administrator of the EPA shall coordinate the agency's activities
pursuant to sections 2 through 4 of this order [including establishing NOx standards for heavy-
duty engines and vehicles for 2027 and later] as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,
with the State of California as well as other States that are leading the way in reducing vehicle
emissions, including by adopting California's standards." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1,
p. 9]
18. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-
and-trucks/
We urge EPA to pursue this EO-directed collaboration and coordination with the states, openly
and in a manner that will meaningfully contribute to the agency's ultimate decision on the final
rule. In the Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emissions Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) 17 states and the District of Columbia acknowledge the "introduction of
low-NOx heavy duty trucks" as essential for reducing harmful emissions of NOx, PM and toxic
air contaminants that adversely affect public health. 19 This MOU establishes a ZEV sales goal
under which at least 30 percent of all medium HD trucks sold in the MOU states by 2030 would
be ZEVs. Five states have already individually exercised their right of self-determination under
section 177 of the Clean Air Act and joined California with adoption of heavy-duty new vehicle
policies.20,21,22,23,24,25 A sixth state has passed enabling legislation26 and others are
considering similar bills or have taken public process steps related to regulatory development.
States are also demonstrating non-regulatory leadership by taking collaborative action through
efforts such as the Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest MOU with five signatories.27 We urge
EPA to actively and collaboratively leverage the tremendous expertise, interest and commitment
of states toward the most effective final rule in line with these efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1232-A1, p. 9 - 10]
19. https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/
20. https://www.mass.gov/guides/massachusetts-low-emission-vehicle-lev-program
21. https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/adopt_20211220a.pdf
229
-------
22. https://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/26402.html
23. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/rulemaking/Pages/ctr2021.aspx
24. https://ecology.wa.gov/Air-Climate/Climate-change/Reducing-greenhouse-
gases/ZEV
25. https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Laws-rules-
rulemaking/Rulemaking/WAC 173-423-400Jan 18
26. https://portal.ct.gOv/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/04-
2022/Governor-Lamont-Applauds-Final-Passage-of-Climate-Legislation-That-Includes-
New-Emissions-Standards
27. https://www.michigan.gov/-
/media/Project/Websites/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master.pdf?rev=6dd781b5a4eb4551b
3b3a5b875d67fb9
EPA includes two options in the proposal, one more stringent than the other. The agency notes
that Proposed Option 1, the more stringent of the two, would come with greater public health and
environmental benefits; nonetheless, as proposed, this option is insufficient. Proposed Option 2
is wholly unacceptable. NACAA supports modifications that would strengthen the overall
stringency of Proposed Option 1 by aligning it with the technology-forcing mandate of the
CAA. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 10]
When setting federal NOx emission standards for HD trucks, EPA is required, under CAA
section 202(a)(3)(A), to reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology." [emphasis added] [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 10]
Just because a regulated entity is not already producing, or committing to produce, engines
incorporating a particular technology does not mean that the technology does not exist or will not
exist by 2027 or that standards based on that technology are not achievable by 2027 - which is
over four years from today. EPA must fully comply with this statutory technology-forcing
mandate. However, the agency utterly fails to do so in Proposed Option 2 and even in Proposed
Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 10]
Although Proposed Option 1 comes closer to meeting this requirement than Proposed Option 2,
Proposed Option 1 does not meet the statutory bar. Falling short is insupportable given that there
are emission controls that are technologically feasible, commercially available and justified
based on benefits relative to costs not only for meeting the Proposed Option 1 emission standards
and deadlines, but also for meeting a cleaner 2027 standard - 20 mg/hp-hr - for heavy HD
engines, and without the need for the excessive and indefensible flexibilities EPA proposes or on
which the agency seeks comment (which NACAA discusses below) and which would seriously
230
-------
erode any emission standards finalized by EPA. Additionally, there has been more than adequate
time to prepare for a substantially more rigorous federal standard; EPA and stakeholders have
been aware for years that such a standard was necessary and forthcoming. Manufacturers must
prepare for these MY 2027 standards across a growing number of states anyway. EPA should be
leveraging the early experience with the already-final Omnibus 2024-2026 phase-in as well as
the finalized 2027 Omnibus standards to the benefit of the final rule rather than ignoring the
engineering and commercialization progress made in order to comply with the Omnibus in
California and in other states that have adopted it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 10]
EPA should revise Proposed Option 1 to pull forward to 2027 the 20 mg/hp-hr NOx emission
standard for all classes with an IUL standard of 435,000 miles for heavy HD engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 10]
Importantly, as EPA reports in the NPRM, Proposed Option 1 will result in substantially superior
emission, health and monetized benefits than Proposed Option 2. The agency also states, "Given
the analysis we present in this proposal, we currently believe that proposed Option 1 may be a
more appropriate level of stringency as it would result in a greater level of achievable emission
reduction for the model years proposed, which is consistent with EPA's statutory authority under
Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)."28 While NACAA appreciates and agrees with EPA's
recognition that the greater stringency of Proposed Option 1 would result in "a greater level of
achievable emission reduction," we challenge the agency's statement that this "is consistent with
EPA's statutory authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)." The CAA requires not a
greater level of achievable emission reduction but "the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable." [emphasis added] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 10-11]
28. Supra note 1, at 17,440
Proposed Option 2, or anything remotely similar, is entirely unacceptable and must be rejected.
As discussed above, it has been demonstrated that significantly more rigorous NOx emission
standards and other program requirements are feasible and cost effective for 2027 and beyond.
The standards in Proposed Option 2 require virtually no effort on the part of manufacturers
beyond negligible calibration adjustments and minor hardware modification - nowhere near the
technology-forcing standards required by CAA section 202(a)(3)(A). Further, EPA
acknowledges in the proposal that Option 2 would deliver inferior emission, health and cost
benefits, thus sacrificing emission reductions and health protections sorely needed in areas
struggling to attain or maintain health-based NAAQS and overburdened communities. In
addition, the flexibilities EPA proposes to offer, or on which it seeks comment, that are excessive
and indefensible for Proposed Option 1 are even more unjustified for Proposed Option 2. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 11]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
We are well aware of the tremendous clean-air strides our transportation industry has made over
the past 30 years, such as the implementation of low-sulfur fuel, the implementation of ultralow-
sulfur fuel, the diminishing of idling time through the use of auxiliary power units (APUs), the
implementation of catalytic converters and DEF, and a myriad of fuel efficiency practices in tires
231
-------
and aerodynamics. The costs of reaching these gains have been paid by trucking and, ultimately,
by end-users through higher costs and inflated prices. We reject proposed, unrealistic mandates
that seek the immediate replacement of fossil fuels. The subsidies for wind, solar, and battery
solutions to our energy problems have documented failure after failure. "Green New Deals,"
government largesse for electrification and corporate welfare, and empty billion-dollar bullet
trains have not and won't take the place of a free market-based, forward-thinking, ecofriendly
evolution into using all power sources to get the job done. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1,
p. 1]
In addition to rectifying the overly aggressive inducement and imbalanced serviceability rules
that presently affect commercial motor carriers, there are other important reasons to enact the
above and most of the other proposed regulatory reforms in these areas. As NASTC members
and other transportation industry commenters in the ANPRM made clear, the present rules,
including those relating to inducement and serviceability, cause extensive unpredictability,
uncontrollability, and unduly burdensome and economically harmful effects, such as
unreasonable costs and delays for truckers and supply chain disruptions for businesses and
consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
The reason for far too many of the consequences suffered under present inducement and
serviceability rules is the underlying emissions standards and the highly complex, expensive
equipment created in response to the mandates on newer model diesel engines and heavy-duty
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
As welcome as regulatory relief from the status quo is regarding these respects, the underlying
proposed NOx and GHG emissions reduction standards in this NPRM will certainly result in
OEMs introducing even more complex, expensive diesel engines and associated systems. The
mandates on OEMs will surely result in unpredicted, adverse spillover effects on commercial
vehicle owners—including even more equipment unreliability, unpredictability, additional
uncontrollable expenses, delays keeping truckers from productive use of time and resources, lost
business, and sweeping adversity and deprivation visited upon businesses and consumers across
the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
As welcome as the proposals such as more sensors, monitors, an engine "health" system, in-cab
displays, etc. are, each of these novel inventions introduces additional risks of new problems,
more tows and repairs, etc. We need the proposed relief just to stay even. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
These facts cast the proposed rule as overly ambitious, particularly in light of the significant
realities constraining long-haul trucking and the supply chain. These include significantly higher
costs on new models, which slows turnover of older trucks, compounded parts (including
semiconductor) shortages and the scale of complex technologies' malfunctions, and throw a
green monkey wrench into a highly uncertain economic situation that involves both sky-high
inflation and interest rate hikes that may tip the economy into recession. Notably, semiconductor
delivery time has more than doubled since the onset of the COVID pandemic and economic
whipsaw. It now takes more than 26 weeks—half a 2 year—between chip order and delivery.
And semiconductors are in practically every electronic device, from cell phones to toys to
232
-------
computers to automobiles. Thus, the net effects of the rule, under either Option 1 or Option 2,
will be to increase costs and headaches for consumers, as well as motor carriers and truckers, and
to underachieve on the promised health and environmental goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1130-Al,pp. 4-5]
2. Ian King, "Wait Times for Chips Grow Modestly in March," Transport Topics, April
5, 2022. https://www.ttnews.com/articles/wait-times-chips-grow-modestly-march
At a minimum, the proposed rule will inconvenience and at most endanger consumers while
stressing the already stressed, just-in-time inventory systems and supply chains that most
industrial and commercial players depend on. The rule will cause unnecessary harm to our
economy in many ways. The EPA's ill-timed regulatory emissions changes come right when
businesses, companies, and consumers struggle under 40-year-high inflation; interest rate
increases meant to stem inflation but are as likely to overcool the economy; and business sectors
including trucking experience an unusually tight labor market. At what point are the cumulative
costs—to truck owners, OEMs, customers, and consumers—greater than the estimated benefits?
The answer depends on how rosy one's assumptions and choice of facts and data. Let's just say
that the underlying assumptions, data, and estimates employed to justify this rulemaking's
emissions goals are very much rosier than are NASTC's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1,
p. 5]
The proposed rule would change from the present 0.2 gram per brake horsepower-hour
(PBHPH), the standard as of 2010, to 0.035 gram PBHPH for model years (MY) '27-'30 and
then 0.02 gram PBHPH beginning in MY '31 under Option 1 or, alternatively, to 0.05 gram
PBHPH starting in MY '27. Both options set extremely ambitious goals for diesel engines in
heavy-duty vehicles, such as the power units NASTC members operate in interstate commerce.
The more ambitious of the two proposed alternatives is breathtaking—setting a standard an order
of magnitude below the current standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 5]
This rulemaking comes amidst serious challenges detrimentally affecting the trucking sector.
Supply chain stresses, component and parts shortages, tight labor markets facing certain motor
carriers, and the resulting downstream effects will affect both trucking and the economy at large.
Also, war in Ukraine, a lagging pandemic, tensions in China with Taiwan (home to the world's
primary maker of semiconductor chips), and other stress points continue to pose problems for the
global supply chain, the world economy, and national security. Together, these translate into
hurdles to keeping America supplied with everything from consumer goods to manufacturers'
raw materials. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, pp. 6-7]
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on supply chains in every industry. In trucking,
this includes the global microchip shortage causing American trucking companies extreme
hardship because of the unavailability of new vehicles (which makes used vehicles scarcer and
more expensive) and replacement parts such as diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) sensors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 7]
Nevertheless, the chip shortage affects both the availability of replacement parts for currently
owned commercial vehicles and installation parts for new trucks at manufacturing plants. This is
233
-------
a double-edged sword that threatens the ability of many trucking businesses to remain in
business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 7]
The residual adverse effects of the supply chain problems and the dangerous combination of high
inflation, rising interest rates (which obviously increase carriers' costs of financing truck
purchases), and the probability of a slowed or receding economy will likely cause long-haul
trucking to suffer. Adding the sort of ambitious proposed emissions reduction to the emerging
combination will only worsen the harmful effects. This rule's emissions goals will thus make life
harder on the American people, including the middle class and the environmentalists who would
like even stricter emissions standards imposed on large trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-
Al, p. 7]
It should be remembered that trucking is vital to America's economic health.6 The serious
problem at several of our busiest ports of ships waiting months for their freight to be offloaded
and then transported by trucks just scratches the surface if sufficient numbers of heavy-duty
diesel trucks and truck drivers are not available. Truckers who haul 80 percent of America's
freight proved their essential service throughout the COVID pandemic and economic shutdowns,
keeping U.S. hospitals, clinics, and medical research labs supplied and groceries, pharmacies,
and retail stores and online retailers' warehouses adequately stocked—even as roadside
bathrooms and restaurants became inaccessible to truckers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-
Al, p. 7]
6. "When Trucks Stop, America Stops," American Trucking Associations, https://
www.trucking.org/ sites/default/files/2019-12/
When%20Trucks%20Stop%20America%20Stops.pdf
To everything that trucking touches, this proposed rule will add to its cost to consumers and
business customers. Forcing long-haul trucking to bear significantly higher costs for vehicles and
maintenance of more complicated engines that have novel emissions technologies, whose kinks
are yet to be worked out over several product lifecycles, for instance, necessarily contributes to
higher wholesaler, retailer, and consumer prices. Thus, 40-year-high inflation rates should be
expected to rise higher still, in part due to this rule. This fact is already recognized by many; the
rest of the American public will realize the economic costs this rule places on them very soon
and very often.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
7. Carrie Sheffield, "Biden is waging a war on truckers and everyone will pay the price,"
New York Post, March 8, 2022. https://nypost.eom/2022/03/08/bidens-war-on-truckers-
will-makeeverything- more-expensive/
In closing, it would be most prudent to set any new heavy-duty vehicle and engine standards at
more modest, reasonable emissions levels. As the current proposal stands, any cleaner air is
likely to be accompanied by unintended economic consequences that could include costing jobs,
families' paychecks and means of putting food on the table and gas in the tank, and our country's
economic health sufficient to ensure U.S. prosperity and security. Assuming the agency will
press forward with new emission reduction standards anyway, the proposed inducement and
234
-------
serviceability reforms would help mitigate current and future problems affecting truckers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 8]
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) explicitly calls on EPA to promulgate emission standards for motor
vehicles that 'cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.' 1 This duty applies to both the traditional air pollutants
covered under this rule, (i.e., NOx), as well as to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants. As held by
the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA, C02 and other GHGs qualify as air pollutants that
endanger public welfare under 202(a)(1).2 EPA, thus, has an affirmative duty to develop both
NOx and GHG standards for HD vehicles that reflect the 'greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available for the model year to which such standards apply.'3 While the CAA provides some
room for considerations of cost, energy, and safety,4 'it must place primary importance on
achieving the greatest degree of emissions reduction.'5 It is through this mandate that we urge
EPA to both finalize these heavy-duty vehicle regulations by the end of this calendar year, as
well as to strengthen its proposal to achieve the greatest degree of reductions that protect public
health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, pp. 1-2]
1 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1).
2 See generally, 549 U.S. 497, 531 (2007).
3 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
4 Id.
5 See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, at 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
While we are pleased to see EPA moving forward with this rulemaking to control one of the
largest remaining underregulated sources of air and climate pollution in the US, we believe
improvements to EPA's proposal must be made to ensure the final rule is in line with the CAA's
mandate that the agency enact the greatest level of emission reductions achievable to protect
public health and welfare.3 5 First and foremost, NPCA urges EPA to move quickly to finalize
this rule before the end of the calendar year to guarantee emission reductions can begin at the
earliest possible date. We further ask that EPA take steps to improve upon the options provided
to achieve greater NOx and GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.6]
35 See Supra note 1,3, and 5.
Of the two options proposed by EPA, NPCA supports proceeding with a final rule that is no less
stringent than Option l's 90% reduction in HD NOx emissions by 2031. However, we disagree
with EPA's assessment that Option 1 provides the greatest emission reductions feasible for HD
engines, and request that EPA strengthen this option to mirror the 2027 deadline for 90% HD
NOx reduction, which is already required under the HD omnibus low-NOx rules adopted by
235
-------
California and a growing number of additional states. We believe the omnibus rule's 2027 date is
technologically and economically feasible, especially when considering recent advances in low
NOx engine technologies and the growing pace of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies,
including short and long-haul HD electric vehicle (EV) advancements. Moreover, given this
feasibility we believe additional stringency is required under the CAA as it is necessary to
protect the health and welfare of the millions of individuals impacted by HD vehicle air
pollution. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.6]
NPCA strongly opposes Option 2, which achieves only a 75% reduction in NOx emissions from
HD vehicles and would result in far more emissions compared to Option 1 between 2027-2050.
In 2045 alone, Option 2 would result in 120,000 tons more NOx than Option 1 and achieve only
a 47% reduction in NOx emissions from the baseline, compared to Option l's 61% reduction.36
This option is an obvious giveaway to industry and is inadequate to protect health and welfare.
There is more than sufficient lead time to require a more stringent standard than Option 2.
Moreover, EPA itself states that Option 1 is technologically feasible, thus it would be arbitrary
and capricious and a violation of EPA's mandate under CAA 202(a)(3)(A)(i) to push through
standards that weigh technological obstacles and economic costs to industry over public
welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.6-7]
36 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,579.
We strongly encourage EPA move quickly to improve upon the NOx reductions proposed under
Option 1 and require additional GHG reductions under the Phase II standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.7-8]
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
In response to the agency's request for industry feedback, Option 1 of the proposal presents the
most advantageous scenario for the propane industry to assist the agency in meeting its GHG and
criteria pollutant reduction goals.6 Our research on the currently available propane engine
equipment and future progress indicates the timelines suggested under Option 1 are feasible for
the industry. Current generation propane engines are certified to the California Optional Low
NOx standard,7 which is the same as the 0.02g brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) standard EPA
proposed for MY 2031 and later medium and heavy-duty engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1263-A1, p.2]
6 Supra note 1, at 17422.
7 Press Release, Power Solutions International, Power Solutions International 8.8-liter Ultra-
Low NOx Propane Engine Receives EPA Certification (Oct. 21, 2020),
https://psiengines.com/power-solutions-international-8-8-liter-ultra-low-nox-propane-engine-
receives-epa-certification/; see also CARB Certifies Next-Generation Propane Engine in Blue
Bird School Buses to Lowest NOx in Market, BUSINESSWIRE (Jan. 18, 2022),
https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20220118005991/en/CARB-Certifies-Next-
Generation-Propane-Engine-in-Blue-Bird-School-Buses-to-Lowest-NOx-in-Market.
236
-------
Organization: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
Option 1 in Section IX clearly is preferable to Option 2 and would more closely reflect that
which is as clean as possible with respect to nitrogen oxide emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1382-A2, p.2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
We support the setting of more stringent standards but believe that tighter standards do not
necessarily translate directly to significant reductions in emissions or cleaner air where it is most
needed. Other factors such as vehicle miles traveled, life of vehicles in service, and fleet
turnover, and where and how vehicles are deployed are also very important. We encourage EPA
to ensure that other programs intended to affect these issues also allow for flexibility and
encourage a variety of available, scalable, and cost-effective technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1330-A1, p.2]
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
5) Implement proposed new test cycles and conditions for verifying emissions that are
performance based and technology neutral; these test cycles should reflect the real use of
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In particular, we support: Reducing NOx emissions from HDOH vehicles beginning in MY 2027
by setting feasible standards with adequate compliance margins and no negative fuel efficiency
impacts; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 2]
In particular, we support: A single national rule with the broadest support; [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
In particular, we support: Alignment with existing OBD, inducements and compliance levels;
and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Navistar supports EPA's rulemaking objectives to: "(1) control emissions over a broader range
of operating conditions; (2) maintain emissions control over a greater portion of an engine's
operational life; and (3) provide manufacturers with flexibilities to meet the proposed standards."
87 Fed. Reg. at 17420-21. However, EPA's analysis, which focuses on whether a specific
provision or proposed standard is technically feasible, fails to capture the magnitude and severity
of EPA's proposed rule. EPA's proposal represents a fundamental change to all aspects of the
HDOH diesel-emissions control program. The proposed rule includes a 90% reduction of the
applicable NOx standard, a new certification test procedure for operating modes not previously
regulated, a stringent new in-use emissions protocol, significant increases to the mileage over
which compliance will be required, and extended useful life and warranty requirements. When
237
-------
taken together, these changes undercut EPA's claims of feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1318-A1, p. 3]
EPA is requesting comment on whether "a margin between the demonstrated emissions
performance and the proposed standards should be included, and, if so, what that value should
be." 87 Fed. Reg. at 17471. Navistar, like other manufacturers, designs our engines to perform
significantly better than the NOx compliance standards when first sold in order to ensure that the
emissions are below the standard throughout useful life, even as the emissions controls
deteriorate. Compliance margins, which allow manufacturers to show compliance with
increasingly stringent NOx standards, typically range from less than 25 percent to 100 percent of
the family emission limit ("FEL"). See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17467. Compliance margins are
necessary to account for production, fuel and emissions-testing variabilities, real-world operating
conditions, and for the expected emissions deterioration over the proposed lengthened full useful
life periods of HDOH engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Navistar agrees with EPA's statements on the importance of compliance margins. Specifically,
that "manufacturers generally aim to design and build vehicles not only with a sufficient margin
to ensure the emissions control technology is meeting the applicable standards throughout the
full useful life, but also an additional margin to reflect the fact that not every vehicle
manufactured and every vehicle application will perform identically to the laboratory tests." 87
Fed. Reg. at 17564. EPA noted that a compliance margin "is particularly important, and
challenging for manufacturers, when new technologies and test procedures are being
implemented." Id. (emphasis added). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Navistar supports EPA's adoption of the proposed Option 2 NOx certification standard of 50
mg/hp-hr beginning in MY 2027, provided that in the final rule EPA set higher interim in-use
standards for NOx (i.e., using a 2x conformity factor as opposed to a 1.5x conformity factor).
This approach is consistent with EPA setting "interim in use standards to account for
uncertainties about potential variabilities in performance during the early years of implementing
new technology." 87 Fed. Reg. at 17564. It also addresses the compliance margin considerations
discussed above. Notably, in the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on "providing engine
manufacturers with higher (numerical) standards for an interim period to gain experience with
the additional emissions control technologies needed to meet the proposed Heavy HDE standards
(and their rates of deterioration) while those technologies are operating in the field." 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17563. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 4]
Organization: North Carolina Assembly House of Representatives, John Faircloth
The commercial vehicle sector literally drives the American economy. As you well know, trucks
move first responders on critical missions, deliver all goods and services to consumers, and serve
as an integral component to the rebuilding of American infrastructure. The production, sale,
service, and operation of these vehicles also provides quality, high-paying jobs to hundreds of
thousands of American workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p. 1]
As you know, North Carolina - your home state and ours - has the largest concentration of
commercial vehicle companies, suppliers and employees in America. Therefore, we are
238
-------
especially interested in the continued success of this critical sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2446, p. 1]
That is why we write today: we are concerned that the proposed rule from EPA on tailpipe
emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," may not be technologically feasiable.
That means Original Equipment Makers(OEMs) will spent hundreds of millions of dollars
chasing at worst an unattainable standard, and at best a costy standard, rather than strategically
deploying critical resources on proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p. 1]
We share your commitment to the environment and applaud the accomplishments already
achieved by commercial vehicle manufacturers to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. We support the ongoing efforts for cleaner air and healthier communities for
all. But we also recognize the importance of preserving - not effectively dismantling through
higher costs and wasted expenditures -this critical industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446,
pp. 1 - 2]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. To be effective, the final rule must be
customer-acceptable, economically viable, environmentally beneficial, and a bridge to a zero-
emissions future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina General Assembly, Philip E. Berger
Simply put, the commercial vehicle sector literally drives the American economy. As you well
know, trucks move first responders on critical missions, deliver all goods and services to
consumers, and serve as an integral component to the rebuilding of American infrastructure. The
production, sale, service, and operation of these vehicles also provides quality, high-paying jobs
to hundreds of thousands of American workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 1]
As you know, North Carolina - your home state and ours - has the largest concentration of
commercial vehicle companies, suppliers and employees in America. Therefore, we are
especially interested in the continued success of this critical sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1105-A1, p. 1]
That is why we write today: we are concerned that the proposed rule from EPA on tailpipe
emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," has not been demonstrated to be
technologically feasiable. That means Original Equipment Makers (OEMs) will spent hundreds
of millions of dollars chasing at worst an unattainable standard, and at best a costy standard,
rather than strategically deploying critical resources on proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 1]
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty and
useful life requirements to zero emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 1]
239
-------
We share your commitment to the environment and applaud the accomplishments already
achieved by commercial vehicle manufacturers to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. We support the ongoing efforts for cleaner air and healthier communities for
all. But we also recognize the importance of preserving - not effectively dismantling through
higher costs and wasted expenditures - this critical industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-
Al, p. 1]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. To be effective, the final rule must
be: Customer-acceptable. If truck owners and operators choose not to purchase new trucks due to
cost or reliability concerns that result from a bad federal rule, older trucks will stay on the roads
longer and environment goals will not be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: Economically viable. If the final rule results in higher
costs for manufacturers and fleet owners, manufacturers and small business owners may have no
choice but to lay off workers and eliminate jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: Environmentally beneficial. An unworkable rule will
delay fleet turnover and prevent environmental progress, creating greater harm in communities
most at-risk for high air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: A bridge to a zero-emissions future. The final rule must
not prevent continued progress toward zero-emissions commercial vehicles by forcing excessive,
costly redesigns of traditional combustion engines at the expense of investments in the research
and development of zero emissions vehicles, nor add cost to these new technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, Tim Moore
Simply put, the commercial vehicle sector literally drives the American economy. As you well
know, trucks move first responders on critical missions, deliver all goods and services to
consumers, and serve as an integral component to the rebuilding of American infrastructure. The
production, sale, service, and operation of these vehicles also provides quality, high-paying jobs
to hundreds of thousands of American workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 1]
As you know, North Carolina -your home state and ours - has the largest concentration of
commercial vehicle companies, suppliers and employees in America. Therefore, we are
especially interested in the continued success of this critical sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1146-A1, p. 1]
That is why we write today: we are concerned that the proposed rule from EPA on tailpipe
emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," has not been demonstrated to be
technologically feasiable. That means Original Equipment Makers (OEMs) will spent hundreds
of millions of dollars chasing at worst an unattainable standard, and at best a costy standard,
240
-------
rather than strategically deploying critical resources on proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 1]
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty and
useful life requirements to zero emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 1]
We share your commitment to the environment and applaud the accomplishments already
achieved by commercial vehicle manufacturers to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. We support the ongoing efforts for cleaner air and healthier communities for
all. But we also recognize the importance of preserving - not effectively dismantling through
higher costs and wasted expenditures - this critical industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-
Al, p. 1]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. To be effective, the final rule must
be: Customer-acceptable. If truck owners and operators choose not to purchase new trucks due to
cost or reliability concerns that result from a bad federal rule, older trucks will stay on the roads
longer and environment goals will not be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, pp. 1 -
2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: Economically viable. If the final rule results in higher
costs for manufacturers and fleet owners, manufacturers and small business owners may have no
choice but to lay off workers and eliminate jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: Environmentally beneficial. An unworkable rule will
delay fleet turnover and prevent environmental progress, creating greater harm in communities
most at-risk for high air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 2]
To be effective, the final rule must be: A bridge to a zero-emissions future. The final rule must
not prevent continued progress toward zero-emissions commercial vehicles by forcing excessive,
costly redesigns of traditional combustion engines at the expense of investments in the research
and development of zero emissions vehicles, nor add cost to these new technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina State House of Representatives, Larry W. Potts
The commercial vehicle sector literally drives the American economy. As you well know, trucks
move first responders on critical missions, deliver all goods and services to consumers, and serve
as an integral component to the rebuilding of American infrastructure. The production, sale,
service, and operation of these vehicles also provides quality, high-paying jobs to hundreds of
thousands of American workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061-A1, p. 1]
As you know, North Carolina -your home state and ours - has the largest concentration of
commercial vehicle companies, suppliers and employees in America. Therefore, we are
241
-------
especially interested in the continued success of this critical sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1061-A1, p. 1]
That is why we write today: we are concerned that the proposed rule from EPA on tailpipe
emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards," may not be technologically feasiable.
That means Original Equipment Makers (OEMs) will spent hundreds of millions of dollars
chasing at worst an unattainable standard, and at best a costy standard, rather than strategically
deploying critical resources on proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061-A1, p. 1]
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty and
useful life requirements to zero emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061-A1, p. 1]
We share your commitment to the environment and applaud the accomplishments already
achieved by commercial vehicle manufacturers to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. We support the ongoing efforts for cleaner air and healthier communities for
all. But we also recognize the importance of preserving - not effectively dismantling through
higher costs and wasted expenditures - this critical industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061-
Al, pp. 1 -2]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. To be effective, the final rule must be
customer acceptable, economically viable, environmentally beneficial, and a bridge to a zero-
emissions future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061 -A1, p. 2]
Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
EPA's Option 1 is the preferred proposal that, if achievable, can result in significant emission
reductions and health benefits. Option 1 approaches reductions in a faster timeframe and remains
sensitive to multi-pollutant impacts, including particulate matter (PM). For the Dallas-Fort
Worth (DFW) nonattainment area under two ozone standards (see graph below), emissions
reductions need to occur as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.2]
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) observes that the proposed and
significantly lower NOx engine standards will be difficult to achieve and maintain for diesel
engines due to literature suggesting diesel vehicles operating in real world environments with
current technologies are unable to meet existing 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standards. A 2019 EPA
reportl covering the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model points out that
selective catalyst reduction (SCR) technology, when employed at low speeds in real world
operations, did not achieve the NOx reduction that the Model Year 2010 diesel emissions
standard intended. When a diesel vehicle is traveling on nonfreeway facilities, such as arterials,
collectors, and local streets, the diesel engine is experiencing low temperatures at which current
technologies are unable to function properly. In addition, when a diesel vehicle is on the freeway
in either recurring congested conditions or within a non-recurring situation (i.e., crash or
accident) the diesel engine experiences low temperatures and, therefore, excessive emissions.
242
-------
The two graphics below from EPA's MOVES model show that when diesel engine equipped
trucks are experiencing speeds below approximately 35 mph, their emission rates significantly
increase. These conditions are more likely to occur around neighborhoods and heavily populated
areas, compounding local health impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, pp.2-3]
1 U.S. EPA. Updates to MOVES Heavy Duty Running Exhaust Rates: Diesel, Gasoline,
and Natural Gas. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/04-
updates-hd-running-exhaust-rates- 2019-04-10.pdf.
(Please note that the Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck (HDDT) in the graphs below is the Combination
Long-Haul Truck (Diesel) vehicle type in the EPA's MOVES model.) Proposed lower standards
need to have Original Equipment Manufacturers' (OEM) buy-in to develop appropriate
technologies, and the certification rules on these technologies need to take into account real-
world operating conditions so outcomes in the lab are reflected in the environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.3]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Given the urgent need to reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles to improve public
health and air quality, we strongly encourage EPA to finalize model year 2027 engine NOx
emission limits equivalent to those in the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Heavy-Duty
Omnibus Regulation. The Clean Air Act requires ozone NAAQS attainment "as expeditiously as
practicable," and EPA's proposed Options 1 and 2 do not meet this requirement. Since the
introduction of EPA's 2007/2010 heavy-duty engine emissions standards, there have been
significant technology advances that provide a foundation for reducing NOx emissions a further
90 percent beyond current standards. To do this, manufacturers can introduce hardware upgrades
and new aftertreatment systems that, while significant, build upon the architecture of current
emissions control systems. Manufacturers will have ample time to integrate new technologies
into heavy-duty engines assuming standards will be implemented for model year 2027 engines
and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 9]
We note that the Clean Air Act is a "technology forcing" statute in which Congress clearly
intended to pull technology forward, rather than wait for technology to advance before setting
future requirements.26 Even if the technology feasibility record was less robust, and it is
already quite robust, it would be contrary to congressional intent to promulgate a NOx limit that
aims low. The introduction of readily foreseeable effective and available heavy-duty engine and
vehicle pollution reduction technologies capable of achieving a 0.02 gram NOx standard in MY
2027 will assist jurisdictions in the NESCAUM region to reach attainment of the ozone
standards. This is the most "expeditiously as practicable" path called for by the Clean Air Act
and anything less than this will not be acceptable.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 9 -
10.]
26. See Krier. J.E.; Ursin, E., "Pollution and Policy: A Case Essay on California and
Federal Experience with Motor Vehicle Air Pollution 1940-1975," University of
California Press: Berkeley, CA, 1977, quoting Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine during
debate on 1970 Clean Air Act: The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of
243
-------
technological or economic judgments—or even to be limited by what is or appears to be
technologically feasible. Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest
requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be
asked to do what seems to be impossible at the present time. But if health is to be
protected, these challenges must be met.
We strongly oppose Option 2 in EPA's proposal. EPA is proposing to establish an FTP and SET
standard of 50 milligrams or 0.05 g/bhp-hr for 2027 and subsequent model year engines.
Technical analyses demonstrate that substantially more stringent NOx controls are feasible and
cost effective for model year 2027 and subsequent heavy-duty engines and vehicles than would
be required under this option. Certification data from current model year engines show that mass
NOx emissions from some engines are already close to the level proposed for the Option 2 FTP
and SET NOx standards for model year 2027 and later engines.45,46,47 The standards proposed
for Option 2 would only require minor calibration adjustments and minimal hardware
modification. Further, EPA's own analysis found that Option 2 is less cost effective than Option
1. Option 2 will not deliver the needed emissions reductions in Overburdened Communities or
provide sufficient assistance to states in attaining the ozone NAAQS and would leave substantial
and cost-effective NOx reductions on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 16]
45. CARB Executive Order A-242-0139, "Volvo Group Trucks Technology," (FTP of
0.06 g/bhp-hr, SET of 0.04 g/bhp-hr), January 3, 2020, see
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2020/volvogrouptrucks_hhdd_a2
420139_12d8_0d20-0d01.pdf (accessed April 25, 2022).
46. CARB Executive Order A-021-0723, Cummins engine family MCEXH0912XCA
(FTP of 0.07 g/bhp-hr, SET of 0.03 g/bhp-hr), see "New Vehicle and Engine
Certification: Executive Orders for MY2021 Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Engines" at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engine-certification-executive-orders-my2021-
medium-duty-and-heavy-duty-engines (accessed April 25, 2022).
47. CARB Executive Order A-290-0168-1, Detroit Diesel Corporation engine family
KDDXH12.8FED (FTP of 0.06 g/bhp-hr, SET of 0.02 g/bhp-hr), see "New Vehicle and
Engine Certification: Executive Orders for MY2019 Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty
Engines" at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engine-certification-executive-
orders-my2019-medium-duty-and-heavy-duty-engines (accessed April 25, 2022).
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
The EPA recently proposed regulations that could add as much as $40,000 to the cost of a new
truck. The proposed regulations aim to further reduce NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions from
heavy duty engines and possibly set more stringent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
Currently, heavy duty truck emissions are 98% cleaner than in 2010 and truck manufacturers are
diligently working on the development of ZEV's (zero emission vehicles) that will eliminate
tailpipe emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
244
-------
NTEA opposes the EPA's first, and most expensive, option which would take a two-phased
approach to reach its goal NOx emissions by 2031. The proposal would increase the regulatory
useful life of a truck from 435,000 miles to 800,000 and increase the emissions warranty by
500% from 100,000 to 600,000 miles by 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
The second option under consideration is a single-step, 75% reduction in remaining NOx
emissions by 2027, with a 38% increase in the useful life period (from 435,000 to 600,000 miles)
and a 250% increase in the emission warranty period (from 100,000 to 350,000 miles). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
According to engine manufacturers, the California-like option 1 is currently not technologically
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
EPA should focus on Option 2, which is challenging, but working with truck chassis and engine
manufacturers to further modify the proposal it could form the basis for a workable national
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Our Children's Trust
EPA must set stronger NOx, PM, and C02 standards for heavy duty trucks, and other
combustion engines, beginning in model year ("MY") 2027, that tracks with and signals the
end of production and sales of the internal combustion engine by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1317-A1, p.3]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Clean air is a priority for everyone, including truckers, but the technology used in heavy-duty
trucks to improve air quality has to be affordable and reliable. Small-business truckers and
owner-operators should not be used as trial cases for testing new technology, while getting
priced out of business in the process. Unfortunately, each of the proposed timelines to achieve
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions reductions leave us wondering if the same mistakes from
previous rulemakings will be repeated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
EPA must consider a more feasible implementation timeline that would provide reliable and
affordable heavy-duty vehicles for consumers, particularly small trucking businesses and
individual owner-operators. We believe there is a more realistic path forward to reducing
commercial vehicle emissions that involves listening to the men and women of the trucking
industry. EPA should continue seeking out feedback from these stakeholders as the agency
develops any final rule. Truckers know all too well that poorly implemented regulations will
result in breakdowns, downtime, and ultimately set back the goal of achieving cleaner air. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
As currently proposed, both option 1 and option 2 introduced in the NPRM fail also fail to
provide adequate production timelines to ensure vehicle reliability for motor carriers. Again,
other hurried emissions timelines have led to breakdowns, downtime, and ultimately set back the
goal of achieving cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
245
-------
As an initial matter, EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to consider "cost, energy and safety
factors" in proposing standards of emissions for new heavy-duty motor vehicles or engines. As
referenced in the NPRM: "Under CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), standards for emissions of NOx,
PM, HC, and CO emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines are to 'reflect the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.'" Id. at 17420. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.8]
42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(2) provides that "[a]ny regulation prescribed under paragraph 1 ... shall take
effect after such period as the administrator finds necessary to permit the development and
application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within such period." Id. The "cost of compliance" criteria in 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(2)
apply to users of new motor vehicles or engines, i.e., in addition to manufacturers. See, e.g.,
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. E.P.A., 600 F. 3d 624, 629 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(considering national trucking association's challenge to EPA's approval of California emissions
rule for failure to give "appropriate consideration to cost of compliance" under 42 U.S.C.
§7521(a)(2)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, pp.8-9]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Absent adoption of stringent new engine NOx standards, emissions from HDVs will increase in
future years as truck vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grows. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) projects that HDV ton miles travelled will increase by more than 30 percent over the
next 25 years, as shown in Figure 4. This growth, if not counteracted by increased stringency of
new engine emissions standards, will result in a significant increase in heavy-duty truck
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.7]
We also note that highway trucks often travel long distances and can be registered in states far
from where they operate. Therefore, a strong national program is needed to reduce highway truck
emissions and maximize public health benefits in the OTR and nationally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1250-A1, p.7]
Because of the importance of HDVs to air quality and public health in the OTR, in 2019, the
OTC requested that EPA make the Cleaner Trucks Initiative one of its most urgent priorities. 12
In February of 2020, the OTC and MANE-VU provided comments on EPA's Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking calling on EPA to set emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles at 90
percent below the current standard and to harmonize with the California Omnibus regulation. 13
In June of 2020, the OTC sent a letter to EPA calling on the Agency to expeditiously propose a
heavy-duty engine NOx standard 90 percent below current levels. 14 And in October of 2021, the
OTC Mobile Sources Committee wrote to the EPA Administrator and to the Council on
Environmental Quality asking EPA to act expeditiously to set stronger standards for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles. 15 EPA's response to a 2016 petition joined by a number of the OTC states
recognized the importance of NOx emission reductions for the OTC region and across the
country. 16 In addition, EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards
246
-------
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -Phase 2 final regulation also detailed the
importance of NOx reductions to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, stating that: EPA
received compelling letters and comments from [NACAA, NESCAUM, OTC, and SCAQMD],
explaining the critical and urgent need to reduce NOx emissions that significantly contribute to
ozone and fine particulate air quality problems in their represented areas. The comments describe
the challenges many areas face in meeting both the 2008 and recently strengthened 2015 ozone
NAAQS. These organizations point to the significant contribution of heavy-duty vehicles to NOx
emissions in their areas.17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp.8-9]
12 OTC letter to A. Wheeler, EPA Administrator, re: Cleaner Trucks Initiative, August
28, 2019. Available at
https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Correspondence/EPA%20NOx%20Letter.pdf.
13 OTC comments to EPA on its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards,'
February 20, 2020. Available at
https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Correspondence/OTC-MANEVU CTI ANPR
comments 20200220 final.pdf.
14 OTC letter to A. Wheeler, EPA Administrator, re: expeditious development of NPRM,
June 3, 2020. Available at
https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Correspondence/20200603 OTC Letter to EPA
MHDVNOx.pdf.
15 OTC letter to M. Regan, EPA Administrator, and A. Brown, CEQ Senior Director for
Transportation Emissions, October 22, 2021. Available at
https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Correspondence/OTC%201etter%20to%20EPA%20
CEQ%20re%20HDV%20NOx%20standards%2020211022.pdf.
16 U.S. EPA, 'Memorandum in Response to Petition to EPA for Rulemaking to Adopt
Ultra Low NOx Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Road Heavy-Duty Trucks and
Engines,' December 20, 2016. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/nox-memorandum-nox-
petition-response-2016-12-20.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2022.
17 81 Fed. Reg. 73478 (Oct. 25, 2016), at 73523.
Emission standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks were last finalized in 2001, more than 20
years ago. Since then, extensive experience in implementation and monitoring has provided a
substantial body of evidence supporting more stringent standards over the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP), Supplemental Emissions Test (SET), and Ramped Modal Cycle (RMC). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 12]
Advanced catalyst formulations, passive and active thermal management strategies, approaches
to reducing pumping losses, engine calibration and hardware changes, and electrification are
examples of technologies that can be used to substantially reduce NOx emissions while
247
-------
maintaining carbon dioxide emissions at levels required by the Phase 2 heavy-duty greenhouse
gas (GHG) standards. Some of these technologies will most likely be explored prior to model
year 2027 to meet the EPA Phase 2 GHG and California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2024
LowNOx programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 13]
Heavy-Duty Engine NOx Standards in 2027: Given the urgent need to reduce NOx emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles to improve public health and air quality, we strongly encourage EPA
to finalize NOx emission limits equivalent to those in the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Specifically, OTC supports the adoption of a 0.020 gram NOx engine standard in
2027 at intermediate useful life and a 0.035 gram NOx standard at full useful life, as specified in
CARB's Omnibus regulation. There is ample data from CARB, EPA, and other research
programs that support the feasibility of introducing a 0.020 gram NOx standard at intermediate
useful life in 2027. 22,23,24,25,26,27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 13]
22 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-
Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' February, 2020.
Available at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf. Accessed
May 4, 2022.
23 Southwest Research Institute, 'Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration
Programs at SwRI,' November 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/guest/swri_hd_low
_nox_demo_programs.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2022.
24 Sharp, C.; Neely, G.; Rao, S.; Zaval, B., 'An Update on Continuing Progress Towards
Heavy-Duty Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond,' Southwest Research Institute,
WCX, Detroit, Michigan, April 5-7, 2022.
25 U.S. EPA, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis,' EPA-420-D-22-001, March
2022. Available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf.
Accessed May 12, 2022.
26 Achates Power, 'Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration,' CRC Real
World Emissions Workshop, March 15, 2022.
27 Mendoza Villafuerte, P.; Demuynck, J.; Bosteels, D., 'Ultra-Low NOx Emissions with
a Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a Heavy-Duty Truck Application,' Society
of Automotive Engineers, September 21, 2021. Available at https://www.aecc.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/2021-01-1228.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2022.
Proposed Option 2: We strongly oppose Option 2 in EPA's proposal. Technical analyses
demonstrate that substantially more stringent NOx controls are feasible and cost effective for
model year 2027 and later heavy-duty engines and vehicles than would be required under this
option. Certification data from current model year engines show that mass NOx emissions from
248
-------
some engines are close to the level proposed for the Option 2 FTP and SET NOx standards for
model year 2027 and later engines.41,42,43 The standards proposed for Option 2 would only
require minor calibration adjustments and minimal hardware modification. Further, EPA's own
analysis found that Option 2 is less cost effective than Option 1. Option 2 will not deliver the
needed emissions reductions in Overburdened Communities or provide sufficient assistance to
states in attaining the ozone NAAQS and would leave substantial and cost-effective NOx
reductions on the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 17]
41 CARB Executive Order A-242-0139, 'Volvo Group Trucks Technology,' (FTP of
0.06), January 3, 2020, at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/mdehdehdv/2020/volvogrouptrucks_hhdd_a2
420139_12d8_0d20-0d01.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2022.
42 CARB Executive Order A-021-0723, Cummins engine family MCEXH0912XCA
(FTP of 0.07), see 'New Vehicle and Engine Certification: Executive Orders for MY2021
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Engines' at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-
engine-certification-executive-orders-my2021-medium-duty-and-heavy-duty-engines.
Accessed April 25, 2022.
43 CARB Executive Order A-290-0168-1, Detroit Diesel Corporation engine family
KDDXH12.8FED (FTP of 0.06), see 'New Vehicle and Engine Certification: Executive
Orders for MY2019 Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Engines' at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engine-certification-executive-orders-my2019-
medium-duty-and-heavy-duty-engines. Accessed April 25, 2022.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: The feasibility
of centering a program around a 0.02 g/bhp-hr FTP/RMC NOx standard (as opposed to a core
standard set at or above Option 2-like levels) has not been, and cannot be, established. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.2]
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: The low-NOx
regulations, if centered around a 0.02g/bhp-hr standard, could result in decreased fuel-efficiency,
which could threaten the feasibility and implementation of the HDOH Phase 2 GHG standards,
especially the 2027 MY standards, which should not be revised. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.2]
PACCAR is pleased that EPA included two options in the Proposed Rule and supports a
stringent, but implementable, single step low-NOx standard in MY 2027. The data and
supporting information provided herein will demonstrate that Option 2 with certain flexibilities,
and features of Option 1, represent a reasonable, technically-feasible regulation. By contrast,
Option 1 on its own is technically infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.2-3]
249
-------
PACCAR agrees with EMA's assessment that the proposed standards are technically infeasible
and incorporates below certain aspects of EMA's comments, sometimes verbatim, in addition to
providing our own comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.4]
CARB's recently promulgated Heavy-Duty Omnibus low-NOx Regulation aims to reduce NOx
emission standards by 90% compared to the current 2010 emission standards and prescribes a
50% reduction in the PM mass standard. This aggressive action seeks to reduce the last one to
two percent of HDOHNOx engine emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.4]
EPA's proposed 'Option 1' mirrors the CARB Omnibus requirements in nearly every respect,
including the proposed 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx certification standard for MY 2031. However, the a
90% NOx reduction, coupled with the proposed new 'low-load' certification cycle and a
completely new in-use emissions testing and compliance protocol (with barely measurable NOx
limits), presents an inherently infeasible technical challenge for HDOH diesel engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.4]
Adopting a single-step feasible rule for MY 2027 will enable manufacturers to focus on the
multiple different development paths required for future powertrain solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.16]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking:
• PACCAR encourages EPA to adopt a single-step, technologically-feasible rule
introduced in MY 2027 to enable manufacturers to focus on the several different
development paths required for future powertrain solutions.
• PACCAR supports the proposed Option 2 regulatory levels (0.05 NOx) in laboratory
controlled demonstrations, such as durability aging (DF programs) and SEA.
• In commerce, PACCAR requests EPA provide a 'variability allowance' of 30 mg/hp-hr
to address emissions variation due to the real-world conditions and production variability.
This allowance would apply to testing engines that are acquired from field systems, such
as DF verification, and other compliance conformity testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.59]
Organization: Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (PCBI)
Pennsylvania is home to the 8th largest manufacturing base in the country and continues to see
substantial development and investment into logistics and distribution infrastructure across the
state. The state's proximity to several major interstate highways and ports afford companies
across multiple industrial categories, such as consumer packaged goods, pharmaceuticals and
medical devices, automotive components, and electronics, to site and distribute goods across
North America. According to the American Transportation Research Institute, trucking alone
supports more than 300,000 Pennsylvania workers and their families, and approximately 86
percent of the state's total manufactured goods are moved by truck each year. It is imperative
that as regulatory requirements are implemented, engine manufacturers are given sufficient time
to incorporate new controls into product lines, supply chain vendors are able to scale up
250
-------
production of controls as well, and end-users are able to effectively and affordable transition
their fleets during turnover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1319-A1, p.2]
To that end, the options outlined in EPA's most recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are
overly aggressive and threaten to reduce investment and increase costs in the logistics sector at a
time of significant inflation and supply chain constraints. These options also threaten to impede
environmental progress. The PA Chamber supports a single-step, national rule that encourages
adoption of more efficient trucks, that is economically feasible for logistics companies and
trucking fleets, and that is environmentally beneficial. Of the two options outlined in the NOPR,
we recommend EPA reject Option 1 and substantially revise Option 2 in line with the concerns
outlined in this letter and that of other stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1319-A1, p.2]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
Option 1 of the Proposal would clearly provide significant benefit to communities, and the EPA
should not consider any rulemaking less stringent than Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1417-A2, p. 1]
Option 2 within the Proposal should be rejected by the EPA. Option 2 does not adequately
protect human health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 1]
Improvements to compression ignition engines are welcome but may be better directed toward
advancing electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 2]
The Proposal states that "emission levels demonstrated for certification are not achieved under
the broad range of real-world operating conditions," and thus proposes strategies to increase the
efficiency of emissions controls of compression ignition (CI) engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1417-A2, p. 2]
This statement in the proposal reflects our understanding based on our experience examining
heavy duty truck emissions in Texas. Research centered on the greater Houston region reported
similar findings. A 2018 study by the Texas Transportation Institute2 for the Houston-Galveston
Area Council that analyzed PAMS and GPS data found that the vehicles studied operated at low
speeds, 18 mph on average, with 63% of time at speeds less than 10 mph. Vehicles idled for 54%
of the time (185 minutes per day) with most of the activity happening during weekdays between
6 am and 7 pm, when nearby residents are active. This study found that truck engines operated at
temperatures suboptimal for SCR functionality almost 60% of the time, meaning that the SCR
would be unable to achieve the expected emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1417-A2, p. 2]
2. https://www.h-gac.com/getmedia/12al530d-ad4f-47Q5-8e8b-68ccd2f29787/Vehicle-
Activity-Data-09192018
EPA's efforts in this proposal to increase stringency of emissions testing of compression ignition
engines is welcome. However, vehicle manufacturers have lost a tremendous amount of faith
251
-------
from the public due to diesel emissions cheating scandals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2,
p. 2]
Prohibition of diesel defeat devices will not ensure compliance. Furthermore, SCRs and other
emissions controls on heavy-duty diesel trucks can easily fail, making it more difficult for
emissions targets to be met. Extending regulatory emission warranties may help prevent
tampering while also ensuring that operators are covered for necessary repairs should their
emission control devices fail. However, the best defense against pollution is to stop it before it
begins. Transitioning to zero emissions trucks ensures full compliance with emissions standards,
and we recommend that the EPA prioritize the deployment of zero emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
EPA "co-proposed" two potential regulatory options for addressing NOx emissions. Because of
the immediate public health impacts of NOx emissions, finalizing a proposal that achieves the
greatest reductions is of paramount importance. EPA's own findings show that of the options
weighed, Option 1 is most protective, delivering larger reductions by 2045 of NOx, PM2.5,
volatile organic compounds, and carbon monoxide than Option 2. These reductions in pollutants
would "significantly decrease" ozone concentrations across the country with benefits for areas
attempting to attain, or avoid nonattainment of, national air quality standards.5 And even more
importantly, EPA estimates that the ozone and PM2.5 benefits will accrue in greater measure in
parts of the country with the "worst baseline air quality," and "where larger numbers of people of
color are projected to reside."6 This analysis is a testament to the power of a strong NOx
emissions standard to deliver real-world benefits to Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1229-A1, p.3]
5 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 59, 17,427 (Mar. 28, 2022) (revising 40 C.F.R. Parts 2, 59, 60,
80, 85, 86, 87, 600, 1027, 1030, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051,
1054, 1060, 1065, 1066, 1068, and 1090).
6 Id. at 17,427.
Balanced against the costs, EPA again finds that Option 1 is the most compelling of the two
options analyzed. The agency calculates that by 2045 the annual net benefits of Option 1 would
be as much as 50 percent greater than those for Option 2.7 In Rivian's view, these clear findings
compel EPA to finalize a NOx standard at least as stringent as Option 1, consistent with both the
Biden Administration's stated goals and priorities and, perhaps most significantly, with the
directive of Executive Order 12,866, later reaffirmed by Executive Order 13,563, that "in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that
maximize net benefits.. ."8 Finalizing Option 2 would not be justifiable on cost-benefit grounds.
Accordingly, Rivian supports the EPA finding that Option 1 is the most compelling of the
options proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.3]
7 Id. at 17,428.
252
-------
8 Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 190 (Oct. 4, 1993); Exec. Order No. 13,563, 76
Fed. Reg. 14 (Jan. 21, 2011).
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
It has been over 20 years since EPA last issued a heavy-duty NOx standard. Emissions from
heavy-duty diesel mobile sources represent a significant and ever-increasing portion of the
emissions inventory in the Basin, resulting in adverse impacts on public health and regional air
quality. Legal authority to regulate these sources of pollution primarily sits with EPA and
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB has taken significant steps to address NOx
emissions from heavy-duty trucks through its Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation (Omnibus Regulation). Federal regulation, however, is needed for trucks initially
registered outside of California. As the South Coast AQMD noted in its 2016 Petition for
Rulemaking to Adopt Ultra-Low NOx Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Board Heavy-Duty
Trucks and Engines (2016 Petition), a nationwide standard is necessary because the majority of
heavy-duty trucks operating in California are purchased out of state and operated as part of a
nationwide fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp. 1-2]
CARB's 2020 Mobile Source Strategy noted that by 2030, NOx emissions from federally
regulated sources in the South Coast will exceed emissions from California-regulated sources.2
It is also worth noting that without a proposed rule in place, EPA's own analysis shows that by
Calendar Year 2045, 8-hour ozone design values in certain nonattainment areas will remain in
the range of 92-98 ppb.3 Thus, substantial NOx emission reductions are urgently needed from
the nationwide fleet to not only help with the extreme ozone non-attainment status in Southern
California but with other areas nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.2]
2 CARB, 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
09/Proposed_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf, pg. 6.
3 EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf, pg. 291, Table 6-2
(Change in 8-hour Ozone Design Values for Counties Projected to be Above the Level of
the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in 2045).
The South Coast AQMD continues to have high confidence that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard is
technologically feasible and can be commercially proven. We also believe a technological
pathway can be implemented in a commercial product prior to 2027. The majority of today's
Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines have already been certified far below a low-NOx standard of 0.02
g/bhp-hr. Projects undertaken by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and the availability of
advanced engine technologies and aftertreatment systems, all support the conclusion that
conventional diesel standards can achieve a low-NOx standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr. The advances in
engine technology have been successfully demonstrated and proven to be cost-effective,
including 6.7, 8.9, and 12-liter natural gas engines from Cummins, diesel engines that are 70%
cleaner than the current standard, idle reduction technology, engine down-speeding, and
advances in exhaust after-treatment technologies. Zero emission technologies, including battery-
253
-------
electric and fuel cell power trains, continue to emerge and see rapid advancement. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.2]
Because of the critical need for NOx reductions, the South Coast AQMD urges EPA to adopt the
most stringent rule with the fastest implementation timeline supported by the record. We support
EPA's proposed Alternative Option to the extent that it is modified to include a low NOx
standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr on the low load cycle (LLC), as envisioned by CARB's Omnibus
Regulation and supported by SwRI's latest test results. The Alternative Option, which already
includes longer useful life and warranty mileages than either Option 1 or the Omnibus
Regulation, will elicit the greatest emission reductions of all proposed options, so long as it is
modified to harmonize its LLC limit with the limit proposed by CARB. However, to the extent
that pursuit of the Alternative Option will delay rule implementation beyond 2027 we
support Option 1 so long as it can be aligned with CARB's Omnibus Regulation, setting
implementation of a 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard in Model Year (MY) 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1201-A1, pp.2-3]
Above all else, the South Coast AQMD believes that a revised NOx standard should be finalized
as swiftly as possible, by the end of 2022. To be clear, Option 1, as written, is less than ideal as it
would allow for more emissions than adoption of a standard equivalent to CARB's own
Omnibus Regulation, particularly in the early years of the program. South Coast AQMD staff is
also concerned that the flexibilities built into the current version of the proposal may result in a
strong standard only on paper. For instance, enabling manufacturers to generate overly generous
NOx credits from sales of zero-emission engines may disincentivize investments in clean
technologies for internal combustion engines, thereby delaying needed emission reductions. For
these reasons, it is imperative that EPA adopt its proposed Alternative Option, with the
modifications suggested above or, if doing so delays the rulemaking process beyond 2022, adopt
Option 1 to align with Omnibus. Newer, stronger standards for on-highway heavy-duty engines
and vehicles are long overdue, and we ultimately support EPA taking the necessary, decisive
action to help clear the air of truck emissions for all residents in the South Coast Air Basin and
nationwide, including those disadvantaged communities that are most likely to live near
highways, port complexes, and warehouses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.3]
EPA proposes two primary options for consideration -Option 1 and Option 2 - stating that both
include emissions standards based on technology improvements that have become available over
the course of the past 20 years since the last major heavy-duty engine rule revisions. Option 1 is
a two-step process wherein a 0.035 g/bhp-hr standard is implemented for MY 2027 through 2030
and then ratcheted down to 0.02 g/bhp-hr for MY 2031 and beyond. Option 2 would implement a
0.05 g/bhp-hr standard for MY 2027 and beyond. EPA also proffers an Alternative Option which
it suggests is more stringent than either Options 1 or 2. We believe that both the Alternative and
Option 1 are technologically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.7]
Under the Alternative Option, heavy duty HDEs will be subject to a 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard
beginning in MY 2027. The Alternative also includes useful life and warranty mileages that are
longer than those proposed in either Option 1 or the Omnibus Regulation. However, we believe
that the Alternative will achieve maximum emission reductions only to the extent that it is
amended to include a NOx standard of 0.05 g/bhp-hr on the LLC, beginning in MY 2027. As
254
-------
written, the Alternative has a higher LLC standard of 0.10 g/bhp-hr which mirrors EPA's least
stringent proposal, Option 2. Alternatively, CARB's Omnibus Regulation will reduce the current
heavy-duty NOx standard for FTP/RMC-SET from 0.20 g/bhp-hr to 0.05 g/bhp-hr from MY
2024-2026, and down to 0.02 g/bhp-hr starting MY 2027, while setting the initial 0.2 g/bhp-hr
LLC from MY 2024-2026 down to 0.05 g/bhp-hr starting MY 2027 at 435,000 miles. Omnibus
also includes slightly higher levels for both FTP/RMC-SET and LLC to account for
deterioration at full useful life. EPA appears to dismiss the viability of its proposed Alternative
Option by noting that less lead time to a 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard, a lower numeric standard for
hydrocarbon, and longer useful life and mileage constraints 'would be very challenging to meet
in the MY 2027 timeframe.'26 As we will discuss in further detail below, a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx
standard is most certainly feasible for MY 2027.
Still, to the extent that EPA reasonably believes it cannot finalize rulemaking on a modified
Alternative Option before 2023, for implementation by MY 2027, we believe there is ample
evidence, including EPA's own analysis, showing that Option 1, modified to achieve an
Omnibus Nationwide scenario in 2027, would bring significant NOx reductions. As alluded to
above, EPA has improperly rushed to dismiss the viability of implementing a 0.02 g/bhp-hr
standard in MY 2027. The research backing California's Omnibus Rule proves as much.
CARB's Omnibus rule provides for an interim decrease in NOx emission standards as early as
2024.
To reiterate, in order to avoid delay, we are willing to support a modified Option 1 to the extent
that it would align with CARB's Omnibus by requiring the most stringent feasible standard - a
0.02 g/bhp-hr - for MY 2027. Based on data presented in EPA's own draft RIA, an Omnibus
Nationwide scenario in MY 2027 would bring 160,395 tons of NOx reduction annually for CY
2030, exceeding all three options outlined in the NPRM.39 A 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard
is doubtlessly feasible and achievable for MY 2027, even as full commercialization is not
realized as of today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp.9-10]
39 RIA at pg. 277, Table 5-49.
The South Coast AQMD continues to urge that EPA's highest priority should be to secure the
maximum emission reductions possible and without delay. We do not believe pursuit of a
modified Option 1 that would track CARB's Omnibus Regulation would delay this rulemaking
effort beyond 2022. This alignment would include, among other things, a required idle-NOx
standard of 10 g/hr, a lower FTP/RMC-SET standard of 0.02g/bhp-hr and a more stringent LLC
standard at 435,000 miles. As acknowledged in the RIA, the standards and useful life periods in
both steps of CARB Omnibus are not only feasible but would result in emission reductions for
the applicable model years.40 While Option 1 would see significant NOx reductions of 16.4%,
55.9% and 60.5% in 2030, 2040, and 2045, respectively, an Omnibus Nationwide scenario in
2027 is projected to achieve additional NOx reductions of 4.2%, 0.6% and 0.2% in the same
respective years over Option 1, with consistent 3-4% additional benefit between MY 2027 and
MY 2031.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201 -A1, p. 10]
40 87 Fed. Reg. at 17459.
255
-------
41 RIA at pgs. 245-46.
When compared to the single level proposed for Option 2 and the Alternative Option, Option 1
would provide the second highest NOx reductions at full useful life, aligning with the Omnibus
Regulation. The South Coast AQMD further notes that the feasibility of Option 1 has already
been demonstrated based on more recent data presented by SwRI at the 2022 SAE WCX
conference in April 2022. At 800,000 miles, the Stage 3 'Re-work' results were 0.037 g/bhp-hr
NOx on the composite FTP, 0.030 g/bhp-hr NOx on the RMC-SET, and 0.034 g/bhp-hr NOx on
the LLC.42 More data is also set to become available for the Achates engine aging to 800,000
miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201 -A1, p. 10]
42 EPA, OAR, Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration (May 3, 2022),
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
Should EPA move forward with Option 1 modified to achieve a 2027 Omnibus nationwide
scenario, the South Coast AQMD strongly urges against deferring implementation of the second
step standards to an uncertain future rulemaking effort involving heavy-duty GHG emissions. As
we have stressed above, not only does Option 1 delay alignment with CARB's Omnibus Rule but
it also overlooks the fact that low-NOx technology is available within the relevant timeframes.
To unnecessarily put implementation of a tighter standard on hold in order to review additional
options - options which CARB, MECA, SwRI and others have already reviewed -will have a
devastating impact on air quality throughout the nation. EPA also requests comment and data to
support higher penetrations of HD ZEV's in the MY 2027-2029 timeframe. Specifically, EPA
floats the idea of supporting HD ZEV penetration rates of 5-10 percent or higher in this
timeframe in conjunction with permitting HD ZEV manufacturers to generate NOx emission
credits so long as C02 standards were made more stringent for specific Phase 2
vehicle subcategories based on higher projected penetrations of HD ZEVs in the allotted
timeframe.43 EPA proposes to permit HEV, BEV and FCEV technologies to generate these
emission credits as a form of flexibility for manufacturers to spread out their investments and
prioritize technology adoption in way that makes the most sense for their businesses while
transitioning to meet the more stringent proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-
Al, pp.10-11]
43 87 Fed. Reg. atpg. 17599.
South Coast AQMD generally opposes overly generous flexibilities that will result in
manufacturing of engines with higher NOx emissions. Not only is this antithetical to the goals of
the Clean Air Act but it would also weaken the intent of this rulemaking. [EP A-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1201-A1, p. 11]
The South Coast AQMD cannot meet its upcoming attainment deadlines without significant
emission reductions from sources under federal authority. As has been made clear above, there is
ample evidence to support the feasibility of a stringent 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard by MY 2027. As
we have noted previously, we believe this can be done via implementation of a modified
Alternative Option that harmonizes its LLC standard with CARB's Omnibus Regulation. To
avoid unnecessary delay, and only insofar as EPA reasonably believes it cannot complete
256
-------
rulemaking on the Alternative option in 2022, we believe the necessary emission reductions can
be achieved via implementation of a version of Option 1 that fully aligns with CARB Omnibus.
Given upcoming attainment deadlines, there is also a significant need to achieve the greatest
level of emissions reductions as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.11]
EPA itself acknowledges that it is compelled by Clean Air Act Section 202(a)(3)(A) to set NOx
emission standards that 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology that will be available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.'45 Further, EPA is required to prescribe 'and from time to time
revise standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of
new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines[.]'46 These standards are to take effect after
such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of
the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such a
period.'47 These regulations may apply no sooner than the model year commencing four years
after a revised standard is promulgated and will apply for at least three model years.48 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp. 11-12]
45 87 Fed. Reg. at 17418; 42 U.S.C. Section 7521(a)(3)(A).
46 42 U.S.C. Section 7521(a)(1).
47 Id.
48 Id. at Section 7521(a)(3)(C).
In its 2016 petition to the EPA, the South Coast AQMD urged the importance of 'cooperative
federalism' as 'a defining feature of the [Clean Air Act],'49 As EPA has explained, the Clean
Air Act sets out the 'blueprint' by which nonattainment areas will attain the NAAQS— a
blueprint that couples locally-directed reductions with 'Federal measures such as reductions from
mobile source measures promulgated by EPA under Title II of the Act.'50 The South Coast
AQMD has advanced the most stringent air quality regulations in the nation, but it requires EPA
to give heed to cooperative federalism principles. The District's emissions inventory puts the
issues in stark relief; the Basin will not be able to meet the 70 ppb standard without a stringent
rule. Going further, attainment will also require other controls on sources within federal
regulatory authority, such as locomotives, marine vessels, and aircraft Thus, here and elsewhere,
the South Coast AQMD needs EPA to follow blueprint of the Clean Air Act by adopting the
strongest rule possible, as soon as possible, without any further unwarranted delay. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p. 12]
49 2016 Petition citing GenOnREMA. LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 513, 516 (3d Cir. 2013).
50 See 62 Fed. Reg. 1150, 1153 (January 8, 1997).
257
-------
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
As discussed further below, proposed Option 1 for the criteria pollutant emissions standards and
the revised Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards do not go far enough. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.l]
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA must set criteria pollutant emissions standards 'that reflect the
greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable' after considering certain statutory factors.31
EPA determined that more-stringent Option 1 is feasible, and EPA should, at minimum, adopt
these proposed standards.32 However, California recently adopted the Heavy- Duty Omnibus
Regulation (the Omnibus Regulation), which is even more stringent. This indicates that standards
stricter than Option 1 are feasible. In line with the Omnibus Regulation, EPA should adopt NOx
standards that are 90 percent below current standards starting in model year 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.5]
31 The standards shall 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology.' 42 U.S.C. 7521(l)(3)(A)(i).
32 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17436 (proposed Mar. 28, 2022). EPA should not
consider less-stringent Option 2, which it found to be feasible in model year 2027 but
also to 'result in lower levels of emissions reductions compared to proposed Option 1.' Id.
Beyond more stringent numeric standards, EPA is also proposing important improvements to test
procedures, life periods, and warranty requirements to ensure that medium and heavy-duty
vehicles run cleanly under more operating conditions across the lifetime of a vehicle.36 These
improvements contribute to the effectiveness of the standards. Longer regulatory useful life and
emissions-related warranty requirements will also help to maintain emissions control through
more of the operational life of these vehicles and we urge EPA to consider whether these
requirements can be better aligned with the Omnibus Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1247-A1, p.6]
36 See e.g., Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17422-26.
37 Id. at 17464.
38 Letter from Paul J. Miller, NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED AIR USE
MGMT., to Mary D. Nichols, CAL. AIR RES. BD. 3 (Aug. 25, 2020),
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/nescaum-comments-carb-hdv-nox-
omnibusregulation-20200825.pdf/.
258
-------
39 The proposed voluntary certification is based on California's Clean Idle NOx
standard. Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17464.
At a minimum, EPA should fully align its criteria pollutant emissions standards with the
California Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation in in 2027, establish minimum ZEV production
requirements, and preserve the stringency of GHG emissions requirements for internal
combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.8]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
Recognizing the critical need to address emissions from this significant source, President Biden's
Executive Order 14037, "Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,"
directed EPA to establish new standards for emissions from heavy-duty engines and vehicles
beginning with model year 2027 through at least model year 2030. Specifically, EPA is co-
proposing two regulatory options for reducing NOx emissions: Option 1 implements stronger
NOx standards in a two-step approach by first increasing stringency in model year 2027 and then
increasing stringency again for model year 2031; Option 2 sets a one-time stringency for only
model year 2027 and would achieve less NOx emissions than Option 1. Option 1 will achieve
greater emission reductions than Option 2, will reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles
by almost 60 percent in 2045, and "will provide society with a substantial net gain in welfare,
notwithstanding the health and other benefits [that EPA was] unable to quantify."4 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 2]
4. EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, § 9.2, pp. 403-4 (March 2022),
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0979 ("Draft RIA").
The States strongly encourage EPA to adopt Option 1, which is the regulatory option that reflects
"the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable" as required by Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 202(a)(3) and most closely aligns with the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation (Omnibus Rule) recently adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Given the record supporting the Proposed Rule, and CARB's robust record supporting the
Omnibus Rule, Option 1 is unquestionably both technologically feasible and cost-effective,
better addresses the significant impact of emissions from the heavy-duty vehicles
on environmental justice communities,5 and enhances the States' ability to attain and maintain
national ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. EPA's proposed adoption
of Option 2 would be inconsistent with CAA section 202(a)(3) and would be arbitrary and
capricious in light of the rulemaking record. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 2-3]
5. Environmental justice is defined by EPA as the "fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect
to development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and
policies." EPA, EPA-300-B-1-6004, EJ 2020 Action Agenda: The U.S. EPA's
Environmental Justice Strategic Plan For 2016-2020, at 1 (Oct. 2016) ("EJ 2020 Action
Agenda"). For the purpose of this comment, the term "environmental justice community"
259
-------
refers to a community of color or community experiencing high rates of poverty that, due
to past and/or current unfair and inequitable treatment, is overburdened by environmental
pollution and the accompanying harms and risks from exposure to that pollution.
As noted above, under Section 202(a)(3) of the CAA, EPA must adopt criteria pollutant
emissions standards that "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology that the Administrator determines will be available for the model year
to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology."58 In light of this statutory mandate,
the States strongly encourage EPA to adopt Option 1 because Option 1 would "result in a greater
level of achievable emission reduction for the model years proposed, which is consistent with
EPA's statutory authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)."59 According to EPA's
analysis, Option 1 would achieve greater emission reductions from highway heavy-duty vehicles
than Option 2. Specifically, Option 1 will reduce NOx emissions by 61 percent, primary exhaust
PM 2.5 emissions by 26 percent, volatile organic compounds by 21 percent, and carbon
monoxide by 17 percent nationwide in 2045.60 Thus, EPA is compelled to adopt standards that
are at least as stringent as Option 1 to meet its obligations under 202(a)(3) and EPA's proposed
adoption of Option 2 is both inconsistent with 202(a)(3) and would be arbitrary and capricious
given EPA's findings that the Option 1 standards are technologically feasible and cost
effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 14]
58. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
59. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,417.
60. Id. at 17,579; Draft RIA at § 5.3.1.
These emission reductions are essential to begin to reduce the inequitable burden on to
environmental justice communities. Under Executive Order 12,898, each federal agency has
been directed, "to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law" to "make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States
and its territories . . . ."61 Additionally, EPA recently committed to "make achieving
environmental justice part of [its] mission[] by developing programs, policies, and activities to
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related
and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the
accompanying economic challenges of such impacts."62 The adoption of proposed Option 1 is
consistent with EPA's commitment to ameliorating existing environmental injustices by
achieving the maximum emission reductions and thus reducing air pollution that
disproportionately impacts environmental justice communities.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1255-A1, pp. 14-15]
61. 64 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
62. Exec. Order 14,008, § 219.
260
-------
63.Id.
Option l's emissions standards, useful life, and warranty periods also most closely align with
CARB's Omnibus Rule, and as the records for both the Proposed Rule and CARB's Omnibus
Rule demonstrates, Option 1 is technologically feasible and cost-effective.67 Option 1 provides a
harmonization of standards that allows manufacturers to design a single engine nationally,
thereby reducing complexity and costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 15]
67. See Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May
16, 2022.
The States share EPA's goal of achieving effective NOx reductions without unnecessary
hardship to manufacturers or vehicle owners or operators. Many of the compliance flexibilities
set forth in the Proposed Rule—such as NOx credits for averaging, banking, and trading—are
also components, to a degree, of the Omnibus Rule, and the States support including these where
they would not reduce the stringency of the final standards and are justified by the
record. However, the combined effect of multiple and redundant flexibilities contemplated in
the Proposed Rule would be to, in practical effect, adopt standards weaker than those ostensibly
adopted in regulation. Such a discrepancy between the emission standards "on paper" and "in the
real world" would be problematic for at least three reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-
Al, pp. 15 - 16.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 15]
First, were EPA to adopt compliance flexibilities that effectively loosen the emission standards'
stringency, the final regulation would not "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable through the application of [available] technology," in violation of the CAA's plain
mandate. 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Moreover, because the CAA obligates EPA to choose the
most effective achievable standards, adopting standards that in reality will be far less effective
than purported would also undermine the "rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made" and disregard "an important aspect of the problem." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of
U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The arbitrariness of such a
result is especially pronounced where multiple, cumulative flexibilities and leniencies overlap to
address the same industry concern. Cf. Amer. Lung Ass'n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (agencies must "explain their decisions with precision"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1255-A1, p. 16]
Second, the Proposed Rule is of critical importance for States' attainment or maintenance of
NAAQS. As described in Section I.C, heavy-duty vehicles are nationally the largest mobile-
source contributor of NOx emissions, and in nonattainment areas near Los Angeles and New
York City, contribute roughly one third to one half of the on-road NOx emissions, respectively.
States risk nonattainment and corresponding penalties if a final rule in fact secures far less NOx
emissions reduction than EPA projects—especially where the States premise their SIPs on these
ostensible federal reductions. For many of the States, every ton of NOx that heavy-duty engines
emit above the ostensible emission limit is another ton the State will have to eliminate from other
sources within its regulatory authority. Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1221, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ("[W]hen EPA allows higher NOx emissions from [federally
regulated sources], state agencies have no choice but to impose greater restrictions on other
261
-------
sources of NOx "). Reducing NOx from many of these other state-jurisdictional sources will be
far more costly than controlling heavy-duty truck emissions.68 Thus, lost emissions reductions
disrupt the cooperative federalism that is the backbone of the CAA's statutory and regulatory
scheme and defeat the goals of carefully crafted SIPs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p.
16]
68. For example, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) estimate the costs of additional NOx controls from industrial, commercial,
and institutional boilers as ranging from $2,700 to $21,000 per ton of NOx reduced, as
compared to a cost range of $1,000 to $5,000 per ton of NOx reduced from heavy-duty
vehicles. Comment submitted by Paul J. Miller, Executive Director, NESCAUM, at pp.
4-5 & nn.4,5 (Feb. 23, 2022), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0001.
Third, flexibilities that would, in practical effect, undermine the projected reductions from the
final emission standards would violate EPA's (and States') commitment to addressing
environmental injustice. As described further in Section I.B, environmental justice communities
would bear the brunt of the negative health and environmental effects of NOx emissions that
are left unmitigated due to outsized and redundant compliance flexibilities, due to proximity to
the major transportation corridors and logistics facilities. These already overburdened
communities should not continue to bear the inequitable costs of pollution for the sake of
unwarranted and unnecessary industry protections. Following that path would harm these
communities and further erode trust. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
Accordingly, EPA should scale back or reject altogether flexibilities whose aggregate effect will
be to significantly reduce the real-world emission benefits of Option 1. In particular, EPA should
(1) reject the proposed interim in-use standards;69 (2) adopt a stricter inducement schedule that
meaningfully incentivizes real-world compliance;70 and (3) further limit the use of NOx credits,
especially those generated from heavy-duty electric vehicles.71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1255-A1, p. 17]
69. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,563-5.
70. Id. at 17,536-46.
71. Id. at 17,556-62.
In sum, the States support Option 1 of EPA's Proposed Rule, and as detailed in these comments,
respectfully request that certain elements of the Proposed Rule be revised and strengthened
before finalization. Further, due to statutory lead time requirements, the States strongly urge EPA
to finalize the Proposed Rule by the end of this year to support standards for model year
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 28]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to highlight from the outset that while there are various details of EPA's
rulemaking proposal (particularly with respect to Option 1) that EMA and its members
262
-------
fundamentally disagree with, there are multiple major points of substantial agreement. In that
regard, EM A agrees with EPA that:
(i) The NOx emission standards for HDOH vehicles should be reduced substantially
starting in model year ("MY") 2027, perhaps by as much as 75% from the current
standards; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
(ii)
(iii) The current emission warranty and useful life periods for HDOH engines and
vehicles should be revised to increase the durability and efficacy of in-use emissions
compliance; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
(iv) Most or all of the multiple aftertreatment components that the Southwest Research
Institute ("SwRI") has configured and assessed in testing its "Stage 3" prototype engine
systems should be utilized by OEMs to achieve optimal NOx emission reductions from
HDOH engines starting in MY 2027; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
(v)...
(vi) The proposed low-NOx rulemaking should serve as a cost-effective bridge to the
transition of HDOH trucks to zero-emission vehicles ("ZEVs") in as many applications as
possible, and as soon as practical. ["..." above indicates text is included in other sections
of this Response to Comments document] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
Accordingly, EMA supports the Agency's overall objectives to: "1) control emissions over a
broader range of operating conditions; 2) maintain emissions control over a greater portion of an
engine's operational life; and 3) provide manufacturers with flexibilities to meet the proposed
standards." (87 FR at pp. 17420-21.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
In light of all of these major points of agreement, EMA is hopeful that the Agency's final rule
will be consensus-based, highly cost-effective, and fully implementable starting with the 2027
MY. EMA also hopes that all stakeholders will take note of the multiple major points of
agreement spelled out in these comments, and will not unduly focus on the finer points where
EMA and its members have data-driven disagreements with the Agency regarding the technical
feasibility of what the Agency has proposed, especially as pertains to Option 1. Again,
notwithstanding those differing fact-based assessments of what is feasible at the margins of
EPA's proposal, a consensus based rulemaking should be achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
In that regard, EMA and its members acknowledge the significant ozone air quality attainment
problems that still exist in several highly-populated areas of the country, and we recognize why
EPA is seeking additional HDOH NOx emission reductions and regulatory improvements.
EMA's members are willing to develop and introduce advanced low-NOx technology solutions
to effect very significant NOx reductions, including through the types of "Stage 3" emission-
control componentry being demonstrated at SwRI. Indeed, EMA encouraged prior
263
-------
Administrations to take the lead in proposing such next-tier low-NOx regulations. EMA remains
willing to collaborate on the finalization of an ambitious technology-forcing low-NOx program
that will yield substantial in-use NOx reductions, while avoiding the unintended consequences of
setting standards beyond the technical capabilities and compliance margins that frame what a
cost-effective program should be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 5-6]
Simply stated, EMA is fully committed to making this rulemaking a fully implementable
success. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 6]
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner:
(i) Any low-NOx program that the Agency finalizes must be a one-step program with one
set of new standards, not a multi-step program with increasingly stringent requirements.
All stakeholders should recognize that one of the core objectives of this rulemaking is to
establish a cost-effective "clean-diesel" bridge to a ZEV-truck future, which future will
be mapped out, in part, through EPA's anticipated "Phase 3" GHG rulemaking, set to be
proposed next year. The low-NOx requirements of this rule should not spill over into the
operative years of the envisioned Phase 3 rule. Otherwise, one of the unintended
consequences of this low-NOx rule will be to divert manufacturers' limited research and
development resources away from the primary long-term goal of transitioning the
commercial trucking industry to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 6]
(ii) ...
(iii) Manufacturers will not produce Option 1-compliant products because the Option 1
standards are not feasible. Accordingly, the FTP/RMC certification standards for NOx
must be set at Option 2-like levels, not 0.02 g/bhp-hr. Otherwise, the standards will fail to
provide the requisite compliance margins, which will render them infeasible in practice,
and will cause unacceptable compliance and recall risks for manufacturers. In addition, a
program centered around Option 2-like levels will be more beneficial from an emissions-
inventory perspective, once potential fleet turnover market responses, including pre-
buy/no-buy responses, are taken into account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
6]
(iv)...
(v)-(vi) ...
(vii) ...
(viii) The proposed low-NOx program should be revised so that there is a better overall
match of the program's costs and monetized health benefits, and, as noted, to guard
against counter-productive pre-buy/no-buy market responses
264
-------
(ix).... ["..." above indicates text is included in other sections of this Response to
Comments document] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 7]
As already noted, EMA's comments are being submitted to facilitate the full and successful
implementation of new HDOH emission standards, not to block that implementation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 8]
The Agency will need to fashion a final rule that can meet the broader goal at issue — to build a
cost-effective and accessible regulatory bridge to a ZEV-truck future. To that end, the Agency
will need to finalize just one set of HD low-NOx standards to take effect in MY 2027, not
multiple regulatory steps with multiple standards phasing-in through 2031 and beyond.
Otherwise, the low-NOx program for diesel engines will overlap with and undermine the
implementation of the "Phase 3" GHG standards (which are slated to lead to the broader
transition to ZEV trucks), and will divert OEM's inherently limited R&D resources to multiple
iterations of diesel engine enhancements instead of focusing those resources on the needed
advancements in HD ZEV technologies. All stakeholders recognize that diesel technologies will
start to phase-out over the next decade. The scope and costs of this rulemaking need to account
for and reflect that reality as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 8]
Section 202 of the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. §7521, governs the Agency's
establishment of emission standards for new mobile sources, including HDOH engines and
vehicles. CAA section 202(a)(3)(B) specifically governs the Agency's establishment of "revised
standards for heavy-duty trucks." Unlike the general standard-setting provisions contained
in section 202(a)(3)(A) - which call for the establishment of emission standards that "reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply" -
section 202(a)(3)(B), the specific provision that applies here, simply states that the Administrator
may set revised emissions standards "taking costs into account." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
Consequently, in assessing the details for the proposed revised low-NOx regulations at issue,
costs, not the absolute limits of potential technological feasibility, are a paramount consideration.
In this case, a full and fair consideration of costs and benefits leads to the conclusion that a low-
NOx program centered around an Option 2-like program will yield an optimized final rule, while
a program centered around the Option 1 proposal is simply not workable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 16]
CARB's recently promulgated Omnibus low-NOx regulations include a NOx standard reduced
by another 90% from the US10 limit, and another 50% reduction in the PM mass standard. The
PM reduction is intended primarily to serve as a backstop against the potential adoption of less
effective DPF designs than the current ceramic wall-flow systems capable of performing well
below the US 10 limit. The additional 90% NOx reduction, however, especially when coupled
with a new "low-load" certification cycle, and a completely new in-use emissions testing and
compliance protocol (with barely measurable NOx limits), presents an inherently infeasible
technical challenge for HDOH diesel engines. It should be noted that these aggressive targets are
actions to reduce the last 1 to 2% of NOx emissions from these engines. EPA's proposed
265
-------
"Option 1" mirrors the CARB Omnibus requirements in almost every respect, including a 0.020
g/bhp-hr NOx certification standard proposed to be effective in MY 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 17]
Throughout the rulemaking process for the Omnibus low-NOx regulations, CARB asserted that
its new low-NOx requirements are technically feasible. The primary basis for CARB's assertion,
like EPA's here, is the technology demonstration effort undertaken by Southwest Research
Institute ("SwRI"). CARB contracted with SwRI to develop a diesel engine and aftertreatment
prototype capable of meeting a 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx certification standard when aged to the
equivalent of 435,000 miles of operation. The 435,000 mile threshold is the current US 10 heavy
heavy-duty Useful Life requirement (CARB's rule extends that Useful Life requirement to
800,000 miles, but with a doubling of the NOx standard (to 0.04 g/bhp-hr) for the interval from
435,000 miles to 800,000 miles). SwRI modeled a variety of combinations of aftertreatment
components, coupled with engine improvements intended to elevate exhaust temperatures, and
ultimately focused on what came to be known as the "Stage 3" technology package for the
435,000 mile-aged emissions demonstration prototype. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
17]
To support its low-NOx rulemaking, EPA also contracted with SwRI to perform an aged
emissions demonstration with a technical solution very similar to the CARB "Stage 3"
technology package. Thus, the laboratory experiment that SwRI has run on the "Stage 3"
prototype is the sole source of actual emissions data supporting EPA's assertion regarding the
purported feasibility of the 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard. In some instances, that support
amounts to a single data point. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 17]
EMA has been engaging with EPA and CARB from the outset on these HDOH low-NOx
rulemakings, including the underlying SwRI demonstration program. Our conclusion is that the
Omnibus/Option 1 low-NOx standards have not been demonstrated to be technically feasible,
and are in fact infeasible, for the following reasons: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 17]
Our conclusion is that the Omnibus/Option 1 low-NOx standards have not been demonstrated to
be technically feasible, and are in fact infeasible, for the following reasons:
1) The aged-engine "Stage 3" NOx emissions results do not meet the proposed
future 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard across all required certification cycles, nor do
they consistently meet the in-use NOx standards when laboratory tested using
"road cycles" that mimic real world operation (which, practically speaking, makes
the case that the SwRI program was a demonstration of technical
infeasibility.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 18]
[see section 3.2.1 of this Response to Comments document for additional reasons
provided by the commenter]
EMA shares broad agreement with the Agency on all of the core concepts of the proposed
regulations. EMA's comments are therefore directed at the margins of EPA's proposal,
particularly with respect to Option 1, not at the NPRM's core objectives. To that end, EMA has
266
-------
offered detailed recommended revisions, along with a more over-arching recommendation that
the proposed regulations should be centered around revised Option 2-like requirements to
enhance the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the Agency's proposal. The changes that EMA
recommends are not material from an overall emissions inventory perspective, but are vitally
important to the finalization of a fully implementable low-NOx rulemaking that can serve as a
cost-effective bridge to a ZEV-truck future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 173]
The stakes of this rulemaking are very high. Indeed, if EPA were to finalize its proposed Option
1, that would, as a practical matter, preclude the production and sale of HD diesel engines
starting in 2027. OEMs cannot and so will not be able to build Option 1-compliant products.
Such an unacceptable outcome from this rulemaking must be avoided. EMA is ready to work
with the Agency to fashion the necessary revisions that will lead to the finalization, adoption and
implementation of the fully optimized low-NOx program for new HDOH engines and vehicles
that all stakeholders are seeking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 173]
EPA's "Clean Trucks Plan" is a rulemaking that will significantly impact all of the core elements
of EPA's HDOH diesel-emissions control program. The NPRM proposes sweeping changes to
those core regulatory program components, including up to a 90% reduction of the applicable
NOx standard, reopened reductions to the Phase 2 C02 emissions standards, an entirely new
certification test procedure targeting operating modes never-before regulated, and a completely
overhauled in-use emissions protocol, which requires a careful analysis of PEMS-based (and
OBD) in-use measurement capabilities and procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
170]
Until all of the foregoing research needs are met in a comprehensive and credible manner, the
record supporting the Agency's rulemaking will be at risk of being deemed incomplete
and insufficient. This is a fundamental problem that will require collaboration to resolve. Falling
that, this is a problem that could preclude the implementation of a final rule on the timeline that
EPA is trying to maintain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 172 - 173]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Accordingly, TRALA supports the Option 2 certification standard of .05. That said, we urge
EPA to work with CARB and the other states who have pledged to adopt CARBs standards for
NOx, to persuade those states not to proceed with regulations that would exceed the EPA's
standard. TRALA urges the EPA to adopt regulations based on Option 2 and to work with every
state including California to agree to a new national low-NOx certification standard of .05.
TRALA believes that a national standard would reduce the regulatory burden on the OEMs that
would not have to meet multiple standards in a shortened time period. A national standard of .05
would reduce the catastrophic disruption these rules could have on the new and used truck
markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 4]
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
While we are supportive of a national standard that drives cutting-edge technology deployment
and lowers emissions, the Chamber has strong concerns that, as proposed, EPA's preferred
267
-------
Option 1 fails to adhere to these core principles, and as a result would likely lead to unintended
negative consequences for both the economy and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1245-Al,pp. 2-3]
Relatedly, we have concerns that the reasoning and factual predicates for aspects of the proposed
rule are undermined by weaknesses that give rise to legal vulnerabilities. As EPA acknowledges,
section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides that standards to regulate air pollutants from
mobile sources "shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit
the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to
the cost of compliance within such period." Accordingly, as EPA notes, in establishing or
revising such standards, "EPA also must consider issues of technological feasibility, compliance
cost, and lead time," and "may consider other factors such as safety," as well as "the impacts of
potential standards on the heavy-duty industry, fuel savings, oil conservation, energy security
and other energy impacts." (See also Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3), as further discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule.) Careful attention to each relevant factor must be given in
proposing and promulgating new standards; and to the extent that an agency decision ignores
significant factual problems, including questions of practicability, or otherwise is incomplete or
erroneous, the agency risks invalidation of its decision pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the
Administrative Procedure Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 3]
Opportunity cost impacts associated with diversion of capital away from Zero-Emissions Vehicle
(ZEV) investments. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) are undertaking enormous
investments to develop zero-emissions vehicles that will power the future transportation system.
The Chamber has serious concerns that if finalized as proposed, EPA's rulemaking will require
OEMs to divert significant amounts of capital investment — currently planned for ZEV
development — into compliance with this rulemaking. This would not just impact the trucking
industry's efforts to plan for the energy transition; it would have implications for a broad range
of economic sectors in the form of customers and fleet owners working to address greenhouse
gas emissions throughout their supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 8]
The framework outlined in Option 2 would provide more of an incentive for turnover of older
fleet vehicles due to more familiar technology and lower costs for replacement vehicles,
particularly those heavy-duty trucks that were certified prior to model year 2010. Around fifty
percent of trucks on the road today are certified to meet EPA's 2010 standards, so a large
percentage of the fleet is still emitting significantly higher levels of NOx due to lack of fleet
turnover. For example, the emissions from one truck certified to 2006 standards is equivalent to
10 trucks certified to the 2010 standards, and one truck certified to the 1990 standards is
equivalent to 30 trucks certified to the 2010 standards. The air quality improvements attributable
to retiring these older vehicles are tremendous, especially in communities where there is a large
concentration of diesel vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 8]
The opportunities for this rulemaking are similar and illustrate why it is so important to set
durable, achievable, and cost-effective standards. The framework described in Option 2 offers
the best ability to achieve emissions reductions that will benefit communities most impacted by
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 9]
268
-------
Technological feasibility and compliance costs go hand in hand. Establishing standards that are
technologically feasible will help ensure that standards are achievable and cost-effective.
Although the agency views these standards to be technology-forcing, the timeline for actual
adoption of those technologies in the marketplace will in significant part depend upon the
increased cost to consumers for the new vehicles. Other aspects of the design and successful
deployment of new technologies needed to meet more stringent environmental standards can
sometimes be difficult for companies and the agency to anticipate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1245-A1, p. 9]
Many companies are investing significantly in new, lower-emitting and zero-emitting medium-
duty and heavy-duty vehicles across various vehicle classes; however, overcoming consumer
acceptance is one challenge that is difficult to anticipate and to model. This is a particularly
important issue when considering major shifts in technology or compliance costs, as mentioned
above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 9]
Other challenges also remain for engine and vehicle manufacturers as consumers and fleet
owners may need to make significant investments in charging infrastructure necessary to support
zero-emitting vehicles. For smaller fleets, it raises more uncertainty as they will increasingly rely
on infrastructure investments made at the federal and state levels. Adding better performing
engine or post-combustion emissions control technologies to meet the proposed requirements for
Option 2 will pose challenges, and the specific provisions of Option 2, as proposed, should be
carefully considered and adjusted to ensure feasibility and to avoid imposing unnecessary costs
and burdens; however, Option 2 would likely not require the same shift in infrastructure that
Option 1 would demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
Some additional costs attributable to Option 1 also merit thorough consideration. First,
consumers and fleet owners who choose to adopt zero or near-zero emitting vehicles would need
to consider the cost and time needed to install recharging and other fueling infrastructure at
appropriate distances across their distribution supply chains to avoid disruptions. Second, EPA
should consider the costs due to optimization of distribution routes, as companies would spend
significant resources on optimizing their supply chains to reduce operating costs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 10]
The Chamber supports EPA's efforts to continue making progress to reduce emissions from the
mobile source sector and strongly recommends that the agency avoid the numerous potential
counterproductive economic and environmental consequences that could result from Option 1 of
the proposal. Instead, EPA should proceed toward a final rule based on the framework outlined
in Option 2, while making sensible modifications and clarifications in the framework as
appropriate to ensure feasibility, maximize legal defensibility, and promote reductions in a cost-
effective fashion, while reducing unwarranted and unnecessary burdens on innovation and
investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 11]
269
-------
Organization: University of California, Berkeley, The Goldman School, Center for
Environmental Policy
We find the differences between the President's climate commitment scenario and the current
EPA proposal to be notable across many elements of analysis:
Air pollution: While the EPA Proposed rules would reduce NOx emissions from new trucks,
President's Climate Commitment scenario would nearly eliminate them, which would
dramatically reduce the PM2.5 exposures and avoid 70,000 premature deaths over the EPA
proposed rules. This is an important environmental justice issue. Studies have shown that low
income groups and minorities bear a disproportionate proportion of the environmental burden
from freight movement. For instance, it is estimated that in California, African American, Latino,
and Asian Californians experience, respectively, 43, 39, and 21% higher levels of PM2.5
pollution from cars, trucks, and buses relative to white Californians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1327-A1, p. 2]
In total, the air pollution and C02 emissions reductions in the President's Climate Commitment
scenario equate to over $500 billion in health and environmental savings through 2050,
compared with the EPA Proposed rules. The net economic and environmental benefit of the
President's Climate Commitment case over the EPA proposed case is over $1.5 trillion through
2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Union of Concerned Scientists
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Dr. David Cooke, Union of Concerned Scientists]
The heavy-duty truck rules proposed by EPA are the first step the Agency has taken and over 20
years to limit the harmful particulate and smog-forming emissions from heavy-duty trucks.
USCIS is concerned that even after so much time, EPA's proposal matches neither the need nor
the technical capacity to reduce these harmful emissions. Today, we have the opportunity to
eliminate the harmful truck emissions that plague local communities. Unfortunately, EPA's rule
chooses to treat these zero-emission vehicles as a curiosity, and yet even as the Agency ignores
the market readiness and technical potential of such zero-emission vehicles, its proposal also
fails to propose a standard for diesel trucks that reflects the best available conventional
technologies. UCS is an advocate for science-based policy. As such, we simply ask EPA to look
at the data. Together with the California Air Resources Board, EPA has funded millions of
dollars of research at the Southwest Research Institute, yet it has in inexplicably deviated from
what that data supports, which is the omnibus regulations. EPA must align it standards,
beginning in 2027, with the omnibus. The Agency has already chosen to adopt the structure of
the omnibus, which UCS supports, including the addition of a low load cycle, a more robust in-
use testing program, and extended full useful lifetimes and warranties. The omnibus was adopted
by California and now other states after a successful multi-year process, and the Agency's own
data supports the diesel emission reductions required under the omnibus, so it's unclear why EPA
has chosen to adopt these structural elements while not also proposing stringencies in line with
that program. With regards to electric vehicles, EPA's proposal has unfortunately adopted the
worst of all options. It has chosen to credit these vehicles under the NOx Program while
ignoring them as a NOx solution in setting the standard. This means that every electric truck
270
-------
sold, including those already required under state policies, will lead to a dirtier diesel truck being
sold. This is untenable for communities dealing with truck pollution. EPA must make a choice:
either fully recognized zero-emission vehicles and set a NOx standard predicated on the sale of
such vehicles, or it should exclude credits for electric trucks entirely to guarantee emissions
reductions from the dirty diesel trucks driving through freight-impacted communities. UCS can
provide technical and economic data to support our various asks regarding EPA's policy, and we
will continue to engage with EPA to strengthen the rule. If EPA is to uphold its technology-
forcing mandate under the Clean Air Act, we expect a final rule that will reduce emissions from
diesel trucks in line with the omnibus regulation and for EPA to ensure 50 percent of new trucks
sold in 2030 are zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department
Option 1 in Section IX clearly is preferable to Option 2 and would more closely reflect that
which is as clean as possible with respect to nitrogen oxide emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Valeria Trujilo Aguilar
Therefore, on behalf of private citizens living and working in Denver exposed to dangerous
levels of NOX and 03,1 submit comments in support of the advanced notice of proposed rule for
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards or Cleaner
Trucks Initiative (CTI) released on January 6, 2020. A recommendation to reduce criteria
pollutant emission standards and shorter useful life periods for new heavy-duty diesel and
gasoline engines used in Class 2b through 8 vehicles by 2027 as proposed in Option 2 is highly
favorable due to the potential to help states like Colorado meet National Air Quality Standards
sooner and combat air quality challenges such as ozone pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1223]
I fully support the implementation of stringent NOx emission standards proposed in Option 2 of
ANPR Clean Trucks Initiative [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA is required to consider impacts on endangered species of any action that may affect a listed
species or any critical habitat for a listed species. In the proposal, however, EPA does not
mention consideration of impacts on endangered species or any consultation required by the
Endangered Species Act. EPA's proposal to shift the heavy-duty engine/vehicle market to
electric vehicles should account for the emissions expected from production of electric vehicles,
batteries, and the electricity for the vehicles, including the harm to endangered species from
mines, windmills, and solar fields as well as the environmental impacts from any new mineral
extraction facilities, including open-pit and subsea mining, as well as mineral processing and
battery manufacturing facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.8]
271
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group strongly supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (the Agency) goal of
significantly decreasing criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty engines, particularly for
those local communities where air quality does not meet National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 2]
If we are to truly maximize emission reductions, it is critical that this new federal oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) standard under the Clean Trucks Plan be stringent enough to improve air quality
- particularly in environmental justice communities - without creating unintended consequences
that could postpone market adoption of cleaner technology vehicles and undermine the goals the
regulation is seeking to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 2]
While both options proposed by the EPA in the NPRM are extremely aggressive, we are
convinced that, as currently drafted, both would fail to produce the anticipated real-world
emission reductions. In fact, it is precisely because we believe both options would foster
unintended consequences that would undermine the agency's air quality and climate change
goals that we are advocating for a modified version of Option 2 as providing the best opportunity
for success. Without some modifications to finalize a robust, achievable version of Option 2, we
fear the regulation could worsen air quality as older technology stays on roads longer, and the
introduction of ZEVs (Zero Emission Vehicles) across the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
market is delayed due to overly burdensome costs on both fleets and OEMs (Original Equipment
Manufacturers). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 2]
Having said this, the Volvo Group agrees with EPA that the NOx emission standards for heavy
duty on highway (HDOH) vehicles should be reduced substantially starting in model year (MY)
2027; we also agree with EMA that this reduction could be as much as 75% from the current
standard. Achieving our air quality and climate change goals requires a pragmatic accounting of
the many factors that must be addressed if we are to be successful. The Volvo Group is working
towards a commercial ZEV future. We want to manufacture the cleanest possible diesel vehicles
which encourage fleet adoption, while maximizing our investment in accelerating zero emission
technology in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, pp. 2-3]
The Volvo Group, the industry, and a host of other stakeholders have worked with the Agency in
good faith over several decades to reduce NOx and particulate matter (PM) emissions from
heavy-duty trucks and buses by 98% from unregulated levels. The industry has invested billions
of dollars to develop advanced, durable technical solutions and engine calibrations to meet this
challenge, just as our customers invest heavily in clean air with every new truck purchase. These
efforts have paid huge dividends in air quality improvements. Even today, the level of
improvement is remarkable, especially given that less than 50% of the heavy-duty fleet is
operating with the latest advancements in NOx emissions control as driven by EPA's fully
phased-in 2007/2010 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 3]
EPA's analysis when setting new NOx standards must give full weight to the gains that will
naturally play out as the remainder of the fleet is steadily upgraded to the latest control
technology. New vehicles compliant to the new 2027 NOx standards promulgated under the
272
-------
Cleaner Trucks regulation will not begin to have an appreciable environmental impact until some
years later. Any technological advancements needed to chip away at the remaining 1 to 2% of
residual NOx emissions will come at a much higher cost per ton than the achievements of the
previous two decades. Such costs and the associated development efforts will be additive to the
technology advancements already committed by EPA's comprehensive, technology-forcing
greenhouse gas regulations. These requisite costs, the current positive trajectory toward
widespread ozone attainment, and the inevitable negative consequences to greenhouse gas
requirements present and future, demand that the Agency take extreme care when establishing
this next set of NOx standards and related protocols. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 3]
The Volvo Group is fully aligned with EMA's comments in opposition to the Proposed Option 1
Certification NOx Standard. As EMA noted, EPA has not demonstrated the full useful life
feasibility of this standard with the associated C02 standard. The exhaust thermal management
required to achieve this lower NOx standard makes the existing GHG (Greenhouse Gas) C02
reduction even more challenging. Technical feasibility must consider the needed margin for
aging, production, fuel quality, and measurement variability. The premise that this standard can
be reached is based on only one set of data as part of a prototype engine operating in a test
environment and not in a vehicle operating under real world conditions across the full range of
customer applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 3]
The proposed longer 600,000-mile and 800,000-mile useful life requirements drive greater aging
margin and greater warranty challenges, making the extrapolation of test cell results as proof for
real life durability at those levels to be impracticable. Demonstrating the technical feasibility of
such an aggressive standard requires a broad full useful life in-use evaluation of the vehicle
achieving all the requirements with sufficient margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p.
3]
It is important to elaborate further that NOx reductions are always paid for with C02. Even if
there is a technology capable of reducing both NOx and C02, it does not eliminate the diesel
engine N0x/C02 tradeoff governed by the laws of physics, but merely shifts the tradeoff curve.
As the graphic below illustrates, once EPA has committed manufacturers to the deployment of
costly technology through rulemaking, the Agency controls where along the new N0x/C02
tradeoff curve the engine is to be calibrated. The lower the NOx standard, the higher the C02
emissions. Whether motivated by future GHG rules or market pressures for fuel economy, the
lower NOx standard will limit current and future potential C02 gains. The point is, EPA should
be certain that the NOx reductions demanded by these new standards will be considered of
higher priority in the timeframe that compliant products will have a meaningful environmental
impact (post-2030) than the C02 reductions they will forever preclude. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1324-A1, p. 4]
In conclusion, the Volvo Group believes the following principles must be reflected in the final
regulation: a single step NOx reduction which accounts for the additional C02 emission
reductions required of OEMs under the existing Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 regulation in
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
273
-------
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
With respect to the NOx portion of the proposal, we urge the EPA to disregard Option 2, which
would require full implementation of the NOx standard starting with model year 2027. The EPA
should not opt for the weakest proposal. As the Agency rightly points out, Option 2 would
achieve 75% less NOx emissions reductions than today's standards in addition to having less
stringent useful life and warranty periods. The Agency should be ambitious to safeguard low-
income communities of color throughout the country and not pander to internal pressures or
industry polluters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.3]
Instead, the EPA should pursue and enhance Option 1,which can achieve 90% NOx emissions
reductions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines by 2027 relative to 2010
standards and aligns with California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule. 18 Meeting or exceeding the
omnibus program is the level of lifesaving ambition needed to deliver clean air to overburdened
communities before 2031. Research shows that alignment with the rule could avoid $1.3 trillion
in health damages linked to fine particulates and ozone pollution from 2027-2050.19 In addition,
the EPA should not allow crediting as it compromises the NOx emission standard, and allows
dirty diesel trucks and buses to continue to be sold, compounding air pollution and health
burdens for the 72 million people, many of which are low-income and people color living within
200 meters of major trucking routes for years to come.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1,
p.3]
18 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
19 https://theicct.org/publication/air-quality-and-health-impacts-of-heavy-duty-vehicles-
in-g20-economies/
20 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf
Organization: Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)
As noted in the proposal, it has been over 20 years since the last revisions to NOx standards for
on-highway heavy-duty trucks and engines, while the total vehicle miles traveled by these
mobile sources has steadily increased. We agree that emission control technologies have
improved and will continue to improve. Along with implementing better technologies, it is
important that EPA accelerate fleet changes so that emissions reductions in both urban and rural
vehicle populations benefit state Clean Air Act planning requirements due within the next 10
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1230-A1, p.l]
Reducing mobile emissions is important to Western states because they are a large part of the
emissions inventory in the West. These reductions can be achieved with existing emission
control technologies that were funded and fostered through partnerships between EPA,
California and other states, and industry. While several western states that adopted California's
vehicle standards under Section 177 of the Clean Air Actl will benefit from these newer
technologies, the greater benefit will be achieved when emissions reductions are implemented
through a national rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1230-A1, p.l]
274
-------
1 42 U.S.C. §7507.
One of EPA's stated goals with this proposed rule is to help states comply with the ozone
NAAQS and improve visibility as part of the Regional Haze program. The proposal states that
"The proposed Option 1 standards would significantly decrease ozone concentrations across the
country, with a population- weighted average decrease of over 2 ppb in 2045.4 " In terms of
emissions reductions, EPA estimates that Option 1 would reduce NOx emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles in 2040 by more than 50 percent and by 60 percent in 2045. Most nonattainment
areas for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS are required to attain the standard within the next six
years (2028). While the proposed emission reductions are welcome, they will be too late to
impact current ozone nonattainment areas and won't prevent the short-term transport of pollution
throughout the western states. For this reason, we encourage EPA to find ways to foster quicker
adoption of heavy-duty engine controls and technology within the industry through incentives
and the proposed early adoption credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1230-Al,pp.3-4]
4 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed Reg. 17427 (March 28, 2022)
Organization: William F. Limpert
I appreciate EPA's work in proposing these rules, and in protecting our environment, our
climate, and our fellow citizens. Full adoption of these rules will offer great public benefit, and I
am very grateful for President Biden through his August 5, 2021 Executive Order, and EPA for
moving forward with these major steps toward a better future, including full electrification of
this industry as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I agree with EPA's assessment that failure to act to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions
would result in continued negative health impacts, further catastrophic impacts to our climate,
both now, and in the future, poor air quality and visibility, and higher costs, especially for those
who would be most impacted by negative health and climate impacts, generally our fellow
citizens of low income status. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I would like to see EPA adopt Proposed Option 1 for reducing NOx emissions from heavy duty
vehicles, since this option would achieve more emission reductions than Proposed Option 2.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I would like to see EPA require longer useful life periods for engines, and longer emission
warranties to better assure decreased NOx emissions over the life of the vehicle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I would like to see EPA further tighten the "Phase 2" GHG standards for certain subcategories of
vehicles, and to further increase the stringency of the standards beyond what is currently
proposed for MYs 2027 through 2029, including progressively stronger C02 standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
I would like to see EPA set stronger emission standards for MY 2027 and later commercial
pickup trucks and vans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
275
-------
I would also prefer that the time frames for adoption of these standards be shortened as much as
possible, and the new limits be tightened as much as possible beyond what EPA has proposed.
Any delays or compromised limits will cause more health issues, and drive us further down a
catastrophic climate hole that we may not be able to escape. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
EPA should finalize the more stringent Option 1. By 2045, Option 1 will reduce nationwide NOx
emissions by about 120,000 tons more per year than Option 2. These additional NOx reductions
are a critical part of the multi-sector, regional strategy required to ensure Wisconsin's ozone
nonattainment areas are able to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA modeling shows that
without this rule Sheboygan County would remain in nonattainment through at least 2045, 30
years after the standard was promulgated. The same modeling shows that under Option 1, ozone
at Sheboygan would decrease by 1.9 ppb by 2045, helping the area to attain the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 2]
Highway heavy-duty NOx controls have simply not kept pace with reductions from other sectors.
Prior to this proposal, heavy-duty NOx standards had not been updated for 20 years, despite the
availability of demonstrated technology. EPA must take this opportunity to set more stringent
NOx standards for heavyduty vehicles as soon as possible, but no later than MY 2027. Per 40
CFR 1036.150(a)(2), manufacturers must have four or more model years of lead time to meet
revised criteria pollutant standards that would begin to apply. Therefore, revised standards
applicable to MY 2027 must be finalized before January 1, 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1162-A1, p. 3]
Emission control technology for heavy-duty vehicles will continue to advance. It is critical that
EPA plan to review the NOx standards for heavy-duty vehicles more frequently moving forward
and commit to revising standards soon after new technologies are adequately
demonstrated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3]
Achieving GHG emission reductions from onroad vehicles, including heavy-duty vehicles, is a
critical component to achieving long-term climate goals. EPA's continued efforts to improve the
current Phase 2 GHG program for heavy-duty vehicles and upcoming commitment to set new
GHG and fuel efficiency standards for MY 2030 are welcome.3 EPA's efforts to reduce GHG
emissions must not delay final action on the much-needed NOx engine standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 4]
3. Executive Order 14037, Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in
Clean Cars and Trucks. August 2021.
As previously described, the NOx standards must be finalized by December 2022. Should EPA
determine it is not able to finalize the targeted updates to the Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 program
on the same timeline, the updates to the Phase 2 program should be finalized separately. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 4]
276
-------
Organization: Worldwide Equipment Enterprises, Inc.
Because of this role, Worldwide Equipment opposes this additional regulatory burden as it is
being proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1275-A1, p.l]
Worldwide Equipment's opposition to the Proposed Rule is due to several
reasons. The first, and primary, reason is that the new requirements within
Option #1 are technologically infeasible and, therefore, not realistic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1275-A1, p.l]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
Based on ZETA's comprehensive understanding of the EV market and our shared goals to
improve public health and environmental protection, we urge EPA to adopt NOx emissions
standards at least as stringent as Option 1. EPA's Option 2 is not stringent enough compared
to Option 1 because it has lower NOx emission standards and assumes shorter useful life periods.
Therefore, adopting Option 2—which would reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by just 47%
in 2045—would ensure that we fall far short of our emissions reduction goals. In turn, this would
have significant public health and corresponding economic consequences. The resulting analysis
shows that Option 1 is technically feasible and would result in a greater reduction of emissions.
However, based on available technologies, we believe that EPA should adopt a standard even
more stringent than Option 1. The market for Class 2b and heavier electric vehicles (EVs) is
prepared for a more stringent rule than EPA determined in its initial assessment. EPA should also
increase the stringency of the Model Year (MY) 2027-2030 GHG standards by eliminating
multipliers for HDEVs. Issuing a more stringent rule will send a strong market signal to
manufacturers that zero- and low-emission vehicles are the future, which will enable EPA to
issue strong Phase 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) standards that align with California's standards.
Strong Phase 3 standards will be necessary to achieve the electrification goals President Biden
called for in his executive order, 1 and they will be imperative in our collective effort to meet
international climate commitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.l]
lhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/08/05/executive-
order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-carsand-trucks/
EPA should implement a more stringent rule than Option 1. The proposed options do not
adequately reflect advancements in zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology. The number of
HDVs on the road has grown significantly and can be expected to increase further as a result of
the ongoing global e-commerce boom.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.3]
16 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-11-16/theelectric-vehicle-
invasion-is-already-here
EPA Summary and Response
Numerous commenters provided general input on the stringency of the proposed criteria
pollutant standards. This section briefly summarizes the main themes across comments, which
277
-------
include: 1. General Support for One of the Proposed Options or Opposition to the Proposed Rule;
2. Consideration of ZEVs in the Final Standards; 3. Single- or Two-step Program. EPA's
responses to each theme immediately follow the theme summary; given the general nature of
comments in this section, our responses point readers to other relevant sections of this Response
to Comments document, or the preamble for detailed discussion relevant to these comments.
General Support for One of the Proposed Options, or Opposition to the Proposed Rule
Many commenters supported proposed Option 1; some of these commenters suggested specific
modifications to proposed Option 1. For example, some of these commenters urged EPA to
adopt standards more stringent than proposed Option 1, with several commenters stating that
EPA should fully align with the CARB HD Omnibus program and/or adopt the Alternative
presented in the proposal. In addition, many of these commenters further stated what they
characterized would be necessary for EPA to meet the Clean Air Act requirements to adopt
standards that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, with some
stakeholders stating that only proposed Option 1 standards would fulfill the requirements, while
others stated neither proposed Options 1 or 2 would fulfill the requirements and only standards
more stringent than proposed Option 1 (e.g., full alignment with the CARB Omnibus or the
Alternative included in the proposal) would fulfill the requirements. One commenter further
stated that the proposed rule did not fulfill EPA's duty to set standards that will "most effectively
'promote public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population'". A subset of
commenters also raised concerns that some of the compliance flexibilities in the proposed rule
would reduce the stringency of the final standards.
In addition, some of these commenters stated that adopting standards at least as stringent as
proposed Option 1 would be consistent with EPA's commitment to addressing environmental
injustices and reducing air pollution that disproportionately impacts environmental justice
communities. One commenter further stated that the proposal did not fulfill EPA's duty under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to avoid actions that create disparate impacts on communities of
color and low-income communities. A subset of commenters also stated that EPA's feasibility
analysis did not fully credit the emissions reductions capabilities of different types of emission
control technologies (i.e., variable valve actuation strategies, mild hybridization, and opposed-
piston engines); these commenters pointed to a report on the technological feasibility of cylinder
deactivation, mild hybridization, and limiting auxiliary emissions control devices
Many other commenters stated that proposed Option 1 standards would not be technologically
feasible, and urged EPA to adopt proposed Option 2, or something similar in terms of stringency
of the standards. Some engine manufacturers pointed to concerns related to meeting the proposed
Option 1 standards over multiple duty-cycles and stated that the engine demonstration testing
EPA has conducted did not adequately show the proposed standards are feasible; some
commenters further pointed to concerns related to packaging emission control systems in
existing vehicles. Some engine manufacturers also stated that, in their view, reducing NOx
emissions would result in higher emissions of CO2. Other commenters note that improving fleet
turnover is important for reducing emissions from heavy-duty engines and state that the proposed
Option 2 standards, or standards similar in terms of stringency would better encourage fleet
turnover. Still other commenters expressed concerns related to meeting the proposed standards
278
-------
over the longer useful life periods included in either of the proposed options, but particularly the
useful life periods in proposed Option 1. In addition, several commenters opposed both of the
proposed options and urged EPA to consider unintended consequences of setting standards that
are too stringent (e.g., reduced fleet turnover). For example, while one commenter welcomed the
proposed updates to inducements and serviceability, they expressed concerns that more stringent
emissions standards would result in more complex and expensive engines and emission control
technologies.
Some of these commenters also discussed their views on the need for adequate compliance
margin in the final standards. Several engine manufacturers stated that additional margin is
needed under either proposed option, but particularly the most stringent step of proposed Option
1 to ensure that the final standards will be met throughout the useful life period of the final
standards. In contrast, other commenters, including suppliers of heavy-duty emission control
components, stated that existing data show sufficient margin to meet the proposed Option 1
standards.
In addition, some commenters provide perspectives on lead time for the final standards. A subset
of some commenters stated additional lead time would be needed to meet the proposed
standards, particularly the proposed Option 1 MY 2031 standards; some of these commenters
further expressed concerns that the reliability and affordability of new trucks would be impacted
without additional lead time to meet the MY 2027 standards under either of the proposed
options. In contrast, other commenters stated that work funded by CARB, EPA, and others has
been ongoing for years and should serve as a basis for setting very stringent standards starting in
MY 2027. One commenter suggested EPA should "increase the strictness" annually or every 2-3
years. Still other commenters noted that the final standards would not be in place in a timely
enough manner from their perspectives (e.g., to impact current ozone nonattainment areas), and
thus urged EPA to incentivize the early introduction of emission control technologies.
Finally, some commenters reference the proposed averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program, with several commenters urging EPA to lower the proposed Family Emission Limit
(FEL) caps, not include the proposed NOx emission credit multipliers, or otherwise adjust the
proposed ABT program. Commenters also provided varying perspectives on some of the
proposed compliance flexibilities. For instance, some commenters strongly opposed the EPA
request for comment in the proposal to allow manufacturers to produce up to five percent of their
production volume in model years 2027 through 2029 as compliant with the existing standards;
however, other commenters stated that this type of allowance would be necessary to ensure a
smooth transition to new standards, particularly for small volume products.
Response:
Section 1 of this Response to Comments document discusses EPA responses to more general
comments that support or oppose the proposed rule. Preamble Sections I III, and IV include more
detailed discussion on the final standards. Specifically, as discussed in Sections I.D and III. A,
EPA is promulgating the new heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards under our authority
279
-------
in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A)4 and the final standards reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology that we have determined will be
available for MY 2027, giving appropriate consideration to the statutory factors. EPA's
assessment of the statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission
standards. As an initial matter, we disagree with commenters that seemingly assert EPA must
demonstrate technical feasibility through demonstration data of an engine actually meeting the
standards at the time of promulgating the standards; rather, our technology-forcing statutory
authority under CAA 202(a)(3)(A) is such that we must project future technology and provide a
reasoned explanation for believing that projection is reliable.5. Nevertheless, data from our
engine demonstration programs do meet the final standards, supporting our determination that
the final standards are technically feasible. The final standards are appropriately based on further
consideration of the data included in the proposed rule, as well as additional supporting data
from our own test programs, and consideration of the extensive public input EPA received in
response to the proposed rule.6
As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule (87 FR 17417, March 28, 2022), we have
considered a range of options (proposed Options 1 and 2, and the range between them); in setting
the final standards, we gave appropriate consideration to the statutory factors as those factors
would apply for each of the options. We note that, in reference to commenters' assertions that
EPA stated in the proposed rule that proposed Option 1 would meet the requirements of CAA
section 202(a)(3), we have refined in the final rule our assessments and consideration of the
feasibility of the combination of the standards and useful life periods, particularly for the largest
CI engines (Heavy heavy-duty engines (Heavy HDEs)), such that the final standards and
requirements reflect our assessment of the CAA section 202(a)(3) factors, as discussed
immediately above in this section. We further note that, as described in the preamble of the
proposed rule (87 FR 17421, March 28, 2022), EPA is unable to conclude that the Alternative is
feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe over the useful life periods in the Alternative in light of
deterioration in the emission control technologies that we have evaluated, and we did not receive
additional supporting data or other information that leads us to be able to conclude that the
4 Regarding the comment stating that EPA is setting standards under CAA section 202(a)(3)(B), the commenter has
failed to adequately explain why CAA section 202(a)(3)(B) does not allow EPA to set the technology-forcing
standards we are promulgating in this rule. CAA section 202(a)(3)(B) is not so limited nor does it require EPA to
give greater weight to reducing costs. We also note that, as explained elsewhere in this response, EPA has
considered costs in setting the final standards.
5 See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 331-334 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (determining that there is
substantial room for deference to EPA's expertise in projecting the likely course of development; that a reasonable
basis would be demonstrated where EPA answers any theoretical objections to control technologies, identifies the
major steps necessary to refine the technology, and offers plausible reasons for believing that each of those steps can
be completed in the time available; and that EPA is not required to rebut all speculation that unspecified factors may
hinder "real world" emission control); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 410, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
6 In response to one commenter's statement that EPA has a "to make available to the public when a proposed action
is published for public comment the data developed by the Agency and used for making its decision", the data
supporting the proposed rule was included in the public docket for this rulemaking at the time of publication of the
proposal; as appropriate, we have continued to added relevant, supporting information for transparency with the
public.
280
-------
Alternative is feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe.7 Preamble Sections III and IV, and RIA
Chapter 3, as well as section 3.2 of this document, include additional details on our assessment
of the final standards, including our consideration of the technologies available to achieve the
greatest degree of emission reduction in MY 2027, meeting the final standards over the useful
life periods in the final rule, emission control performance over multiple test cycles, packaging
constraints, impacts on CO2 emissions, compliance margin, and lead time in the final rule.8 In
response to the commenter requesting annual changes to the emission standards, we note that our
authority under CAA section 202(a)(3) requires that we provide three years of stability in
promulgating criteria pollutant emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles or engines. In
response to comments that EPA's technical feasibility analysis did not fully credit emission
control technologies, we refer to RIA Chapter 3 for our analysis of the emissions reductions from
the technologies included in our engine demonstration programs, and note that manufacturers
may choose other technology pathways to comply with the final performance-based standards
(see preamble Section III and section 3.10 of this Response to Comments document for
additional discussion on other technology pathways to meet the final standards). As discussed, in
RIA Chapter 3, the technologies we expect to be used to meet the final standards build upon the
technologies used in today's light- and heavy-duty engines, which we expect will significantly
reduce the potential complexity, reliability, and affordability concerns some commenters raise.
Our costs analysis of the final standards (i.e., cost of compliance for manufacturer associated
with the application of such technology) is included in preamble Sections III and V, with
additional detail in RIA Chapters 3 and 7 and section 18 of this document. As explained in
preamble Sections V-X and XII and sections 17-27 this document, we also evaluated additional
factors, including factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lend further
support to the final rule.
Our discussion of environmental justice and the impacts of this final rule on communities
overburdened by pollution is included in preamble Sections VII and XII, with additional
information in section 23 of this Response to Comments document. EPA is committed to taking
decisive action to advance environmental justice and civil rights as part of its FY2022-2026
Strategic Plan. This rulemaking advances that strategic goal by setting stronger national emission
standards for heavy duty engines and vehicles. In response to commenters who discuss the
7 We disagree with one commenter's perspective that EPA should conduct additional analyses of the Alternative
presented in the proposal, as well as proposed Option 2. As described in the proposed rule, and noted here, EPA
lacked information on what technology pathway(s) would be necessary to meet the standards of the Alternative
presented, and therefore was unable to conduct an analysis of costs and benefits. Similarly, as discussed in this
section and preamble Sections I and III of the final rule, the final standards reflect the maximum emission reductions
achievable based on our analyses and consideration of relevant statutory factors, and our assessment is that the more
stringent aspects of the proposed Option 1 not adopted in the final rule would necessitate additional or different
technology than what we analyzed at proposal. Also as noted in the proposed rule, due to resource constraints, we
only conducted air quality modeling for the proposed Option 1.
8 We note that some commenters point to certification data some engine manufacturers provided to CARB as
evidence that manufacturers are currently capable of controlling emissions below the existing standards; however,
some engine manufacturers stated in their comments that they chose not to generate emission credits from these
engines certified to NOx emission levels below the existing standards. Manufacturers further stated in their
comments that, in their view, the certification data indicated that they had accounted for deterioration and other
factors that can impact emissions performance in the field over the current useful life period, rather than declaring an
FEL below the standard to generate credits as they likely were not confident they could comply with a lower
emission limit in-use for the existing full useful life.
281
-------
importance of fleet turnover for reducing emissions, we point to discussion in preamble Section
X and section 25 of this Response to Comments document; section 26 of this document includes
additional discussion on other potential economic impacts of the final rule. In addition, preamble
Section IV, and sections 5 and 8 of this Response to Comments document discuss approaches to
improve serviceability and update inducements, respectively in this final rule. In response to
comments suggesting modifications to one or more of the proposed duty-cycle standards for CI
or SI engines, we point to discussion included in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this Response to
Comments document, with additional information available in preamble Section III. Finally, in
response to comments on the proposed useful life and warranty periods, we point to discussion in
sections 3.8 and 4 of this document, with additional information included in preamble Section
IV.
We acknowledge that several commenters urged EPA to finalize proposed Option 1 or to modify
proposed Option 1 to more closely align with the HD Omnibus; while we are not finalizing
Option 1 as proposed, as further explained in preamble Section III, our independent evaluation of
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable for a national program includes
consideration of the points the commenters raised. Section 3.1.2 of this document includes
further discussion regarding our evaluation, and the different considerations relevant to setting
Federal standards under CAA 202(a) relative to considerations relevant to reviewing California's
submission of a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209(b) for the HD Omnibus program.
Section 2 of this document further discusses how we considered comments relevant to the need
for additional air quality improvements and CAA requirements related to public health and
welfare.
Finally, information on the final ABT program, including our rationale for the FEL caps in the
final rule, is included in preamble Section IV.G, with additional information on comments
received relevant to the proposed ABT program included in section 12 of this Response to
Comments document. We note that the request for comment in the proposal for a compliance
flexibility to allow manufacturers to certify a limited production volume as compliant with the
existing standards is also discussed in preamble Section IV.G, with additional information in
section 12 of this document. Additional discussion on the compliance flexibilities in the final
rule is included in preamble Section III.B.
Consideration of ZEVs in the Final Standards
Several commenters stated that EPA should or must consider the use of ZEV technologies when
setting the final criteria pollutant standards, and/or that EPA should reconsider the proposed
allowance for ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits. Some commenters also included
discussion of GHG standards when providing input on the proposed criteria pollutant standards.
Other commenters stated that EPA should not mandate that certain technologies be used to meet
the final standards. Finally, some commenters noted that emissions that occur upstream of the
vehicle (e.g., from electricity generation) should be part of EPA's considerations of the
emissions impacts of various technologies.
Response:
282
-------
As discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, we did not rely on the use of ZEV
technologies in the development of the proposed options because we did not expect that existing
or projected market penetration rates in the MY 2027 timeframe would meaningfully impact our
analysis for developing the numeric level of the proposed standards (87 FR 17458, March 28,
2022). While recent Federal actions, such as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, include
incentives to encourage the production of ZEV technologies in the MY 2027 timeframe beyond
what was expected at the time of the proposed rule, these actions and related events took place in
a timeframe that precluded additional analysis for the final heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant
standards starting in MY 2027.9 As explained in preamble Sections I and II, it is imperative that
we finalize such criteria pollutant standards in calendar year 2022 in order that we may meet the
minimum CAA lead time requirements and begin achieving emission reductions starting in MY
2027, consistent with the goals of the statute. Consistent with our CAA 202(a)(3)(A) authority,
the final, performance-based heavy-duty engine standards that we are setting include
consideration of comments submitted, including comments related to the use of ZEV
technologies in setting the standards. As discussed in preamble Section III. A, the final standards
in this rule are not based on the projected utilization of ZEV technology, though manufacturers
may choose to comply with the standards through using ZEV technologies, or other technology
pathways than included in our demonstration program.
In addition to considering comments on including ZEV technologies in setting the standards, we
have considered comments related to the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEV technologies. We agree with comments that raised a concern with
allowing ZEV technologies to generate NOx emissions credits given that ZEVs were not utilized
in setting the standards and the potential for higher than anticipated penetration of ZEV
technologies. In preamble Section IV.G, we discuss our decision not to finalize the proposed
allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs (see
section 12 of this Response to Comments document for additional details on our decision not to
finalize this proposed allowance). We further explain in preamble Section IV.G that we have
designed the final ABT program to best ensure the expected emission reductions from the final
standards.
As noted in preamble Section I, EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the
HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to
undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e.,
HD GHG Phase 3 standards); we intend to consider ZEV technologies in developing that
separate proposed rulemaking. Section 28 of this Response to Comments document details the
comments we received specific to the proposed revisions to the GHG Phase 2 standards. Section
3.10 of this document provides additional comments received relevant to multiple technology
pathways to meet the final standards, as well as EPA's responses to those comments. Finally,
section 19.3 of this document includes additional comments relevant to upstream emissions
impacts and EPA's response to those comments.
9 The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has many incentives for promoting zero-emission vehicles, including support
for refueling infrastructure (e.g., Section 13404 Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit); however, it was
finalized in August 2022, which is well beyond the close of the comment period for this final rule. We intend to
consider the implications of the IRA and other Federal actions in future rulemakings focused on heavy-duty vehicle
standards for the heavy-duty sector.
283
-------
Single- or Two-step Program
Several commenters also provided input on whether EPA should finalize a single- or two-step
program. Commenters broadly supported finalizing a single-step program, but based on different
considerations. For instance, some commenters supported a single-step program due to
considerations related to implementation (e.g., commenter viewed the two-step approach as
potentially resulting in market disruptions; commenters suggested single-step approach will
better allow manufacturers to focus on ZEV development) or general stringency (e.g.,
commenter believes a two-step approach would require additional lead time to validate new
technology for an additional step in stringency). Other commenters supported a single-step
program in order to avoid a delay in the most stringent standards proposed (i.e., commenters
urged EPA to implement all or some of the proposed MY 2031 standards starting in MY 2027).
Similarly, one commenter discussed the value of regulatory certainty to enable industry
investments and meet long-term air quality goals.
Response:
As noted immediately above in this response, preamble Section III. A discusses our assessment of
the final standards, including our decision to implement a single-step program beginning in MY
2027. We believe the combination of the single step program and the final standards will provide
regulatory certainty for the industry and provide meaningful air quality benefits across the
country.
Analyses Supporting the Rule
Finally, several commenters provided input on the analyses that supported the proposed rule. For
example, one commenter stated that EPA should conduct regional scale air quality modeling to
evaluate the impacts of the rule on nonattainment areas. As also noted above, other commenters
provided perspectives on our analyses of costs, benefits, and/or economic impacts, particularly
pre- and low-buy. Some commenters also provided input relevant to our analysis of impacts to
small businesses.
Response:
Information on our final analyses can be found in preamble Sections V through X and XII, with
additional information in RIA Chapters 5-10 and our responses to comments in sections 17-27
of this document. Regarding one commenter's statement that the "cost of compliance" criteria in
42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(2) applies to users of new motor vehicles or engines (in addition to
manufacturers), we first note that new standards like those being promulgated in this rule were
not at issue in the case cited by the commenter. Additionally, as explained above and in section
17 of this document (which includes additional discussion on comments relevant to small
businesses), we disagree and maintain that cost of compliance under CAA section 202(a)
includes only costs for regulated entities under the final standards, i.e. manufacturers. See, e.g.,
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Our response
to the comment on conducting regional scale air quality modeling is included in section 2.2 of
284
-------
this Response to Comments document. We note that some comments relevant to analyses to
support the rule may not have specified if they were relevant to GHG or criteria pollutant
portions of the rule, see Section 28.5 of this document for additional discussion.
3.1.2 Nationwide standards and CARB alignment
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Achates Power, Inc.
Achates Power supports a strong federal heavy duty vehicle standard that harmonizes with
California's Omnibus ultralow NOx regulations, albeit with more phase-in time for the federal
regulation (i.e. full stringency in 2031). We base the position based on demonstrations that
suggest the fully implemented CARB omnibus regulations can be met in a robust, practical, and
cost-effective manner. In addition, Achates Power fully supports the California Air Resources
Board's position regarding the use of emissions credits in the proposed standard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE Supports harmonization of future national standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1,
p. 4]
In July 2021, AVE, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and other stakeholders wrote
to EPA seeking for harmonization of EPA's low-NOx rulemaking with California's Omnibus
regulations.6 A unified national program will enable heavy vehicle manufacturers and suppliers
to streamline the engine and aftertreatment integration to simultaneously meet GHG and criteria
pollutant standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p .4]
6. See Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards
Harmonization is also a top priority of President Biden. On August 5, 2021, the President
explicitly instructed EPA to coordinate its Heavy-duty NOx standards with California. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 4]
(c) Given the significant expertise and historical leadership demonstrated by the State of
California with respect to establishing emissions standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
vehicles, the Administrator of the EPA shall coordinate the agency's activities pursuant to
sections 2 through 4 of this order, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, with the
State of California as well as other States that are leading the way in reducing vehicle emissions,
including by adopting California's standards.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 4]
7. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/08/05/executive-
order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-trucks/
285
-------
Alignment in MY2027 and MY2030 would provide a national heavy-duty regulation that is
important to automotive vehicle suppliers. Suppliers have invested significant resources in
research and development for new engine and emission control technologies so that new heavy-
duty trucks meet future lower NOx standards. Harmonization with California's Omnibus
standards will provide suppliers with the necessary certainty to keep investing in the next
generation of vehicle technologies. Regarding FUL, EPA could consider reevaluating its
standard based on new data once it becomes available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p.
4]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Allison supports efforts to align EPA standards with programs that have been recently
promulgated by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). However, alignment is
not an unmitigated good; there are areas where EPA should not adopt CARB
requirements but rather seek to have state requirements become more consistent with
EPA's approach to regulating criteria and GHG emissions. In general, EPA should avoid
predicating new standards on assumptions that predict the adoption of limited technology
avenues for reducing emissions, such as overreliance on market adoption of ZEVs. Apart
from technological challenges, efforts should be made to further assess the broader
environmental footprint of different options for address both criteria and GHG emissions
to ensure that sufficient time is allowed to develop and validate different technological
pathways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.6-7]
Given the federal/state relationship in the mobile source sector as defined in the Clean Air Act,
Allison also believes there is significant in value in the coordination of CARB and EPA
requirements. This extends far beyond just the stringency of criteria and GHG emission limits.
Testing, certification, recordkeeping and reporting procedures (as well as the potential for
parallel compliance and enforcement provisions) have a very large potential to affect the overall
cost-effectiveness of federal and state HDV programs. The chart below illustrates current
disparities as between existing CARB requirements and EPA's Proposed Rule:[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.33]
286
-------
i
ii
ii
II
I
V B GcrlfkoMft
fa ft JVfM W
1 XH5 15J.5* rrtJti*.' j i at rTF/iir
Jlfft ftfif
tfr 1U I. DjJ4 'i»3 if! r-l
lr»s«*Ew«vw.n W4«r**f f ti-t IMHWIW} Wl to . ir-flW* i»i
¦MIIOlBciKfrirMiMi SI |p t rriuit'iuiV'Hihn In a^ftY/LMi rtf IR/tlUnl or 4 UtCb«jnti.iwft»d
nvlax *(*/«:,tx*\
IH,TaDMwerl2«ha«
LtT/aSCP 1*. urnsx r»
Lr'«5» r-TOt r UYilSOC r» »r4CKIein
Oi'Iamprataf I Ifferoinfertr L4i |HJL| Iw
ik
WSfiwfciprtod tapim f.TlajauW.HTaettVitJi. IMatt.
iY.'SJ* n . ICVrUU nl
7T.TMS rt 12Y,T3M
i n^oac«. iioc* »*i
Lw Lwt f-T *
«* m******** out., 1
m. teem w+ftowwCM i*
* trig bhf-ftr m me taw
bft* W fctil knrload U» ~ttp-hfl.70
«r*Sfcrr 1*.
3pr\gt*^v «»i«i« K-Mii:^it *n«|K m/
J.|cnU; Kaa^tu
tr 1 Ji lon%- kud 1 **>*1^
wteh »n(w Icr MIO'I
I ¦*&» *+/»IU U X rtm*
*U k'l* ilfc iNdflO !n»Tp- hf)
•J- ttf.
if
i?
H
lis** Oo«k4»ari HD*
uauww-hr
CuKfcibHs-ta
¦ uj g/bhptw
S#ea*E |/fcnp(?r
a ut lw «• uw M li»
ItwnaM |)Wp>J
CJflB
low Lwi C-fcit, Hmrtj
w.atw. npo
Mm In-tH#
¦iiri'.-C* -p<: LCnVbS*.*
Wl; LWan* wi
Li« , pb-A Mc >»****¦ nUIMU «-«H W««VK mfitfC
IV
i'r
»D CrattMni Wwwrty .fUL|Mllty1D«ty
lY.'lMMl ni; W/IIW ni
V/LW M: mi
TTfiiw. iwr vsxtmm m
¦*fWM ml.. KHI. !,r! SOK rm nl. u « fit lUnnUMiflrt
iwisxil lflnr/wMifi
Wto** tne-o rv. HWW&1
w»w r*r. lfnin »»i
iJJ* -r* JOT.'JSOt
1 AM ld»l eye# .W. «WiJ I AHI
i m u-*aCn>t
MM UCKSnidHn kv* we,1 dm Wfh ifcie)
|M»LC^Vt bid \Ul mSfrW
Allison Transmission, Inc. comparison of regulations Option 1 and Option 2 vs. CARB HD Omnibus
• Allison appreciates the challenge EPA faces in weighing differing stakeholder
perspectives regarding importance of full alignment with CARB HD Omnibus versus
other alternatives approaches. These comments are based on our interest in maintaining a
regulatory landscape that strengthens American industry and supports vocational
workforce while achieving clean air and long-term environmental goals. Allison believes
there is significant in value in coordinating requirements between CARB and EPA for
testing and certification procedures, as well as compliance provisions. Alignment of
federal and state programs can, if set at the right level of stringency, help to reduce costs
and achieve better efficiency in research and development expenses, allowing for shared
product lines. However, Allison believes that EPA needs to consider that alignment is not
an unmitigated good in all cases; as reflected in comments above, a different set of
considerations and challenges need to be considered when promulgating regulations for
products that will serve diverse applications in commercial vehicle markets. These
include the need for reasonable access to energy and fueling infrastructure where a
transition to different systems to power commercial vehicles is contemplated. Either
explicit or implicit mandates for certain vehicle types cannot be reasonably achieved
unless there is corresponding availability of the necessary fueling infrastructure. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-123 l-A 1, p.34]
In the comments above, Allison has referenced several areas where EPA's Proposed Rule could
be improved. Specifically, with respect to the interrelationship of EPA and CARB standards,
Allison would offer several additional comments and perspectives: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.35]
• CARB's Omnibus NOx standards post MY 2027 are based on assumptions concerning
certain alternative fuels and the electric grid; but these assumptions may or may not prove
out over the next few years and choosing one technology pathway like ZEVs could
realistically constrain participation by other technologies and emerging alternative fuels
in the heavy-duty sector. Again, Allison would urge EPA to continue promulgating
standards that may be achieved by a variety of different technological approaches and,
consistent with its CAA authority, only promulgate standards that appropriately consider
287
-------
costs as well as allow for a sufficient timeframe for necessary research, development and
demonstration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.35-36]
• The CARB HD Omnibus Rule utilizes standards and measures that are meant to address
regional air quality concerns. The standards also require coordination with supporting
infrastructure. Such coordination is inherently more feasible to take in a regional context,
which is more capable of supporting and targeting infrastructure development for ZEV
deployments, necessary alternative fuels and fueling capacity. Such efforts are likely
impracticable and potentially unattainable at the federal level within the same
timeframes. Several factors distinguish California's efforts from EPA capability in this
area:
o From a practical standpoint, California has exhibited unwavering support for
statewide greenhouse gas reductions and electrification goals and incentives for
the transportation sector. Starting with approval of the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, California has developed a legal and regulatory framework to enable
a noteworthy push to accelerate ZEV technology. In more recent rulemakings,
ZEV technology has become a primary focus for efforts in the mobile source
sector.
o In this effort, CARB has conducted multiple workshops and engaged in extensive
coordination with the California Energy Commission to plan the infrastructure
development necessary to support ZEVs at an accelerated pace. While there are
currently some federal efforts in this area, including through passage of the 2021
infrastructure package,72 similar efforts do not exist throughout the United States
at the same level of legal/regulatory commitment or public funding. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.36]
72 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58.
o CARB HD Omnibus NOx standards post 2027 are based on certain alternative
fuels and grid assumptions considered at the time of rulemaking. As a result, these
standards may not consider the benefits of other emerging alternative fuels that
could be applied to heavy duty internal combustion engines as a tool to achieve
near-term criteria air pollutant and long-term C02 reduction goals in vehicle
applications that resist electrification. They also may not fully consider the need
to leverage existing infrastructure when transitioning to stricter standards. Given
these limitations, variation from the structure of CARB regulatory requirements is
both justified and necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.36]
o Otherwise, one of the reasons that the CARB HD Omnibus Rule may be able to
achieve its aggressive standards and implementation schedule is by leveraging
federally certified engines through allowable exemptions that serve to mitigate
impacts to end-user productivity (e,g., numerous exemptions were included by
CARB in the final rule because transit, motorcoach, refuse, and heavy haul end-
users provided information that justified additional flexibility. Again, the state's
ability to take particular regulatory approach to reducing emissions does not mean
that similar approaches are justified or workable at a federal level. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.36-37]
288
-------
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
In developing the next pathway to further reduce NOx emissions from the trucking sector, ATA
worked closely with EPA and other stakeholders with our overall aim to further advance our
positive record of environmental progress. We believe in the establishment of one national low-
NOx standard that is flexible, considers the wide diversity of trucking operations, is based upon
technology paths that are thoroughly tested and affordable, and does not disrupt fleet operations
and the economy. Interstate trucks are not bound by geographic boundaries. Trucks purchased
anywhere in the country should be compliant wherever their business may take them. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
Non-uniformity of national NOx pathways is of particular concern to ATA member fleets. If the
final HD2027 rule differs from the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") approach, and
CARB and opt-in states under Clean Air Act Section 177 continue implementation of the
California standard, there will be two different NOx programs in play across the country - a
proposition that is unworkable and problematic. For example, manufacturers would not only face
the prospect of two different product lines but also two different sets of engine certification
requirements and two different review and approval processes for these products. This
will undoubtedly add to the cost of bringing new engines to market and create duplication in the
administrative approval process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 5-6]
ATA does not define "harmonization" as federal standards mirroring those of a single state such
as California. California has unique air quality issues given its large population and unique
geographical features. Their regulation should not automatically become the template in
establishing the next national low-NOx standard. Our definition of "harmonization" is the setting
of one federal standard that will reduce NOx emissions nation-wide, not impede trucking
operations or purchase plans across the country, and is both technologically and economically
achievable. Option 1 is the CARB standard and ATA does not support California's extreme and
unattainable approach as the next national standard for diesel freight trucks for the rest of the
country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 6]
If one national standard across the country is not established, fleets will become creative in
where, when, and what type of equipment to purchase if patchwork standards are to remain in
effect and expand. For example, while states such as California will not allow you to register a
new truck purchased outside the state that does not meet CARB's low-NOx and warranty
requirements, such vehicle can be purchased and operated outside the state and then be registered
in California once its odometer hits 7,500 miles. Other states may have similar registration
provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 6]
While California has its unique topography and associated air quality issues, it is imperative that
the state and EPA find common ground in plotting a path forward. Putting differences aside,
ATA encourages EPA and CARB to ultimately unify their approaches. Fleets have choices and if
one harmonized national standard cannot be achieved, fleets may be forced to change their
business models and purchasing decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 6]
289
-------
Organization: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
CAPCOA supports proposed Option 1, with modifications that would align the proposal with the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB) recently adopted Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation.
This technology forcing regulation will reduce in-use nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new
heavy-duty engines and trucks sold in California by 90% beginning in 2027. Such a federal
standard would ensure that model year 2027 and later trucks operating in California would meet
the most stringent standards achievable regardless of their origin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1253-A1, p.l]
Despite these significant efforts by air districts and CARB, federal action to reduce emissions is
critical if we are to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. For example, data shows
that in the South Coast air basin, considering only emissions from ships, locomotives, and
aircraft which are under federal authority, the region needs an additional 46 tons per day of NOx
reductions by 2023 to attain standards in a timely manner. When also considering the emissions
from on-road heavy-duty trucks that are subject to federal authority, the region needs a total of
67 - 69 tons per day of NOx reductions from federal sources. Extrapolating this example to the
rest of California, it is clear that without significant progress in reducing mobile source
emissions, especially at the federal level, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet
our air quality mandates. Absent strong federal action, extreme nonattainment areas such as the
South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins face Clean Air Act penalties and sanctions due to
mobile source emissions under federal jurisdiction. Such air districts will be forced to implement
additional stationary source regulations that are much less cost effective than federal mobile
source measures and in regions that already impose the most stringent regulations in the nation.
To this end, CAPCOA strongly encourage U.S. EPA to promulgate technology forcing
regulations in the mobile sector that are directly and solely under U.S. EPA authority that yield
as much emissions reductions as possible as quickly as possible. The health of our residents
depends on it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1253-A1, p.2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA should align its standards with those that CARB has already demonstrated are feasible.
CARB adopted major revisions to our heavy-duty requirements, known as the 'Heavy-Duty
Omnibus Low NOx Regulation' (HD Omnibus Regulation), in 2021. CARB's HD Omnibus
Regulation includes a comprehensive set of revisions designed to ensure that NOx emissions
from heavy-duty engines are significantly reduced from the time the vehicle/engine is first sold
until the end of its useful life. During the development of the Omnibus Regulation over seven
years, CARB coordinated closely with U.S. EPA staff. In fact, U.S. EPA contributed significant
funding to California's Low NOx heavy-duty engine demonstration work at the Southwest
Research Institute, which demonstrated NOx levels on order of 90 percent lower than today's
standards with no greenhouse gas impact. U.S. EPA's CTP NPRM contains almost identical
programmatic elements to the HD Omnibus Regulation but offers a range of possible
stringencies. Option 1, as U.S. EPA notes, is the more stringent option and reflects alignment
with the HD Omnibus Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.2]
290
-------
Accordingly, it is absolutely crucial that U.S. EPA finalize standards in line with Option 1 in the
CTP NPRM - and strengthen Option 1 to eliminate undue loopholes that could weaken its ability
to ensure in-use compliance with its standards. The Option 1 proposal is technologically feasible
and cost-effective and closely aligned with CARB's HD Omnibus Regulation. Some of the
flexibilities discussed in the NPRM would effectively set higher, less stringent standards for
compliance. Such flexibility would allow standards to appear more stringent and health
protective than they actually are, thereby providing a 'backdoor' method to set looser standards.
For example, such flexibilities could make the regulation's 35 milligrams per brake-horsepower
hour (mg/bhp-hr) standard effectively a 70 mg/bhp-hr standard. Option 2 is too weak to be
considered as reasonably, especially regarding the proposed emissions standards, useful life, and
warranty period requirements. Option 2 would forego desperately needed emission reductions
and fail to meet U.S. EPA's statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A1, p.2]
• CARB recommends that U.S. EPA consider only the Option 1 standards, with
modifications to the 2027 through 2030 standards that would align with CARB's heavy-
duty Omnibus standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.2]
U.S. EPA has proposed a 20 mg/hp-hr NOx standards on the FTP and SET duty cycles and a 50
mg/hp-hr NOx on the LLC for MY 2031 and later light and medium HDEs for full UL and heavy
HDEs through IUL of 435,000 miles. These standards are technically feasible and align with the
Omnibus 2031 MY standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.40]
However, for MY 2027, the proposed Option 1 FTP, SET, and LLC NOx standards are less
stringent than is technically feasible. CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA align with the 2027
MY Omnibus NOx standards by adopting a 20 mg/hp-hr NOx on the FTP and SET and a 50
mg/hp-hr NOx on the LLC for light and medium HDEs through UL and heavy HDEs through
IUL. As discussed below, these standards are technically feasible for MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.40]
The proposed Alternative standards are the most stringent compared to both proposed Options 1
and 2. Although the Alternative has the potential to provide much needed NOx emission
reductions, CARB staff understand that U.S. EPA believes that currently no data exists to
unequivocally establish the feasibility of the Alternative 20 mg/hp-hr standard over the proposed
longer 850,000 mile UL for MY 2027. However, CARB staff strongly supports that U.S. EPA
adopt in its final rulemaking the proposed Option 1 standards with CARB staff recommended
modifications that would align it with the Omnibus standards as well as strengthen the LLC and
idling NOx standards to reflect recently demonstrated emissions performance in the CARB Stage
3 and U.S. EPA Stage 3 RW engine testing as well as the On-Road PEMS demonstration and
further engine testing results from the Achates 10.6L Class 8 engine project. Ongoing work is
expected this summer from both a second EPA low NOx engine configuration at SwRI and from
a CARB and South Coast Air Quality Management District sponsored 800,000 mile aging
follow-on emissions demonstration utilizing the second generation Achates engine and
simplified aftertreatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.47]
291
-------
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air
Because a significant percentage of the trucks on California roads are based in other states, we
rely on USEPA to set a health-protective ultra-low NOx standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1139-A1, p.l]
EPA proposes two options for cutting NOx emissions - the biggest cause of smog and soot —
from heavy-duty vehicles. Under Option 1, EPA's plan would work in two phases, reaching
0.035 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) in model year (MY) 2027 and 0.02 g/bhp-hr
in MY31. This would represent a tenfold increase in stringency over the existing federal standard
of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. EPA's weaker "Option 2" would cut NOx to 0.05 g/bhp-hr in a single-step
starting in MY27. Option 2 is completely inadequate to address truck pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1139-A1, p.l]
EPA should adopt Option 1, which would produce far deeper NOx cuts than 'Option 2,'
but EPA also needs to tighten the plan further to align with California's 'omnibus' heavy-
duty truck rule. California's rule reaches the same emissions limit of 0.02 g/bhp-hr of NOx as
EPA's 'Option 1,' but does so faster, in MY27. Furthermore, EPA's rule should
emulate California's improvements to test procedures, regulatory useful life, emission-related
warranty, and other requirements that will meaningfully reduce actual on-road emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1139-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Our agencies strongly support EPA's development of NOx and GHG emission standards.
Colorado is planning to initiate a rulemaking at the state Air Quality Control Commission in late
2022 to consider adoption of both the Advanced Clean Trucks rule and the Low NOx Omnibus
rule to help address state air quality challenges. Nevertheless, our agencies are highly supportive
of a national standard that is as robust as possible to ensure strong progress nationwide on air
pollution and equity. A strong national standard is particularly important for trucks because they
frequently travel between states supporting interstate commerce, so greater consistency across
the country is better for clean air and business. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.l]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
1. Implementing one national standard is critical for the transportation industry. The EPA
has an opportunity to create a single regulatory approach to emissions. In our assessment, Option
1 of the NPRM is close enough to the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Omnibus, and we
believe convergence is both feasible and desirable [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.l]
The absence of a single national standard carries serious risks and introduces uncertainties and
confusion in the market, ultimately stifling innovation, investment and the potential for
economies-of-scale. This possibility is realistic, as a similar situation happened over the past five
years in the light-duty space, when part of the market decided to adopt more stringent CARB
C02 standards, while another part followed less stringent federal standards, which introduced
292
-------
significant uncertainty in investment strategies of suppliers like Eaton. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1252-A1, p.l]
Besides the uncertainty in the supplier base investments, different emissions levels in some parts
of the nation creates the risk of a patchwork of local rules that in effect will lead to disruption in
freight with unpredictable effects on the economy. (CARB Omnibus certification represent 20%
of the market, with a strong potential that many of the other NESCAUM MOU states would
adopt those standards, covering up to 40% of the market). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1,
p.2]
Agency Request / Topic: We are requesting comment on the proposed Options 1 and 2, as well
as the Alternative, standards for each duty cycle, as well as the one and two-step approaches in
proposed Options 1 and 2, respectively, and the implementation dates of MYs 2027 and
2031 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: As explained, Eaton believes that Option 1 is very close to
the CARB omnibus (20 mg FTP and 50mg LLC at IUL), there are multiple technology packages
that can already achieve these limits, with 40% or better compliance margin, at reasonable costs
and based on life-long components. Thus, according to the overriding interest of a single national
standard, we believe it is best to harmonize Option 1 with the Omnibus rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Agency Request / Topic: Throughout Sections III and IV, we discuss areas where our proposal
differs from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rulemaking,
and request comment on our proposal, including whether it is appropriate to harmonize the
federal and CARB regulatory programs more in light of the authority and requirements of CAA
section 202, and the benefits or challenges if EPA were to finalize particular aspects of its
program that are or are not fully aligned with the Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.9]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: We believe that a single national standard is paramount to
the health of the transportation sector. Furthermore, we believe Option 1 is close to the Omnibus.
We also believe there are validated technologies that achieve the Option 1 and Omnibus limits
with significant compliance margin, at reasonable cost, with truck-life durability. Therefore, we
strongly recommend the EPA takes the opportunity to implement a single national standard, in
accord with CARB [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.9]
Organization: Hyliion, Inc.
The majority of these comments will request cohesiveness between both the California and
Federal standards to allow for predictability in the industry. In both warranty and testing cycles
we would recommend following the established standards set by California's Air Resource
Board. Many in the industry have taken steps to be compliant with these standards and we
recommend a unified and certain approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 2]
293
-------
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Several differences exist between state HDV omnibus regulations first adopted by CARB nearly
two years ago and EPA's proposed regulation. These differences could result in engine
manufacturers producing different engines depending on whether trucks are being sold in
California and Section 177 states, or sold elsewhere, resulting in unnecessary costs. Our view is
that a single national program, reflecting even closer alignment between federal standards and
those adopted by individual states, including not only California but also Massachusetts, Oregon,
and other states intending to adopt, would reduce manufacturer compliance risk and production
costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 18]
Testing of the CARB engine at SwRI achieved an emissions level of 23 mg at 435K mi. Testing
of an improved system sponsored by EPA reduced NOx emissions to 20 mg. Four years of lead
time remain for OEMs to refine solutions they are already expected to deliver in California. A
national requirement would justify OEM research and development at greater scales than what
they may consider necessary to meet California requirements alone. For these reasons we support
the development of a single national program together with California and other states who have
adopted an HDV Omnibus program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 18]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
NOx emission limits. Option 1 should be revised to require a 20mg/bhp-hr NOx limit beginning
in model year 2027 at intermediate useful life and a 0.035 gram NOx standard at full useful life.
A 20mg/bhp-hr NOx limit is technically feasible and consistent with requirements under the
CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.7]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA requests comments on whether it is appropriate to harmonize the federal and CARB
regulatory programs more in light of the authority and requirements of CAA section 202, and the
benefits or challenges if EPA were to finalize particular aspects of its program that are or are not
fully aligned with the Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
MEMA strongly discourages any technology mandates (i.e., avoid ZEV mandates). In addition,
it would be helpful for the EPA to use broader, more flexible definitions of emissions reducing
technology. Then the industry can design to performance-based standards and users' unique
requirements. As we have advocated in the past, it would also be beneficial to look at the entire
lifecycle rather than just "tailpipe" emissions. As vehicles become significantly more fuel
efficient, both upstream and downstream emissions become much more important when
attempting to truly compare them. Significant infrastructure requirements would also come along
with these rules, so if EPA were to try to match CARB there would need to be significant
coordination with DOE in terms of planning for the national electric grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
294
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Option 1 should immediately harmonize with state action in model year (MY) 2027. Instead of
allowing a four-year delay in matching state-level stringency, Option 1 should immediately
impose a NOx emission standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr for spark ignition, light-, medium-, and heavy-
duty engines through intermediate useful life and a 0.035 g/bhp-hr for heavy heavy-duty engines
from intermediate useful life to full useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 21]
Delaying alignment with the cost-effective Omnibus rule unnecessarily allows dirtier engines to
continue to be sold, knowing they will stay on our roads for decades, denying life saving
emissions reductions. The most stringent standard - already adopted by three states and being
pursued by several more - must be immediately phased-in at the start. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 21]
EPA has not adequately explained its deviation from the standards of the Omnibus rule. While
disparity between the rules may pose some challenge for manufacturers, central import is that
EPA upholds its requirements under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, to promulgate
"standards which reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable." In deviating from
the Omnibus program, EPA has deviated from years of studies providing robust evidence
supporting stronger standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Heavy-Duty Engine NOx Standards in 2027: Given the urgent need to reduce NOx emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles to improve public health and air quality, we strongly encourage EPA
to finalize NOx emission limits equivalent to those in the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation. Specifically, OTC supports the adoption of a 0.020 gram NOx engine standard in
2027 at intermediate useful life and a 0.035 gram NOx standard at full useful life, as specified in
CARB's Omnibus regulation. There is ample data from CARB, EPA, and other research
programs that support the feasibility of introducing a 0.020 gram NOx standard at intermediate
useful life in 2027. 22,23,24,25,26,27 [This comment copied in 3.1.2] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1250-A1, p.13]
22 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-
Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' February, 2020.
Available at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf. Accessed
May 4, 2022.
23 Southwest Research Institute, 'Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration
Programs at SwRI,' November 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/guest/swri_hd_low
_nox_demo_programs.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2022.
295
-------
24 Sharp, C.; Neely, G.; Rao, S.; Zaval, B., 'An Update on Continuing Progress Towards
Heavy-Duty Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond,' Southwest Research Institute,
WCX, Detroit, Michigan, April 5-7, 2022.
25 U.S. EPA, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis,' EPA-420-D-22-001, March
2022. Available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf.
Accessed May 12, 2022.
26 Achates Power, 'Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration,' CRC Real
World Emissions Workshop, March 15, 2022.
27 Mendoza Villafuerte, P.; Demuynck, J.; Bosteels, D., 'Ultra-Low NOx Emissions with
a Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a Heavy-Duty Truck Application,' Society
of Automotive Engineers, September 21, 2021. Available at https://www.aecc.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/2021-01-1228.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2022.
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
Certain areas of EPA's proposed rule relating to the reduction of criteria pollutant emissions
align substantially with existing rules in California, introduced by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) in December 2021 as the 'Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation'. This proposed rule
will therefore harmonize several important federal and state policies for the regulation of heavy-
duty engines. Such policy alignment would ensure consistency across the United States and
avoid creating bifurcated regulatory frameworks for stakeholders to navigate that would
introduce additional compliance costs.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.5]
Alignment benefits retailers, who operate or rely on complex nationwide freight logistics as a
core component of their business. The harmonization of policies would mitigate the complexities
that fleet operators might face in managing the availability of vehicles that meet the emissions
standards to be registered in most of the country, but not in certain states (e.g., California). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.5]
Since the trucks that transport freight for retailers often travel across jurisdictions, such as
California, it would be beneficial to harmonize where possible. EPA is therefore encouraged to
maintain its proposed alignment with CARB's 'Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation' where
economically justifiable, in order to avoid inducing unnecessary complexity to fleet logistics
operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.6]
Organization: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
On August 27, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Heavy- Duty
Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation. This regulation will have significant, and highly
important, impacts in reducing NOx emissions in the Valley, and will play an important role in
the District's efforts to attain the federal NAAQS. However, the regulation only applies to
engines and vehicles purchased in the state, and many vehicles in use in the Valley are out-of-
296
-------
state vehicles. In fact, CARB's mobile source emissions model, EMFAC, projects that 44% of
vehicle miles traveled and 47% of NOx from heavy heavy-duty diesel trucks operated within the
District boundaries in 2037 will be due to out-of-state trucks. That single category of mobile
sources alone represents 27% of the District's total 2037 NOx emissions from all anthropogenic
sources. Given the significance of heavy duty trucking emissions, on June 22, 2016, the District
submitted a petition requesting that the U.S. EPA consider adopting new national heavy-duty
truck engine emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.2]
Given the need for emissions reductions in the Valley, and the significance of this category
within the total emissions inventory, the District strongly supports EPA adopting the most
stringent controls possible and recommends adoption of Option 1. Given the challenges faced by
the San Joaquin Valley, and the durability of trucks, selecting a less stringent option would
burden our residents with unnecessary emissions for decades. Additionally, the District urges
EPA to consider modifications to Option 1 to align with the CARB Omnibus Regulation to make
nationwide compliance simpler, lead to less confusion nationally, and improve the overall
emissions benefit of the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.2]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
The standards should also be fully aligned with the California Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation
in 2027, establish minimum ZEV production requirements, and preserve the stringency of GHG
emissions requirements for internal combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1247-A1, p.l]
As currently proposed, Option 1 does not harmonize with the Omnibus Regulation until model
year 2031. This delay in alignment is projected to result in almost 72,000 more tons of NOx
emissions through 2045.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.5]
33 U.S. ENV'T PROT. AGENCY, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-
D-22-001, at app. 5, tbl. 5-49 (Mar. 2022).
Given the localized nature of many of the impacts of tailpipe pollution—which, as discussed
above, can seriously affect public health and disproportionately impact communities of color and
low-income communities—any delay in adopting the strongest possible standards will harm
communities nationwide. This is especially true in the near-term, when failure to align with the
Omnibus Regulation starting in model year 2027 will result in over 4 percent less NOx reduction
each year from model years 2027 through 2030.34 Less stringent standards will also continue to
make it difficult for many state and Tribal governments to meet their obligations under the
NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.5-6]
34 Id.
As noted by commenters during the public hearing on this proposed rule, localities have limited
authority to address criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources and strong federal tailpipe
emissions standards are one of the most important tools available to address this type of
297
-------
pollution. Moreover, a single-step alignment would create a single national standard for medium-
and heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturers, making planning and compliance
easier.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.6]
35 'The heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturing industry has consistently maintained a
strong preference for harmonized regulations across the U.S. and Canada, given the highly
integrated nature of the North American market and the desire to avoid the additional costs
associated with having to develop specialized products.' INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN
TRANSP., California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation: Updates to Emission Standards,
Testing Requirements, and Compliance Procedures 10 (Jan. 2022),
https://theicct.org/publication/california-us-hdvomnibus-reg-jan22/.
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
TRALA supports the efforts to reduce emissions and to increase the development of cleaner
trucks onto our nation's highways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 1]
TRALA believes that there is a desire in the trucking industry to incorporate newer and cleaner
trucks into the marketplace, especially as the cost comes down. However, TRALA remains
concerned that government mandates to adopt these technologies on shortened timelines will
only slow the process of getting newer trucks onto the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-
Al, p. 2]
TRALA remains determined that the EPA needs to set a national standard for emissions. For too
long, the trucking industry has dealt with two manufacturing standards when purchasing new
trucks, a truck that meets the EPA's standard, and a truck that meets CARET s standard. In its
comments to the EPA on their Greenhouse Gas Phase 2 rule, TRALA urged the EPA to work
with CARB to adopt a national standard for NOx that was not an ultra-low standard. These
competing standards increase manufacturing costs and add complexity to the operation of
national fleets. As we are seeing now, the requirements on manufacturing set by CARB and the
EPA are diverging even further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 3]
This growing divergence between CARB and EPA regulations will continue to create a chaotic
regulatory patchwork of state requirements that EPA regulations are meant to avoid. Several
states have already indicated that they will adopt CARB standards as well. By permitting CARB
to supersede EPA's standard for NOx, the EPA is shirking its responsibility to take the lead in
setting national standards for clean air. TRALA strongly encourages EPA to make Option 2 the
basis for nationwide standards, and to work to ensure that California and other states align their
NOx requirements with the Option 2-based standards that EPA establishes through a final
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 3]
TRALA has significant concerns with how the dual standard model would impact the new and
secondary truck markets. As previously stated, TRALA members purchase vehicles, but they do
not operate them, nor do they choose where their customers domicile these vehicles. If additional
non-attainment states choose to adopt CARB's standard over EPA's, it will create major
interstate commerce concerns for TRALA customers who operate in states that have competing
298
-------
NOx standards. The decisions on where to operate will be constrained by the OEM's ability to
meet the demands for EPA and CARB trucks. For instance, the timeline to acquire an EPA truck
may be much longer than the timeline to acquire a CARB truck, forcing a business to either wait
longer for the truck they need, or pay a premium to receive the CARB truck they don't want.
Furthermore, TRALA members are concerned that the dual standards will significantly harm the
secondary market as non-CARB trucks will not be able to be sold in certain states. That will
leave smaller motor carriers in CARB states with the option to buy older trucks or used CARB
trucks which are vastly more expensive due to the NOx rule's impacts on product availability
and price. It is unlikely that smaller motor carriers that are the most price-sensitive would be able
to absorb those cost increases and remain competitive in the trucking industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 3]
Accordingly, TRALA supports the Option 2 certification standard of .05. That said, we urge
EPA to work with CARB and the other states who have pledged to adopt CARBs standards for
NOx, to persuade those states not to proceed with regulations that would exceed the EPA's
standard. TRALA urges the EPA to adopt regulations based on Option 2 and to work with every
state including California to agree to a new national low-NOx certification standard of .05.
TRALA believes that a national standard would reduce the regulatory burden on the OEMs that
would not have to meet multiple standards in a shortened time period. A national standard of .05
would reduce the catastrophic disruption these rules could have on the new and used truck
markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
There are several critical deficiencies in the data and analysis on which the proposed rule
revisions rely. In addition to these specific deficiencies identified below, Valero incorporates as
part of these comments a report prepared by Ramboll U.S. Consulting, Inc. for Western States
Petroleum Association that evaluates CARB's Heavy Duty Truck strategyl and concludes that
CARB's approach does not deliver results as early and as cost-effectively as an approach that
incorporates low-nitrogen oxides ('NOx') emission vehicles coupled with increased introduction
of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels. Since EPA's proposal relies heavily on analysis performed
by CARB, the conclusions in the Ramboll study are relevant to EPA's proposal. EPA must not
blindly follow CARB, but should take these comments, including the Ramboll study, into
account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.3]
1 'Multi-Technology Pathways to Achieve California's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Goals: Heavy-Heavy-Duty Truck Case Study,' prepared for Western States Petroleum
Association by Ramboll U.S. Consulting, Inc. (February 1, 2021).
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Option 1 includes program elements such as low load cycle NOx standard, full useful life
standard and emission warranty (miles) identical to California Air Resources Board's (CARB)
heavy-duty engine and vehicle omnibus regulation for both MY 2027 and 2031. EPA should
consider revising remaining Option 1 program elements to fully align with CARB omnibus
regulation beginning in MY 2027. Having to comply with different federal and California
299
-------
standards may impose unnecessary burden on engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1162-A1, pp. 2-3]
EPA should work with CARB to evaluate the technical elements of the proposal that are not as
stringent as those required in CARB's omnibus rule. For example, EPA's proposed durability
demonstration program is weaker than that required by CARB's rule and may not adequately
simulate real-world engine aging. Should EPA finalize any program elements that are less
stringent than those in CARB's omnibus rule, it must ensure they do not result in an overall
decrease in program stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3
EPA Summary and Response
Several commenters provided input on whether and how EPA should align the standards and
requirements in the final Federal program with the standards and requirements in the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) Heavy-Duty Omnibus Low NOx Regulation (HD Omnibus).
Many state organizations, some suppliers of heavy-duty emissions control technologies, and
environmental justice organizations support a Federal program that fully aligns with the HD
Omnibus starting in MY 2027. In contrast, other heavy-duty emission control technology
suppliers and retail organizations support a Federal program that only partially aligns with the
HD Omnibus (i.e., commenters support a Federal program that aligns with some parts, but not
other parts, of the HD Omnibus program); for instance, one commenter suggested EPA align
with the HD Omnibus test procedures, but not the numeric stringency. Finally, the trade
organization for large heavy-duty fleets support a Federal program that fully aligns with a
California program, but does not support the level of stringency in the HD Omnibus, rather they
encourage EPA and CARB to ultimately unify approaches such that a single federal standard
"reduces NOx emissions nation-wide while not impede trucking operations or purchase plans
across the country". In this Section 3.1.2 of the Response to Comments document, we briefly
discuss the perspectives of each of these commenter groups, and then provide the EPA response
to these comments.
Commenters who support a Federal program that fully aligns with the HD Omnibus starting in
MY 2027 provide several points of discussion. First, these commenters stress the importance of
full alignment with the level of stringency in the HD Omnibus because trucks frequently travel
between states. Commenters note that out-of-state trucks contribute significantly to emissions in
CA, and potentially to other states that may adopt the HD Omnibus program, and thus a national
program is important for reducing emissions from all trucks; commenters also point to the
importance of reducing emissions from all trucks in areas working to achieve or maintain
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Given the significant contribution of emissions from
heavy-duty trucks, some of these commenters petitioned EPA in 2016 to consider adopting new
national heavy-duty truck engine emissions standards. Second, commenters note that full
alignment with the HD Omnibus would allow both engine manufacturers and suppliers to
streamline their development processes, as well as provide certainty in their investments in the
next generation of vehicle technologies. Third, commenters state that a Federal program fully
aligned with the HD Omnibus would simplify nationwide compliance, lead to less confusion
nationally, and improve the overall emissions benefit of the Federal regulation. They further note
that full alignment between Federal and California standards could avoid the risk of a patchwork
of local rules that could then disrupt freight transport, with unpredictable effects on the economy.
300
-------
One commenter further stated that EPA did not adequately explain the deviation in the proposed
standards from the HD Omnibus; stating that under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is
required to promulgate "standards which reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable," and noting that deviating from the HD Omnibus program deviates from studies
providing evidence that support stronger standards than proposed. In addition, another
commenter stated that if EPA finalizes any program elements that are less stringent than those in
the HD Omnibus, then EPA should ensure the overall program maintains the same level of
stringency. This commenter pointed specifically to the proposed durability demonstration
program and raised a concern that it may not adequately simulate real-world engine aging.
Finally, one commenter noted that Executive Order (EO) 14037 explicitly instructed EPA to
coordinate its Heavy-duty NOx standards with California.10
Commenters supporting a Federal program that only partially aligns with the HD Omnibus also
provide several lines of discussion. For instance, one commenter states that there is significant
value in EPA coordinating with CARB on requirements for testing, certification, recordkeeping,
reporting procedures, as well as compliance and enforcement provisions; however, they do not
support harmonization on all areas of the standards. Another commenter stated that EPA should
seek to have CARB's requirements become more consistent with EPA's approach to regulating
criteria and GHG emission, rather than adopting the CARB requirements. Another commenter
supports EPA adopting proposed Option 1, which they characterize as very close to the HD
Omnibus program. The commenter notes that there are multiple technology packages that can
already achieve the proposed Option 1 standards with 40% or better compliance margin over the
useful life periods, and at what the commenters states are reasonable costs. Some commenters
further urged EPA to promulgate standards that may be achieved by a variety of different
technological approaches (i.e., avoid a mandate of any one technology) and, consistent with its
CAA authority, only promulgate standards that appropriately consider costs as well as allow for
a sufficient timeframe for necessary research, development and demonstration. Commenters
further noted that there are a different set of considerations and challenges that need to be
considered when promulgating regulations for products that will serve diverse applications in
commercial vehicle markets across the country (e.g., fueling infrastructure, electric grid
capacity). Another commenter stated that it would be beneficial to align with the HD Omnibus
where economically justifiable, in order to avoid inducing unnecessary complexity to fleet
logistics operations.
The trade organization for large heavy-duty fleets similarly stated that a lack of a unified national
program could result in fleets changing their business models and purchasing decisions. They
support full alignment of a Federal program with a CARB program, but do not support the
stringency of the HD Omnibus. Rather, this commenter encouraged EPA and CARB to
ultimately unify approaches for a single federal standard that does not disrupt the business
operations of fleets. Similarly, another commenter stated that EPA should not simply follow
CARB, but rather should take into account additional information, including information
submitted in their comments that they state shows the HD Omnibus does not deliver results as
early and as cost-effectively as an approach that incorporates low-nitrogen oxides ('NOx')
emission vehicles coupled with increased introduction of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels.
10 President Joseph Biden. Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks.
86 FR 43583, August 10, 2021.
301
-------
Response:
As discussed in preamble Section III.A.3, our evaluation of available information and data shows
that the final standards and useful life periods are technologically feasible and will result in the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable for MY 2027, pursuant to our authority under
CAA section 202(a)(3) that applies to setting this final rule's standards, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, lead time, and other statutory factors.11 We acknowledge that several
commenters urged EPA to finalize proposed Option 1 since it closely aligned with the HD
Omnibus; while we are not finalizing proposed Option 1, as further explained in preamble
Section III our independent evaluation of the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
for a national program includes consideration of the points the commenters raised. For example,
EPA determined an appropriate compliance margin for manufacturers within the context of this
rule's low numeric emission standards and long regulatory useful life mileages and included
compliance flexibilities like the in-use compliance margin in our assessment of the projected
emission reductions from the final rule. In addition, we have considered one commenter's
concern that the proposed durability demonstration program did not align with the HD Omnibus
and may not adequately simulate real-world engine aging; as discussed in preamble Section IV
and section 10 of this document, the final durability demonstration program includes updates
from the proposal, which allow for closer alignment with the HD Omnibus. In our assessment
the final durability demonstration program will account for real-world aging while providing a
significantly shortened aging time for demonstration out to useful life.
We disagree with the commenter who stated that "deviating" from the HD Omnibus program
"deviates" from available evidence supporting stronger standards. As discussed immediately
above, our evaluation of available information and data shows that the final standards and useful
life periods will result in the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable for MY 2027,
giving appropriate consideration in EPA's judgment to the statutory factors.12 Further,
California has submitted a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209(b) for the HD Omnibus
program; a waiver of preemption enables California to enforce its own standards that would
otherwise be preempted under section 209(a). EPA's decision on that waiver proceeding is still
pending, and until EPA grants the waiver, the HD Omnibus program is not enforceable.
Even assuming that EPA subsequently grants the waiver, however, that does not mean that EPA
must issue the same standards as California or otherwise suggest any defect with this final rule.
11 We note that CAA section 202(a)(3) neither requires that EPA consider all the statutory factors equally nor
mandates a specific method of cost analysis; rather EPA has discretion in determining the appropriate consideration
to give such factors. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that similar
technology forcing language in CAA section 202(1)(2) ' 'does not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all
[the statutory] factors in the process of finding the 'greatest emission reduction achievable' ''); Husqvarna AB v.
EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that under CAA section213's similar technology-forcing
authority that "EPA did not deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional will by placing primary
significance on the 'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable' " or by considering cost and other statutory
factors as important but secondary).
12 We note that the commenter did not explicitly state which studies they were referring to in their statement
regarding "years of studies"; however, our response includes consideration of the CARB engine demonstration
program.
302
-------
Rather, the statute directs EPA to establish standards under 202(a)(3) and there is a separate
review process under 209(b) for waiving preemption of California's standards, which are
established under state law. Congress developed these two entirely different administrative
proceedings, and Congress also intended that California have the authority to adopt and enforce
its own motor vehicle program, subject to the limited waiver criteria in section 209(b), to address
its compelling and extraordinary conditions. Thus, the statute contemplates that California and
EPA may adopt different motor vehicle programs. And while EPA and California have aligned
programs in the past, that result is plainly not required by statute. Accordingly, in this final rule,
we are focused on achieving the greatest emission reductions achievable in the MY 2027
timeframe under our authority in 202(a)(3), and have applied our judgment in determining the
appropriate standards starting in MY 2027 under this authority for a national program. We
further note that, while, as one commenter noted, EO 14037 states that EPA should coordinate
with California on heavy-duty NOx standards, the EO also directs EPA to do so in a manner that
is appropriate and consistent with applicable law; as discussed in this section of the Response to
Comments document and further detailed in the preamble, this is the approach that we have
taken in developing this final rule.
Moreover, the HD Omnibus program differs from the federal program in multiple aspects, such
that a facile comparison is not appropriate. These differences result in part from there being
different considerations for a national regulation compared to a state or regional program, as
some commenters note. For instance, we acknowledge one commenter's perspective that there
are several factors that distinguish California's efforts from Federal efforts (e.g., California has
undertaken several state actions to accelerate ZEV adoption, including providing funding and
support for ZEV charging and re-fueling infrastructure).13 In addition, as noted immediately
above, the factors for establishing standards under 202(a)(3) are separate from the process under
209(b) for waiving preemption of California's standards.
Some commenters urged EPA to take ZEVs into account when setting the final standards, while
other commenters urged EPA to set standards that may be achieved by a variety of different
technological approaches. As explained in preamble Section III, the final standards in this rule
are not based on the projected utilization of ZEV technology, though manufacturers may choose
to comply with the standards through using ZEV technologies.
Regarding the study one commenter points to that they state shows the HD Omnibus does not
deliver results as early and as cost-effectively as an approach that incorporates low-nitrogen
oxides ('NOx') emission vehicles coupled with increased introduction of renewable liquid and
gaseous fuels, EPA is setting performance-based standards that EPA has demonstrated to be
technology-forcing, feasible, and appropriate under our CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) authority and
that do not require a certain technology be applied to comply with the standards; thus, the
comment and cited study generally support the feasibility of the final standards to the extent the
13 While we note that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has many incentives for promoting zero-emission vehicles,
including support for refueling infrastructure (e.g., Section 13404 Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit), we
intend to consider the implications of the IRA and other Federal actions in future rulemakings focused on heavy-
duty vehicle standards for the heavy-duty sector. We further note that, as discussed in preamble Section IV, the final
ABT program does not allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs because we are
concerned that allowing NOx emissions credits from ZEVs would result in fewer emissions reductions than intended
from this rule.
303
-------
application of such technology may be used in the future to meet these standards. As noted
immediately above, manufacturers may elect to comply through alternate pathways, such as
renewable liquid or gaseous fuels, if they find them more cost-effective or otherwise more
preferable.
We acknowledge the concerns that some commenters raised that differences between the Federal
program and CARB HD Omnibus could lead to business and/or logistical challenges for fleets
and other members of the heavy-duty industry. As an initial matter, we note that these same
kinds of concerns — regarding additional costs and implementation challenges associated with
developing and producing vehicles to meet multiple standards — were raised to Congress during
the development of the Clean Air Act. Nonetheless, Congress enacted section 209(b), which
authorizes California to adopt and enforce its own motor vehicle emissions program, clearly
contemplating the possibility for two different motor vehicle regulatory programs in the United
States.
As explained further in the final rule preamble Sections III and IV, and this section 3 of this
document, in setting the final standards EPA considered the required statutory factors, including
giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the application of technology that
can achieve the emission reduction of the final standards. To the extent consistent with our
authority and within the scope of this rulemaking, we have aligned with testing and other
requirements in the HD Omnibus. For instance, we are adopting the same LLC duty cycle
procedure and incorporating by reference the 2019 CARB OBD regulations (see preamble
Section III for details on the idle standard in the final rule and preamble Section IV for details on
the OBD requirements in the final rule). EPA staff intend to continue working closely with
CARB staff and other stakeholders where possible to ensure as smooth an implementation of the
Federal program as possible.
3.2 Criteria pollutant standards for FTP and SET testing
3.2.1 FTP and SET standards and testing for compression-ignition engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports additional modifications to Option 1 to provide the best opportunity for driving
more rapid adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. These additional
modifications include:
• Considering a stricter PM standard than what is being proposed to prevent backsliding
under the proposed lower NOx limits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
304
-------
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Allison also believes that finalizing a 50 mg/hp-hr NOx standard, as measured on the
Federal Test Procedure ("FTP") and Supplemental Emission Test ("SET") cycles, offers
a much better chance of programmatic and environmental success across medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle fleet. Conversely, imposing a 20mg /hp-hr NOx standard, with
limited validation of the necessary technology and longer useful life periods, carries with
it a considerable risk of failure and disruption to the HDV market. Allison does not
believe that the 20 mg/hp-hr standard has been validated in the vocational vehicle market
to degree that would be required by Option 1 or any more stringent Alternative under
consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, p.5]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Technology Issues Present Hurdles to Achieving Overly Stringent NOx Standards
ATA and fleets are concerned that manufacturers will not be capable of producing Option 1-
compliant products that meet 0.02 g/bhp-hr in 2031. As shown in Figure 1, meeting a 0.02 g/bhp-
hr standard under the FTP through 435,000 miles was not demonstrated as part of laboratory
testing preceding the rulemaking. To reach such stringency levels, the requisite compliance
margins could, hypothetically, have to dip into the "negative emission" compliance range.
Stringency levels teetering a notch above zero cause great hesitation for fleets that can ill afford
more false-positive NOx sensor readings and greater potential for manufacturer recalls. After all,
a truck in a service bay is an unproductive truck - even if such truck is still under a warranty for
repairs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 7]
While it is true that CARB has certified a limited number of natural gas and liquefied petroleum
gas heavy-duty engine families that can achieve a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx limit, these engines do not
incorporate NOx sensors (See Table 1). Whereas there are limited niche markets for certain
natural gas vehicles, natural gas technologies are largely being used by school and municipal
buses and the refuse industry - not the freight sector. The fact remains that trucking is and will
be for the foreseeable future a diesel-driven industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 8]
More importantly, according to manufacturers, current NOx sensors are incapable of accurately
sensing 0-5 ppm tailpipe NOx concentrations that are typical at 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx certification
levels, especially because current NOx sensors have a nearly 1:1 cross-sensitivity to ammonia
slip. Given there are also no accurate ammonia sensors either, separately sensing and subtracting
ammonia to correct for the NOx sensor's ammonia cross-sensitivity doesn't work either. OEMs
have already tried such an approach to no avail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 9]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA's Stage 3 RW engine platform at 435,000 equivalent miles of accelerated aging
resulted in tailpipe NOx emissions of 20, 17, and 29 mg/hp-hr respectively on the FTP, Ramped-
modal cycle (RMC), and LLC duty cycles. Since the proposed useful lives for MY 2027 light
305
-------
and medium HDEs are much less than 435,000 miles, it can be concluded that, with application
of emission control technologies similar to the Stage 3 RW, these engine classes could meet
CARB staff recommended standards of 20 mg/hp-hr NOx on the FTP and SET and a 50 mg/hp-
hrNOx on the LLC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.40-41]
On page 17471 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the issue of certification
compliance margins. Specifically: '... if a margin between the demonstrated emissions
performance and the proposed standards should be included and if so, we request comment on if
a specific margin should be used and what that value should be. Commenters requesting a
specific margin are encouraged to provide data and analysis to support the numeric value of the
margin(s)'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.50]
Compliance margin (CM) is defined as CM = Applicable Standard - Certification
emission level / Applicaple Standard x 100%, where the certification emission level
represents the highest NOx emission level for all production engines within the engine
family at the end of UL and includes the infrequent regeneration adjustment
factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.50]
At the time of certification, manufacturers sign a statement of compliance for each engine family
certifying that all production engines within the engine family are in all material respects
described in the certification application and comply with all regulatory requirements (including
the emission standards). Adding CMs to the adopted standards effectively sets higher, less
stringent standards for compliance. Such CMs in effect allow standards to appear more stringent
and health protective than they actually are, thereby providing a 'backdoor' method to set looser
standards. CARB strongly opposes applying such CMs. The standards should be set at the
attainable levels and measured against those levels when compliance determinations are made by
regulatory agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.50-51]
CARB staff has performed an exhaustive study 124 of CMs for diesel-fueled engines covering all
California certified on-road HDEs from 2010 through 2020 MYs. The result from this study is
shown in Figure 5-3. As shown, four percent of the engine families were certified with no CM,
while another 10 percent of the engine families were certified with less than a 5 percent CM. It
should also be noted that only 19 percent of the certified engine families had CMs between 50-75
percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.51]
124 CARB certification data, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/new-vehicle-and-engine-
certification-executive-orders-compression-ignition-and-heavy-duty-engines
The data in Fig. 5-3 indicates that engine manufacturers do not have a universal, one-size fits all
approach when it comes to certifying their product portfolio with a built-in compliance margin.
In fact, for the referenced period, seven out of eight on-road HD diesel engine manufacturers had
certified engine families with a 15 percent compliance margin or less as shown in Fig 5-4. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.51 -52]
For HHDD engines a similar analysis is shown in Fig. 5-5. As shown, three percent of the
HHDD engine families were certified with no compliance margin, while another seven percent
306
-------
of the engine families were certified with less than a five percent CM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.52]
Based on analysis of historical certification data in Fig. 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5, CARB staff strongly
believes that U.S. EPA should not consider the inclusion of any compliance margins in
establishing new emissions standards. In other words, the standard should be set based on the
demonstrated emission rates achievable with the anticipated technology, without adding some
margin on top of that. The manufacturers determination as to what margin they desire when
meeting emission standards is an aftertreatment design consideration and a business decision.
U.S. EPA should not set minimum or maximum margin considerations when establishing
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.53]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Finally, Commenters support EPA's proposals to adopt a revised PM standard and to require
closed crankcase ventilation systems for compression-ignition engines, both of which will
achieve important reductions in PM pollution. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,461-62, 17,466-67. The
proposed PM standard of 5 mg/hp-hr is unquestionably feasible (even allowing for measurement
variability), as manufacturers are already certifying engines well below this level. Id. at 17,462.
Finalizing a PM standard at least that low will preserve these gains by preventing backsliding in
the future.
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
Further, the proposed rule leaves major open questions about its impact on engine size and
weight. Any significant increase in either the size or weight of engines could counter-
productively serve to reduce the number of passengers that could be transported on a
motorcoach. For example, both under federal and state laws buses are subject to strict weight
limits. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. 127. However, the proposed rule contains no useful analysis of its bus
weight implications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 3]
Finally, Coach USA urges EPA to obtain information from engine manufacturers to assess
implications from the added weight and increased temperatures associated with SCR and derate-
related equipment. As noted above, interstate buses are subject, throughout the country, to
heavily-enforced weight restrictions; any exceedance caused by SCR or derate-related equipment
that causes a bus to be overweight would be unacceptable to sustaining interstate bus operations.
Likewise, any increased temperatures caused by such equipment - which may cause buses to be
less reliable or otherwise potentially impair driver/passenger safety - would also be unacceptable
to Coach USA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Analysis of the compliance margin needed for robust compliance also shows the Option 2 NOx
standard of 50 mg/hp-hr to be challenging but achievable, assuming current emission useful life
periods. (Our concerns with EPA's longer proposed Option 2 useful life periods are described
below.) EPA should finalize the Option 2 NOx FTP/ SET standard of 50 mg/hp-hr, at
307
-------
appropriate useful life, across all spark-ignition (SI) and compression-ignition (CI) primary
intended service classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 4]
1036.505(d)(4) - Figure 1
Figure 1 seems to indicate SET 5 cycle would be cold cycle. This is not equivalent to engine
SET where engine and aftertreatment are pre-conditioned before running the emission test.
Cummins suggests skipping the cycle where engine starts for first time and use the following
cycle to report criteria emissions. For example, skip SET 5 and 6, report result from SET 7 (not
shown in the picture). A similar approach should be considered for cycle average fuel map
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 24]
1036.505(h)
This requirement forces to capture PM on the two separate idle modes of the SET duty cycle
which may require additional PM system. Additionally, the PM during the idle modes will be
similar to background levels and this could lead to negative brake-specific PM data due to
measurement uncertainty. Subsequently, these negative brake-specific PM will serve as emission
standards for clean idle test. Therefore, this paragraph should allow a manufacturer to use other
methods to ensure that the emissions of PM, HC, and CO are not adversely affected by meeting
clean idle requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 24]
1036.510(g)
This requirement forces to capture PM on the idle modes of the FTP duty cycle which may
require additional PM system. Additionally, the PM during the idle modes will be similar to
background levels and this could lead to negative brake-specific PM data due to measurement
uncertainty. Subsequently, these negative brake-specific PM will serve as emission standards for
clean idle test. Therefore, this paragraph should allow a manufacturer to use other methods to
ensure that the emissions of PM, HC, and CO are not adversely affected by meeting clean idle
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 25]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
While we fully endorse EMA's comments on this topic and encourage EPA to consider them
carefully, we also highlight and recommend herein a few important design margin parameters for
incorporation into EPA's next-tier NOx standards. EMA's industry-wide analysis of all HD
engines shows that design margins of - 40% are appropriate for meeting the EPA 2010 0.2 g/hp-
hr standard on composite FTP (below is the chart presented in EMA's technical feasibility
document illustrating the margin). This margin is the difference between the emission standard
and the lower 'as-designed' emissions performance that diesel OEMs target for their products.
Daimler Truck designs and calibrates its products to provide sufficient margin to ensure robust
compliance after accounting for numerous factors that can compromise real-world emissions
performance. As emission standards become more stringent, these design margins become more
and more important and carry significant weight in the design of new technologies to meet future
low-NOx standards. The following Figure 2, adopted from the EMA comments, shows that
308
-------
>60% margins are needed for any future NOx reduction regulations: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, pp.24-25]
To meet the current EPA 2010 0.2 g/hp-hr NOx emission standard, the 40% design margin from
the standards that OEMs are taking is driven by field degradation concerns, production
components variability, and in-use testing standards (due to fuel contaminants), and not from
FTP or RMC-based test cell demonstrations (as demonstrated during the EPA Stage 3 research
studies). In the Proposed Rule, it is apparent that EPA has failed to perform any field
demonstration of the new technology on the vehicle. In our experience, even the most
sophisticated test cell-based thermal aging procedures fail to account for real world chemical
degradation due to the variability of field fuel quality. Below are examples of key design margins
that an OEM considers during the design of aftertreatment technologies, which are not addressed
in the Proposed Rule:
1. Catalyst aging impact due to field fuel quality and NOx increase due to biodiesel.
2. Different configurations (ratings, exhaust length configurations, etc.) not considered by
EPA in demonstration.
3. Components, sensor variability and test-to-test variabilities that are not considered by
EPA in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.25] Apart from the above
design margins not considered in the Proposed Rule, there are a number of overarching
issues that EPA did not consider as a part of its low-NOx technology feasibility
demonstration:
4. EPA's demonstrated technology is not available.
5. The Stage 3 / RW system demonstrated in Proposed Rule cannot be packaged on a
vehicle.
6. EPA's Stage 3 / RW demonstration system doesn't meet GHG Phase 2 standards for
MY 2027.
7. In-use 3B-MAW issues.
8. SWRI test data does not demonstrate the feasibility of the standards proposed by
EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.25-26]
EPA's low-NOx demonstration failed to account for the full range of expected engine
configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.32]
EPA low-NOx test cell demonstration work at SWRI was performed on a Cummins MY2017
XI5 and considered only one engine rating, 500HP/1850 lb-ft, and only one exhaust
configuration. The parent rating combination along with the short exhaust pipe is likely the best
case scenario for tailpipe low-NOx emissions. When an OEM certifies an engine family with
EPA and CARB, there are multiple engine ratings and configurations represented by the certified
engine family. The parent test engine configuration selection for criteria pollutants is defined in
40 CFR 86.096-24. When certifying the parent engine test configuration, an OEM also has to
ensure all the lower engine ratings within the engine family will meet the relevant criteria
pollutant and GHG standards with adequate margins to account for the various field deterioration
variables (e.g., range of field fuels, field aging, production components and sensors variability,
cold ambient conditions etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.32]
309
-------
These various engine ratings within an engine family cover a wide variety of customer
applications. A few examples of various customer chassis applications are shown in Figure 6
below, including line haul/regional distribution, crane, dump truck, logging, snow plow,
construction, bulk haul, tanker, refuse, food and beverage hauler etc. In these various customer
chassis applications, there is no space in the engine compartment (near the engine exhaust) to
package the aftertreatment devices that would be required, due to the positioning of the various
engine components and interferences with the structural frame rails. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, pp.32-33]
For these reasons, the main aftertreatment devices (DOC, DPF, SCR) are packaged downstream
from the engine where space is available for packaging aftertreatment components while
accounting for vehicle safety and application needs. In the various chassis applications,
connecting exhaust pipe lengths from the engine exhaust to the aftertreatment varies, depending
on the type of vehicle chassis. In Figure 6 below, Daimler Truck also highlights an example of
two such exhaust pipe length configurations. Configuration (2) in the chassis application has a
significantly longer exhaust pipe when compared to a sleeper cab, which is configuration (I).
Various lengths of exhaust pipe configurations exist to cover various customer chassis
applications: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.33]
In the EPA demonstration of the Stage 3 engine investigations at test cell, only one exhaust
configuration and only one parent rating were tested. The worst case scenarios of longer exhaust
pipe configurations and other ratings were not tested in any of the EPA Stage 3 investigations,
which were the basis for the Proposed Rule. These worst case scenarios are expected to have
lower exhaust temperatures, and higher temperature losses between the engine and the
aftertreatment, leading to lower exhaust gas temperatures entering into the aftertreatment and
consequently lower SCR performance. Consequently, these scenarios will result in higher
tailpipe NOx emissions compared to those demonstrated in the EPA Stage 3 test results. To
ensure robust emissions compliance, during certification an OEM absorbs the effect of exhaust
pipe lengths and engine ratings within the engine family by ensuring during development testing
and validation that all configurations meet the desired standard. EPA has not done so for its
demonstration engine-and it is unlikely such configurations would pass. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, pp.33-34]
SCR conversion efficiency is reduced at lower temperatures. This is well explained and
acknowledged by EPA in the draft RIA. 71 Since the introduction of SCR technologies in the
U.S. HD market in 2010, catalyst suppliers have been working to improve low-temperature SCR
kinetics for over a decade, but there are only minor improvements in the low temperature zones.
No such quantum leap in the low temperature SCR conversion efficiency improvements has been
seen till date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.34]
71 See Draft RIA at 11 ('SCR functionality is particularly reduced at lower exhaust
temperatures due to difficulties with low-temperature urea decomposition and due to
slower SCR reaction kinetics (Figure 1-3). ').
As explained in the draft RIA and shown in Figure 7 below, SCR fast reactions are dominated by
temperature, and in temperatures below 320 degrees Celsius (at the SCR Inlet), SCR conversion
310
-------
efficiency is significantly reduced, as shown by arrows in the figure. When comparing longer
and shorter exhaust pipes, longer exhaust pipes configurations tend to have higher heat loss,
thereby leading to lower SCR Inlet temperature. Accordingly, SCR reaction kinetics move
towards lower conversion efficiencies, hence higher tailpipe NOx emissions. In addition to
effects from longer exhaust systems for some applications, lower engine horsepower ratings
reduce cycle temperature, causing the net SCR reaction kinetics to reduce conversion efficiency,
as shown on the arow on Figure 7. Although EPA understood the SCR reaction kinetics issues in
the draft RIA, no such combinations of testing was conducted by EPA for low-NOx feasibility in
support of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.34]
Under EPA's proposed 40 C.F.R. 1036.235(a), OEMs would need to demonstrate on a worst
case scenario, as EPA proposes to require manufacturer demonstrations with 'the engine
configuration most likely to exceed (or have emissions nearer to) an applicable emission
standard or FEL.'73 EPA has not done this demonstration with the SWRI system. If EPA were to
follow its own proposed standards, the Agency would still need to demonstrate low-NOx
feasibility with the longest possible exhaust pipe and the worst possible engine rating. In the
Agency's feasibility study, EPA has not performed this analysis using the parameters proposed
in Section 1036.235(a). Rather, EPA's feasibility study is performed on the best-case engine
rating and shortest possible exhaust pipe configuration. Effectively, EPA has tested the 'best-of-
the-best' and declared it representative for all possible configurations. EPA must demonstrate
compliance with other configurations and ratings to adequately demonstrate feasibility. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.35]
73 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,680.
EPA's proposed NOx standards fail to account for component, sensor, and test-to-test
variability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.35]
EMA's study submitted in support of its comments on the Proposed Rule reflects that, to protect
97.7% of production population, a design margin of 0.026 g/hp-hr is needed for low-NOx 'dyno
based standards.'74 These margins, reflected in Figure 8 below, are necessary to account for
variability induced by production variability, soot and sulfur accumulation, ash accumulation,
field deterioration, and more. Similarly, to account for additional sources of variability that may
be experienced in-use, EMA calculates that a design margin of 0.036 g/hp-hr is necessary. In-use
testing requires higher margin levels due to the broad range of test conditions that are not
accounted for on the dyno, including altitude operation, cold temperature operation, fuel quality,
DEF quality, and field deterioration due the various parameters listed in the sections above. EPA
and SWRI did not attempt to account for any of these sources of variability in their study, and
accordingly, have not demonstrated that their proposed standards are feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.35]
74 See EMA Proposed Rule Comments, 'EMA Assessment of Technical Feasibility,'
Table II.B.3.3.1 incorporated herein by reference.
Daimler Truck continues to collaborate with catalyst suppliers for developing coating
technologies that are more effective at controlling emissions and more durable for extended full-
311
-------
useful life. However, after extensive product screenings, the Company has observed only minor
improvements in the 2027 catalyst formulations offered compared to current production
offerings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.36]
As demonstrated in Figure 9 above, catalysts offered by suppliers for MY 2027 have not shown
improved durability, as compared to current production catalysts, to suppolt extended full useful
life. Catalyst suppliers are unwilling to accept additional durability requirements. One of the
three major heavy duty coaters declined to bid on a 2027 Daimler Truck product, citing
unreasonably onerous durability requirements. The Company does not believe the catalyst
products commercially offered support EPA's proposed NOx stringency at extended full useful
life, and does not believe that technologies likely to be on offer for MY 2027 will fundamentally
change the assumptions about catalyst aging and degradation that undelpin our analysis of EPA's
proposed standards and their infeasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.36]
Daimler Truck continues to investigate the DEF doser supplier landscape and has identified only
one supplier that is actively developing a heavy-duty heated-DEF doser technology. However,
availability of an adequately-validated heated-DEF doser is not feasible in the MY 2027
timeframe due to insufficient maturity of the technology. Daimler Truck is also investigating
other heated-DEF technologies, which may provide production-feasible timing at the expense of
cost, complexity and reliability. Based upon our investigation, the EPA-demonstrated heated-
DEF doser technology will not be production-feasible for the 2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.37]
Daimler Truck sees very little development of future sensors technology considered necessary to
maintain adequate control of UL NOx systems. Sensor suppliers are rapidly moving towards
electrification technology, rather than continuing to invest in diesel technology. In fact, we see
no evidence of NOx sensor improvement in the necessary timeframe. To adequately control a
system to 90% less NOx with the same accuracy as today's systems, a 90% improvement in NOx
sensor accuracy would be necessary, but no such improvements are planned. Today's NOx
sensors have variability of +/- 10 ppm below 100 ppm, which is greater than the absolute values
of the proposed NOx emission limits. Similarly, EPA considers NH3 sensors as necessary inputs
to an UL NOx control system, but no supplier today offers an NH3 sensor capable of the
accuracy needed for required useful life. Daimler Truck's understanding is that sensor
manufacturers will not invest significantly in developing new technology for combustion engines
in this timeframe, as suppliers dedicate resources to future ZEV technologies and divest from
expensive combustion technology development. Given the anticipated lack of necessary sensor
technology, EPA's standards will likely be infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.37]
SWRI has provided the dimensions of the close-coupled SCR (also known as LO-SCR) system
and the associated hardware as tested by EPA in the Stage 3 test cell demonstration. The
dimensions obtained from SWRI for the EPA Stage 3 rework testing are for the following
components:
1. Turbine to DEF tube elbow
2. DEF injector mounting tube
312
-------
3. Inlet LO-SCR Cone
4. LO-SCR Catalyst
5. Outlet LO-SCR Cone [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.37]
A photograph of the SWRI LO-SCR system is provided above in Figure 10. This photograph
demonstrates the infeasibility of the system tested by the EPA—the LO-SCR is mounted
extremely closely to the engine, in a manner infeasible in commercial vehicles. Daimler Truck
took all the new hardware boundary dimensions (as mentioned above) of the EPA technology
demonstrator at SWRI and performed in-depth packaging feasibility studies in all vehicle chassis
configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.38]
The results of the packaging study in our highest-volume chassis, the Freightliner Cascadia, is
shown in Figures 11 (side view) and 12 (top view) below. LO-SCR and associated hardware
packaging studies illustrates significant interferences with the cab floor, structure, and frame
rails. The Company's packaging study on a high volume chassis clearly shows only two options:
first is to redesign the whole cab (Option 1); and the second is to move the LO-SCR downstream
of the exhaust flow where space is available (Option 2). Under Option 1, a cab redesign is not a
feasible option, due to inferences of the aftertreatment system package with the frame rails, a
major structural component of a vehicle. The only feasible option is Option 2, which would
entail packaging the LO-SCR further downstream, further away from the engine outlet. Moving
the LOSCR to this downstream location introduces longer exhaust pipes from turbocharger outlet
to the LO-SCR catalyst. As described in Figure 6, longer exhaust pipes will have higher
temperature loss and hence worse tailpipe NOx emission performance when compared EPA's
demonstration in support of the Proposed Rule. If EPA's proposed system were packaged in such
a way as to fit on a truck, the LO-SCR effectiveness would be significantly reduced since it
would operate at colder temperatures, which runs contrary to its designed purpose. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.38]
EPA also requests comments on issues with low-volume applications. In response, Daimler
Truck refers EPA to the industry-wide study submitted with EMA's comments.76 A notable
finding of the EMA study is that "[pjackaging' requirements (i.e., fitting emission systems under
the hood or cab) to 'close-couple' the new light-off SCR ('LO-SCR') to the turbocharger turbine
exit will be extremely difficult, and/or will require cab retooling. Such retooling costs come at a
very high cost (on the order of $500M) for low-volume products with potentially abbreviated
amortization schedules, especially as those same vehicles transition to battery-electric and other
'zero-emissions' technologies driven, at least in part, by other regulations.'77 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.39]
76 See EMA Proposed Rule Comments, 'EMA Assessment of Technical Feasibility of
Complying with a 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx Standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines.'
77 Id.
In the draft RIA, EPA notes with regard to its low-NOx demonstration program that 'the under-
cab EAS will also be installed in a MY2018 Navistar Day cab Class 8 Tractor equipped with a
second EPA developmental XI5 engine. The engine and cab are instrumented to allow
evaluation of NVH characteristics during truck operation when using CDA.'78 EPA has not,
313
-------
however, shared corresponding results of its vehicle testing investigations to date. Daimler Truck
understands that this is because no such vehicle testing has been performed by EPA to
substantiate that real-world test results are similar to the Agency's low-NOx test cell
demonstration results.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.39]
78 Draft RIA at 122.
We expect that, if such testing were performed, the in-use tailpipe results would be significantly
higher on the aftertreatment demonstration technology considered for this evaluation. This is
because, due to packaging and other constraints, the proposed technology for vehicle
demonstration is significantly less capable than what EPA has demonstrated in the test cell. We
would also expect this result because:
• The LO-SCR volume considered for vehicle demonstration is 25% lower than what is
demonstrated by EPA in its test cell program.
• The main SCR/ASC considered for vehicle demonstration is 37% lower than what is
demonstrated by EPA in its test cell program.
• Even the Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) considered for vehicle demonstration is 13%
lower than what is demonstrated by EPA in its test cell program.
• The vehicle exhaust pipe length is not documented by EPA in the draft RIA, but, as
evidenced in our packaging study, above, must necessarily be significantly longer than
what EPA used for its test cell program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.39-40]
EPA and SWRI make these design compromises specifically to have 'minimal impact on
existing EPA Class 8 day cab tractors'-because they are concerned that the Stage 3 system will
not fit in a truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.40]
The reduced volume of LO-SCR (-25%), reduced volume of SCR/ASC (-37%), along with the
longer exhaust pipes would be expected to yield lower SCR perfolmance results on real-world
vehicle testing as compared to EPA's demonstration in a test cell with Stage 3 technology. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.40]
These reduced volumes will likely have significant impact on tailpipe emissions, if EPA
performs back-to-back emissions testing in a test cell for the two systems configurations when
adequately aged to represent end of useful life. Tailpipe NOx test results for the system
considered for vehicle testing with 'aged' reduced SCR catalyst volumes are expected to exceed
the proposed NOx standards. EPA's demonstration with the larger, more capable system does not
show compliance with all of EPA's proposed standards and provides no margin to others—as the
composite FTP test results are 0.038 g/hp-hr, barely meeting 0.040 g/hp-hr standard before
accounting for the Infrequent Regeneration Adjustment Factor (IRAF). Substantially reduced
catalyst volumes (as considered by EPA for in-vehicle testing) after aging would further worsen
these results and will exceed the proposed low-NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, pp.40-41]
314
-------
Figure 14 shows initial test cell results at SWRI of EPA's proposed candidate system for
installation in a vehicle. Even before aging, this system was determined to have unacceptable
performance by SWRI and EPA, as follows:
1. System backpressure was 40kpa, significantly higher versus 28kpa with Stage 3
system;
2. Significant impact noted on RMC C02;
3. Turbomachinery and air-handling component design limits (and Peak Cylinder
Pressure limits) prevent much re-tuning to recover high load C02 impact, even at higher
NOx levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.41]
EPA itself noted that it 'did not proceed due to C02 impact.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.41]
These technology considerations are prime examples of real-world technical challenges and
compromises that an OEM will face when placing low-NOx technology on a vehicle. This
further shows that EPA's technology demonstration does not support the proposed low-NOx
standards, because it cannot be successfully packaged on a vehicle—and a system that can be
packaged would not meet EPA's proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P-41]
Additionally, as noted in Figure 14, the demonstration engine meets only the MY 2017 GHG
standards and will have to achieve 7.2% fuel efficiency measures to meet the MY 2027 GHG
Phase 2 standard without margin. As shown in Figure 14, the addition of NOx-reduction
technology reduced GHG performance by up to 2% in a few cycles, as compared to the baseline
engine. This further proves that additional GHG technologies are needed to offset the GHG
deficit produced by low-NOx technology on a tractor (RMC Standard), which EPA did not
envision in the GHG Phase 2 rulemaking. EPA has never demonstrated an engine that meets the
existing GHG standards for MY 2027 and even approaches meeting their proposed NOx
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.41]
In summary, EPA recognizes the technical challenges that manufactures have repeatedly raised,
e.g., vehicle installation challenges, C02 emission increases, hardware component limitations,
NVH issues, and more. EPA also recognizes the need to demonstrate any proposed new
hardware in a vehicle. However, due to these very technical challenges, EPA has not
demonstrated any ultra-low NOx engine in a vehicle. The candidate system that the Agency
evaluated for vehicle installation will not meet the proposed low-NOx standards, and even this
system has been abandoned due to real world technical challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.41]
The Proposed Rule creates a number of contradictions, gaps, and conflicts that will make
compliance exceedingly difficult. One such area is the infeasibility of meeting Phase 2 MY 2027
GHG emission standards while simultaneously implementing the low-NOx technology needed to
achieve the proposed NOx standards. EPA appears to assume that OEMs will simply make
315
-------
required engine efficiency changes to meet Phase 2 standards in addition to adding low-NOx
aftertreatment systems (e.g., SCR and associated hardware technologies), and that no changes
will be needed on the engine side. This assumption is flawed for the following reasons:
• None of the EPA test demonstration data shows that the SWRI Stage 3 engine can meet
EPA Phase 2 GHG standards for MY 2027. All of EPA's test cell research demonstration
work was done on a Cummins MY 2017 engine that would need ~ 6% more C02
reduction to meet the MY 2027 GHG RMC standard without margin. The Stage 3 engine
does not meet the MY 2021 or 2024 C02 standards. If we apply 6% engine fuel
efficiency measures to EPA's low-NOx demonstration engine to meet MY 2027
standards (e.g., better in-cylinder fuel burn, mixing, and other measures), the result will
be a colder exhaust - all fuel economy improvements to an engine are achieved by
extracting more work from the fuel, leaving less energy to be delivered to the exhaust.
This would mean that more and more thermal exhaust measures (i.e., heated exhaust
measures) will be needed beyond what was used in EPA's demonstration. In other words,
an engine that met EPA's MY 2027 GHG standards would have an even harder time
complying with EPA's proposed NOx standards, since, according to first principles of
combustion physics, it will run colder than EPA's demonstration engine.
• Not only do EPA's low-NOx demonstration and investigations at SWRI testing ignore
the complexities of C02-NOx emission trade-offs, they also ignore the increased
backpressure from low-NOx demonstration-related hardware, which will further harm
GHG performance.
• As seen in EPA's low-NOx demonstration data at SWRI, the Stage 3 / RW system had
slightly higher tailpipe GHG results over the baseline production configuration.
Overcoming this additional C02 to bring the Stage 3 / RW system into GHG compliance
(with margin) will require additional C02-reducing technology over and above what
EPA included in their feasibility demonstration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.43]
The tradeoff between NOx emissions and C02 emissions are well understood by the industry;
EPA cannot claim that the Agency has demonstrated the feasibility of its proposed standards
without demonstrating an engine that can meet the relevant NOx and C02 standards
simultaneously. In some vehicle classes, EPA's proposed NOx regulations will be so at odds
with existing GHG regulations that they may generate perverse incentives to sacrifice GHG
performance for the sake of improved NOx performance. A key example may unfold in the
MHD truck market, which is sensitive to initial purchase cost, while being less sensitive to fuel
consumption. It is also worth noting that under EPA GHG Phase 2 regulations, vocational
vehicles powered by Si-gasoline engines are allowed 17% higher C02 emissions than their
diesel-fueled counterparts. Due to this conflict between GHG Phase 2 and the proposed NOx
standards, it may be expected that medium duty market shifts to Si-gasoline, which can more
easily meet EPA's proposed standards. Such a shift in the market will significantly increase C02
emissions from the national fleet, and minimize the efforts of the commercial vehicle sector to
combat global warming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.43-44]
316
-------
EPA must consider the tradeoff between NOx and C02 emissions performance, and must not set
NOx standards that are so stringent that they have unintended consequences for C02 emissions
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.44]
EPA has not demonstrated that its proposed FTP emissions standards are feasible. Daimler
Truck believes that an FTP NOx standard of 50 mg/hp-hr is appropriate, in combination
with further changes to the FTP to better represent the real world contribution of cold-
start operations. Additionally, the PM standard should be set to 7.5 mg/hp-hr to reflect the
state of available technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.54]
Daimler Truck provides in these comments exhaustive evidence to show that EPA has not
demonstrated the feasibility of the FTP standards set forth in the Proposed Rule (see Section
II.B.3 of these comments). Notably, no vehicle has been demonstrated that can meet EPA's
proposed standards when considered in their totality (including GHG standard compliance,
exposure to real world maintenance and fueling practices, installation on a real vehicle with
acceptable Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) profiles, drivability characteristics etc.). EPA
attempts to demonstrate feasibility with the technical demonstrator system that the Agency has
developed in collaboration with SWRI, but the Agency's feasibility analysis does not adequately
consider the following key factors: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.54]
Adequate emissions margin to the certification standard. Manufacturers must develop and
certify systems with an adequate level of margin to account for a number of factors. EMA has
developed an analysis concluding that manufacturers require margin between the certification
emissions of their UL NOx systems and any reasonable UL NOx standard of at least 0.026 g/hp-
hr NOx.83 By contrast, EPA's results from SWRI do not provide for any margin from the
standard—with NOx results at the proposed standard in SWRI's latest testing of the EPA Stage 3
rework system (the EPA Stage 3/RW System).84 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.54]
83 See EMA Proposed Rule Comments, 'EMA Assessment of Technical Feasibility.'
84 See Sharp, C. et al., 'An Update on Continuing Progress Towards Heavy-Duty Low
NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond - SAE Detroit' (April 5-7, 2022).
Further, EMA includes in its sources of variability aging impacts from fuel contamination,
production variability, measurement variability, packaging limitations, accumulation of sulfur,
soot, and ash, maintenance variability, and the direct impact of biodiesel on NOx emissions. EPA
does not adequately account for any of these limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.54]
Additionally, SWRI data shows that in some conditions, PM values exceed the proposed
emissions standards (even before the IRAF is applied). Although SWRI points out that this data
occurs immediately after ash cleaning, and eventually returns below the threshold, manufacturers
are required to meet the threshold in all conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.54]
Real-world application of proposed low NOx technologies. The proposed system
demonstrated in the 'Stage 3' technical solution has never been installed and operated in a truck,
317
-------
and has never been demonstrated to be acceptable in terms of impact on NVH, drivability, or
durability, especially in the broad range of custom-tailored vehicles and duty cycles in the heavy-
duty industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.54]
The EPA Stage 3/RW System cannot be adequately packaged in a heavy-duty vehicle;
specifically, its CCSCR cannot be placed as close to the engine as SWRI uses in its
demonstrator. Placing the system further away, which will be necessary in commercial vehicles,
will further degrade its emissions performance, which EPA does not consider. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.55]
EPA does not consider the wide range of applications, ratings, and other criteria that force design
compromises and reduced emissions control performance. EPA's demonstration only covers one
configuration, with one rating. EPA proposes that manufactures must demonstrate emissions
compliance with the worst-case rating; however, in its feasibility study, the Agency has not
accounted for the worst case configuration for emissions performance. Indeed, it has only one
configuration, with one rating—which is likely to be favorable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.55]
Competing need for C02 reductions. The EPA Stage 3/RW System does not meet EPA's 2027
C02 emissions standards. While EPA has demonstrated low-NOx performance without
dramatically increasing C02 emissions, the Stage 3 engine does not meet these requirements.
The changes necessary to improve C02 performance will necessarily reduce the system's NOx
control effectiveness, as C02 improvements will reduce the engine's exhaust temperatures,
which are critical to SCR performance. There is an unavoidable trade-off between NOx and C02
that the EPA does not consider in their study. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,p.55]
In light of the above challenges, summarized in more detail elsewhere in these comments, and in
the EMA Proposed Rule Comments, Daimler Truck believes that EPA has not demonstrated the
feasibility of the proposed FTP emission standards for NOx and PM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.55]
CAA Section 202(a)(3)(A) requires that EPA's heavy-duty criteria pollutant standards 'reflect
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which
the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.'85 Since the EPA has not demonstrated that its proposed NOx or
PM emission standards reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable, they would
not be enforceable under the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.55]
85 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
Daimler Truck submits that an FTP NOx standard of 50 mg/hp-hr, or 0.05 g/hp-hr better
reflects the greatest degree of emissions reduction achievable. This standard accounts for the real
world emissions contributions of various operating conditions and gives appropriate
consideration to the cost factors associated with the application of available technology. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.55]
318
-------
Similarly, in light of SWRI's post DPF ash cleaning procedure data, Daimler Truck believes that
EPA has not demonstrated feasibility for its proposed PM standard. DTNA recommends a PM
standard of 7.5 mg/hp-hr on the FTP, for the reasons provided above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.55]
Daimler Truck believes that the current weighting methodology of the composite FTP— namely,
1/7 contribution from emissions from the Cold FTP, weighted with 6/7 contribution from the
emissions from the Hot FTP—over-represents the emissions from the initial cold-start drive off
of the vehicle compared to real world operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 56]
In fact, nearly all of the NOx released in the composite FTP is emitted during the first several
minutes of the Cold FTP. Once the aftertreatment reaches proper operating temperatures, NOx
emission contributions to the overall composite FTP are nearly inconsequential. Daimler Truck
provides an example in the below Figure 21. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.56]
In this example, Daimler Truck provides the cold FTP emissions trace of a candidate emissions
control system designed to provide as much emissions reduction as possible. For the purposes of
this evaluation, Daimler Truck will consider 'Cold Start' as all operation before the engine has
accumulated 4.72 bhp-hr of work. This threshold was selected to differentiate operation during
which the system had reached appropriate light-off temperature for adequate emissions control,
and when it had not. The appropriate threshold of accumulated work to differentiate 'Cold Start'
operation would necessarily vary from engine to engine, or could be determined via other
proxies, such as coolant temperature (approximately 63 degrees Celsius in this case). All other
operation in the remainder of the Cold Start FTP, and in the subsequent Hot Start FTP is
classified as 'Hot' operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.56]
Using this differentiation, it is possible to apply the current Cold/Hot weighting factor (l/7th and
6/7th, respectively) to determine, on a work-weighted basis and on a time-weighted basis, how
this section of duty cycle is weighted in the composite FTP. [[See Table 9 on p. 57 for Daimler's
Work-based and Time-based estimates of the contribution of the 'Cold Start' operation portion
of the Cold FTP to the overall duty cycle of a Cold/Hot weighted FTP.]] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.56]
So, although the 'Cold Start' operation of the FTP in this example represents only 5% of the time
of a weighted FTP, and only 2.1 % of the work in a weighted FTP, it accounts for >95% of the
NOx emissions ultimately compared to the standard for a weighted FTP. Daimler Truck believes
that this significantly over-weights the relevance of these emissions compared to the impact of
these 'Cold Start' operations on real world emissions inventories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.57]
To illustrate this over-weighting of Cold Start emissions, Daimler Truck has analyzed real-world
data captured in a joint project between West Virginia University (WVU) and the EMA. Details
of Data Analyzed:
• Daimler Truck Data acquired from EMA-WVU 100-vehicle study
• Vehicle Type: Day Cab
319
-------
. Engine MY 2013-2019
• Application: Customer operation of goods movement in southern California
• Sample Size: 16 vehicles
• Approximately 1 month of data collection for each vehicle
• 202 total shift-day trips analyzed [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.57]
Daimler Truck believes that a larger data set, containing more applications, manufacturers, and
duty cycles could prove more instructive. However, since this dataset specifically analyzes the
operation of day-cab tractors performing goods movement, it is illustrative. Other applications,
such as sleeper-cab, long-haul tractors are dominated by operation represented by the Hot FTP
and the RMC, and the Hot FTP best represents pickup-and-delivery applications, with frequent
starts and stops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.57]
Daimler Truck analyzed each shift-day using the same metrics presented above for the Cold FTP
contribution of 'Cold Start' operation versus 'Hot' operation, using the same differentiation of a
cumulative 4.72 bhp-hr of work. The analysis was performed to calculate both the 'Time
Weighted' and 'Work Weighted' contribution percentage for each shift-day. The statistical
analysis for each approach is presented below in Figures 22 and 23, respectively. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.58]
This analysis shows that current FTP weighting, comparatively, over-represents the 'Cold Start'
operation in its evaluation of emissions. For example, the 'Work Weighted' analysis of vehicles
shows that for nearly 75% of trips, 'Cold Start' operation contributes less than half of the work
during the shift-day (1.1%) than an FTP assumes (2.1%). Daimler Truck summarizes this
analysis below in Table 10. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.58]
Daimler Truck's data demonstrates that the current Cold/Hot weighting factor (l/7th cold, 6/7th
hot) inappropriately over-weights the contribution of vehicle operation before the aftertreatment
system has reached operating temperatures. This implies that a more appropriate weighting
factor for the Cold FTP may be approximately 1/12th to 1/18th. Daimler Truck believes EPA
should reevaluate the Cold FTP weighting factors in light of this information, and determine if
the current test procedures and weighting factors are appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.59]
EPA should add a 300-second idle warm-up period to the beginning of the Cold FTP, to
reflect the way that trucks are operated in the real world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.59]
As explained above, Daimler Truck believes that the current Cold FTP test procedure and
weighting protocol inappropriately weights the emissions performance during the period of
engine operation before the emissions controls can be employed effectively. This procedure most
obviously diverges from real world operation in the way it treats start and the first acceleration
events of the test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.59]
In the Cold FTP, during the first New York Non-Freeway segment of the test, the engine is
started, and is accelerated to represent vehicle movement within 25 seconds of engine start.
320
-------
Figure 24 shows the profile of an FTP the first acceleration after vehicle start. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.59]
These first early acceleration events, before the emissions control system are fully effective, are
responsible for most of the emissions measured as part of the Cold FTP, as demonstrated in
Figure 25: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.60]
The Cold FTP has the first acceleration event 25 seconds after engine start, and the first three
major cold start events contribute the great majority of the emissions captured during the FTP.
As Daimler Truck discusses above, these events are overweighted in terms of real-world
contribution to the emissions inventory. Additionally, they stand in stark contrast to the way
vehicles are operated in the real world. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.60-61]
Most drivers idle their vehicles for some extended period of time before driving off for the first
time of the day. The driver is required to complete a pre-trip inspection and fill out their log
books and work instructions for the day, all of which might be completed while the vehicle is
idling. Additionally, the system must be allowed to accumulate pressurized air for operation of
the air brakes, parking brake, and more, again, all of which requires the vehicle to idle before it
can be driven for the first time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.61]
Daimler Truck analyzed the data from the EMA-WVU dataset, described above, and found that
most shift-days start with a significantly longer idle period than represented by the Cold FTP.
The distribution of data is provided below in Figure 26: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P-61]
Daimler Truck's analysis shows that the average idle period for a day-cab vehicle in California is
227 seconds, in contrast with the 25 seconds provided in the Cold FTP. Daimler Truck believes
that other application types, such as long-haul sleeper trucks, or trucks operating outside of
California (which actively discourages idling) would be likely to see even longer idle operation
before the first acceleration event. In this manner, the Cold FTP significantly misrepresents the
way vehicles are actually operated, and accordingly, misrepresents the emissions impacts of
early acceleration events. Combined with the mis-weighting of cold operation previously
discussed, Daimler Truck believes that the current FTP significantly penalizes early, cold-engine
operation compared to real world emissions impact. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.61]
Daimler Truck believes that the EPA should add a 300-second idle period to the beginning of the
Cold FTP to better reflect real-world operational profiles. This would allow the full application
of emissions controls technologies to be adequately represented in the FTP emissions evaluation.
The emissions during this idle period should be measured as part of the Cold FTP emissions and
weighted accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.61]
If the Agency is concerned about any vehicles that regularly drive off immediately after their
cold start, it could address this with a requirement to prevent such operation. For example, EPA
could require manufacturers implement an emissions control, which prevents significant engine
work until the emissions system is active and effective—such as a vehicle speed limit until the
aftertreatment system reaches operating temperature. Such limits on vehicle operation, and
321
-------
customer acceptance of said limits, has precedence in the world of diesel engines, with Wait-to-
Start lamps being common emissions controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.62]
EPA could also consider addressing this issue by further de-weighting the first minutes of the
cold FTP, or by otherwise introducing a warm-up protocol which would make the composite
FTP emissions represent real-world emissions profiles more accurately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.62]
In any case, if EPA does not adequately adjust the Cold/Hot FTP to accurately reflect real world
operation, manufacturers will be forced to optimize their systems to target these initial FTP
acceleration events. Since temperature is the most critical factor to these emissions,
manufacturers will be forced to select systems with less thermal inertia to maximize warmup,
including smaller CCSCRs, reduced SCR substrate volume or wall thickness, lighter, less
durable materials, and implement control technologies that increase system temperature, which
necessarily come at the cost of C02 emissions. Manufacturers may be able to optimize systems
for these early Cold FTP emissions to reduce on-cycle NOx, but it will come at the cost of real
world emissions reductions, in terms of C02 and NOx over the rest of the vehicle's
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.62]
EPA has not demonstrated that the proposed RMC emissions standards are feasible, in
particular that the NOx limits proposed under Option 1 are appropriate. Additionally, the
PM standard should be set to 7.5 mg/hp-hr to reflect the state of available
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.62]
Similar to the FTP standards, EPA has not adequately demonstrated feasibility of a 20 mg/hp-hr
NOx standard for the RMC, when considering the totality of the Agency's proposal. While there
are new emission control systems that can be used to improve emissions characteristics by
improving SCR temperature, such new control systems do not provide any emissions benefit in
operations best represented by the RMC. RMC operations are intended to represent warmed-up,
steady-state duty cycles, where SCR technology is already being fully leveraged. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.62]
Proposed catalyst candidates for potential UL NOx systems do not show any benefit compared to
existing catalyst systems in the area best represented by the RMC. In Figure 27 below, Daimler
Truck compares current SCR technology to a proposed UL NOx system, demonstrating that in
areas of high temperature, little to no improvement is possible beyond today's performance.
Similarly, the proposed catalysts do not show any significantly improved aging behavior
compared to the catalysts in production today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.62]
Since RMC emissions performance is dominated by high-temperature SCR conversion
efficiency, and since the high NOx flux experienced in the RMC makes systems particularly
susceptible to aging behavior, Daimler Truck finds that new technology offers no improvement
to RMC emissions potential. While EPA offers that manufacturers could select larger catalysts to
improve conversion efficiency or aging, doing so would come at the cost of increased thermal
inertia, and accordingly, reduced cold start and low-load emissions perfolmance. EPA also does
322
-------
not consider the impact of such increased catalyst size on packaging the proposed system on the
many vehicle configurations offered today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.63]
Accordingly, Daimler Truck recommends that EPA set the RMC NOx threshold to 50 mg/hp-hr.,
or 0.05 g/hp-hr, to reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology that will be available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.63]
Similarly, in light of SWRI's post DPF ash cleaning procedure data, Daimler Truck believes that
EPA has not demonstrated feasibility for the proposed PM standard. Daimler Truck submits that
a PM standard of 7.5 mg/hp-hr on the RMC would be the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable, given the state of current technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.63]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
In addition, MECA supports EPA's proposed PM standard of 0.005 g/bhp-hr on the FTP and
RMC cycles for MY 2027 and later engines. This PM standard is technologically feasible with
currently available DPF technology as supported by the certification data of current heavy-duty
diesel engines that implement DPFs, which report substantially lower PM measurements. This
more stringent standard will prevent backsliding by ensuring the best available DPFs remain an
integral component in aftertreatment systems. In response to tighter PM limits signaled by the
EU and CARET s Omnibus, DPF suppliers are delivering improved filter substrates that have
smaller mean pore size and more uniform pore size distribution, resulting in higher filtration
efficiency and reduced pressure drop as the filter loads with soot. These improvements result in
reduced particle number and mass emissions by up to 50%, even on a clean or freshly
regenerated filter, better light-off performance necessary for soot regeneration and potential fuel
economy benefits [7], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.5-6]
[7] Y. Kurimoto, R. Mishina, K. Kato, T. Aoki, K. Tanaka, T. Honda, A. Kaneda and C.
Vogt, 'Next Generation Diesel Particulate Filter for Future Tighter HDV/NRMM
Emission Regulations (SAE 2022-01-0545),' SAE WCX, April 2022.
The proposed emission limits have been derived from years of technology demonstration and
testing at Southwest Research Institute under CARB and EPA contracts that began in 2014 and
have been enhanced under multiple phases to expand duty cycles, technologies and engines.
MECA and our members have committed millions of dollars in cash and in-kind contribution to
provide hardware and funding into this program to demonstrate multiple pathways for meeting a
90% reduction in NOx while not increasing GHG emissions and controlling other regulated and
unregulated pollutants. This seminal demonstration program also benefited from in-kind
contribution from Volvo and Cummins who provided engines and calibration assistance, funding
from South Coast AQMD and the Port of Los Angeles, among others, to deliver a robust
technology feasibility demonstration through partnership between industry and regulators. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.6]
The first stage of the program that concluded in 2016 relied on an advanced MY 2014 diesel
engine that included turbo-compounding technology for meeting future 2017 Phase 1 GHG
limits. Although this engine provides impressive fuel saving at highway speeds, it posed thermal
323
-------
management challenges at cold start and low load operation. This could be overcome through the
use of active heating based either on electric or fuel burner components. In spite of these
challenges, this first ever demonstration of ultra-low NOx emissions served as a great learning
opportunity through screening of thirty-three different aftertreatment configurations and
advanced calibration to demonstrate that future 0.02 g/bhp-hr emission limits are feasible. The
learning from this stage of the program served as the starting point for technology selection in
future stages of this multi-year program. This work was published in 2017 in a number of SAE
technical papers [8] [9] [10], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.6]
[8] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, M. Carter, S. Yoon and C. Henry, 'Achieving Ultra
Low NOx Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine
and an Advanced Technology Emissions System - Thermal Management Strategies (SAE
2017-01-0954),' SAE International Journal of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1697-1712,
2017.
[9] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, S. Yoon, M. Carter and C. Henry, 'Achieving Ultra Low NOx
Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine - Comparison
of Advanced Technology Approaches (SAE 2017-01-0956),' SAE International Journal
of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1722-1735, 2017.
[10] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, J. V. Sarlashkar, S. B. Rengarajan, S. Yoon, C.
Henry and B. Zavala, 'Achieving Ultra Low NOx Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy -
Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine and an Advanced Technology Emissions System -
NOx Management Strategies (SAE 2017-01-0958),' SAE International Journal of
Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1736-1748, 2017.
The primary objective of stage two of the program was to develop a low load certification cycle
based on real world truck operation derived from duty cycles collected by the National
Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and UC-Riverside on over 800 trucks operating in California
and across the U.S. The methodology developed under this program by NREL and SwRI was a
completely original approach to certification cycle development and will serve as a model for
future regulations around the world for years to come. The stage 1 engine and aftertreatment
system was operated over the newly developed certification cycle and demonstrated that when
engine calibration and aftertreatment are optimized for real world operation, it is possible to
achieve NOx reductions over 95% from the baseline system under the most challenging
conditions. Although overcoming the thermal mass of the turbo-compound unit at low loads
required active thermal management at a fuel penalty of about 2%, we did learn about
aftertreatment architecture and design optimization to reduce emissions from both cold-start and
low load operation, and this knowhow was carried into stage 3 of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.6]
Stage 3 of the program began in 2017 and employed a different state-of-the-art 15L engine that
met the 2017 Phase 2 GHG limits without the use of turbo-compounding. The aftertreatment
system options were narrowed down based on all of the learning in stages 1 and 2. Furthermore,
replacing the use of active burner thermal management, we applied cylinder deactivation (CDA)
on this engine and further calibration to get rapid heat-up of the aftertreatment from cold-start as
324
-------
well as maintaining SCR temperature during coasting, idling and low speed operation. The CDA
was further able to provide thermal management while reducing fuel consumption and C02
emissions. Other technology options for simultaneous thermal management and GHG reductions
were also evaluated and are discussed below. These include driven turbochargers among others
that OEMs could employ to build additional compliance margin against tighter NOx limits and
future Phase 2 standards. This stage of the program was another first of its kind demonstration of
achieving both ultra-low NOx emissions and simultaneous GHG reductions that have long been
considered a challenging trade-off by engine developers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
pp.6-7]
It should also be noted that technology demonstration on a vehicle has been conducted to support
the European Union ongoing process of considering more stringent heavy-duty criteria emission
standards in a Euro VII rulemaking. This work, conducted by the Association for Emission
Controls by Catalyst (AECC) is showing that stringent NOx emission limits can be met on a
vehicle in real world driving conditions by employing similar technologies demonstrated in the
program at SwRI [11], The integration onto an existing truck chassis required a slightly modified
close-coupled catalyst architecture and demonstrates yet another pathway to achieving low NOx
emissions. Further work by AECC demonstrated that integrating an electrically heated catalyst
(EHC) with the close-coupled DOC yielded an additional 60-77% reduced NOx during cold start
in an urban delivery drive cycle [12], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.7]
[11] Mendoza Villafuerte, Pablo; Demuynck, Joachim; Bosteels, Dirk; Gioria, R; Selleri,
T; Melas, A; Suarez-Bertoa, R; Perujo, A; Wilkes, T; Robb, L; Recker, P, 'Ultra-Low
NOx Emissions with Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a Heavy-duty Truck
Application,' in 30th Aachen Colloquium, 2021.
[12] J. Demuynck, P. Mendoza Villafuerte and D. Bosteels, 'Ultra-low pollutant and C02
emissions on demonstrator vehicles with advanced emission controls and sustainable
renewable fuels,' in 10th International Conference on Fuel Science, Aachen, 2022.
Over the course of this multi-year program, the technology innovation was not static, and in fact
new technologies came on midstream as they became commercially viable. Even the
aftertreatment components that remained fundamentally unchanged from today's systems on
trucks benefitted from multiple generations of substrate improvements and new catalyst
formulations that occurred over the 8 years of testing under this program. Further improvements
in catalysts and architectures have been tested in the latest EPA-led portion of the test program
that built on the learnings of the CARB funded portion of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, p.7]
Catalyst suppliers have already developed a next generation of SCR catalysts with higher NOx
reduction efficiency and better durability compared to the Stage 3 parts tested in the SwRI
demonstration program. Through the use of sophisticated models that incorporate the latest
learnings on both thermal and chemical aging effects, it is possible to project the gains in
efficiency provided by these new materials. A similar methodology was used to that discussed in
the MECA 2027 white paper, incorporating exhaust information from the latest engine
calibration from SwRI and an optimized dosing calibration for the new downstream SCR
325
-------
catalyst. The catalysts were laboratory aged both thermally and chemically using sulfur
containing simulated exhaust gas to represent 435,000 miles of equivalent engine aging. The
catalysts were modeled over the FTP, RMC and LLC certification cycles and
demonstrated lower emissions than the Stage 3 system at SwRI. The not yet published results
suggest that the latest generation SCR catalyst would provide OEMs with additional margin to a
0.02 g/bhp-hr standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.7-8]
Furthermore, even in the short time since the latest emission control system was provided to
SwRI for the demonstration program, improvements continue to be made to substrates and
catalysts. For example, a recent paper published at the 2022 SAE WCX conference describes
development of high-porosity honeycomb substrates with thinner wall thickness and high cell
density that can be coated with SCR catalyst. The combination of developments on this substrate
enables higher surface area and lower thermal mass, which improves coating efficiency, reduces
catalyst heat-up time, and reduces pressure drop. These result in performance improvements that
are especially prominent at low temperature operation. At engine exhaust temperatures of
175a,,/, the NOx conversion efficiency improved by 14% compared to earlier generation
substrates [13], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.8]
[13] Y. Ido, K. Kinoshita, C. Goto, H. Toyoshima, S. Hirose, E. Ohara, T. Honda, A.
Kaneda, A. Wells and C. Vogt, 'High-Porosity Honeycomb Substrate with Thin-Wall and
High Cell Density Using for SCR Coating to Meet Worldwide Tighter Emission
Regulations (SAE 2022-01-0550),' in SAE WCX, Detroit, MI, 2022.
This example of continual improvement and optimization is a testament to the ongoing
innovative technology development occurring in the industry between suppliers and their OEM
customers. Each time a test is run, new information is obtained and applied to the next iteration.
This has been going on continually over the past 15 years of advanced emission controls on
trucks. In fact, over the life of the SwRI program, catalyst suppliers have deployed new catalyst
formulations and coating techniques to continually improve the durability and performance of
the SCR system in order to build greater compliance margin relative to the program targets. Our
industry has seen a tremendous amount of innovation on both engines and aftertreatment since
the U.S. 2010 on-road diesel standards were implemented. This learning has been applied to
improve manufacturing and reduce variability that has allowed systems to be downsized by
about 60% and reducing their costs by about 30% (costs will be further addressed later). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.8]
This regulation will complement CARET s Omnibus to set the goals for engineers at OEMs and
suppliers who will work together to make these systems more robust and durable as they are
integrated on trucks and tested in the field. This collaboration is only possible once new
standards are set and our industry is motivated to work with our OEM customers to meet them.
As part of this process, over the next several years, a number of observations from the SwRI
program will be evaluated and applied to make further improvements to the engine-out and
tailpipe NOx limits. This partnership between suppliers and their customers will lead to
improvements in durability while delivering the compliance margins that OEMs rely upon when
certifying engines and emission control systems. Some of the areas for improvement that have
been identified include:
326
-------
1) Applying improved substrates and catalyst formulations that target poisoning resistance at low
temperatures while retaining high temperature ammonia selectivity.
2) Adjustments in catalyst volume and engine calibration to accommodate catalyst aging for
longer useful life.
3) Packaging improvements for passive thermal management and ammonia mixing and
distribution for optimal urea utilization.
4) Modified catalyst component architectures that take advantage of passive thermal
management, NO oxidation capability and further reduced fuel consumption.
5) Close attention to engine and urea dosing calibration over all duty-cycles to ensure optimal
ammonia surface coverage of the upstream and downstream SCR to optimize catalyst utilization.
6) Improvements in NOx and ammonia sensor accuracy and detection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, p.9]
Over the past 12 years of diesel aftertreatment experience, our industry has learned a great deal
about the design and operation of advanced diesel aftertreatment systems based on a DOC, DPF
and SCR and the use of liquid urea to reduce NOx. The next 5 years will build on that learning to
essentially use the same fundamental components to achieve a further 90% reduction in NOx.
Passenger cars have had the benefit of 45 years of engine and aftertreatment development to
achieve SULEV emissions. The SwRI program has demonstrated that near SULEV emissions
are also achievable from heavy-duty engines to match the NOx emissions from natural gas
engines that have operated at 0.02 g/bhp-hr levels for years. A more detailed discussion of the
multiple technology pathways to achieving the emission limits proposed in this rule is provided
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.9-10]
Commercially available technologies have been demonstrated to meet a 0.035 g/bhp-hr
FTP NOx standard at 600,000 miles full useful life by 2027. These technologies can also
enable a 0.02 g/bhp-hr intermediate FTP NOx standard at 435,000 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.10]
Engine technologies, advancements in engine calibration, thermal management, and catalysts can
be combined to enable engines plus aftertreatment systems to achieve FTP and RMC emissions
below 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx [15], Ongoing work by MECA members is aimed at demonstrating
emission levels that will provide sufficient compliance margins that OEMs need for full useful
life durability. Recent testing funded by EPA further optimized the engine and aftertreatment
system based on lessons learned during Stage 3 of the CARB Low-NOx Demonstration Project.
During cold-start and low-load operation, which are challenging conditions for emission control,
engine technologies can be combined with calibration and thermal management to reduce
engine-out NOx emissions and achieve real-world NOx reductions. Engine calibration and
thermal management combined with advanced catalysts and substrates have improved to the
point where a current technology engine plus aftertreatment system can achieve FTP emissions
below 0.05 g/bhp-hr NOx by 2024 to meet the CARB stage 1 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, p.10]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
327
-------
New aftertreatment architectures, that employ a close-coupled selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) catalyst before the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and diesel particulate filter (DPF) in a
twin SCR system arrangement with dual urea dosing, can meet future FTP/RMC NOx limits of
0.02 g/bhp-hr after 435,000 miles by 2027. Several potential future aftertreatment layouts have
been demonstrated in the SwRI test program. MECA has published two white papers that outline
the technologies and models used to design catalyst, substrate and architectures to meet ultra-low
NOx levels [16] [15], Over the past 8 years of demonstration work at SwRI, testing has
confirmed MECA's modeled results while also showing the need for modest enhancement of
emissions control durability to provide margin for the FTP and RMC cycles over extended useful
life. Over the next five years, industry will embrace any remaining challenges as suppliers
continue to optimize their components and engine manufacturers hone their calibrations to
exceed what has been demonstrated to date. This continued improvement work is why MECA
believes that an intermediate limit of 0.02 g/bhp-hr is a technologically achievable up to 435,000
miles for a national program by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 10]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
[16] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Model Year 2024 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles
in Meeting Lower NOx Standards,' 2019. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_MY_2024_HD_Low_NOx_Report_061019.pdf.
PM and particle number emissions from MP and HP gasoline engines can be reduced
further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.32]
EPA is proposing to tighten PM by 50% to 0.005 g/bhp-hr for diesel engines and MECA
believes that would not require any change in technology but only serve as a backstop to prevent
backsliding under a tighter NOx limit. As fuel efficiency standards tighten and GDI injection
technology becomes more common on commercial vehicle engines, the PM emissions from
medium and heavy-duty gasoline engines are likely to increase dramatically. The European
Commission, China and India have adopted a particle number emission standard for light-duty
vehicles powered by gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines as a part of their Version 6 light-
duty emission standards. These standards were set at a stringency to require best available
controls at the time being GPFs. Since 2019 high pressure fuel injection technology has further
advanced to a point that it too can meet these stringent particle number limits. Europe
implemented the PN limit for all vehicles in 2019, and China in 2020. India will implement it in
2023. China will require all vehicles to meet this limit in 2023, including gasoline port fuel
injected vehicles. This PN standard established a more stringent particle emission limit for GDI
vehicles in the same timeframe as EPA's 3 mg/mile PM standard that will complete phase-in
with the 2021 model year. The Euro 6 GDI particle number limit has been set at 6 X 1011
particles/km, measured using the European PMP particle measurement protocol and is
approximately equivalent to 0.5 mg/mile. This European particle number limit combined with
Euro 6d Real Driving Emission testing has motivated auto manufacturers to introduce these
cleaner technologies on vehicles. Nearly all auto manufacturers that sell into the European or
328
-------
Chinese markets are using particulate filters on gasoline direct injection vehicles as well as some
PFI vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.32-33]
MECA funded a study at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that summarized
statistics of real world operation from two major data sources: NREL's Fleet DNA database that
includes 435 conventional, diesel-powered trucks from 25 different vocations and from 24 fleets
across the U.S. and University of California Riverside's CE-CERT database that consists of 79
diesel-powered vehicles from 10 different vocations and from 23 fleets operating in California
[22], Results from this report provide some insights into the causes for NOx emission reduction
challenges due to real world operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.17]
[22] C. Zhang, E. Miller, A. Kotz, K. Kelly and M. Thornton, 'Characterization of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Operations from In-Use Data: An Analysis of Starts,
Soak Time, and Warm-Up Duration,' Golden, CO, 2019.
Some observations from this work are shown in Figure 4 and include:
• Cold starts represent approximately 12% of total real-world starts, and this is
appropriately reflected by the FTP composite weighting of 14.3%.
• Cold operation time is also well captured by the FTP certification cycle (1.5%) versus
1.3% in the real-world.
• Current cold and hot start definitions are based on coolant temperature, which does not
often correlate with SCR inlet temperature and thus SCR performance.
• Much of real-world operation (30-70%) involves restarting a hot engine (based on
coolant temperature), but the aftertreatment has cooled off below the optimal operating
temperature and must be warmed back-up quickly to minimize NOx emissions.
Engines idle much more in the real world than captured by inventory emission models or
certification cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.17-18]
Impacts of fuel quality on future aftertreatment systems: In order to achieve reductions in
harmful emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines, federal regulations were designed to allow
for an engineered systems approach that combines advanced engine designs, advanced exhaust
control technologies, and improved diesel fuel quality. In current diesel engine regulations, fuel
quality requirements set a limit on the amount of sulfur allowed in fuel. The reason for this is
two-fold; first, when sulfur is present in fuel that participates in combustion, the resulting
emissions contain sulfur oxides (SOx) as well as sulfate particulate matter. Second, sulfur oxides
are known compounds that reversibly affect the performance of precious metal and SCR
catalysts found in diesel emission control components through a number of deactivation
mechanisms. The current limit of 15 ppm sulfur in ultra-low sulfur diesel was established based
on precious metal (PGM) in diesel catalyst. The PGM oxidizing function of the DOC and DPF
can reversibly deactivate over time in the presence of sulfur. The DOC serves to oxidize N02
from the engine so it is in the proper oxidation state to be reduced by the SCR using ammonia as
the reductant. Similarly, the PGM on the DOC, upstream of the SCR, oxidizes S02 to S03
which is a stronger poison for the SCR. Because it is positioned upstream of the DOC/DPF, the
front SCR in a close-coupled dual-SCR aftertreatment architecture is primarily exposed to S02,
329
-------
which is a less severe poison for the zeolite SCR catalyst. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
p.23]
Well established thermal sulfur removal strategies are employed to reverse the negative impacts
of sulfur on these catalysts. Commercial DOCs begin to recover from sulfur poisoning between
350-600°C, depending on the catalyst design. SCR catalysts are generally tolerant to sulfur found
in today's fuels; however, long term exposure may cause gradual deactivation via two potential
poisoning mechanisms. A less often occurring mechanism is the irreversible reaction of sulfuric
acid with the zeolite catalyst washcoat. More often, sulfur can chemisorb onto catalyst active
sites and block further NOx reduction reaction from occurring at the active site. If recovery is
necessary, copper zeolite SCRs show nearly full recovery at 500°C. The SCR catalyst
downstream of the DPF is typically regenerated during the periodic high temperature excursion
used to regenerate soot from the DPF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.23]
An aftertreatment architecture likely to be employed to meet the Proposed Option 1 standards
may include a twin SCR arrangement with a close-coupled SCR that is upstream of today's
aftertreatment systems. In the absence of an upstream DOC, the close-coupled SCR will be
mainly exposed to S02 rather than S03, the latter being a more severe poison. Research suggests
that sulfur effects on the close-coupled SCR can be reversed by heating the catalyst to 500°C,
which can be achieved through late post injection or other engine thermal management strategies,
including cylinder deactivation and variable valve actuation (VVA) strategies. The SwRI Low-
NOx Test Program has demonstrated that upstream SCRs in a dual SCR system can be brought
up to temperature for desulfation via engine calibration to optimize short periods of higher
temperature operation without incurring a fuel penalty or significant catalyst deterioration. The
strategy employed by SwRI successfully removed sulfur from the SCR catalyst and reversed the
marginal performance loss experienced due to sulfur deposition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, pp.23-24]
EPA has funded a continuation of the SwRI program with accelerated aging and durability
demonstration out to 800,000 mile equivalent useful life using a new aging protocol being
developed with industry partners and MECA. The results of this program are helping to inform
about the long-term impacts of fuel sulfur on SCR catalysts. Aging experience from catalyst
manufacturers suggests that the greatest impact may be on the close-coupled SCR since this is
closest to the engine and sees the highest temperature and the major portion of lube oil metal
exposure. The downstream, underfloor SCR is somewhat protected from fuel metals by the DOC
and DPF. However, it will see higher temperatures during DPF regeneration. Results of the aging
demonstration conducted at SwRI have confirmed some loss of performance from 435,000 miles
to 800,000 miles. However, the rate of performance loss was cycle specific. For example, the
SwRI program results showed minimal loss of performance over the LLC (0.029 g/bhp-hr to
0.032 g/bhp-hr) from 435,000 miles to 800,000 miles for the latest system ('Stage3 RW') tested
as of April 2022. The same deterioration over the FTP cycle test resulted in a 0.020 g/bhp-hr
level at 435,000 miles compared to 0.037 g/bhp-hr at 800,000 miles. It should be noted that all of
these results are under the Proposed Option 1 standards at 800,000 miles for MY 2031
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.24]
330
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
EPA has erroneously set a standard of 35 mg/bhp-hr NOx on the FTP/SET cycle for light-heavy -
and medium-heavy-duty diesel (LHDD and MHDD) and heavy-duty Otto-cycle (HDO) engines.
This standard is inconsistent with EPA's own data on the capability of these engines, in addition
to the requirements of the Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
California engaged in an extensive, multi-year process with significant stakeholder engagement
to justify its Omnibus standards. Much of this work was done in collaboration with EPA—as
such, the agency should be well apprised of the latest available technologies to reduce emissions
from diesel engines. Generally, we find the agency's Draft RIA to reflect up-to-date information
on technical potential. Unfortunately, not all of that work appears to be reflected in its feasibility
analysis. Below, we assess some deficiencies in the agency's analysis and include additional
references to support stronger emissions reductions requirements from conventionally powered
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 23]
128. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/research/apr/past/13-312.pdf
129.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/appi.pdf
EPA is proposing two changes which have the potential to significantly reduce particulate matter
emissions: 1) a reduced PM standard and 2) requiring closed crankcase emissions. Our support
for these changes is discussed below. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 35]
EPA's certification program as well as its in-use test data both confirm that today's diesel trucks
emit significantly less particulate pollution than pre-2007/2010 vehicles. In fact, every 2021-
2022 certified diesel engine achieves an FTP/SET standard below EPA's proposed standard for
2027,145 indicating that there is currently more than a 50 percent compliance margin.
Furthermore, the most recent data on EPA's Stage 3RW system indicates PM values below 5
mg/bhp-hr on all test cycles, all the way up to 800,000 miles. 146 On the FTP and SET test
cycles, in particular, the SwRI data exhibit more than a 70 percent margin at the 2031 FUL,
indicating that diesel technology can meet a standard well below the proposed 5 mg/bhp-hr on
the FTP and SET cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 35 - 36]
145 EPA. 2022. Heavy-duty highway gasoline and diesel certification data (Model years:
2015-present), updated February 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/heavy-duty-gas-and-diesel-
engines-2015-present.xlsx.
It is critical that EPA eliminate any potential for backsliding on the progress made to date on
direct particulate matter emissions and encourage even further gains by setting mandatory PM
standards for heavy-duty engines that are at least as stringent as the proposed Option 1
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 36]
331
-------
The proposed full useful life (FUL) of LHDD engines is 190,000 miles in 2027 and 270,000
miles in 2031. The proposed FUL of MHDD engines is 270,000 miles in 2027 and 350,000 miles
in 2031. At 435,000 miles of accelerated aging, the SwRI demonstration of the Phase 3 RW
system achieved a 20 mg/bhp-hr level of NOx emissions on the FTP cycle, 17 mg/bhp-hr on the
SET, and just 29 mg/bhp-hr on the LLC (Draft RIA Table 3-8). This level of aging (435,000
miles) exceeds the level of deterioration of even the 2031 FUL for either engine. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
EPA's proposed stringency for LHDD and MHDD engines exceeds the feasibility demonstrated
at SwRI by 75 percent on the FTP cycle (35 compared to 20 mg/bhp-hr), 106 percent on the SET
cycle (35 compared to 17 mg/bhp-hr), and 210 percent on the LLC cycle (90 compared to 29
mg/bhp-hr). Such levels well exceed any reasonable compliance margin, and the agency has not
explained anywhere its rationale for such gross differences. Perhaps even more evidence of its
error is that its proposed 2031 standards are much more consistent with the available data,
aligning with the Omnibus standards of 20 (FTP), 20 (SET), and 50 (LLC) mg/bhp-hr. This
discrepancy between the 2027 and 2031 capabilities for LHDD and MHDD engines, is
unaccounted for in both the Draft RIA or NPRM and is particularly surprising given the
extended FULs in 2031 for these engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
While the demonstration engine was a heavy-heavy-duty diesel (HHDD) engine, this cannot
explain the gross error in EPA's proposal. Other demonstration projects on an MHDD engine
were able to achieve the 20 mg/bhp-hr FTP standard.87 Moreover, EPA's data shows relatively
similar behavior across engine sizes when appropriately normalized.88 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
87. Dhanraj, F., Dahodwala, M., Joshi, S., Koehler, E. et al., "Evaluation of 48V
Technologies to Meet Future C02 and Low NOx Emission Regulations for Medium
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines," SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0555, 2022,
doi: 10.4271/2022-01-0555.
88. Draft RIA, Table 3-21
Given the proposed FUL schedule, EPA should align its numerical stringency in 2027 with its
values in 2031, which would thus align with the Omnibus and the available evidence. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
As noted by EPA, variable valve actuation (VVA) has been used for decades in light-duty
vehicles (LDVs) to reduce fuel use, but recent advances in controls now allow for new efficiency
strategies like part-time Atkinson and Miller cycles. VVA strategies for heavy-duty vehicles can
build on those controls advancements to develop novel diesel valve control that can fine-tune
intake/exhaust valve timing to reduce emissions and fuel use at the same time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 23]
Early exhaust valve opening (EEVO) is one example of a strategy to utilize VVA in an effort to
reduce emissions.90 In this case, the exhaust valve is opened before completing the power
stroke, which can thus significantly increase exhaust temperature, albeit at the expense of
332
-------
increased fuel use, and in some cases with trade-offs on other pollutants (HC, CO, PM2.5). EPA
notes these trade-offs in its Draft RIA (16). Careful optimization is key to EEVO, and these
trade-offs can be managed through more advanced controls.91 With such advanced controls in
place, VVA can be used to compensate for any fuel penalty from EEVO through improved
efficiency, such as early and late intake valve closing (EIVC, LIVC)—such strategy can even be
used to implement Miller cycle operation in the diesel engine. A forthcoming analysis as part of
the Volvo SuperTruck program shows that Miller cycle operation can enable reduced NOx
emissions without compromising on efficiency.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 23 -
24]
90. See, for example, Honardar, S., H. Busch, T. Schnorbus, C. Severin, A.F. Kolbeck,
and T. Korfer. 2011. "Exhaust temperature management for diesel engines assessment of
engine concepts and calibration strategies with regard to fuel penalty." SAE Technical
Paper 2011-24 0176. Online at https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-24-0176 and Roberts, L., M.
Magee, G. Shaver, A. Garg, J. McCarthy, E. Koeberlein, E. Holloway, R. Shute, D.
Koeberlein, and D. Nielsen. 2015. "Modeling the impact of early exhaust valve opening
on exhaust aftertreatment thermal management and efficiency for compression ignition
engines." Int. J. Eng. Res. 16 (6), 773-794. Online at
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468087414551616.
91. Salehi, R., and A.G. Stefanopoulou. 2018. "Optimal exhaust valve opening control
for fast aftertreatment warm up in diesel engines." Proceedings of ASME 2018 Dynamic
Systems and Control Conference, Vol. 2. DSCC2018-9178, V002T26A003. Online at
https://doi.org/10.1115/DSCC2018-9178.
92. Garcia, E., V. Triantopoulos, A. Boehman, A., M. Taylor, and J. Li. 2020. "Impact of
Miller Cycle Strategies on Combustion Characteristics, Emissions and Efficiency in
Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines." SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-1127. Online at
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/2020-01-1127/.
One particular VVA strategy which helps both reduce fuel consumption and address low-load
emissions is cylinder deactivation (CDA), which EPA and CARB have incorporated into their
heavy-duty engine demonstration work with SwRI. CDA has already been proven effective and
durable in light-duty vehicles, but recent research shows the strong benefits of CDA in heavy-
duty diesel vehicles as well. CDA essentially allows the engine to be downsized in real time—
this has the effect of dramatically increasing the temperature of low load operation (about 100°C
in an MHD engine) while improving overall fuel efficiency.93 Importantly, this study found fuel
savings (3.2 to 7.8 percent) and NOx reduction (33 to 86 percent) over a range of real-world
driving cycles emphasizing low load operation, without any modification to the production
aftertreatment system. Even at low-load operation and idle conditions, heavy-duty CDA saw
increases of 60-80°C with fuel savings of 8 to 28 percent.94 EPA's own data, which was for
some reason not cited in the Draft RIA, shows similar behavior, reducing tailpipe NOx on the
low-load cycle (LLC) by 77 percent, thanks to an average increase in temperature at the SCR
inlet by 38°C.95 Data on a third VVA system shows the same behavior but extends the
applicability to medium-duty engines.96 While this study was only a simulation, it shows
tailpipe NOx reductions of 29 to 49 percent while reducing C02 emissions by 1.6 to 3.5 percent
333
-------
over a range of representative cycles. A follow-up bench study by the same company on a heavy-
heavy-duty engine saw a similar range of behavior, suggesting robustness of the original
findings.97 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 24]
93. McCarthy, J. 2019a. Simultaneous C02 and NOx Reduction for Medium & Heavy -
Duty Diesel Engines Using Cylinder Deactivation. (Presentation). 16th SAE Brasil forum
on diesel and alternative technologies for commercial and off-road vehicles, September 4,
2019.
94. McCarthy, J. 2019b. Meeting Future Low Load Emissions Using Cylinder
Deactivation and EGR Pumps to Achieve Simultaneous NOx and C02 Reduction.
(Presentation). Emissions 2019 Conference, Livonia, MI, June 5, 2019.
95. Matheaus, A., Singh, J., Sanchez, L., Evans, D. et al., "Evaluation of Cylinder
Deactivation on a Class 8 Truck over Light Load Cycles," SAE Technical Paper 2020-
01-0800, 2020, doi: 10.4271/2020-01-0800.
96. Scassa, M., Korfer, T., Chen, S.K., Fuerst, J. et al., "Smart Cylinder Deactivation
Strategies to Improve Fuel Economy and Pollutant Emissions for Diesel-Powered
Applications," SAE Technical Paper 2019-24-0055, 2019, doi: 10.4271/2019-24-0055.
97. Srinivasan, V., Wolk, B., Cai, X., Henrichsen, L. et al., "Application of Dynamic
Skip Fire for NOx and C02 Emissions Reduction of Diesel Powertrains," SAE Int. J.
Advances & Curr. Prac. in Mobility 4(l):225-235, 2022, doi: 10.4271/2021-01-0450.
EPA seems to have determined that there is a significant amount of certainty needed in the
selection of VVA as an emissions reductions tool.98 However, recent work shows that the same
turbocharger can be used with and without CD A, and that there are multiple calibration strategies
that can be deployed to keep the aftertreatment system warm while simultaneously reducing fuel
use.99 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 24]
98. Draft RIA, p. 16.
99. Morris, A. and McCarthy, J., "The Effect of Heavy-Duty Diesel Cylinder
Deactivation on Exhaust Temperature, Fuel Consumption, and Turbocharger
Performance up to 3 bar BMEP," SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-1407, 2020,
doi: 10.4271/2020-01-1407.
EPA additionally noted concerns about noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) with CD A;
however, recent data from Eaton shows that relatively simple adjustments in mounting and
damping can dramatically reduce such NVH issues. 100 Tula used a flywheel setup to reduce
oscillations but showed that such a design could be accomplished without any additional
modifications to packaging. 101 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
334
-------
100. Pieczko, M., McCarthy, Jr., J., and Hamler, J., "Mitigating Vibration for a Heavy-
Duty Diesel Cylinder Deactivation Truck," SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0661, 2021,
doi: 10.4271/2021-01-0661.
101. Srinivasan et al. 2021
EPA suggested that vocational vehicles in particular may not be able to take full advantage of
CDA,102 but these data on NVH and the applicability to reduced engine sizes suggests that CD A
is broadly applicable to all heavy-duty applications and must be considered as a viable strategy
to simultaneously reduce fuel consumption and both C02 and NOx emissions across a broad
range of heavy-duty vehicle categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 25]
102. Draft RIA pp. 16-17
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
This rule is being considered under a backdrop of severe supply chain disruptions that are
forcing goods to reach their end destinations late or not at all. These disruptions have also
contributed to record high inflation as the cost to transport goods has risen dramatically — costs
being passed on to the average American. While the general cause of these disruptions can be
traced to the COVID-19 pandemic, the current crisis we are facing exposed how fragile the
supply chain was originally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, pp. 2-3]
The supply chain as presently constructed lacks resilience, as each piece of the puzzle had just
been barely working until the added demand and workforce disruptions sparked by the pandemic
caused it to fall apart. The Biden administration's Council of Economic Advisors' Economic
Report of the President, published in April 2022, supports this as it concludes that modern supply
chains have become more fragile and 'supply chain fragility will continue to be a
problem.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 3]
Adding increased regulations to heavy-duty vehicles will make it more difficult for necessary
resilience to be built into the trucking side of the supply chain. When another surge in demand or
some other added strain is put on the supply chain, each link must be able to withstand it. With
this proposed rule, trucks would be less affordable making it more difficult for fleet owners to
add additional trucks and accommodate an already unpredictable and unstable supply
chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 3]
Furthermore, the proposed rule would add several new requirements to heavy-duty vehicles and
engines that would require more parts to be added into their production and detection systems,
creating additional possible chokepoints in heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing. Currently, an
NACD member company has been awaiting a shipment of new power units that has been 8-9
months delayed and is still without a delivery date. Data referenced by The Wall Street Journal
also shows 55% fewer orders being complete from manufacturers in 2022 compared to early
2021 due to equipment struggles.2 NACD fears that difficulties getting new trucks and
components assembled and on the road would worsen under this proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 3]
335
-------
2. The Wall Street Journal, 'Truckers Want More Trucks Than Industry Can Build,'
WSJ.com, WSJ https://www.wsj .com/articles/truckers-want-more-trucks-than-industry-
can-build-at-the-moment-11652094004?mod=pls_whats_news_us_business_f
Lastly, during the public testimony on this proposed rule, several stakeholders raised concerns
that increased emission requirements could result in lower truck reliability. Decreased truck
reliability would further exacerbate future supply chain challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1279-A1, p. 3]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA also notes the potent toxicity and impact of diesel PM and welcomes EPA's proposal of
a PM anti-backsliding standard, based on use of a DPF, of 5 mg/hp-hr, down from the current
level of 10 mg/hp-hr. EPA should finalize this standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p.
16]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
The NOx certification standards proposed under Option 1 do not provide room for adequate
compliance margins and are therefore infeasible and unworkable. The foundation of proposed
Option 1 is based on the CARB SWRI Stage 3 proof of concept engine, which is based on one of
the highest ratings for the Cummins X-15 engine family 500hp/1850ft-lbs. This rating is not
reflective of greater than 97% of the Class 7-8 tractors and severe service applications sold by
Navistar over the last 4 years. This engine would not comply with either the current engine
selection criteria under 40 CFR 86.096-24(b)(3)(ii) or proposed 40 CFR 1036.235(a). If adopted
by EPA, Option 1 will likely have the effect of preventing manufacturers from developing new
and cleaner HDOH diesel engines by MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Emission reductions are driven by trade-offs. The current CARB/SWRI Stage 3 engine is no
different. The demonstration illustrates these same tradeoffs when attempting to reduce NOx to
20 mg/hp-hr, which has resulted in increases to C02. Currently the Stage 3 engine has been
specifically configured to operate at a 500hp/1850 ft-lb. power rating that should provide higher
brake specific fuel economy, as well as provide the greatest enthalpy to the aftertreatment, which
aids NOx conversions efficiency. However, the Stage 3 engine does not meet any of the 2021,
2024 or 2027 C02 standards for line haul or vocational trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1318-A1, p. 5]
Selecting a more representative power rating would likely increase NOx levels due to the lower
enthalpy and fuel economy either would remain the same or be reduced. Base engine trade-offs
would also extend to vehicle aerodynamics losses. The current SWRI configuration will not fit in
the current space allotted for production aftertreatment. This would require increasing the width
or height of the hood and cab to accommodate the changes, resulting in increased aerodynamic
drag and loss of fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 5]
336
-------
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: NESCAUM notes the potent toxicity and impact of diesel particulate
(PM2.5) and welcomes EPA's proposal of a PM anti-backsliding standard, based on use of a
diesel particulate filter, of 5 mg/hp-hr, down from the current level of 10 mg/hp-hr. We
encourage EPA to finalize this standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Belli, Mike and Cheryl (OOIDA)
I'm not gonna mince words with you at the EPA. If you want these standards met, you need to
give engine manufacturers time to design a prototype first. Allow them to build 10-20 engines
and put them out for testing allowing a million miles each. Allow the manufacturers time to
compile data with things that worked and things that failed so they can produce an engine that
will not be so problematic as the engines you all forced to be built before they could be
adequately tested. You all have made a disaster out of engine designs being forced to adhere to
your time frames. No one can properly do what you are requiring without causing major issues.
As an owner operator, the EGR, DPF, DEF engines have cost me in excess of $3 5k over the last
several years. You have created problems that will never go away, as engines today are like a
cancer that will never go away. Your ideas are killing engines because none of you has any idea
what the hell you doing. Just another government agency imposing their will at the cost of those
who will suffer from your decisions. There ya have it. You don't like it, well neither do I having
to continually put my hard earned money fixing the same issues over and over and over. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.5]
Organization: Imhausen, Jim (OOIDA)
"Cummins 2010 after treatment system on a 2012 Kenworth cost me $50,000 by the time I gave
up and sold the truck. All of the estimated life of service and maintenance intervals were phony.
Field service technicians weren't trained. Government forced the manufacturers and the
manufacturers misrepresented the capabilities of the products. Big companies had spare trucks in
place and could deal with the situation, but I couldn't." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019 0055-1266-A2,
p.2]
Organization: Dudek, Nick (OOIDA)
"I stand behind you guys 100%, the government continuing to put their unproven technology on
our backs will continue to put people out of business especially the little guy, I have had to dig
very deep in my pockets because of emission issues on my semi-truck, had I not had some extra
money put away it would've buried me and put me out of business." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019_0055-1266-A2, p.2]
337
-------
Organization: Elison, Doyle (OOIDA)
Please allow enough time for technology to become reliable before it is required. What is already
required is barely there now after 10 years. It is still too expensive to repair when some little
sensor fails. Thank you. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.5]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed 1036.522 additionally requires manufacturers to determine the regeneration frequency
for each duty cycle. However, identifying specific in-use regeneration intervals per individual
certification cycle (FTP, RMC or LLC) is complicated due to the generally wide-ranging duty
cycles between regeneration intervals, e.g., if a vehicle runs 50 hours in city conditions and 50
hours in motorway conditions during a 100 hour regeneration interval, it is not possible to
determine whether the data should be used in the overall calculation of the RMC, the FTP or the
LLC frequency. Using back-to-back dynamometer emission cycles to determine regeneration
intervals does not lead to representative in-use regeneration frequencies and durations.
Customers are unlikely to drive the same or similar duty-cycles during their complete
regeneration interval, which is the main factor that determines a regeneration frequency. Finally,
effects of cold-starts and ambient conditions are not accurately simulated in back-to-back dyno
cycles. EPA should therefore retain the option to determine a single regeneration frequency and
duration that is used to calculate the IRAF for all emission cycles based on the average
regeneration frequency of customer vehicles over all duty cycles. PACCAR respectfully submits
that using average customer in-use data is a more appropriate method to determine regeneration
frequencies and durations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.50-51]
The Southwest Research Institute's ('SwRI's') system is the principal basis for the purported
feasibility of the 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard. CARB's assertion that the new low-NOx
requirements are technically feasible is based on a system demonstrated by SwRI over
accelerated laboratory aging. To support its low-NOx rulemaking, EPA also contracted with
SwRI to perform an aged emissions demonstration with a technical solution very similar to the
CARB 'Stage 3' technology package. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.4-5]
PACCAR concurs with EMA - which has been engaging with EPA and CARB on HDOH low-
NOx rulemakings from the outset, including on the underlying SwRI demonstration projects -
that the Omnibus/Option 1 low-NOx standards have not been demonstrated to be technically
feasible, and are in fact infeasible, for the following reasons:
• a. The aged-engine 'Stage 3' NOx emissions results neither meet the proposed future
0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard across all required certification cycles, nor consistently
meet the in-use NOx standards when laboratory tested on 'road cycles' that mimic real-
world operation, which shows that the SwRI program was a demonstration of technical
infeasibility. CARB and EPA have not considered real-world conditions and other factors
that increase NOx emissions, or the accelerated aftertreatment deterioration that will
occur in the field. Those real-world conditions and other factors, which were not 'in
scope' in the SwRI demonstration program, will require significant additional
development effort, and likely additional NOx and C02 emissions control hardware.
338
-------
'Getting close' to meeting extremely stringent emissions requirements, as SwRI did, is
inadequate and an unreasonable basis for setting the Option 1 emissions standards at
issue, especially when the agencies have not considered critical and significant
emissions-increasing factors.
• b. 'Packaging' requirements (i.e., fitting emission systems under the hood or cab) to
'close-couple' the new light-off SCR ('LO-SCR') to the turbocharger turbine exit will be
extremely difficult, and/or will require cab retooling. Such retooling costs are expensive
(on the order of $500 million) for low-volume products with potentially abbreviated
amortization schedules, especially as those same vehicles transition to battery-electric
and other 'zero-emissions' technologies driven, at least in part, by other
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.5-6]
Diesel engine manufacturers often use the term 'margin' when talking about the headroom they
must design into their emissions control strategies. Margin is the difference between the
underlying emissions standard and the lower 'as-designed' emissions performance that diesel
engine manufacturers target for their products. Manufacturers must design and calibrate to
provide for sufficient margin to ensure robust compliance after accounting for the myriad factors
that can compromise real-world emissions performance, thereby protecting themselves from
recall and/or enforcement actions, fines, damaged reputations, etc. With this background,
PACCAR explains its additional concerns regarding the demonstration testing and its inability to
represent real-world, in-commerce applications:
• The demonstration testing on which EPA relies was conducted on a single engine with
the calibration adjusted multiple times to perform in an optimal manner for a specific
engine.
• Manufacturers must meet the proposed emission limits on tens of thousands of engines
per year. These engines are mass-produced and have an inherent spread in emission
performance due to natural variation between the mass-produced parts and because they
must support multiple configurations, including for various vocational applications.
• In addition, although SwRI's aging protocol may represent the average aging of the
emission control system, manufacturers must meet emission limits throughout each
engine's useful life under all in-use conditions. Therefore, additional margin must be
included to ensure that the emission limits are achieved under worst-case aging
conditions.
• The SwRI data shows insufficient margin to be considered a demonstration of feasibility
to the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.6-7]
Moreover, while a close-coupled Selective Catalytic Reduction ('SCR') application (referred to
as 'LO-SCR' or 'light-off SCR' by SwRI) is effective at demonstrating LowNOx in the
laboratory, the LO-SCR system must be 'close-coupled' to the turbocharger turbine exit to
actually be effective. This close-coupled configuration may not be possible for all current
commercial vehicle applications due to packaging constraints and heat load impact on
temperature sensitive components (such as the Engine Control Module ('ECM') and AC
systems). In some cases, and especially with the smaller range of vehicles in the HD class,
packaging constraints will be extremely difficult to overcome. Cab retooling will be necessary in
certain instances, as efforts to adequately insulate long runs of exhaust piping will compromise
339
-------
the efficacy of the LO-SCR unit. And, as mentioned above, cab retooling costs can be very high
(as much as $500 million), particularly for low-volume products with potentially abbreviated
amortization schedules, since those same vehicles will be transitioning to battery-electric and
other zero-emissions technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.7]
With the LO-SCR being larger than the traditional downpipe, additional heat shielding will be
required to protect proximate components. That is particularly problematic since the proximate
components include much of the Heating, Ventilation and Air Cooling ('HVAC') hardware, such
as heater/evaporator coils, fan air intake, as well as electrical junctions, fuse panel, Powertrain
Control Module ('PCM'), relays and other temperature sensitive components. Those thermal
issues are exacerbated by the transition to low-GHG HVAC refrigerant HFO 1234yf, where there
are additional flammability concerns. Adding length or height to the vehicle hood to 'make
room' to mitigate the packaging challenges will compromise bumper-to-back-of-cab limitations,
or will increase GHG emissions due to increased aerodynamic drag, or both. Reducing the
substrate frontal area to improve packaging will increase backpressure and C02
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.7-8]
Due to these constraints, some applications may require vehicle cab redesign to facilitate
integration, and other applications may not be able to support this catalyst volume and would
therefore be eliminated from commerce. The redesign expense is significant and not included in
EPA's current economic impact analysis. A 'first-in-box' application modification or placing a
portion of SCR first in a catalyst array currently located under the vehicle is more viable.
However, this application results in additional heat loss and further delays the catalyst system's
light off, leading to slightly higher emissions than the laboratory close coupled SCR
configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.8]
In short, commercial vehicles are exposed to a number of variables that are not present in
laboratory demonstrations that lead to intrinsic emissions variation and do not necessarily
indicate a failed system. Any regulatory proposal must provide flexibility for this variation; if
not, systems that have not failed but are simply demonstrating normal variation may be subject to
unnecessary recalls, which would be untenable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.8] EPA
has failed to address real-world, in-commerce variation in its feasibility demonstration
efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.8]
A large number of real-world variables can affect Low NOx system performance, such as fuel
sulfur (S), biodiesel metals, oil consumption differences, application variation that leads to aging
variation, and sensor errors. Major improvements in NOx sensors accuracy are not foreseen in
the proposed low-NOx standards timeframe. NOx sensors (three of which are used in the Stage 3
solutions) play a critical role in Diesel Exhaust Fluid ('DEF') dosing strategies and long-term
trim functions. In addition, there are normal variations due to lab-to-lab differences and test-to-
test variations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.9]
These data demonstrate that although a proposed emissions standard may be met in a laboratory-
controlled environment under DF, there must be a 'variance allowance' for production engines
tested from vehicles in commerce. This approach would establish a stringent emissions standard
while providing a regulated Variance Allowance that enables compliance under real-world
340
-------
variation and would mitigate the unintended consequence of subjecting normally-functioning
systems (i.e., those that have not failed) to recall actions by acknowledging the intrinsic variation
of emissions due to real-world variables. Setting a tailpipe emissions standard for durability
demonstration, and then providing an 'in-commerce' variability allowance, aligns with EPA's
proposed Option 1. In Preamble Section IV(K) titled 'Other Flexibilities Under Consideration',
EPA acknowledges: 'We understand that manufacturers generally aim to design and build
vehicles not only with a sufficient margin to ensure the emissions control technology is meeting
the applicable standards throughout the full useful life, but also an additional margin to reflect
the fact that not every vehicle manufactured and every vehicle application will perform
identically to the laboratory tests. This is particularly important, and challenging for
manufacturers, when new technologies and test procedures are being implemented.' 87 FR at
17564. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 15]
PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA separate the variance allowance from the standard -
based on observed standard deviation caused by real world variables - and then add that variance
allowance to the standard for in-production performance. This could be accomplished, for
example, using the proposed equation below:
In Production Standard = NOx FEL + VA
Where:
• NOx FEL = the standard, including any credit adjustments
• VA= variance allowance [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp. 15-16]
In sum, PACCAR supports the regulatory levels of Option 2 as feasible under a laboratory
controlled scenario, such as DF program durability demonstration, with the addition of a
'variability allowance' applied to in-commerce engine testing to account for real-world emission
variations. PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA propose a FTP/RMC emission standard in
alignment with Option 2 and a variance allowance of 30 mg for in-commerce testing
compliance. Because it is unclear how these variables would diminish over time, EPA should not
propose phasing out the variance allowance. The variance allowance should be included for in-
commerce engine testing including:
• SEA • Conformity Testing
• Verification of DF; and
• Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing ('HDIUT'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 16]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
CARB staff has further indicated that the proposed MY 2024 standards are in fact feasible
without requiring significant changes to the current engine and aftertreatment system architecture
with thermal management strategies and improved aftertreatment systems, including advanced
catalyst substrates and heated dosing.29 As an example, CARB notes that the SwRI Stage 1
program aftertreatment screening process has demonstrated 0.04 g/bhp-hr NOx on the FTP using
a 2014 model conventional SCR system and heated dosing.30 CARB's 2019 white paper
341
-------
provides further evidence of technological feasibility. By way of example, Stage 1 of SwRI's
low NOx research program involved development work on both a 2012 MY 12-liter Cummins
natural gas engine and 2014 MY 13-liter Volvo diesel engine with a target NOx emission rate of
0.02 g/bhp-hr on the FTP and RMC-SET test cycles.31 This phase achieved a 0.01 g/bhp-hr NOx
over the FTP and a 0.001 g/bhp-hr NOx level over the RMC-SET on the Cummins natural gas
engine.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.8]
29 CARB, Omnibus Regulation, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (FSOR)
(2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslownox/fsor.
pdf, pg. 17.
30 Id.
31 CARB, Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower NOx Standards and
Associated Test Procedure 2022 and Subsequent Model Year Medium-Duty and Heavy-
Duty Diesel Engines, Staff White Paper (April 18, 2019), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_0418201
9a.pdf?_ga=2.68986130.2008336815.1651111319-1848774752.1595968774, pg. 11.
32 Id.
Additionally, a Volvo diesel engine achieved a 0.034 g/bhp-hr NOx level over the FTP
and a 0.038 g/bhp-hr NOx level over the RMC-SET.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1201-A1, p.9]
33 Id.
Per EPA's own analysis, a nationwide Omnibus scenario in MY 2027 would bring significant
NOx reductions over the baseline, similar to those that would be achieved via implementation of
the Alternative Option.34 Numerous past and on-going studies also support the notion that a 0.02
g/bhp-hr standard for MY 2027 is feasible. For instance, as part of the CARB funded SwRI Stage
3 program, the final test results at the end of the useful life of 435,000 miles were 0.023 g/bhp-hr
NOx on the composite FTP, 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx on the RMC-SET, and 0.047 g/bhp-hr NOx on
the LLC. While the results of CARB Stage 3 did not reach below 0.02 g/bhp-hr for FTP/RMC-
SET, SwRI has identified a number of additional improvements that could ultimately reach the
0.02 level including new catalyst architecture, better DEF mixing, larger downstream catalyst
volume, improvements to SCR formulation as well as trim/calibration improvements.35 With
respect to the EPA funded SwRI Stage 3 'Rework' program, SwRI was able to incorporate what it
learned from its Stage 3 program, changing the zone coated catalyzed soot filter with traditional
DOC+DPF architecture and achieving 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx on the composite FTP, 0.017 g/bhp-
hr NOx on the RMC-SET, and 0.029 g/bhp-hr NOx on the LLC at 435,000 miles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.9]
342
-------
34 RIA at pg. 27, Table 5-49 (National Heavy-duty Vehicle NOx Emission Reductions
Relative to the Baseline Case for Omnibus Nationwide Scenario (Reductions Relative to
EPA Proposed Option 1 Shown for Comparison)).
35 FSOR at pg. 66.
Aside from the lab demonstration work, other work has shown the feasibility of 0.02 g/bhp-hr. In
April 2022, Achates Power announced in-use NOx test results from the Heavy-Duty Diesel
Demonstration program showing the opposed piston engine reaching 0.02 g/bhp-hr level in real
world conditions, 50% below the proposed EPA in-use limit. To quote Achates, '[t]he engine
showed a comfortable compliance margin to the NAAQS requirements on all cycles, even in the
fully aged case.'36 Importantly, an Achates/FEV study concluded that Achates opposed-piston
engine architecture complies with 2027 ultra-low NOx regulations and provides an 11% cost
savings compared to a current production four-stroke, inline six cylinder engine and 6% savings
excluding exhaust aftertreatment hardware.37 In summary, even though commercialized
pathways to 0.02 g/bhp-hr have not yet been fully achieved at the time of this proposal, the past
and ongoing work provides a fully convincing case that it can be done. The Clean Air Act does
not require regulations to incorporate currently commercially available technology. What the Act
requires are standards that reflect the greatest degree of reductions available with technology that
will be available for the applicable model year.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.9]
36 Day 2 Testimony at pg. 213, lines 2-4.
37 Achates Power, Opposed-Piston Engine Cost Comparison, available at
http://achatespower.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Achates-Power-Cost-Study-White-
Paper_March-2020.pdf
38 42 U.S.C. Section 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Broadly speaking, EPA's assumption that its proposed Option 1 standards and requirements are
fully feasible is a fallacy. Moreover, that fallacy is premised on only one set of data — in some
instances just one data point — from one still-evolving prototype engine used in one not-fully-
successful experiment. That is the sum and substance of the basis for EPA's incorrect
assumption that manufacturers can design and build engine systems to meet a NOx standard
starting at 0.02 g/bhp-hr, and ending at 0.04 g/bhp-hr at the 800,000 mile mark, without the need
to replace any emissions-related components. As explained in great detail below, a rulemaking of
this magnitude based on such scant data and such fallacious assumptions will not stand. Instead,
an Option 2-like program will need to serve as the foundation for a sustainable final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 16]
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner:
343
-------
(iii) Manufacturers will not produce Option 1-compliant products because the Option 1
standards are not feasible. Accordingly, the FTP/RMC certification standards for NOx
must be set at Option 2-like levels, not 0.02 g/bhp-hr. Otherwise, the standards will fail to
provide the requisite compliance margins, which will render them infeasible in practice,
and will cause unacceptable compliance and recall risks for manufacturers. In addition, a
program centered around Option 2-like levels will be more beneficial from an emissions-
inventory perspective, once potential fleet turnover market responses, including pre-
buy/no-buy responses, are taken into account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
6]
EPA proposes to apply the GHG version of the RMC to the certification testing process for
criteria emissions. The effective weighting factors at each steady-state data point for the GHG
RMC were developed based on a robust dataset reflective of modern engines. The industry
recognizes the importance of representativeness in the certification tests, and agrees it is illogical
to make different assumptions about operational activity depending on the emissions constituents
measured. EMA supports EPA's proposal to use this improved, more representative test for
criteria emissions testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 115]
EMA supports that EPA proposes to allow a stop-start function to be active during the FTP and
LLC cycles (§1036.501(f)). Stop-start could be an effective tool for reducing NOx, and having
the ability to demonstrate NOx control over the LLC and RMC will be beneficial. More detail
will be necessary, such as whether operator over-ride functions will influence whether stop-start
can be active during certification testing. Also, there are concerns about deploying conventional
starters to support restart, because the inertia of the dyno may cause unforeseen problems. EMA
appreciates that EPA is providing for stop-start to be active in the certification tests, and is ready
to work with EPA to iron out the details for the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 116]
Our conclusion is that the Omnibus/Option 1 low-NOx standards have not been demonstrated to
be technically feasible, and are in fact infeasible, for the following reasons:
1) The aged-engine "Stage 3" NOx emissions results do not meet the proposed
future 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard across all required certification cycles, nor do
they consistently meet the in-use NOx standards when laboratory tested using
"road cycles" that mimic real world operation (which, practically speaking, makes
the case that the SwRI program was a demonstration of technical
infeasibility.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 18]
2) CARB and EPA have not considered the impacts of the real-world conditions and
other factors that increase NOx emissions, or the accelerated aftertreatment
deterioration that will occur in the field, all factors for which diesel engine
manufacturers will be held accountable. Those real-world conditions and other
factors, which were not "in scope" in the SwRI demonstration program, will
require significant additional development effort, and likely additional NOx and
C02 emissions control hardware. "Getting close" to meeting extremely stringent
emissions requirements, which is all that SwRI has done, is inadequate and
unreasonable as a basis for setting the Option 1 emissions standards at issue,
344
-------
especially when critical and significant emissions-increasing factors have not
been considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 18]
3) The "Stage 3" technical solutions used as the basis for the EPA and CARB
rulemakings include technologies such as individually-controlled cylinder
deactivation systems that have never-before been used on HDOH production
engines subject to the durability requirements of the medium heavy- ("MHD") or
heavy heavy-duty ("HHD") diesel engine markets, and that also require an
unknown scale of effort to address the "noise, vibration and harshness" (NVH)
challenges that arise in the context of the multiple custom-tailored vehicle
specifications of HD trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 18]
4) "Packaging" requirements (i.e., fitting emission systems under the hood or cab) to
"close couple" the new light-off SCR ("LO-SCR") to the turbocharger turbine
exit will be extremely difficult, and/or will require cab retooling. Such retooling
costs come at a very high cost (on the order of $500M) for low-volume products
with potentially abbreviated amortization schedules, especially as those same
vehicles transition to battery-electric and other "zero-emissions" technologies
driven, at least in part, by other regulations. EPA has done nothing to assess the
feasibility of the multiple packaging challenges at issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 18]
5) Heavy-duty diesel engines also are regulated to control C02 emissions. The
"Stage 3" technical solutions for NOx have not been demonstrated in combination
with the requisite improvements that will be needed to comply with the 2027 C02
emissions standards. The Stage 3 engine does not even meet the 2021 or 2024
C02 standards, for that matter. The well-established N0x/C02 tradeoff that has
challenged diesel engine manufacturers for decades has not been given adequate
consideration in EPA's Option 1 proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 18]
As noted, the SwRI demonstration project is the source of the data behind EPA's assumption that
the low-NOx standards at issue are feasible for HDOH diesel engines. SwRI conducted baseline
tests of a production configuration 15L Cummins HD diesel engine calibrated for certification to
the US10 HDOH emission standards. SwRI outfitted the engine and its aftertreatment system
with additional emissions control systems for the purpose of the demonstration project. Features
of the "Stage 3" solution include cylinder deactivation (CDA) to increase light-load exhaust
temperatures, and an EGR cooler bypass, as depicted below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 19]
The aftertreatment system that CARB used in its low-NOx demonstration added several new
components to the US10 DOC/DPF/SCR/ASC configuration, including a second SCR catalyst
closely coupled to the turbocharger outlet (a light-off SCR, or "LO-SCR") with its own
independent heated DEF injector, a zone-coated soot filter ("zCSF"), and other refinements
intended to improve DEF mixing in the downstream SCR. A third NOx sensor was added after
the LO-SCR to calculate and activate DEF dosing rates for the downstream SCR, and an NH3
sensor was installed at the midpoint of the downstream SCR bricks to monitor and correct those
dosing rates. Thermal management routines were structured to optimize cold-start and light load
345
-------
emissions control. A diagram of the CARB Stage 3 prototype aftertreatment system is included
here: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
EPA is using the SwRI-developed Stage 3 solution as the backbone of its own technical
feasibility demonstration, but with one primary modification. EPA's technical solution (which
SwRI calls the Stage 3 Reworked system, or "Stage 3 RW") uses a conventional DOC/DPF
rather than a zCSF to improve regeneration robustness and to sustain more consistent NO-
N02oxidation over time. The EPA Stage 3 RW system also includes minor sizing and control
calibration differences compared to the CARB Stage 3 solution, but otherwise the technical
packages are very similar. A schematic of the "RW" aftertreatment system is shown here: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 20]
In that regard, and as an initial matter, EPA's proposed Option 1 proposal is fundamentally
infeasible because, among other things, EPA has not and cannot fully demonstrate the feasibility
of the Option 1 NOx standards through testing with the "Stage 3" prototypes at SwRI, especially
when adjustments for infrequent regeneration adjustment factors ("IRAFs") and other emission
impacting factors are accounted for. In particular, EPA has failed to demonstrate the feasibility
of maintaining compliance with the Option 1 NOx standards through the proposed extended
useful life periods, and has not even completed the analysis of the Stage 3 protypes' emission
results out to 800,000 miles. In addition, EPA has conducted no in-vehicle testing whatsoever,
has not demonstrated that the Stage 3 prototype can meet the Option 1 NOx standards while also
meeting the current Phase 2 GHG requirements, and has done no testing to show that the Stage 3
prototype is capable of meeting the 2027 MY GHG standards. Indeed, in some testing, the C02
emissions from the Stage 3 prototype were up to 1.3% higher than the 2017 MY baseline engine.
(87 FR at p. 17469) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 8]
Equally important, the ultra-low level of EPA's proposed standards (if set based on a 0.02 g/bhp-
hr FTP/RMC NOx standard) would leave no room for any compliance margins that are necessary
to account for production, fuel and emissions-testing variabilities, real-world operating
conditions, or for the expected emissions deterioration over the proposed lengthened FULs of
HDOH engines and vehicles. Simply stated, a program based on a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard,
as opposed to Option 2-like requirements, will leave no room for manufacturers to ensure and
certify full in-use emissions compliance over the proposed extended useful life periods, and so is
fundamentally infeasible. As a result, manufacturers cannot commit to building Option 1
compliant diesel engines. Stated differently, if EPA finalizes Option 1, the Agency will, in effect,
prohibit HDOH diesel engines as of 2027. That would have enormous ramifications for the
economy and security of this country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 9]
In light of those core infeasibility issues, the inconsequential incremental NOx emissions
inventory differences between a 0.02 g/bhp-hr-centric program and an Option 2-like program do
not outweigh the risks of not being able to implement the type of viable comprehensive HDOH
low-NOx program that all stakeholders support. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 9]
Since the Agency's Option 1 proposal is not feasible, as detailed below, it necessarily follows
that the more stringent "Alternative" concept is even more so. Accordingly, EMA fully agrees
with the Agency that the Alternative alluded to in the NPRM is fundamentally unworkable and,
346
-------
as such, warrants no further discussion in these comments. Instead, EMA's comments will focus
on the potentially implementable elements of Option 2, and, by comparison, the non-
implementable elements of Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 9]
As noted above, a critical shortcoming of the Option 1 proposal, and to a certain extent the
Option 2 proposal as well, is that the Agency has neither accounted nor provided for the
compliance margins that manufacturers need to factor-in when designing and producing engine
and aftertreatment systems capable of meeting the prescribed emission standards over the
applicable useful life period. To the contrary, the "Stage 3" prototype systems that serve as the
foundation for the NPRM just barely meet (or in some instances fail to meet) the new Option 1
NOx standards over the new test cycles without any margin at all. The lack of allowing for
sufficient compliance margins is especially evident from the emissions-test results of the aged
Stage 3 systems, and has been specifically noted by SwRI as an area of concern. The Agency's
failure to provide for the needed compliance margins must be remedied in the final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 9]
Significantly, EPA acknowledges the fundamental importance of this issue, notwithstanding the
Agency's failure to account for it. For example, EPA notes that, "to account for variability in
emission measurements, as well as production variability, manufacturers typically add margin
between the DF and infrequent regeneration adjustment factor (IRAF)-adjusted test result, and
the family emission limit (FEL)." (87 FR at p. 17460.) Similarly, the Agency states that
"manufacturers design their engines to perform significantly better than the standards when first
sold to ensure that the emissions are below the standard throughout useful life, even as the
emissions controls deteriorate." (87 FR at p. 17467.) The NPRM also acknowledges
that "manufacturer margins can range from less than 25 percent to 100 percent of the FEL." (Id.)
Finally, the Agency summarizes this critical issue, as follows: We understand that manufacturers
generally aim to design and build vehicles not only with a sufficient margin to ensure the
emissions control technology is meeting the applicable standards throughout the full useful life,
but also an additional margin to reflect the fact that not every vehicle manufactured and every
vehicle application will perform identically to the laboratory tests. This is particularly important,
and challenging for manufacturers, when new technologies and test procedures are being
implemented. (87 FR at p. 17564.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
Yet even with those express acknowledgements, the Agency did not attempt to quantify or
provide for the compliance margins that manufacturers will need to meet NOx standards that are
90 percent lower than today's standards. As explained more fully below, that failure completely
undermines the feasibility of the Option 1 proposal, and will require revisions to the Option 2
proposal to make it fully implementable. Accordingly, EMA appreciates the Agency's request
for comments on whether "a margin between the demonstrated emissions performance and the
proposed standards should be included, and, if so, what that value should be." (87 FR at p.
17471.) EMA's comments specifically respond to that request, and quantify the necessary
margins at issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 10]
Given all the significant issues and concerns regarding EPA's Option 1 proposal, EMA
appreciates that EPA is still "considering the degree to which there is uncertainty in how the
[Stage 3] technologies deteriorate when the engine is installed in a wide variety of heavy-duty
347
-------
vehicle applications that exist in the marketplace, and how to address such uncertainty." (87 FR
at p. 17563.) In that regard, EMA agrees that the feasibility issues and related uncertainties are
significant, and we fully support the Agency's suggestion that higher interim NOx standards may
be warranted, perhaps extending out for five or more MYs, to allow manufacturers "to
gain experience with the additional [Stage 3] emission control technologies needed to meet the
proposed NOx standards while these technologies are operating in the field." (Id.) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 14]
Section 202 of the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. §7521, governs the Agency's
establishment of emission standards for new mobile sources, including HDOH engines and
vehicles. CAA section 202(a)(3)(B) specifically governs the Agency's establishment of "revised
standards for heavy-duty trucks." Unlike the general standard-setting provisions contained
in section 202(a)(3)(A) - which call for the establishment of emission standards that "reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply" -
section 202(a)(3)(B), the specific provision that applies here, simply states that the Administrator
may set revised emissions standards "taking costs into account." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
Consequently, in assessing the details for the proposed revised low-NOx regulations at issue,
costs, not the absolute limits of potential technological feasibility, are a paramount consideration.
In this case, a full and fair consideration of costs and benefits leads to the conclusion that a low-
NOx program centered around an Option 2-like program will yield an optimized final rule, while
a program centered around the Option 1 proposal is simply not workable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 16]
EMA has multiple concerns with the capabilities of the Stage 3 prototype systems to consistently
achieve NOx results compliant with the Option 1 proposal. EMA similarly has concerns
regarding manufacturers' ability to design, produce and deliver similar prototype engines and
aftertreatment systems capable of meeting all of the Option 1 requirements over the extended
useful life and emission warranty periods at issue. Indeed, the Option 1 standards are not
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 16]
By way of background, it is important to understand the rigor of the current HDOH NOx
standards. To comply with EPA and CARB's "US10" heavy-duty emissions standards, HDOH
diesel engine manufacturers have deployed elaborate exhaust aftertreatment systems supported
by complex control strategies downstream of advanced NOx-reducing exhaust gas recirculation
("EGR") systems, which were introduced earlier to meet the prior "US04" emissions-reduction
step. Wall-flow diesel particulate filters ("DPF") were introduced in 2007 to meet the 0.01
g/bhphr particulate matter ("PM") standard. Those DPFs have required either a "7th" diesel fuel
injector or in-cylinder dosing to periodically inject fuel into the exhaust stream over a diesel
oxidation catalyst ("DOC"), elevating exhaust temperatures to oxidize soot that accumulates on
the filter. By 2013, all major HDOH diesel engine manufacturers also had deployed Selective
Catalytic Reduction ("SCR") systems with an ammonia slip catalyst ("ASC") downstream of the
DPF to meet the fully-implemented US10 NOx standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr. SCR systems require
Diesel Exhaust Fluid ("DEF") stored on-board (and replenished at approximately every second
348
-------
refueling event), which is injected at carefully controlled rates, dynamically adjusted in response
to operating parameters and ambient conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 16 -
17]
Despite the fact that the NOx conversion efficiency of SCR varies with exhaust temperatures
commonly encountered during HD diesel vehicle operation, comprehensive testing by West
Virginia University ("WVU") of 100 HDOH diesel vehicles in various highway and vocational
applications operating in Southern California has demonstrated that USIO-compliant emissions-
control systems reduce total NOx emissions from in-use vehicles at levels proportional to the
change in the certification standards. DPFs are even more effective, reducing PM emissions to a
fraction of the certification standard. Overall, NOx emissions from HD diesel vehicles compared
to pre-regulation levels have been reduced by some 98%, and PM emissions by 99%. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 17]
One of the key enabling technologies in the Stage 3 prototype's suite of engine and
aftertreatment solutions is cylinder deactivation ("CDA"). CDA permits an engine to selectively
deactivate certain cylinders from the combustion process, thereby meeting the power demand
with fewer cylinders in operation, which in turn elevates exhaust temperatures while decreasing
C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 21]
A critical challenge for manufacturers, however, is to implement CDA on a heavy-duty diesel
engine, and have it deliver consistent, reliable, durable performance over 800,000 miles, without
creating truck and cab "noise, vibration, and harshness" ("NVH") issues or driveline torsional
problems. Implementing CDA with individual independent cylinder deactivation control has
never been achieved before on MHD or HHD diesel engines,3 but this technology is a
fundamental element of EPA's attempted technical feasibility demonstration, applicable to every
HDOH diesel engine sold in the US from and after 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 21]
3. One manufacturer of heavy heavy-duty engines has industrialized a system capable of
deactivating all three front cylinders as a group (without individual cylinder control).
It is instructive first to consider the design aspects of CDA. CDA is not a bolt-on, one-size fits-
all system that an OEM can purchase off-the-shelf from a component supplier. Each diesel
HDOH engine valvetrain design will require a unique CDA design integration. CDA also will
introduce new and potentially catastrophic failure modes, such as failures to open the exhaust
valve on the exhaust stroke of a firing cylinder, and subsequent intake valve and valvetrain
failures as the intake valve attempts to open under extremely high pressures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 21]
In addition, CDA presents complex challenges for the multiple applicable HD OBD
requirements, strategies and calibrations. OBD threshold diagnostic determinations become very
difficult when CDA is factored-in, since multiple valves individually or in concert may
experience either partial or complete failures. In such a case, separate failure modes would
require separate diagnostic validation for each failure mode permutation. The OBD challenges
would not be limited to diagnostics of the CDA system itself. CDA can significantly alter the
349
-------
required strategies and calibrations of multiple system diagnostics. For example, CDA greatly
complicates the ability to diagnose misfire, a detection issue that already is among the more
challenging under the HD OBD regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 21]
Another major concern associated with CDA, as mentioned above, relates to NVH. The inline
six-cylinder engine configuration that dominates the HDOH diesel engine market has inherent
torsional balance advantages over other configurations. When individual cylinders are
deactivated, that natural torsional and harmonic balance is disturbed, so the engine vibration
levels are increased and torsionals in the engine and driveline systems are elevated. The result is
increased noise levels and cab vibration levels that can be uncomfortable to the driver, and that
can cause increased wear and stress on cranktrain and drivetrain components, and vibration
levels throughout the vehicle that can cause performance and fatigue issues for on-board
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 21]
While SwRI performed some computer-based modeling to assess possible cylinder deactivation
combination schemes to reduce simulated vibration as assessed in the test cell, there is a vast
difference between vibration characteristics "as modeled" in an emissions laboratory, and those
experienced in an actual HD vehicle on the road. That fact was duly noted by Neely, et al., of
SwRI in their related SAE article, where they stated, "Acceptability standards to linear vibration
(e.g. measured at the seat, steering wheel, foot pedal, frame rails, etc.) are better understood in a
vehicle environment. The system driveline in a vehicle will differ from that in a dyno (test cell)
as well, and it is recommended to evaluate driveline response in a typical vehicle setting."4 EPA
and SwRI have not done that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 22]
4. Simultaneous NOx and C02 Reduction for Meeting Future California Air Resources
Board Standards Using a Heavy-Duty Diesel Cylinder Deactivation-NVH Strategy,
Neely et al., Southwest Research Institute, SAE article 03-13-02-0014.
Indeed, one OEM's experience with a prototype CDA system in a Class 8 vehicle has found that,
at the lowest loads and speeds, drivers' responses to the experienced NVH issues are not
favorable, especially when the minimum number of cylinders are active. Depending on the
extent of CDA at a given load and speed, NVH can vary from mildly perceptible to very
significant and fatiguing. The concern for manufacturers and fleet operators then becomes
whether CDA would adversely impact driver attentiveness, fatigue, and, ultimately, driver
retention. While increasing the number of active cylinders and engine speed can result in a more
positive driver response, that reduces the benefits derived from the elevated temperature of CDA.
Passive or active engine mounts can help improve those negative responses, but there is
insufficient data on the broad range of truck powertrain configurations to know whether those
issues can be addressed in a sufficiently effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 22]
Manufacturers of Class 2b-3 vehicles (14,000 lbs. and less), where gasoline engines of smaller
displacements have been fitted with CDA, are very familiar with the magnitude of the
engineering challenges to overcome NVH issues. Each engine installation on each unique
vehicle model is its own development project, requiring significant resources, multiple technical
solutions, and substantial verification time. The technical solution, depending on the vehicle
350
-------
model, can include engine-mount tuning, active noise-cancellation systems, exhaust butterfly
valves and pipe geometry modifications, active-tuned dampers, and high-torque-convertor slip
settings. HDOH diesel vehicle and engine manufacturers do not have a sufficient body of
knowledge regarding the range of heavy-duty truck powertrain configurations to know how
effective those potential technical solutions might (or might not) be in larger engines and
vehicles. Moreover, some of those solutions will have negative fuel efficiency impacts. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 22]
As noted, the CDA engineering challenge is multiplied in this case by the fact that each CDA
installation requires an engineering investigation and a unique combination of solutions. Given
the multiple significant differences among heavy-duty truck configurations and applications, the
resultant number of those technical challenges could be insurmountable. When the level of
customization that occurs with each customer's purchase in the HD vehicle market is taken into
account, the level of effort, resources and time it could take to implement CDA effectively could
quickly become overwhelming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 22]
The addition of a LO-SCR system is another key component of the Stage 3 RW aftertreatment
control strategy, although one manufacturer evaluating its benefits is finding that the extra
catalyst mass of the LO-SCR is increasing hot FTP results, to the point of increasing the
composite FTP results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 23]
A LO-SCR will be subjected not only to fuel-based contaminants such as metals commonly
found in the biofuels promoted by EPA and CARB, but also oil poisoning will occur at a rate
higher than experienced by today's SCR systems (which benefit from the protection of an
upstream DPF). Oil-derived contaminants are known to deposit heavily on the first catalyst brick
encountered in the aftertreatment array, which acts to delay catalyst light-off under cold
conditions and light load.5 Oil-derived poisonings are not reversible under any engine-based
regeneration strategy, and they also can act to reduce the catalyst channel size. More desulfation
activity will be required than today because the LO-SCR will not benefit from the elevated
thermal conditions that now will be associated with downstream DPF regeneration events.
Moreover, the interaction of DEF deposits with oil deposits is unknown (particularly under cold-
start, and low-load operation), but may lead to a further reduction of the catalyst channel size,
leading to increased backpressure and associated C02 penalties.6 EMA is working with the
Coordinating Research Council (CRC) to measure tailpipe emissions impacts when the Stage 3
system is run with a range of market-available fuels and biofuels. The results of that study should
be considered before the Agency finalizes this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 23]
5. See A Case Study of a CuSSZ-13-SCR Catalyst Poisoned by Real-World High Sulfur
Diesel Fuel, Yuanzhou Xi (Cummins) et al, SAE 2020-01-1319, April 14, 2020.
6. That poisoning effect would be exacerbated by the "thin wall, high-cell density"
substrates proposed as a potential low-NOx technology solution by the Manufacturers of
Emissions Controls Association (MECA). Oil poisoning is linear with exposure. In that
regard, the accelerated catalyst aging demonstration performed at SwRI exposed the
catalyst to only 1/3 of the expected "intermediate UL" (435k mile) oil quantities. No
351
-------
consideration was given to the level of oil exposure expected under the proposed
extended FUL of 800k miles (nearly double). That is an inadequate demonstration of the
durability of the close-coupled SCR due to oil-derived poisoning.
Further complicating the issues associated with the LO-SCR system are packaging requirements.
To be effective, the LO-SCR system must be "close-coupled" to the turbocharger turbine exit. In
some cases, and especially with the smaller range of vehicles in the HD class, packaging
constraints will be extremely difficult to overcome. Cab retooling will be necessary in some
cases, as efforts to adequately insulate long runs of exhaust piping will compromise the efficacy
of the LO-SCR unit. Cab retooling costs can be very high (as much as $500M), particularly for
low-volume products with potentially abbreviated amortization schedules, since those same
vehicles will be transitioning to battery-electric and other "zero-emissions" technologies due, at
least in part, to additional anticipated GHG regulations and zero-emissions vehicle sales and
purchase mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 23]
An examination of packaging challenges on a single vehicle model as performed by one
manufacturer has determined that the "hot side" of the engine compartment will require a
complete redesign. With the LO-SCR being larger than the traditional downpipe, additional heat
shielding will be required to protect proximate components. That is particularly problematic
since the proximate components include much of the HVAC hardware, such as heater/evaporator
coils, fan air intake and similar, as well as electrical junctions, fuse panel, PCM, relays and other
temperature sensitive components. Those thermal issues are exacerbated by the transition to low-
GHG HVAC refrigerant HFO 1234yf, where there are additional flammability concerns. Adding
length or height to the vehicle hood to "make room" to mitigate the packaging challenges will
compromise bumper-to-back of cab limitations, or will increase GHG emissions due to increased
aerodynamic drag, or both. Reducing the substrate frontal area to improve packaging will
increase backpressure and C02 emissions. None of these challenges has an obvious
solution. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 23 - 24]
Major improvements in the accuracy of NOx sensors are not foreseen in the timeframe of the
proposed low-NOx standards. NOx sensors (three of them are used in the Stage 3 solutions) play
a critical role in DEF dosing strategies and long-term trim functions. In addition, the NH3 sensor
used to monitor ammonia levels for the mid-SCR catalyst bed is known to be highly inaccurate.
EMA is working with SwRI to conduct tailpipe NOx sensitivity tests on the Stage 3 RW
configuration in response to the installation of NOx and NH3 sensors with measurement bias
representative of field-aged sensors. EMA is seeking to quantify with real data the tailpipe NOx
impacts from those (and other) sensor inaccuracies. Significantly, however, that testing will
reveal only a limited view of the production real-world variability that will be discussed later as
part of EMA's "margin stackup" analysis. It is important to note that EPA has not addressed this
issue at all in its feasibility-demonstration efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 24]
The actual results from SwRI's testing of the Stage 3 prototype are not compliant with the
proposed Option 1 low-NOx standards. This demonstrates that the Option 1 standards are not
feasible. Focusing specifically on the results of the EPA Stage 3 RW system (which are slightly
lower than the CARB Stage 3 engine results), set forth below are the lab-measured NOx
352
-------
emission data points at 435,000, 600,000 and 800,000 mile-equivalent aging, as reported by
SwRI: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 24]
Stage 3 RW Tailpipe NOx Emissions (andproposed standard) (g/bhp-hr)
Certification test cycle 435k mile7 600k mile7 800k mile7
Composite FTP (transient) 0.022 (0.020) 0.029 (0.040) 0.040 (0.040)
Ramped Modal Cycle (steady-state) 0.019 (0.020) 0.026 (0.040) 0.031 (0.040)
Low Load Cycle 0.034(0.050) 0.038 (0.100) 0.037 (0.100)
7. Figures are mileage equivalents, achieved by aftertreatment bench-aging methods. The
engine, however, including cylinder deactivation and EGR cooler bypass systems, was
not aged to determine deterioration effects.
Recall that, for heavy heavy-duty engines, the interval from 435,000 miles to 800,000 miles will
be held to a 0.040 g/bhp-hr FTP and RMC NOx standard under EPA's Option 1 proposal. As the
test results above show, EPA's Stage 3 prototype does not meet the 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard
at 435,000 miles over the FTP certification cycle, and it generated results exactly equal to the
"second stage" standard of 0.040 g/bhp-hr when tested to 800,000 miles. (The CARB Stage 3
engine generated a composite FTP result of 0.031 g/bhp-hr at just 290,000 miles equivalent
aging before the engine was recalibrated mid-testing to reduce the tailpipe NOx to 0.023 g/bhp-
hr at the expense of an almost 1% C02 emissions penalty. CARB terminated its testing at
435,000 miles equivalent aging.) The emissions results reported by SwRI are, therefore, not fully
compliant. Moreover, they are not even complete, since they only include the IRAFs that SwRI
generated when the system was degreened, not when the system was aged. It is also clear that the
SwRI results fail to account in any way for the necessary compliance margins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 24 - 25]
Just as important, the Stage 3 RW C02 emissions, as measured by SwRI, are 2.3% above the
HHD 2027 FTP C02 emissions standard for vocational engines, and 5.2% above the HHD 2027
RMC standard for tractor engines, an issue that EPA has attempted to downplay as immaterial to
engine manufacturers' ability to comply with those future requirements, despite the well-
established NOx/C02 tradeoff that continues to challenge the diesel engine industry. More will
be discussed on this significant point later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 25]
There are two types of in-use real-world factors that need to be considered, since they can be
detrimental to tailpipe NOx emissions over and above the Stage 3 demonstrated performance.
The first set of factors includes those that cause temporary increases, or increased variability of
NOx emissions, such as accumulated sulfur on aftertreatment systems (prior to a desulfation
regeneration event), variable ambient conditions, and production variability. The second set of
factors includes those that cause engine and aftertreatment systems to degrade to a greater degree
than the "nominal" or "typical" degradation assessed through a test cell demonstration, whether
that be a feasibility demonstration conducted on behalf of regulators, or a manufacturer's
"deterioration factor" test run for certification purposes. Three examples are SCR poisoning due
to fuel impurities, operation under more severe in-use duty-cycles, and inadequate maintenance
practices. (A more comprehensive list of the various factors of concern will be provided later in
these comments in the section related to EMA's efforts to quantify the additional NOx reductions
353
-------
needed relative to Stage 3 NOx emissions - i.e., the additional "margin" that is necessary to
ensure robust emissions compliance in the field.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 26]
Those short-term and long-term emissions-impacting factors are risks that manufacturers will be
held accountable for in designing their diesel engine products for robust emissions compliance,
but which EPA has not considered in its "technical feasibility" demonstration. As explained
below, the NOx increases in response to those factors are far from trivial. Yet EPA has not
presented any kind of technical analysis that even attempts to quantify the emissions increases
that can result from those in-use real-world impacts. Thus, while it may be good enough for EPA
that the Stage 3 engine "came close" to complying with a 0.020 g/bhp-hr verification standard
(recall that actual compliance was not achieved over the FTP test cycle or over the EU ISC in-
use road cycle), that is in fact not good enough to sustain a rulemaking of this
significance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 26]
Diesel engine manufacturers often use the term "margin" when talking about the headroom they
must design into their emissions control strategies. Margin is the difference between the
underlying emissions standard and the lower "as-designed" emissions performance that diesel
engine manufacturers target for their products. Manufacturers must design and calibrate to
provide for sufficient margin to ensure robust compliance after accounting for the myriad factors
that can compromise real-world emissions performance, and thereby to protect themselves from
recall actions, fines, and damaged reputations. The next section details how NOx compliance
margins have grown to become a larger and larger percentage of the emissions standards as those
standards have been reduced, and what that could mean for the Agency's proposed low-NOx
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 26]
At a fundamental level, it appears that EPA has simply failed to take into account the inherent
technical challenges that lean-burn engines present as compared to spark-ignited, stoichiometric
burn engines, as well as the degree to which all of the real-world in-use variabilities impact NOx
emissions from lean-burn engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 36]
Lean-burn engines are inherently more efficient than stoichiometric-burn engines, largely due to
the "free-breathing" unthrottled air intake system, higher compression ratios, and the higher
energy density of diesel fuel (15% higher than gasoline). This superior efficiency, and therefore
more environmentally favorable C02 emissions profile, coupled with exceptional durability, is
what makes lean-burn diesel engines the powertrain of choice for the heavy-duty truck market.
Lean-burn engines, and their low-C02 emissions performance, however, do come with
significant technical challenges when it comes to controlling emissions, especially with respect
to aftertreatment controls. Those technical challenges, coupled with the sensitivity of
aftertreatment to real-world factors, compel the manufacturers of these engines to certify their
products with much higher compliance margins than their spark-ignited counterparts in order to
ensure their continuing in-use emissions compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
36]
In that regard, there are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between
diesel and spark-ignition engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different
354
-------
requisite compliance margins at issue, including the following: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 36]
In that regard, there are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between
diesel and spark-ignition engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different
requisite compliance margins at issue, including the following: Part of what makes a lean-burn
diesel engine more efficient is also what makes its real world in-use NOx emissions much more
variable. More specifically, a diesel engine's unthrottled, variable air-to-fuel ratio combustion
process leads to highly variable exhaust compositions and temperatures, which create many
unique challenges for the engine's SCR-based NOx emissions aftertreatment system. In contrast,
a stoichiometric natural gas (or gasoline or propane) spark-ignition engine's exhaust has a nearly
constant composition and its temperature is stable under nearly all operating conditions after
initial warmup. Spark-ignition engine exhaust is simply less variable, so it takes less effort to
control those emissions. Diesel exhaust also experiences more extreme fluctuations between high
temperature and low temperature operations where the catalyst is more susceptible to
degradation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 36]
In that regard, there are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between
diesel and spark-ignition engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different
requisite compliance margins at issue, including the following: Because of those inherent
exhaust stream differences, a diesel engine requires a more complex diesel particulate filter and
selective catalytic reduction aftertreatment system, which is comprised of at least four different
temperature-sensitive catalysts. It also requires precise, real-time thermal management and
dosing of ammonia-forming Diesel Exhaust Fluid ("DEF") into the exhaust. SCR requires
sophisticated electronics and fast and accurate wide-range sensors to actively control the entire
system. The particulate filter requires periodic high temperature regeneration to remove its
accumulated soot, temporarily interrupting the SCR's NOx reduction performance. In sum, a
diesel engine's emissions control system is much more complex than a spark-ignition engine's
three-way catalyst(s) and single "on-off (switching) oxygen-sensor-based control system.
Unlike diesel engines, spark-ignition engines inherently maintain exhaust temperatures suitable
for high efficiency catalyst performance over all operating conditions shortly after engine start.
Diesel engine controls, however, must modulate DEF injection according to many factors,
including variable exhaust temperatures to which NOx conversion efficiency is very sensitive.
EPA acknowledges the complexity behind the DEF dosing-control function, which it described
in the Agency's RIA, as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 36 - 37]
In that regard, there are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between
diesel and spark-ignition engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different
requisite compliance margins at issue, including the following: Small errors in dosing can lead to
significant variability in tailpipe NOx. Underdosing causes inadequate NOx conversion, while
overdosing causes ammonia slip which is converted to NOx in the ammonia slip catalyst. Either
case increases tailpipe NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 37] In that regard, there
are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between diesel and spark-ignition
engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different requisite compliance margins
at issue, including the following: More generally, the number of emissions-related components
used in diesel engines is significantly greater than for spark-ignited engines. That simple fact,
355
-------
coupled with the greater complexity of a diesel engine's aftertreatment system and related
control algorithms, inevitably leads to greater emissions variability, especially under the broad
range of real-world in-use operating conditions that heavy-duty diesel vehicles encounter. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 37]
In that regard, there are a number of inescapable physical and chemical differences between
diesel and spark-ignition engines and their aftertreatment systems that result in the different
requisite compliance margins at issue, including the following: As mentioned, diesel
aftertreatment systems operate across a wide range of exhaust temperatures with associated
variable NOx conversion efficiency, and lean-burn exhaust chemical compositions. Because of
this, tailpipe emissions are sensitive to small reductions in catalytic activity caused by thermal
and chemical aging effects. Spark-ignited applications with three-way catalysts, however, are
more tolerant of thermal and chemical aging effects because the "starting point" (the degreened
system) has more NOx compliance headroom. Moreover, the diesel fuel supply is more likely to
contain contaminants than the gasoline supply, such as the metals commonly found in biodiesel
blends. Long-term degradation of aftertreatment in compression-ignition diesel applications is
further exacerbated by significantly longer useful life requirements than most spark-ignited
applications and stoichiometric exhaust composition conditions. Of note, those already-longer
useful life requirements are proposed to be extended even further - almost doubled - under
EPA's proposed Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 38]
Spark-ignited gasoline engines have a strong advantage over diesel engines when it comes to the
ability to robustly and consistently reduce engine-out NOx to near-zero tailpipe emissions, but
that advantage does not extend to C02 emissions. Forcing diesel products out of the market
through the adoption of infeasible low-NOx emissions standards would force vehicle owners into
higher C02-emitting spark-ignited solutions, a highly counter-productive outcome. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 38]
The high-efficiency lean-burn engine's necessarily complex emissions control system, and the
several other factors raised in this section, increase the in-use emissions-variability of diesel
engines in ways that EPA has not accounted for. All of these factors necessitate compliance
margins that make a 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard inherently infeasible for HDOH diesel
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 38]
As noted, EPA has overlooked the gap between the proposed 0.020 g/bhp-hr HD NOx standard
and the actual results of the Stage 3 and Stage 3 RW "feasibility demonstration" by claiming that
manufacturers will continue to work on control strategy optimization and final calibration to
overcome the exceedance (and one must assume, the required compliance margin). That claim,
however, is simply not reasonable when assessed against the reality of what is, and what is not,
technically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 38]
At the macro-level, there are three technology paths to consider for reducing tailpipe NOx
emissions over and above that demonstrated by the Stage 3 solutions:
Reduce engine-out emissions: In theory, a reduction in engine-out NOx emissions could result
in a reduction in tailpipe NOx. That could be achieved with higher EGR rates, adjustments to
356
-------
injection timing, or other strategies. However, those techniques necessarily would increase C02
emissions, another regulated emission. The Stage 3 RW engine, as demonstrated, has 5.3%
higher C02 emissions than the 2027 HHD tractor C02 emissions standard, and 2.3% higher than
the vocational engine C02 standard. In fact, the final SwRI calibration does not even meet the
2021 GHG standards, and has C02 emissions slightly higher than the baseline Cummins XI5
production configuration from which the Stage 3 RW system was developed. Overcoming an
additional C02 deficit caused by reducing engine-out NOx further to bring the Stage 3 RW
system into compliance (with margin) will require additional C02-reducing technology over and
above what EPA has included in its feasibility demonstrations, rendering any related cost
analysis inherently deficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 38 - 39]
Increasing exhaust temperatures: Increasing exhaust temperatures at light loads to improve
SCR NOx conversion efficiency over a broader range of operating conditions would decrease
tailpipe NOx emissions. That could be achieved through actions to decrease engine combustion
efficiency, more frequent dosing of diesel fuel across the DOC, or by adding a spark-ignited
burner system or electrically-heated catalyst upstream of one or both of the SCR units. Any of
those actions also would increase C02 emissions, thereby requiring additional C02-control
technology to comply with C02 emissions standards that will be taking effect along with the
future NOx standards. Such methods to overcome the Stage 3 system deficiencies will likewise
require additional technology over and above what EPA has included in its feasibility
demonstrations, again rendering any related cost analysis inherently deficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 39]
Improved SCR efficiency: If manufacturers were able to develop SCR NOx conversion
efficiencies superior to the capability of the systems included in the Stage 3 demonstrations, that
could be an effective means to overcome the deficiency of the Stage 3 solution. That is not a
viable solution, however. The SCR conversion efficiencies observed with the Stage 3 RW engine
are already unrealistically high when compared to manufacturers' experience with high mileage
systems in the field. The Stage 3 RW engine at the 435,000 mile intermediate UL equivalent
aging had a 99.3% overall conversion efficiency on the composite FTP transient test, and still
produced a failing 0.022 g/bhp-hr result. The RMC barely passed at 0.019 g/bhp-hr despite
having a 99.6% cycle SCR conversion efficiency. If a field sample were to degrade a mere 0.3%
more, that RMC result would escalate to a badly failing 0.026 g/bhp-hr! While SCR
manufacturers have made strides to improve the long-term durability of SCR catalysts, for
example with the introduction of FeZe/CuZe "hybrid" catalysts, manufacturers with three or
more years' experience with those systems in production have found that they offer only
marginal improvements, at best, compared to their predecessor configurations The following
graph compares test results from aged systems, comparing this new generation hybrid SCR
(labeled "2027 SCR", though the manufacturer has had it in production for 3 years) to the former
technical solution (labeled "current"). The manufacturer is reporting that the aging characteristics
of the new hybrid SCR configurations are not proving to be superior to the old
configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 39]
The conversion efficiencies achieved in the laboratory aging process, while producing barely
compliant or even non-compliant results, are unrealistic to expect consistently in the field. This
issue is even further exacerbated by the growing prevalence of biofuels in the marketplace, with
357
-------
known aftertreatment degrading characteristics. Significant increases in aftertreatment sizing
could be considered, but not without backpressure increases driving higher C02 emissions,
increased heat demand from the same exhaust flow, and a significant increase in cost. Once
again, overcoming those C02-increasing measures would require additional technology over and
above what EPA has included in its feasibility demonstrations, rendering any related cost
analysis for Option 1 inherently deficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 40]
In summary, while one might expect that additional work on system optimization may be
available to achieve minor NOx reductions over and above the performance of the Stage 3 RW
system, the levels of improvement required to comply with the Option 1 standards are simply not
achievable without significant additional hardware and accompanying control strategies,
including new C02-mitigation measures. Manufacturers are, in effect, "boxed in" by all of the
constraints explained above. As with any development project to industrialize new emissions
control concepts, there will be many other emissions-compromising technical challenges to
overcome that have not yet even been imagined. Thus, the Agency's claim that manufacturers
can simply calibrate the Stage 3 system into a robust compliance solution, given all that we know
about aggravating factors and substantial margin requirements, is simply unreasonable. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 40]
Based on the foregoing analysis of margin requirements, and given the inherent technological
constraints, the case could easily be made that it would be incumbent upon manufacturers to
design for a compliance margin greater than 50%, and a margin as high as 75% could be
necessary in the end. Under such assumptions, manufacturers would be forced to reduce Stage 3
RW FTP results by 55% to 75%, respectively. Reductions of that scale cannot be achieved with
mere calibration efforts. The Agency's claim to the contrary has no sufficient basis in
fact. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 40]
From all of the foregoing, it is clear that the Agency has failed to (and cannot) demonstrate the
technical feasibility of a 0.020 g/bhp-hr FTP/RMC NOx standard for HDOH diesel engines. The
proposed technology set, some components of which present serious technical risks to
product reliability and durability, has proven incapable of achieving compliant results in dyno-
based certification tests and when tested using in-use road-cycles replicated on the engine
dynamometer. More than that, the variety of short-term and long-term NOx emissions-increasing
factors that can impact field-sampled engines have been given no consideration in those
attempted demonstrations. Recent trends of increasing compliance margins (when examined as
percentage of prevailing standard) as represented in manufacturers' certification test results
clearly demonstrate manufacturers' consistent need to over-comply in certification
demonstrations, so that they can manage the additional and significant emissions-compromising
influences under all real-world operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp.
40-41]
Without a more robust demonstration that an improved technology package is capable of
consistently complying with the proposed Option 1 standards, it is apparent that such standards,
along with their related in-use emissions requirements, are not technically feasible. Accordingly,
it would be manifestly unreasonable for the Agency to proceed with the adoption of Option 1. In
fact, doing so likely would drive diesel engines from the HDOH market, which would
358
-------
significantly jeopardize the nation's economy and security. EPA is not authorized to do
that. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 41]
SwRI presented the initial 800,000 mile aging results for PM from the Stage 3 prototype engine
at the April 2022 SAE World Congress Exposition. Those results showed multiple RMC and
LLC test results exceeding the proposed 0.005 g/bhp-hr PM standard when tested after ash
cleaning of the DPF. SwRI reported that it took 10 to 15 hours of operation before the emissions
was reduced from PM levels as high as 0.007 g/bhp-hr, 40% above the proposed standard. EPA
has provided no exception for PM standard compliance for any period after ash cleaning. EPA
therefore requires compliance over all certification test cycles under any conditions (with proper
pre-conditioning). Here again, the demonstration that EPA is relying on actually
demonstrates that the proposed emissions standard is not technologically feasible. The current
PM standard of O.Olg/bhp-hr should therefore be retained in the final rule. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 43 - 44]
EPA also should consider the possibility that the proposed standards could compel new engine
oil formulations. Engine lubricants perform critical functions, including reducing engine wear,
enhancing fuel efficiency, and providing protection for the engine and its emissions control
systems. The proposed low-NOx standards and extended useful life and warranty periods could
have significant impacts on those functions. New oil formulations have been required in response
to reduced emissions standards in the past. EPA should account for this possibility in its
implementation schedule for the proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
143]
In the process of determining what emissions thresholds are achievable given the proposed
substantial reductions in PM and NOx, EPA and industry may determine that the state of the art
for monitoring key components such as catalytic converters, particulate filters, aftertreatment
system sensors, or EGR components will require intrusive monitors. Intrusive monitors
temporarily increase tailpipe criteria and GHG emissions when executed. EPA requires the
average emissions impact of an intrusive monitor to be included in a manufacturer's certification
results (much like IRAFs). As such, the applicable standards either will need to be adjusted even
more to reflect those necessary temporary increases, or the OBD thresholds will have to be
maintained at levels high enough to not require intrusive monitoring. Without such measures, the
current OBD provisions would make the proposed standards even more stringent and
infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 95]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Additional comments on the FTP and SET NOx standards stringency can be found in
section 3.1.1 of this document, as well as EPA's summary of and responses to those comments.
In general, some commentors stated that proposed Option 1 is feasible, some commenters stated
that standards that are more stringent than Option 1 are feasible, and some commenters stated
that only proposed Option 2 is feasible with changes to further account for the uncertainty of
laboratory and in-use emissions levels. MECA commented that there are additional demos
359
-------
beyond the Stage 3 engine to support the ongoing process in the European Union of considering
more stringent heavy-duty criteria emission standards. MECA referenced improvements to
emissions control systems beyond what was used for the EPA demo and stated that they expect
continued improvements to the emission control systems in the coming years. DTNA
commented that there are no benefits to new catalyst designs compared to existing catalyst
designs with respect to catalyst activity and durability. ATA commented that EPA hasn't
demonstrated Option 1 is feasible.
A couple commenters stated that EPA has not demonstrated the feasibility of the
proposed FTP and SET emission standards for NOx, stating that EPA did not consider key design
margins such as different configurations (ratings, exhaust length configurations, etc.), that
demonstrated technologies are not commercially available, and that the EPA Stage 3 system
doesn't meet GHG Phase 2 standards for MY 2027. DTNA commented that there are concerns
with catalyst durability at the high miles and that effectively, EPA has tested the 'best-of-the-
best' and declared it representative for all possible configurations. DTNA also commented that if
EPA's proposed system were packaged to fit on a truck, the low temperature SCR catalyst
effectiveness would be significantly reduced as it would operate at colder temperatures. DTNA
stated that EPA made design compromises to minimize packaging impact on existing Class 8-
day cab tractors because EPA is concerned that the Stage 3 system will not fit in a truck, and that
the composite FTP test results are 0.038 g/hp-hr, which is just below the 0.040 g/hp-hr standard
without IRAF. DTNA commented that EPA did not move forward with testing of its first
candidate system as the system was determined to have unacceptable performance by SwRI due
to high system backpressure, significant impact on RMC CO2 emissions, and design limitations
on turbomachinery, air-handling, and peak cylinder pressure limits.
DTNA commented that the EPA GHG Phase 2 vocational vehicle SI standard is 17% higher for
CO2 than the CI standard. They are concerned that the medium duty market could shift to SI
engines that will significantly increase CO2 emissions from the national fleet. They also
commented that that the engine fails to comply with EPA's proposed PM standards and raises
questions about N2O compliance feasibility.
DTNA, ATA, and PACCAR also commented that current NOx sensor technology is unable to
adequately maintain control of SCR systems at the proposed standards. Some commenters stated
that the proposed criteria pollutant standards could negatively impact GHG emissions and the
ability to meet the GHG standards for the applicable MYs.
Some commenters stated that EPA must set standards that include margin to account for fuel
contamination, production variability, measurement variability, packaging limitations,
accumulation of sulfur, soot, and ash, maintenance variability, lower engine power ratings, and
the impact of biodiesel. CARB commented that EPA should not set standards with margin.
Allison recommended subcategory specific standards like those for HD GHG vehicle standards.
MFN commented that EPA's proposed stringency for LHDD and MHDD engines exceeds the
feasibility demonstrated at SwRI by 75 percent on the FTP cycle (35 compared to 20 mg/bhp-hr),
106 percent on the SET cycle (35 compared to 17 mg/bhp-hr), and 210 percent on the LLC cycle
360
-------
(90 compared to 29 mg/bhp-hr), negating any reasonable compliance margin, noting that the
Agency has not explained the reason for such gross differences.
PACCAR commented that retooling costs are expensive (on the order of $500 million) for low-
volume products with potentially abbreviated amortization schedules. They stated that close-
coupled catalyst configurations may not be possible for all current commercial vehicle
applications due to packaging constraints and heat load impact on temperature sensitive
components, as the close coupled SCR catalyst is larger than the traditional downpipe requiring
additional heat shielding. They commented that this is problematic as HVAC hardware, electrical
junctions, fuse panels, Powertrain Control Module, relays and other temperature sensitive
components could be affected. They commented that they also have flammability concerns with
the transition to refrigerant HFO 1234yf. They also stated that cab redesign will compromise
bumper-to-back-of-cab limitations or increase GHG emissions due to increased aerodynamic
drag. They also commented that redesign expense is significant and not included in EPA's
current economic impact analysis. They stated that under vehicle location for aftertreatment is
more viable, but results in additional heat loss and further delays the catalyst system's light off.
They requested a variance allowance of 30 mg/hp-hr for in-commerce testing compliance and
that it include SEA, DF, and in-use testing.
Coach USA commented that interstate buses are subject, throughout the country, to heavily-
enforced weight restrictions and any exceedance caused by SCR or derate-related equipment that
causes a bus to be overweight would be unacceptable to sustaining interstate bus operations, as
would any increased temperatures which could cause buses to be less reliable or otherwise
potentially impair driver/passenger safety.
National Association of Chemical Distributors commented with concerns that the additional
parts for the technologies needed to meet the standards could exacerbate current supply chain
issues.
Multiple members of OIDA commented that standards should be set at a level that doesn't
decrease the reliability of heavy-duty engines.
Response:
The final FTP and SET standards and test procedures, as well as the basis for those standards and
test procedures, are explained in Section III of the preamble. As discussed in preamble Sections
I.D and III.A, EPA is promulgating the new heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards under
our authority in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) and the final standards reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology that we have determined
will be available for MY 2027, giving appropriate consideration to the statutory factors. EPA's
assessment of the statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission
standards, and the final standards are appropriately based on further consideration of the data
included in the proposed rule, as well as additional supporting data from our own test programs,
and consideration of the extensive public input EPA received in response to the proposed rule.
Preamble Sections III and IV, and RIA Chapter 3 include additional details on our assessment of
the final standards, including our consideration of the technologies available to achieve the
361
-------
greatest degree of emission reduction in MY 2027, meeting the final standards over the useful
life periods in the final rule, emission control performance over multiple test cycles, packaging
constraints, impacts on CO2 emissions, compliance margin, and lead time in the final rule. See
also our responses to general comments on NOx standards stringency in section 3.1.1 of this
document. Our cost analysis of the final standards (i.e., cost of compliance for manufacturer
associated with the application of such technology) is included in preamble Sections III and V,
with additional detail in RIA Chapters 3 and 7 and section 18 of this document. In response to
commenters who discuss the importance of fleet turnover for reducing emissions, we point to
discussion in preamble Section X and section 25 of this Response to Comments document.
In setting the final standards, EPA in part considered the data, including the NOx and GHG
emissions levels, from testing the Stage 3 demonstration engine with aftertreatment that was
aged to the equivalent of 800,000 miles using today's commercially available NOx sensors for
aftertreatment control. Regarding comments on NOx sensors, this demonstration supports that
the final standards can be met with the current commercially available NOx and NH3 sensors.
We have also considered all of the concerns and supporting information brought forward by the
commentors that effect emission control system performance, as discussed in Section III of the
preamble. The final standards, as summarized in Section III of the preamble, were demonstrated
with margin and without increasing GHG emissions over the baseline engine. Regarding the
comment about a portion of the test program that EPA did not move forward with, we note that
the System B up front SCR catalyst diameter was too small and resulted in increased
backpressure on the engine, as explained in RIA Chapter 3. Due to the inadequate size, we did
not move forward with aging and testing this system, but that system does not impact our
feasibility assessment based on the overall demonstration program. As discussed in RIA Chapter
3, the technologies we expect to be used to meet the final standards build upon the technologies
used in today's light- and heavy-duty engines. Our final standards are based on our projection of
the future performance improvements of the emission control technologies (e.g. cylinder
deactivation, heated DEF dosers, dual-SCR aftertreatment, and NOx sensors) like those applied
in the Stage 3 engine for model year 2027, which in some cases are technologies that are
currently available as prototypes but are not necessarily in production yet. MECA stated in their
comments, and we agree based on the improvements we have seen in recent years, that it is
reasonable to expect there will be additional improvements beyond what was demonstrated with
the Stage 3 engine. For example, we have seen a reduction in catalyst volume over the last 10
years due to improvements in aftertreatment technology. Another example of this is the NOx
reduction improvements of EPA System A as compared to the CARB and EPA Stage 3 engine.
As covered in RIA Chapter 3, the NOx emissions from the EPA System A are lower than the
CARB Stage 3 after degreening the aftertreatment. We acknowledge, however, that there are
some uncertainties on the magnitude of possible additional improvement to aftertreatment
beyond those included in the Stage 3 engine and we are finalizing standards that are higher than
what was demonstrated to account for these uncertainties, as further detailed in Section III of the
preamble. We project that the current state of development in conjunction with anticipated
improvements make the final standards technologically feasible starting in MY 2027, consistent
with our authority to set technology-forcing HD engine criteria pollutant standards under CAA
section 202(a)(3)(A). Regarding comments on compliance margin, see also our response to
comments in section 3.4 of this document regarding the interim in-use testing allowance for
Medium HDE and Heavy HDE in the final rule.
362
-------
Regarding the comment on meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards, the NOx standards are
incremental to the GHG standards, and the technology required to achieve both standards
simultaneously can be independently applied to the engine. The Stage 3 engine was a MY 2017
engine that did not include the technology needed to meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG standards.
The demonstrated NOx emissions were achieved without increasing GHG emissions from the
base engine, and thus would have no adverse effect on GHG reductions achieved through the
introduction of additional technology. See also discussion in preamble Section III. As explained
above, EPA expects that the four-year lead time will provide sufficient time for all of the
technologies for the final standards to become commercially available.
Regarding DTNA's comment regarding the medium duty market shifting to SI engines, to the
extent this comment may be within the scope of this rulemaking, the commenter did not provide
information to support their concern such that it would impact decisions in this final rule.
DTNA commented on the availability of heated DEF dosers and the evaluation of "noise,
vibration, and harshness" (NVH) from CDA. EPA believes that setting the final standards with a
least 4 years of lead time will allow enough time for suppliers to increase production of heated
DEF dosers. The supplier of the heated DEF doser for the EPA Stage 3 system has provided EPA
with dosers at various stages of their product development and their hardware is approaching
production readiness. Regarding the comment on considering NVH when setting the standards,
as outlined in RIA Chapter 3, we have conducted NVH testing with CDA active. EPA's
assessment based on this testing is that there are several ways to reduce NVH to acceptable
levels through design of the complete system, including, where CDA is used, engine mounts, cab
mounts, and seat calibration. Based on consideration of this testing and the other data discussed
in the RIA, we have determined that the final standards are achievable without increasing NVH
outside of the acceptable range. EPA disagrees with DTNA's concern regarding N2O
compliance feasibility, as the N2O emissions from the EPA and CARB Stage 3 engine were
below the FTP N2O standard, even after the aftertreatment was aged to the equivalent of 800,000
miles, which is beyond the final useful life for Heavy HDEs.
We received several comments on the FTP and SET test procedures. MECA provided data to
support the current cold/hot start FTP weighting factors. DTNA commented that EPA should
change the weighting factor for the FTP duty cycle and add 300 seconds of idle before the cold
FTP. PACCAR commented that EPA should retain the option to determine a single IRAF based
on the average regeneration frequency of customer vehicles over all duty cycles. See preamble
Section III.B.2 for EPA's full response to comments requesting changes to the weighting factors
for the FTP or adding 300 seconds to the beginning of the cold FTP. We neither proposed these
changes nor requested comment on them in the NPRM, and for the reasons explained in
preamble III.B.2 are not adopting the requested changes. We note that we requested comment on
alteration to the FTP duty-cycle in the ANPR and only received comments in support of the
current FTP duty-cycle, including weighting factors. DTNA analyzed the data from the EMA-
WVU data set and stated that their analysis showed that the average idle period for a day-cab
vehicle in California is 227 seconds. DTNA did not provide the data used in this analysis to
EPA, so we are not able to independently verify the conclusions of their analysis or how broadly
it applies to all heavy-duty engines. The current structure of the FTP duty-cycle with its
363
-------
weighting factors ensures that engine control strategies cover in-use operation where the vehicle
is not idled for an extended period of time, thus the worst-case scenario is covered ensuring that
quick catalyst light off strategies are employed.
Regarding the comment from PACCAR, 40 CFR 1065.680 states that "For engines subject to
standards over more than one duty cycle, you must develop adjustment factors under this section
for each separate duty cycle". There is nothing in 40 CFR 1065.680 that prevents a manufacturer
from developing a single IRAF that represents the average of, and can be applied to, all duty
cycles. The IRAF determination procedure in 40 CFR 1065.680 provides flexibilities with
respect to the method of IRAF determination.
Cummins commented that for PHEV testing, 40 CFR 1036.505 Figure 1 seems to indicate SET 5
cycle would be a cold cycle. This is not equivalent to engine SET where engine and
aftertreatment are pre-conditioned before running the emission test. Cummins suggests skipping
the cycle where engine starts for first time and use the following cycle to report criteria
emissions. EPA disagrees with Cummins regarding 40 CFR 1036.505 Figure 1. We note that
this is the same approach used for light duty PHEV testing, but in conjunction with the charge
sustaining criteria for HD vehicles in SAE J2711. While it is true that the engine will start from
a "cold" condition, the powertrain test procedure allows for powertrain operation over the duty-
cycle utilizing hybrid propulsion where the ECU can activate heating of the aftertreatment prior
to engine start. Thus, if aftertreatment heating is needed to ensure emission control under engine
start, there is opportunity within the duty-cycle to achieve that heating. For example, this could
be addressed with an electrically heated catalyst warming up the aftertreatment before the engine
starts. The starting of the engine is representative of how the engine would start under this type
of operation in-use. We would also like to point out that when determining the brake specific
emission results from SET 5 in 40 CFR 1036.505 Figure 1, the emission results are determined
using the work performed over the entire duty-cycle and not just the portion where the engine is
operating. Thus, the emission results from SET 5 could be lower than the emission results from
SET 6 where the engine is operating the entire time.
Cummins commented that potential test cell upgrades are needed to conduct PM testing to meet
the requirements of the clean idle test in 40 CFR 1036.505(h) and 40 CFR 1036.510(g) and that
there will be additional measurement uncertainty with the test procedure due to tailpipe
emissions at a level similar to background. We discussed in Section III of the preamble and
Section 3.5 of this document why we are not finalizing PM, HC, and CO standards for the clean
idle duty cycle. Therefore, for the final rule, we are not including the PM, HC, and CO
measurement requirements in 40 CFR 1036.505(h) and 40 CFR 1036.510(g) that would have
required the measurement of PM during the idle portions of the FTP and SET under the proposed
rule.
Regarding the comments on the selection of the engine rating for the Cummins XI5 engine used
for the EPA Stage 3 demonstration, we disagree that the rating is not representative since it is an
available rating for the Cummins XI5 engine. As explained further in the documents referenced
in our response above regarding feasibility, the final NOx standards include margin above the
emissions levels demonstrated with the EPA Stage 3 engine to account for variability in
emissions from engine ratings within the same engine family.
364
-------
EPA agrees with EMA that clarifications are needed on how to restart the engine when stop-start
systems are active on the engine due to dynamometer effects and additional specifics are needed
on what type of stop-start systems can be considered for certification testing. EPA has updated
1036.501(d) to reflect that good engineering judgment should be used to restart the engine,
including for example decoupling the dynamometer from the engine during the restart or using a
bigger start motor. EPA has already considered the implications of user selectable stop-start
systems for HD vehicles in 40 CFR 1037.660. We have made modifications to 40 CFR
1036.501(d) to provide clarification for what types of stop-start systems can be considered for
use during engine certification. Specifically, we reference 40 CFR 1037.660 for limitations on
its use during certification. In addition, we have added a new paragraph 40 CFR 1036.415(g) to
address the use of stop-start during in-use testing. This new paragraph references 40 CFR
1037.601, linking the off-cycle testing stop-start requirements to the laboratory certification
requirements.
We disagree with EMA's comment that the final standards will require a new lube oil, since the
EPA Stage 3 demonstration was conducted with commercially available lube oil. To the extent
that a new lube oil is developed, the final standards include four years of lead time for this
development.
All commenters supported EPA promulgating lower than the current PM standards for the FTP
and SET duty cycles. While many supported the proposed standard of 5 mg/hp-hr, some
commenters stated that 7.5 mg/hp-hr would reflect the state of available technology today. See
preamble Section III.B for further discussion of the basis of our final PM standards and our
response to these comments. We note that most DPF equipped HD engines today emit PM at less
than 1 mg/hp-hr. We also note that it has been shown that soot buildup in the DPF improves
filtration efficiency and, as with ammonia storage on SCR catalysts, EPA allows for
preconditioning prior to manufacturers carrying out their test of record for certification. This
preconditioning not only establishes baseline ammonia storage on the SCR catalyst but
reestablishes the DPF soot cake layer that was removed during the initial forced DPF
regeneration that occurs prior to the preconditioning sequence.
Many commentors raised concerns regarding system packaging and its effect on emission
performance, as well as weight and heat load as to effects on safety. In regard to system
packaging, as described in preamble Section III, we have set final standards with margin to cover
consideration of applications-specific design to meet the packaging requirements of those
vehicles. In regard to weight, our assessment is that the addition of an upfront SCR catalyst to
the aftertreatment system will not contribute significantly to the overall engine weight. See the
FEV teardown study referenced in RIA Chapter 3 for details on our assessment of the increased
mass of the aftertreatment system.14 In regard to safety, the comments received have not
provided any supporting data showing that there is a valid concern with increased heat load from
the potential packaging constraints of the upfront SCR catalyst. Our assessment is that the
upfront SCR catalyst can be packaged with proper heat shielding to mitigate any of the potential
associated safety due to heat load concerns.
14 Mamidanna, S. 2021. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Aftertreatment Systems Cost Assessment. Submitted to the Docket.
365
-------
Regarding the comments from National Association of Chemical Distributors on standards
potentially exacerbate supply issues, we do not have data supporting this conclusion. The final
standards will go into effect for MY 2027 engines which is at least 4 years from now, which we
believe will provide manufacturers enough time to supply the needed technologies to meet the
standards. Additional, EPA hopes, as everyone does, that the current economic conditions -
inflation, the pandemic, etc. - are alleviated by the time the final program is being implemented.
Regarding the comments on setting standards that don't decrease the reliability of heavy-duty
engines, we believe that the standards will not reduce the reliability of heavy-duty engines. As
discussed in RIA Chapter 3, the technologies we expect to be used to meet the final standards
build upon the technologies used in today's light- and heavy-duty engines.
3.2.2 FTP and SET standards and testing for spark-ignition engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
EPA has proposed reductions in NOx and PM FTP emissions for gasoline spark-ignited
emissions to the same level as diesel engines. In addition to the California Low NOx Regulation,
the EPA also is proposing to reduce hydrocarbon (HC) emissions by 57-71% and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) emissions by 58% versus the current standards. The proposed HC and CO
emission standards are challenging and technology-forcing for spark-ignition engines,
particularly when coupled with the new requirement to certify to a Supplemental Emissions Test
(SET) standard. Given the stringency of the new standards and test procedures, we believe that
an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) requirement should also apply for HC and CO
emissions. Having an HC and CO ABT program will allow additional compliance flexibility as
manufacturer engineer new solutions for these stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1293-A1, p. 3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The proposed Option 1 NOx standards for MY 2031 SI engines on the FTP duty cycle are
aligned with the corresponding Omnibus standards. However, they are less stringent than
Omnibus for MY 2027 SI engines. U.S. EPA's own demonstration testing shows a 20 mg/hp-hr
NOx on the FTP and SET duty cycles to be technically feasible for 2027 MY SI engines. 118
Additionally, manufacturers are currently certifying SI engines to CARB's most stringent
optional low NOx standard of 20 mg/hp-hr while also meeting the proposed Option 1 criteria
pollutant standards for both FTP and SET (Appendix II) [Appendix II can be found at EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 143-145], Analysis of CARB optional low NOx engine
certification data for MYs 2020 and 2021 shows that all of the 20 mg/hp-hr NOx certified
engines meet the proposed Option 1 FTP standards for non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and
CO and 80 percent meet the proposed 5 mg/hp-hr FTP PM standard. In addition, the diesel-cycle
derived SI engines certified to the optional 20 mg/hp-hr NOx standard also meet the proposed
SET standards for NOx, PM, NMHC, and CO. Furthermore, the diesel cycle derived optional
low NOx engines are subject to the CI engine certification procedures including durability
demonstration and UL periods (e.g., 435,000 miles for heavy HDEs), again, indicating that SI
366
-------
engines can meet the 20 mg/hp-hr NOx for the proposed Option 1 UL periods. 119,120 CARB
staff urges U.S. EPA to align the proposed MY 2027 NOx standards for SI engines with the MY
2027 Omnibus standards. CARB staff supports the adoption of the proposed Option 1 standards
for PM, HC, and CO. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.48]
118 Tables 111-25 and 111-28 of NPRM (pages 17485-17486).
119 CARB certification webpage: New Vehicle and Engine Certification: Executive
Orders for Compression-Ignition and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. Accessed
4/8/2022.
120 Appendix II: Model Years 2020 and 2021 Optional Low NOx Certified SI Engines
CARB staff also supports requiring SI engines to certify on the SET test procedures to ensure
emissions are controlled under high load and speed conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.48]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
In Option 2, EPA proposes to lower the hydrocarbon (HC) emissions standard for all primary
intended service classes from today's 140 mg/hp-hr level down to 40 mg/hp-hr, starting MY
2027. EPA cited the measured non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) test results from six MY
2019 gasoline engine certifications, ranging from 42 to 80 mg/hp-hr, as an indication of
technological feasibility. However, all those NMHC values that EPA cited did not include the
manufacturers' EPA-required deterioration factors (DFs) or the manufacturers' required
compliance margins. EPA's online certification spreadsheet is incomplete with respect to those
manufacturers' reported deterioration factors. However, for one of the certification engines for
which EPA reported a 42 mg/hp-hr test result, that manufacturer reported a 1.9 multiplicative
DF, which means that EPA prohibits that manufacturer from declaring a Family Emission Limit
(FEL) below 80 mg/hp-hr. In any case, no manufacturer to date is shown in EPA's online
certification spreadsheet to have declared a heavy-duty SI FEL below 140 mg/hp-hr. That is an
indication that manufacturers are factoring in a compliance margin between the minimum FELs
they are allowed by EPA to declare and the 140 mg/hp-hr standard. Otherwise, those
manufacturers could have generated HC emissions credits by declaring FELs below the
standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 6]
We urge EPA to carefully review its analysis of certification data, and we urge EPA to reach out
to manufacturers to discuss HC deterioration factors—particularly at EPA's proposed longer
useful life, and also discuss manufacturer-required compliance margins and minimum design
targets (similar to our comments on NOx stringency). Additionally, EPA should consider a wider
range of fuels. EPA appears only to have considered gasoline SI engines, not alternative-fuel SI
engines, in setting the standard. A single-step standard of 80 mg/hr in MY 2027 could be more
appropriate considering all these factors. Such a standard would still deliver over a 40%
reduction, while ensuring a wide range of fuels could be used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-
Al, p. 6]
367
-------
Furthermore, Cummins does not support EPA justifying the feasibility of a HC standard based
on the projected availability of HC emissions credits. That approach to standard-setting could
lead to competitive disruptions between manufacturers, based on the mix of technologies
different manufacturers are able to sell into various market subsegments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: In addition, we are requesting input on several aspects of the proposed
new LLC duty cycle for heavy-duty CI engines and applying the SET duty cycle to heavy-duty
SI engines (see Section III) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: We also support adding the SET option for SI engines,
especially as we prognosticate an increase in market share of such engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Ford supports EPA's effort to increase the stringency of the heavy-duty emission and greenhouse
gas standards, starting in 2027 model year. We believe that the Option 1 alternative, along with
the recommendations outlined in our attached comments, represents the appropriate level of
stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 2]
Ford supports the criteria emission standards in Option 1. The standards proposed in Option 1
would reduce NOx and particulate matter (PM) standards to the same level as the California Low
NOx regulation by 2031 MY. In addition, the EPA proposal would reduce hydrocarbon (HC)
emissions by 71% and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions by 60% versus the current
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 3]
Ford believes that complying with the 2031 model year and later 20 mg/bhp-hr NOx standard
will require the same robust and durable technological solutions as are needed to comply with
the CARB requirements in 2027 model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 3]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
GM supports EPA's effort to finalize more stringent criteria emissions regulations than today's
standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, in 2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.2]
In Option 1, the EPA proposes to decrease NOx emissions from the current standard by 82.5% in
2027, and 90% In 2031. At the same time, the agency proposed to revise upwards the useful life
and warranty of new equipment in 2027, and then again in 2031. Different technology packages
may be necessary to achieve these different requirements.7 Proposed restrictions to averaging,
banking, and trading credits decrease a manufacturer's ability to respond to these stepped
changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.4]
368
-------
7 Engine hardware, emissions systems, on-board diagnostic software, electrification, etc.
GM encourages the agency to consider a one-step standard that considers technological
feasibility, and the air quality goals of the standard. A program with a straightforward one-step
structure, with full ABT, that includes ZEVs is preferred. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1,
p.4]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
With regard to EPA's request for comments on several aspects of the proposed new LLC duty
cycle for heavy-duty CI engines and applying the SET duty cycle to heavy-duty SI engines,
much of the impact of this is on the engine certifier. MEMA would like to highlight the fact that
accessory loads are very impactful to thermal management systems - especially during low load
cycle conditions. New certification cycles should accurately quantify and reward contributions of
technologies to fuel efficiency improvements and NOx emissions reductions. MEMA
recommends that EPA develop unique considerations for vocational vehicles with regard to
correct accessory loading to reflect real-world use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 6]
[Also included in Section 3.3 of this document]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Option 1 should immediately harmonize with state action in model year (MY) 2027. Instead of
allowing a four-year delay in matching state-level stringency, Option 1 should immediately
impose a NOx emission standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr for spark ignition, light-, medium-, and heavy-
duty engines through intermediate useful life and a 0.035 g/bhp-hr for heavy heavy-duty engines
from intermediate useful life to full useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 21]
EPA's data on HDO engines shows that the best-performing 2019 gasoline-powered engines are
already certified below the proposed Option 1 standard, with significant room for improvement
according to the agency itself 89 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 22]
89. Draft RIA, Tables 3-35 and 3-40 (Demonstration Program).
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
We suggest the following modifications to the Proposed Option 1:
• 2. Supplemental Emission Test (SET): We discourage the agency from implementing
SET requirements for spark ignited engines.9 We believe these are being considered for
spark ignited engines to alleviate concerns specifically pertaining to power enrichment
and engine/aftertreatment protection. As an alternative, we suggest that EPA monitor in-
use compliance of vehicles to identify the outliers and work with pertinent manufacturers
directly rather than including unnecessary and onerous additional requirements, which
would increase the cost of engineering, testing and hence the product. Further, the
agency's proposal deviates from current practice in that SET certification is not required
369
-------
under CARB's 2027 Ultra-Low NOx standards for spark ignited engines. 10 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1263-A1, p.3]
9 Id., at 17429.
10 Heavy-Duty Low NOx, California Air Resources Board, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-
work/programs/heavy-duty-low-nox
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush is in favor of the Option 1 proposed FTP standards and useful life periods for SI engines
as listed in Table 111-22. We believe these standards are highly challenging to achieve on
gasoline, but likely feasible when combined with the ABT and OBD threshold flexibilities
proposed. We believe that the use of clean alternative fuels such as LPG and CNG will provide
an attractive alternative path for compliance due to their proven advantages in heavy-duty NOx
emissions, but that this is simply one of several technical approaches that could be adopted under
the regulation. We believe that the proposed implementation dates of 2027 and 2031 are
reasonable, although we are concerned that given the broad scope of questions and preliminary
content included in the NPRM, it will be difficult to finalize the rule in time to achieve 2027MY
implementation. We encourage EPA to focus on the core provisions relating to NOx, useful life,
and warranty, with primary concern being achieving a single national program with ARB, even if
that means some of the other areas under consideration may need to be delayed for a future
program. We recognize that NOx FEL timeline may be different between EPA and ARB, and
that EPA and ARB warranty provisions may vary, but we would hope these would be the only
substantive difference between the programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers (EMA)
EPA has requested comment on the proposed SET test cycle and standards for SI HDEs, and
whether any modifications should be considered when adapting the current Cl-based SET duty
cycle to SI HDEs. Application of the SET test to gasoline SI engines will require significant
engine and aftertreatment investments far beyond the scope of what EPA has considered in the
NPRM. The higher-load operating points of the SET test are challenging for gasoline SI engines
where engine and aftertreatment components can be damaged by the associated high exhaust
temperatures. Fuel enrichment is commonly used to cool those components under high-load
conditions. EPA's gasoline SI demonstration of SET compliance employed down-speeding to
avoid fuel enrichment. While down-speeding could be used in these applications, there will be a
significant loss in the engine performance that customers demand. EPA states in the preamble
that down-speeding would have to be combined with enhanced emissions controls and improved
catalyst formulations to meet the proposed standards. EMA believes the hardware and software
changes required to comply with the proposed SET standard, while also maintaining the
customer's performance requirements, would be far more extensive than that. Indeed, those
applications would have to be transitioned to higher displacement engines, requiring potentially
significant vehicle modifications to package both engine and aftertreatment systems. An
undesired consequence of using higher displacement engines in those applications would be an
increase to GHG emissions. Additionally, manufacturers would be required to achieve greater
engineering margin to account for the multiple sources of variability present in real-world
370
-------
applications beyond that provided in EPA's test results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
116 - 117]
Considering the foregoing, EMA recommends that the SET test requirement be delayed until
MY 2031 to provide manufacturers of gasoline SI engines the time needed to develop and install
the larger engines that would be required for those applications. Alternatively, the SET test could
be introduced with MY 2027 as proposed, but with exclusions to criteria emissions requirements
needed during fuel enrichment-supported operation under high-load. Those exclusions could be
sunset in MY 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 117]
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a listing of the topics raised, then the
comments are summarized by category and the responses follow each summary.
Comments relating to FTP and SET testing for spark-ignition engines fell into the following
general categories:
• Broad support for or opposition to the proposed options
• Specific comments on the proposed duty cycles and standards
• Credits and flexibilities
• Analysis of alternative fuels
Broad support for or opposition to the proposed options
Ford commented with general support for EPA's proposed Option 1. CARB supported Option 1
for PM, HC, and CO, but recommended EPA align more closely with CARB's Omnibus
program by pulling ahead the 20 mg/hp-hr NOx standard that was proposed for MY 2031 to
apply in MY 2027. CARB provided certification data for SI engines currently certifying to their
optional low NOx standard of 20 mg/hp-hr and noted that 100% of those certified engines met
EPA's proposed HC and CO standards as well. Roush also commented in support of Option 1
and requested a "single national program with ARB" specifically for NOx standards, useful life,
and warranty. MFN commented that they believed Option 1 was feasible to implement in MY
2027, citing EPA's demonstration program results and the compliance numbers for MY 2019 SI
engines. GM commented in support for lowering the standards from today's levels, but
recommended a "straightforward" single step program instead of proposed Option 1. Cummins
requested that EPA adopt an HC standard of 80 mg/hp-hr that they believe more appropriately
accounts for the deterioration factors and compliance margins that manufacturers are expected to
use. Cummins also noted that EPA did not appropriately account for the DF values in the MY
2019 certification data used in justifying the standards.
Response:
We are finalizing new FTP standards and new SET standards for Spark-ignition HDE subject to the
final 40 CFRpart 1036, which includes all spark-ignition engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 lb
GVWR and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 lb GVWR that are not subject to or
otherwise certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
371
-------
We acknowledge the support from Ford and Roush for the proposed Option 1 standards and from
CARB and MFN for pulling ahead the proposed Option 1 standards to MY 2027. As described in
section III of the preamble, we are finalizing standards of 35 mg/hp-hr NOx, 5 mg/hp-hr PM, 60
mg/hp-hr HC, and 6.0 g/hp-hr CO over the FTP duty cycle for MY 2027 and later engines. The
NOx and HC standards match the MY 2027 step of proposed Option 1; the PM and CO
standards match the MY 2031 step of Option 1. All of these standards were demonstrated to be
technologically feasible in EPA's SI engine test program.
In response to Cummins, we clarify that we included the MY 2019 certification data as one
indicator that the proposed emission standard levels were achievable by today's engines. The
certification data was added as supporting information; our primary technical basis for the
numeric levels of the standards was and continues to be the SI engine demonstration program. It
is true that our proposed analysis of the supporting certification data presented test values that
did not include the DF. In RIA Chapter 3, we have updated our analysis of this certification data
to account for DF.
We thank CARB for sharing the certification data from their optional low NOx program. We
agree that the data also support the proposed Option 1 NOx levels for some current engines, but
most of the engines in the dataset are alternative-fueled engines, including the natural gas-fueled
engines certified using the CI duty cycles. As discussed in preamble Section III.A.3 and section
3.10 of this document, while we have referenced a technology pathway for complying with our
final heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards (Chapter 3 of the RIA), which is consistent
with CAA section 202(a)(3), there are other technology pathways, including alternative-fueled
engines, that manufacturers may choose in order to comply with the final performance-based
standards.
We are not finalizing an HC standard of 80 mg/hp-hr as requested by Cummins. For Spark-
ignition HDE over the FTP duty cycle, we are finalizing an HC standard of 60 mg/hp-hr (which
matches the MY 2027 HC standards for proposed Option 1). As explained further in preamble
Section III, we demonstrated HC levels below 40 mg/hp-hr over the FTP in EPA's SI engine
testing program and for the reasons explained in the preamble we believe a 60 mg/hp-hr standard
is the appropriate level for a HC standard starting in MY 2027.
We respond to comments regarding alignment with the CARB Omnibus program in the
preamble for this rule and Section 3.1 of this document.
Specific comments on the proposed duty cycles and standards
CARB and Eaton specifically expressed support for EPA's proposal to include a new SET duty
cycle and standards for Spark-ignition HDE. MEMA commented that the impact of the new duty
cycle is largely on the engine certifier, but that EPA should ensure that accessory loads are well-
represented in the duty cycle due to their impact on thermal management systems. NPGA/PERC
opposed the new SET standards, indicating that the new test would increase costs and isn't in
line with the CARB Omnibus program. NPGA/PERC suggested enrichment for SI engines was
best addressed through in-use monitoring. EMA suggested EPA underestimated the investment
372
-------
and time needed for manufacturers to adapt their engines to comply with standards over the SET
duty cycle. EMA commented that the high load points of the SET duty cycle will result in high
exhaust temperatures for SI engines, and the high temperatures could damage aftertreatment
systems if manufacturers needed to avoid engine protection enrichment strategies in order to
meet the standards. EMA suggests that, while EPA demonstrated the standards could be met with
downspeeding, a downsped engine may not meet the performance requirements of HD customers
in the range of applications for SI engines. Additionally, EMA commented that utilizing
increased displacement engines would have the unintended consequence of higher GHG
emissions as well as necessitating increase engineering margins to account for multiple sources
of variability. EMA requested that EPA delay the SET requirement until MY 2031 to provide
manufacturers more lead time. Alternatively, EMA suggested EPA could provide additional lead
time by introducing SET in MY 2027 with an exclusion that sunsets in MY 2031 for operation in
the high load points that would currently require fuel enrichment.
Response:
We appreciate the support for new SET standards from CARB and Eaton. We also acknowledge
the adverse comments from NPGA/PERC and EMA and agree that the new duty cycle would
present some new challenges for the industry. We disagree with the suggestion from
NPGA/PERC that EPA monitor in-use vehicles to address enrichment in lieu of establishing SET
duty cycle standards. We prefer EPA's long-standing approach of requiring manufacturers to
demonstrate that their engines meet standards to ensure engines are designed to achieve the
lowest possible levels of emissions before they enter commerce.
While lead time is necessary for SET duty cycle standards for Spark-ignition HDE, we disagree
with EMA's comment that additional lead time may be needed for manufacturers to reevaluate
their engine protection enrichment strategies over the higher load conditions of a SET duty cycle
due to higher exhaust temperatures. We also disagree with EMA's request for EPA to delay
implementation of the SET or provide exclusions for high load operating points on the duty cycle
to provide additional lead time. Instead, as explained in preamble Section III, we are finalizing
new SET standards starting in MY 2027, which we demonstrated are feasible and appropriate
starting in that MY. By applying SET standards that start in MY 2027, we can ensure
manufacturers take the quickest action to address the high load operation and minimize
enrichment for SI engines.
As explained further in preamble Section III, we are finalizing SET standards of 35 mg/hp-hr
NOx, 5 mg/hp-hr PM, and 40 g/hp-hr HC. For CO, we are finalizing a SET standard of 14.4
g/hp-hr. As shown in our SI engine test program and described in the RIA for this rule, CO is the
most challenging emission to control under enrichment conditions for gasoline-fueled engines,
but we demonstrated our final CO standard is technically feasible. We believe an SET CO
standard, at the level of today's FTP CO standard, will sufficiently ensure manufacturers are
assessing the performance of their engines at high load conditions as soon possible, yet the final
stringency would not require the flexibilities or additional lead time that was suggested by
commenters. Since the SET cycle is not currently required, manufacturers are not currently held
to any standards at sustained high load and we expect a standard of 14.4 g/hp-hr will
significantly reduce emissions compared to levels emitted under that unregulated operation.
373
-------
EMA's claim that meeting the CO standard of SI SET by downspeeding would result in
deterioration of vehicle performance was not substantiated with data to indicate the magnitude of
the anticipated performance deterioration. Our SI SET demonstration engine maintained
performance that we believe is acceptable in the commercial vehicle sector. Furthermore, our
performance-based standards do not require manufacturers to adopt a specific technology (e.g.,
downspeeding or larger displacement) and manufacturers are expected to adopt the technology
that is most appropriate for their compliance strategies for the range of applicable standards.
Finally, manufacturers have readily adopted increased engine displacement with downspeeding
as their engineering solution to achieve the current GHG standards. Agency review of recent
certified engines indicates a 10% or more increase the engine displacements of all new HD
engine designs combined with a reduction in rated engine speed following the implementation of
GHG emission standards.
We requested comment on modifications we should consider to adapt the current Cl-based SET
duty cycle to Spark-ignition HDEs. MEMA suggested that accessory loads were especially
important to consider for vocational vehicles, but did not provide data or specific suggestions for
accessory loads in vocational applications. We may consider amendments to the SET duty cycle
in a future rulemaking as more information becomes available for testing Spark-ignition HDE
over the SET.
Credits and flexibilities
Roush and AAPC commented that the proposed standards are challenging and noted the need for
the flexibility of an ABT program. Specifically, AAPC requested that manufacturers be able to
generate credits for HC and CO. GM requested "full ABT". Cummins recommended that EPA
set the final HC standard without assuming manufacturers would use credits to comply, citing
the potential for competitive disruptions.
Response:
The final standards are not based on the use of emissions credits for any pollutant and our
analyses show that manufacturers can meet the final standards without the use of credits. See
preamble Section III for the feasibility of the final standards and preamble Section IV for the
final ABT program.
Consistent with the proposal for this rule, we are finalizing an ABT program for NOx credits
only and are discontinuing the current options for manufacturers to generate HC and PM credits.
We did not request comment on and are not finalizing an option for manufacturers to generate
credits for CO. See Section IV of the preamble to this rule and section 12 of this document for a
discussion of the final ABT provisions.
Analysis of alternative fuels
374
-------
Roush noted that LPG and CNG are alternative fuel options that could achieve the proposed
standards. Cummins commented that EPA did not appropriately consider the feasibility of the
proposed standards for alternative-fueled vehicles.
Response:
We agree with Roush's comment that LPG and CNG fuels may be viable methods to achieve the
proposed standards and we note that, consistent with our current heavy duty engine standards
compliance program, manufacturers can pursue alternative fuels as a technology pathway to
comply with the final standards. Regarding Cummins' comment, we have updated our feasibility
analysis from proposal to include compliance data from alternative-fueled and gasoline-fueled
engines in RIA Chapter 3.
3.3 Criteria pollutant standards for LLC testing
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports additional modifications to Option 1 to provide the best opportunity for driving
more rapid adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. These additional
modifications include:
• Adoption of a lower limit of a Low Load Cycle (LLC) for engine certification.
• Considering a tighter than proposed in-use compliance standard to meet a lower LLC
limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p 3]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Allison supports EPA's proposal of a Low Load Cycle but believes that EPA should
determine accessory loads in a manner that better represents real-world operations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.6]
EPA has proposed new test procedures for Low Load Cycle62 and proposed corresponding low
load cycle emission standards.63 These standards are significantly higher than standards that
apply for NOx and HC as measured under FTP and SET testing. Allison has reviewed the
proposed Low Load Cycle and agrees that this cycle measures operations where aftertreatment
thermal management strategy is a significant factor to maintaining emissions control. Therefore,
we agree that Low Load Cycle would measure emissions across a broader range of engine
operating conditions aligned with EPA's objectives in proposing the new requirements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.30]
62 Proposed 40 C.F.R. §1036.512.
63 Proposed 40 C.F.R. §1036.104(a)(3)
375
-------
Allison notes that, as proposed, the Low Load Cycle would apply accessory loads of 1.5kw,
2.5kw, and 3.5kw for LHDEs, MHDEs, and HHDEs. Allison experience with eGen Flex hybrid
system testing indicates accessory loads are a significant factor for thermal management, as
hybrid systems moving from engine off all electric range operation to resumed engine operation
exiting geofenced green zones, were able to more quickly recover thermal management
compared to test vehicles run with lower accessory loads. This is a reason that hybrid technology
with all electric range is a better fit for applications with higher accessory loads like transit bus.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.30]
Based on these observations, Allison believes that EPA should determine accessory loads in a
manner that better matches real-world operation and consider different assumptions for different
vocations. Allison was unable to compile data to provide EPA within this comment period
timeframe, but we will offer suggestions how EPA could consider accessory load assumptions or
gather data via customer survey leading to final rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.30]
• Allison would suggest EPA survey commercial vehicle customers (fleet and OEM)
across segments of both tractor and vocational applications to gather this data because
accessory loads are vehicle and application specific
• Allison would recommend EPA seek a range of worst case to best case accessory loads
from customers because, for each vehicle or application type, accessory loads can vary
seasonally based on ambient temperatures, particularly for applications that have more
complex climate control (air conditioning/heating) systems like transit bus.
• Allison suggests EPA define different assumptions for accessory loads for tractor and
vocational application because Allison would expect accessory loads to be higher on
average for vocational applications compared to tractor applications. Any vehicle with
complex accessories including climate control, air compressor loads, power-take-off is
more likely to have higher accessory loads. For example, another application known to
have higher-than-average accessory loads would be a reefer truck. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.30]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include: Low-load cycle NOx emissions standards are necessary to reduce overall NOx profiles
from the trucking sector. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA's Stage 3 RW engine platform at 435,000 equivalent miles of accelerated aging
resulted in tailpipe NOx emissions of 20, 17, and 29 mg/hp-hr respectively on the FTP, Ramped-
modal cycle (RMC), and LLC duty cycles. Since the proposed useful lives for MY 2027 light
and medium HDEs are much less than 435,000 miles, it can be concluded that, with application
of emission control technologies similar to the Stage 3 RW, these engine classes could meet
CARB staff recommended standards of 20 mg/hp-hr NOx on the FTP and SET and a 50 mg/hp-
hr NOx on the LLC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.40-41]
376
-------
96NPRM 17461
97 Sanchez, James. 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Demonstration'. Memorandum to
Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. February 10, 2022.
The Omnibus LLC standards for NOx were based on test data from the CARB Stage 3 engine,
which used a zone-coated catalyzed soot filter (ZCSF) upstream of the downstream underfloor
SCR system. Testing on the LLC of the CARB Stage 3 engine with ZCSF after accelerated aging
to 435,000 miles was at 47 mg/hp-hr, and it provided the basis for CARB's Omnibus LLC
standards of 50 mg/hp-hr through IUL. However, in the Stage 3 RW engine testing, the ZCSF
was replaced with a separate diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and diesel particulate filter (DPF)
aftertreatment system. These improvements resulted in lower NOx emissions on the FTP, SET,
and LLC compared to corresponding NOx emissions from the CARB Stage 3 engine on which
the Omnibus standards were based. In particular, LLC NOx emissions from the Stage 3 RW
engine, which measured emissions at 435,000, 600,000, and 800,000 equivalent miles of
accelerated aging, were significantly reduced and stable with no significant variations in the
deterioration through the UL of 800,000 miles (see Figure 5-2 above). Thus, the technology and
the demonstration results justify NOx standards on the LLC duty cycle that are more stringent
than those in the proposed Option 1 or Omnibus. In fact, CARB's adopted 50 mg/hp-hr IUL
standard for LLC could have been adopted for heavy HDE's at 600,000 and 800,000 mile UL.
Adopting CARB's IUL LLC NOx standard of 50 mg/hp-hr out to full UL of 800,000 miles is
feasible and would provide around a 50 percent compliance margin when looking at the Stage 3
RW test results at the equivalent mileage of 800,000 miles. CARB staff recommends that U.S.
EPA adopt in its final rulemaking NOx standards that are more stringent than the proposed
Option 1 or Omnibus LLC standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.45]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Commenters support changes to duty cycle and in-use testing to curtail the extremely high
emissions that occur when HDVs are idling or traveling at low speeds. Selective catalytic
reduction (SCR)-based emissions control systems, typically used on diesel engines, work best
when the engine's exhaust is at a high temperature, i.e., when trucks are traveling at
higher speeds or when engines are working at 'higher load.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,418. This means
that when trucks and buses are moving at lower speeds on congested highways through urban
areas, on city streets, pulling into and out of logistics facilities and warehouses, or idling—the
times when these vehicles are closest to pedestrians and cyclists and closest to people's homes,
schools, and workplaces—they are emitting the highest levels of dangerous pollution.233 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.55]
233 Huzeifa Badshah et al., Current State of NOx Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty
Diesel Vehicles in the United States 17, ICCT (Nov. 2019),
https://theicct.org/publication/current-state-of-nox-emissions-from-in-use-heavy-duty-
diesel-vehicles-in-the-united-states/.
377
-------
EPA proposes improving its duty cycle testing by adding a new low-load cycle to its current
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and Supplemental Emission Test (SET) duty cycles. 87 Fed. Reg.
at 17,460. The new low-load cycle (LLC) would be identical to the Omnibus LLC, and would be
subject to a different (higher) set of emissions limitations than the FTP and SET cycles. 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17,463-64. Commenters support adoption of a low-load duty cycle to better limit the
higher emissions that occur at low loads, though, as discussed below, we believe EPA should set
more stringent emissions limits on this cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.56]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
EPA is proposing to add a new low-load cycle (LLC) standard for CI engines. CR supports the
addition of the LLC standard, and encourages EPA to extend this test to SI engines. The
proposed LLC standard is needed to capture NOx emissions in urban areas where heavy duty
vehicles operate in stop-and-start, and other low-load conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1285-A1, p.7]
Studies by both CARB and ICCT show that NOx emissions in urban driving settings exceed
emission rates certified by manufacturers.43 As the ICCT study states 'a disproportionate amount
of NOx emissions from heavy-duty [diesel] vehicles is emitted during the low-speed operation
characteristic of urban driving,' and that 'vehicle operation at speeds of less than 35 mph results
in NOx emissions of more than five times the certification limit for the average heavy-duty
vehicle in the study.'44 For this reason the LLC is necessary to ensure that NOx emission
standards apply not only to driving conditions seen on highways, but also to emissions that occur
during cold start warm-up, idling, low-load driving, and transient operations. Such a requirement
is needed for both SI and CI engines. EPA must adopt the Option 1 LLC standards that reflect
CARB's Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule.45 Compared to Option 2, Option 1 reflects the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable, as required by the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1285-A1, p.7]
43 Thomas Durbin, Certification an in-use compliance testing for heavy-duty diesel
engines to understand high in-use NOx emissions: 2018 final report, California Air
Resources Board (November 2018). Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-proj ect.php?row_id=65254
44 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, Rachel Muncrief, Current State of NOx
Emissions from in-use heavy duty diesel vehicles in the United States, International
Council on Clean Transportation (November 2019). Available at:
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/NOx_Emissions_In_Use_HDV_US_201
91125.pdf
45 California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board Staff Current
Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of Lower NOx Standards and Associated Test
Procedures for 2022 and Subsequent Model Year
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, (April 18, 2019). Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/white_paper_0418201
9a.pdf
378
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
1036.512(b)(3)
For LLC cycle, it was previously agreed to have slightly relaxed statistical criteria which was
also adopted in the CARB Omnibus rule. See below for CARB criteria from
1065.514.A.3.(f)(4): [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 25]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
DOEE supports the inclusion of performance requirements to ensure achievement of emission
standards across all duty cycles, including idle and low load in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 5]
Due to the high level of heavy-duty engine NOx emissions that come from operation at low
loads, we support EPA's proposal to adopt a low-load test that would provide a procedure for
assessing emissions at low loads and allow for better control of NOx emissions in urban driving
environments. For MY 2027-2030 engines, EPA has proposed a low-load cycle (LLC) standard
of 90 mg/hp-hr, which is the same as that in the California Heavy-duty NOx Omnibus
Regulation. However, several recent research initiatives - including EPA's Low NOx Stage 3
Research Program conducted by SwRI and a program conducted by Achates - provide clear
evidence that a tighter standard is feasible. Based on this research, EPA should evaluate how
much lower the LLC standard can be and improve the proposed standard in the final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: In addition, we are requesting input on several aspects of the proposed
new LLC duty cycle for heavy-duty CI engines and applying the SET duty cycle to heavy-duty
SI engines (see Section III) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: We believe the LLC cycle represents the real emissions in
urban-like applications that currently generate significant NOx exactly where many people live
and in environmentally disadvantaged communities. Furthermore, the technologies today already
allow a significant compliance margin versus the proposed 50 mg standard. We believe the EPA
should consider maintaining or possibly improving that limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.7]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
LLC compliance is also achieved with even larger margins. The LLC standard under EPA
Option 1 calls for 90 mg/bhp-hr at 600k miles for MY2027-2030. The latest results from SwRI
show 33 mg/bhp-hr or a 60% compliance margin. For MY 2031 and beyond the LLC Option 1
standard is listed as 50 mg/bhp-hr @ 435k miles and 100 mg/bhp-hr at 800k miles. SwRI results
show LLC emissions at 30-40 mg/bhphr at 435k miles, at least a 20% margin, and 30mg/bh-hr
379
-------
@800k miles, which provides a 70% compliance margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
P- 10]
The industry has many years to improve the first-ever emission compliance design to reach the
final level of emissions of the proposed Option 1 standards, and 8 years to assure its performance
at 800k miles. These results also indicate that LLC standards can be tightened even
further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA suggests that EPA consider tightening two categories of the Proposed Option 1 standards
such that they are more stringent than those finalized in CARB's Omnibus. This
recommendation is based on new, previously unavailable test results that have been released
since the adoption of the Omnibus. Further testing on certification and real-world field cycles
suggest that tighter standards are possible while retaining sufficient compliance margin that
engine manufacturers need to account for manufacturing and field variability. We strongly
encourage CARB to review this new test information and harmonize with EPA on more stringent
standards. The two standards that can be tightened are the LLC standard and the idle standard.
Similar to CARB's Omnibus, the idle standard should also be required for certification rather
than an optional standard as currently proposed. There is significantly more data available from
the SwRI demonstration program since CARB developed its Omnibus regulation. These data
show that the LLC and idle standards finalized by CARB and proposed by EPA in Proposed
Option 1 can be achieved with significant margin. The NOx level achieved over the LLC with
systems fully aged to 800,000 equivalent miles is 0.037 g/bhp-hr, which includes the infrequent
regeneration adjustment factor (IRAF) [6], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.5]
[6] EPA, 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration,' 10 May 2022. [Online],
Available: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
MECA supports the inclusion of a low load cycle and standard to certification
requirements that achieve low NOx emissions during low load operation. rEPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.17]
One challenge with diesel engine emission control is maintaining high NOx conversion during
low load operation, due to insufficient temperature in the exhaust to support efficient catalyst
conversion in the SCR. Diesel vehicles used in drayage, delivery operations, and other activities
that result in high periods of idle, creep, and/or stop-and-go operation are examples of
challenging duty-cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 17]
MECA supports EPA adopting, similar to CARB's Omnibus, revised regulatory requirements
that aim to best control emissions at times of low load engine operation. During certification, the
engines and aftertreatment systems would need to meet low emissions over the newly proposed
low-load certification (LLC) cycle that targets average engine power of about 7%. MECA
supports the addition of the LLC cycle in 2027 for engine certification. However, as stated in our
comments on page 3-4 above, we believe the LLC standards at full useful life should be
tightened for both MY 2027 and 2031. Testing at SwRI has shown that the Proposed Option 1
380
-------
LLC standards can be achieved with significant margin at the proposed limits and may result in
emissions backsliding over time in these operating modes that are the most critical to urban
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 18]
Inclusion of the LLC is a very important part of this rule as it ensures that during certification,
dynamometer testing evaluates the ability of technology to meet real-world emissions in an
accurate test cell environment before they are deployed on the road. As discussed above, the
cycle was derived from real truck data operated over actual duty cycles from many different
truck vocations ranging from delivery to busses to line-haul tractors. The proposed LLC cycle is
a robust approximation of all types of truck operation at low load. The approach used by NREL
and SwRI to develop a real-world cycle stands as an example of how future certification cycles
can be developed. MECA supports the inclusion of the proposed LLC cycle to give EPA the
confidence, at time of certification, that the technology will be able to meet the requirements of
the revised in-use compliance program proposed by staff based on a moving average window
analysis. MECA members have developed and are offering a number of technology solutions
(discussed previously) that can enable OEMs to meet the tighter-than-proposed LLC limits.
Testing of the Stage 3 engine and aftertreatment systems have exceeded the proposed LLC
emission limits with significant margin based on the same technology solutions that achieved
ultra-low NOx emissions over the FTP, including over 98% conversion efficiency over the cold-
start phase of the FTP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 19]
We support Proposed Option 1 slight increase to the emission standards at the final longer
durability periods to account for possible deterioration beyond the current FUL of 435,000
equivalent miles. Results from the SwRI demonstration program support the NOx limits at the
FUL requirements in Proposed Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.20]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
With regard to EPA's request for comments on several aspects of the proposed new LLC duty
cycle for heavy-duty CI engines and applying the SET duty cycle to heavy-duty SI engines,
much of the impact of this is on the engine certifier. MEMA would like to highlight the fact that
accessory loads are very impactful to thermal management systems - especially during low load
cycle conditions. New certification cycles should accurately quantify and reward contributions of
technologies to fuel efficiency improvements and NOx emissions reductions. MEMA
recommends that EPA develop unique considerations for vocational vehicles with regard to
correct accessory loading to reflect real-world use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 6]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA supports inclusion in the final rule of performance requirements to ensure achievement
of emission standards across all duty cycles, including idle and low load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1232-A1, p. 11.]
Due to the high level of heavy-duty engine NOx emissions that come from operation at low load
we support EPA's proposal to adopt a low-load test that would provide a procedure for assessing
emissions at low loads and allow for better control of NOx emissions in urban driving
381
-------
environments. For MY 2027-2030 engines, EPA has proposed a low-load cycle (LLC) standard
of 90 mg/hp-hr, which is the same as that in the Omnibus. However, several recent research
initiatives - including EPA's Low NOx Stage 3 Research Program conducted by SwRI29 and a
program conducted by Achates - provide clear evidence that a tighter standard is feasible. Based
on this research, EPA should evaluate how much lower the LLC standard can be and, in the final
rule, improve upon the proposed standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 11]
29. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
NWRA commends EPA on beginning to break out short-haul and long-haul trucking as
in terms of effective pollution controls. EPA's recognition that the start-stop and short
distances traversed by short-haul drivers between stops potentially limits the ability of
some pollution control devices to work effectively since they would not get to a high
enough temperature. NWRA asks that EPA work with short-haul companies and
manufacturers to find viable alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1242-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: We strongly support the establishment of EPA's proposed low load
certification cycle and the inclusion of auxiliary load in the cycle. Test data collected by EPA,
CARB, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), NESCAUM, and others
demonstrate the substantial contribution to overall heavy-duty engine emissions from low load
operation.27,28,29,30 In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, recent data logging of on-road
tractor trailers over 100 days of travel found that 10 percent to 40 percent of tractor trailer NOx
was emitted at low load.31 Taken together, these studies strongly point to the need for additional
NOx controls at low load cycles. Figure 6 shows the NOx mass emissions for idle (bin 1), low
load (bin 2), and high load (bin 3) over 100 days of data logging of truck tractors in the
NESCAUM study. The green bar shows the contribution of NOx emissions at low load as a
fraction of total NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 10]
27 U.S. EPA, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis," March 2022, see page 84.
28 Badshah, H.; Posada, F.; Muncrief, R., "Current State of NOx Emissions from In-Use
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States," 26 November 2019. Available at
https://theicct.org/publications/nox-emissions-us-hdv-diesel-vehicles (accessed May 12,
2022).
29 Sharp, C., "Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration Program at SwRI,"
Southwest Research Institute, September 26, 2019. Available at Update on Heavy-Duty
Low NOx Demonstration Programs at SwRI (accessed April 25, 2022).
382
-------
30 NESCAUM and Environment and Climate Change Canada, "Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-
Use NOx Testing Report, Interim Results, July 2021, submitted for publication, available
upon request.
31 Ibid.
Even with this important contribution, the green bar understates total low load NOx emissions
because the NOx sensors were not active at exhaust temperatures below 190 degrees Celsius.
The right-hand graph in Figure 6 shows the percent of time the NOx sensor was active for each
truck at low load conditions. On average, NOx sensors were inactive for 31 percent of the time.
Not shown in the graph is NOx sensor activity at idle. NOx sensors were inactive for 67 percent
of the time at idle. A proper accounting of NOx emissions when the NOx sensors were inactive
would increase the amount of NOx emitted at low load and idle. It is important to note that these
trucks are tractor trailers that spend a significant portion of the time at speeds above 60 miles
per hour. For delivery trucks, buses, and other vocational vehicles, low load emissions comprise
an even larger share of total emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 10-11]
Low load cycles and excess NOx emissions are of particular concern in Overburdened
Communities located near busy truck routes and where trucks operate in stop and go conditions
where exhaust temperatures are potentially too low to enable selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
emissions control function. The truck data logging study found that for current engines, cold
ambient temperatures reduce the amount of time NOx sensors are active, indicating potentially
greater NOx emissions at low load in the wintertime. In addition to exacerbating localized
heavy-duty truck emissions, lack of NOx sensor activity and SCR performance in cold weather
are a concern for regional haze. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 11] [Also in Section 23
of this document]
While we support the low load certification test cycle proposed by EPA, we request that EPA
finalize a more stringent low load NOx standard for model year 2027-2030 engines. The
proposed standard in Option 1 of 90 milligrams/hp-hour is significantly higher than data show is
achievable in 2027. For example, an upgraded Cummins engine with cylinder deactivation,
improved engine calibration, and advanced aftertreatment had low load cycle (LLC) NOx
emissions of 0.036 and 0.053 g/bhp-hr.32,33 Results from EPA's Heavy-duty Low NOx Stage 3
Research Program show the proposed Option 1 LLC standards are well above what the test data
demonstrate are feasible at 435,000, 600,000, and 800,000 miles.34,35 EPA's test data indicate
a 35 to 40 mg/bhp-hr standard is feasible in 2027. NESCAUM supports a more stringent low
load certification standard beginning in model year 2027. Achieving the greatest technically
feasible NOx reductions in 2027 and subsequent model year heavy-duty vehicles is essential to
the Northeast to meet air quality requirements and to improve public health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 11 - 12]
32 CARB, "Heavy-Duty Low NOx Program Low Load Cycle," Public Workshop,
September 26, 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/staff/03_llc.pdf
(accessed April 25, 2022).
383
-------
33 Sharp, C., "Update on Heavy-Duty LowNOx Demonstration Program at SwRI,"
Southwest Research Institute, September 26, 2019. Available at Update on Heavy-Duty
LowNOx Demonstration Programs at SwRI (accessed April 25, 2022).
34 U.S. EPA, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis," March 2022. Available at
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards - Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022).
35 U.S. EPA, "Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration," Memorandum
from J. Sanchez, OAR/OTAQ/ASD, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, May 3, 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082
(accessed May 12, 2022).
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Low Load Cycle (LLC): We strongly support the establishment of EPA's proposed low load
certification cycle and the inclusion of auxiliary load in the cycle. Test data evaluated by
the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), NESCAUM, CARB, and others
demonstrate the substantial contribution to overall heavy-duty engine emissions due to low load
operation.28,29,30,31 In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, recent data logging of onroad tractor
trailers over 100 days of travel found that up to 40 percent of tractor trailer NOx was emitted at
low load.32 Taken together, these studies strongly point to the need for additional NOx controls
at low load cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp. 13-14]
28 U.S. EPA, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis,' EPA-420-D-22-001, March
2022. Available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf. See
page 84.
29 Badshah, H.; Posada, F.; Muncrief, R., 'Current State of NOx Emissions from In-Use
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States,' 26 November 2019. Available at
https://theicct.org/publications/nox-emissions-us-hdv-diesel-vehicles. Accessed May 12,
2022.
30 Sharp, C., Southwest Research Institute, 'Update on Heavy-Duty LowNOx
Demonstration Programs at SwRI,' September 26, 2019. Available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_2019
0926/guest/swri_hd_low_nox_demo_programs.pdf?_ga=2.85472537.1256936515.16493
34668-1678718972.1597669978. Accessed May 12, 2022.
31 NESCAUM and Environment and Climate Change Canada, 'Heavy-Duty Vehicle In-
Use NOx Testing Report, Interim Results, July 2021, submitted for publication, available
upon request.
384
-------
32 Ibid.
Low load cycles and excess NOx emissions are of particular concern in Overburdened
Communities located near busy truck routes and where trucks operate in stop and go
conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 14] [Also in Section 23 of this document]
While we support the certification test cycle proposed by EPA, we request that EPA finalize a
more stringent low load NOx standard for model year 2027-2030 engines. The proposed standard
in Option 1 of 90 milligrams/hp-hour is significantly higher than CARB and EPA data show is
achievable for MY 2027. For example, an upgraded Cummins engine with cylinder deactivation,
improved engine calibration, and advanced aftertreatment had LLC NOx emissions of 0.036 and
0.053 g/bhp-hr.33,34 Results from EPA's Heavy-duty Low NOx Stage 3 Research Program
show the proposed Option 1 LLC standards are well above what the test data demonstrate are
feasible at 435,000 miles, 600,000 miles, and 800,000 miles.35,36 EPA's test data indicate a 35
to 40 mg/bhp-hr standard is feasible in 2027. OTC supports a more stringent low load
certification standard beginning in model year 2027. Given that 2027 to 2030 model year heavy-
duty vehicles will be in service for many years to come, it is essential we realize the greatest
NOx reductions possible with the implementation of new emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1250-A1, p.14]
33 CARB 'Heavy Duty Low NOx Program, Low Load Cycle,' Public Workshop,
September 26, 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/staff/03_llc.pdf.
Accessed April 25, 2022.
34 Sharp, C., Southwest Research Institute, 'Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx
Demonstration Programs at SwRI,' September 26, 2019. Available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_2019
0926/guest/swri_hd_low_nox_demo_programs.pdf?_ga=2.85472537.1256936515.16493
34668-1678718972.1597669978. Accessed May 12, 2022.
35 U.S. EPA, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis,' EPA-420-D-22-001, March
2022. Available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf.
Accessed May 12, 2022.
36 U.S. EPA, 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration,' Memorandum
from J. Sanchez, OAR/OTAQ/ASD, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, May 3, 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
Accessed May 12, 2022.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed 1036.522 addresses infrequently regenerating aftertreatment devices. As an initial
matter, operation in the Low Load Cycle conditions may not trigger regeneration events under
real-world conditions, especially in extreme low-load conditions. Manufacturers must therefore
385
-------
be afforded additional flexibility to address this issue, by, for example, being able to use FTP-
derived IRAF values, or by omitting IRAF values if manufacturers can demonstrate that
regenerations are unlikely to occur under real-world, low-load conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.50]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
The Proposal recommends three laboratory tests to better ensure that trucks meet emissions
reduction criteria: (1) the Federal Test Procedure, (2) the Supplemental Emission Test, and (3)
the Low-Load Cycle test. Both (1) and (2) are currently used to demonstrate emission control
efficacy when a vehicle transitions from low to high loads or under a sustained load. But these
tests fail to demonstrate emissions reduction efficiency under low load. The Proposal would add
(3) as a way to ensure that engines retain the capacity for emissions reductions at lower speeds
and operating temperatures. Controlling emissions over a broader range of conditions would be a
welcome relief for communities adjacent to ports and freight corridors where currently even
using the newest equipment cannot guarantee emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1417-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
Large vehicles that use heavy-duty engines operate under a wide range of load conditions and
speeds during day-to-day operation, including sustained low-load and idle. However, these load
conditions are not currently included in the existing federal standards for criteria pollutant
emissions, such as NOx and PM. The absence of such standards has left these emissions largely
unregulated during common low-load operations such as waiting at a traffic light or driving at
low-speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.3]
The medium- and heavy-duty trucks that use engines covered by this proposed rule are
commonly used to transport freight and deliver goods to retailers. These trucks will often operate
in low-load and idle modes during deliveries to retail facilities as they arrive, unload, and depart.
Reductions to the pollution emitted by trucks during low-load operations will reduce exposure to
pollutants experienced at these retail facilities by both employees that work near areas where
trucks unload (e.g., around loading docks), as well as customers who might be exposed to the
emissions of idling trucks when they enter or leave the facility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1189-A2, p.3]
The inclusion of testing that covers low-load and idle operation in EPA's proposed rule is
therefore seen as a logical update by RILA that can reduce exposure to criteria pollutant
emissions faced by communities, including the retail community, across the country. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.3]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Additionally, there is no reason to believe a 0.05 g/bhp-hr LLC limit in MY 2027 is not possible.
The Southwest Research Institute's (SwRI's) Stage 3 'Rework' system, funded by EPA itself,
includes final test results on thermally aged development parts demonstrating 0.034 g/bhp-hr
386
-------
NOx on the LLC at 800,000 miles, which is significantly lower than a proposed 0.05 g/bhp-hr
standard.27 As CARB notes in its Initial Statement of Reasons for the Omnibus Regulation, a
0.05 g/bhp-hr standard on the LLC is feasible for MY 2027 and subsequent MY engines so long
as manufacturers employ engine software and hardware technologies that accelerate catalyst
light-off and keep the aftertreatment warm under sustained low load operations as well as remain
neutral or provide GHG emission reductions.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, pp.7-8]
26 87 Fed. Reg. at 17488
27 CARB, Omnibus Regulation, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (ISOR)
(2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf,
pgs. 111-22 -111-23.
28 Id. at pg. 111-26.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to highlight from the outset that while there are various details of EPA's
rulemaking proposal (particularly with respect to Option 1) that EMA and its members
fundamentally disagree with, there are multiple major points of substantial agreement. In that
regard, EMA agrees with EPA that:
(v) A new low-load cycle and related emission standards should apply to the certification
of HDOH engines starting in MY 2027; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
EPA also proposes to add a new low-load certification test cell cycle ("LLC") to the certification
requirements for HDOH engines. The new LLC, first developed and applied to HD HDOH
engine requirements by CARB, is a 92- minute test cycle that includes approximately 30 minutes
of idle operation, a significant portion of high-to-low load operation with extreme airflow-
induced cooling (i.e., downhill operation), and a significant portion of low-to-high load transient
operation (i.e., drayage work). The selected LLC also has an average power that is approximately
6% of maximum power, and an average vehicle speed that is approximately 10 mph. It is an
extreme cycle, especially as applied to every HDOH engine, regardless of the vehicle type and
application in which the engine might be installed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 115]
EMA has repeatedly questioned the analyses that CARB, SwRI, and NREL relied on to develop
the LLC. One concern relates to the portion of the LLC that has been dubbed, "vl 1660 5." That
portion's combination of engine, transmission, 6x4 axle configuration, and 4.20 axle ratio
appears to be a heavy-haul configuration, which should mean heavier parts all around. However,
the mass—after SwRI's mass reduction and after EMA subtracts a hypothetical 15,000-pound
empty trailer—is 11,333 pounds for a GEM-simulated tractor. That tractor weight is not at
all realistic. Even a heavy-haul single unit vehicle, like a dump truck, typically is heavier than
26,333 pounds (i.e., without subtracting an empty trailer). For reference, Navistar's regional-haul
day-cab with a roof deflector and a 12-liter engine is about 15,000 pounds, and a Daimler
Cascadia daycab with no roof deflector and a 13-liter engine is 16,300 lbs. Those day-cab
387
-------
configurations are among the lighter Class 8 vehicles, yet they are thousands of pounds heavier
than the vehicle simulated to generate LLC portion "vl 1660 5." Thus, it would seem that the
proposed LLC is not representative of the actual operation of any actual HDOH vehicle. EMA
recommends that EPA work (with CARB) to modify the LLC to include only representative
engine behavior drawn from representative vehicle operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 115 - 116]
Similarly unrepresentative is the LLC auxiliary load that EPA proposes to apply. EPA should
increase the LLC auxiliary load for HHD engines from 3.5 kW to a value in the range of 5.0 to
5.5 kW, so that it is more representative of real-world auxiliary loads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 116]
EMA supports that EPA proposes to allow a stop-start function to be active during the FTP and
LLC cycles (§1036.501(f)). Stop-start could be an effective tool for reducing NOx, and having
the ability to demonstrate NOx control over the LLC and RMC will be beneficial. More detail
will be necessary, such as whether operator over-ride functions will influence whether stop-start
can be active during certification testing. Also, there are concerns about deploying conventional
starters to support restart, because the inertia of the dyno may cause unforeseen problems. EMA
appreciates that EPA is providing for stop-start to be active in the certification tests, and is ready
to work with EPA to iron out the details for the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 116]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Multiple commenters provided perspectives on the proposed low-load cycle (LLC) standard and
test procedure. Most commenters expressed general support for including the LLC. Stakeholders
agree that the LLC would measure emissions across a broader range of engine operating
conditions, and is aligned with EPA's objectives to reduce NOx across different modes of
operation and duty-cycles, including urban driving environments. One stakeholder provided data
showing the need for additional NOx emission controls at low load cycles. Several stakeholders
emphasized that emission control under low-load operation is particularly important in
overburdened communities located near busy truck routes and where trucks operate in stop and
go conditions. One stakeholder also stated that emission control in low-load operation is also
important to reduce exposure at retail facilities both for employees that work near areas where
trucks unload (e.g., around loading docks), as well as customers who might be exposed to the
emissions of idling trucks when they enter or leave the facility. One stakeholder encouraged EPA
to work with CARB to revise the LLC such that it includes only representative engine behavior
drawn from representative vehicle operation.
Several commenters provided additional input on the numeric level of the LLC. The majority of
stakeholders urged EPA to lower the numeric level of LLC engine certification test standard.
One commenter also urged EPA to lower the numeric level of the LLC standard for in-use
compliance. In contrast, three stakeholders stated EPA needed to better account for accessory
loads when setting the final LLC standard. Another stakeholder stated EPA should adopt relaxed
statistical criteria which was also adopted in the CARB Omnibus rule. Finally, one stakeholder
388
-------
stated that manufacturers needed flexibilities for determining infrequent regeneration adjustment
factors for the LLC (e.g., allow the use of FTP-derived IRAF values, or by omitting IRAF if the
manufacturer can demonstrate regeneration is unlikely to occur during low-load operations in the
real-world).
Several of the stakeholders who urged EPA to lower the LLC standard pointed to recent data
from SwRI and Achates as providing clear evidence that a standard lower than 75 mg/hp-hr is
feasible. One stakeholder suggested that EPA's test data indicate a 35 to 40 mg/bhp-hr standard
is feasible in 2027. Another commenter stated that EPA should set the LLC to 50 mg/hp-hr for
all engine classes. Finally, one stakeholder noted that not lowering the proposed numeric
standard for the LLC could result in emissions backsliding over time in these operating modes.
Multiple stakeholders who stated that EPA should evaluate accessory loads when setting the
LLC encouraged EPA to determine accessory loads in a manner that better matches real-world
operation when finalizing the LLC standard. They further stated that EPA should consider
different assumptions for different vocations and conduct a survey of fleets and vehicle
manufacturers to gather data on accessory loads in tractor and vocational applications. They
further stated that EPA should define different assumptions for accessory loads for tractor and
vocational application because they expect accessory loads to be higher on average for
vocational applications compared to tractor applications. One stakeholder stated EPA should
increase the LLC auxiliary load for HHD engines from 3.5 kW to a value in the range of 5.0 to
5.5 kW, so that it is more representative of real-world auxiliary loads.
One commenter stated that the regression criteria should be relaxed for the LLC.
One commenter proposed to allow a stop-start function to be active during the FTP and LLC
cycles (40 CFR 1036.501(f)).
Finally, three commenters stated that EPA should extend the LLC to SI engines.
Response:
EPA agrees with many of the commenters that the LLC is an important measure to accurately
account for and control emissions across a broader range of engine operation, including urban
driving conditions and other operation that could impact overburdened communities. As further
detailed in preamble Section III, the final program includes new emission standards for the LLC
duty cycle. The LLC duty cycle was developed by SwRI and NREL with average power and
duration characteristics intended to test current diesel engine emission controls under three low-
load operating conditions: transition from high- to low-load, sustained low-load, and transition
from low- to high-load and its development, taking into account representative vehicle operation,
and is fully described in Chapter 2.2.2 of the RIA. We disagree with the comment that the
vehicle mass of 26,333 pounds used for profile vl 1660 is unrealistic, since 26,333 pounds is in
the range of a class 8 tractor without a trailer. The operation included in profile vl 1660 was from
a drayage tractor, which can spend a significant amount of time without a trailer connected. For
the reasons described in this section and preamble Section III, we are finalizing the LLC test
cycle as proposed.
389
-------
Regarding the comment regarding flexibilities for IRAF determination, 40 CFR 1065.680 states
that "For engines subject to standards over more than one duty cycle, you must develop
adjustment factors under this section for each separate duty cycle." There is nothing in 40 CFR
1065.680 that prevents a manufacturer from developing a single IRAF that represents the
average of, and can be applied to, all duty cycles. Nor does 40 CFR 1065.680 prevent you from
determining that your IRAF is zero. The IRAF determination procedure in 40 CFR 1065.680
provides flexibilities with respect to the method of IRAF determination.
See preamble Section III for the basis for the final LLC standards. We agree with some
commenters that data support a lower numeric value of the LLC standard than what we proposed
for certain LLC standards in Option 1 (e.g. at the useful life value of 800,000 miles for Heavy
HDE). We noted in the NPRM that the margin between the proposed Option 1 MY 2031
standards and the Stage 3 engine data is the largest on the LLC, suggesting that a lower numeric
NOx standard may be feasible than what we proposed. The final LLC numeric standard, as
further discussed in preamble Section III, is the consistent with the most stringent proposed
option, pulled forward to MY 2027.
The commenters who urged EPA to further consider accessory loads in finalizing the LLC did
not provide data for accessory load, but EMA provided specific suggestions of 5.0 and 5.5 kW
for tractor applications. They did not provide a basis for how they arrived at these specific loads.
Based on data available, we considered accessory loads when setting the final numeric value of
the LLC standard. Additional discussion on how we considered accessory loads is available in
preamble Section III.
We did not propose and are not finalizing standards over the LLC to apply for Spark-ignition
HDE. As we explained at proposal and as we describe in Section III.D.2 of the preamble, we are
finalizing other provisions to ensure emissions are controlled under lower load operation for
Spark-ignition HDE (see also section 3.6.1 of this document).
With respect to EMA's comment on stop-start technologies as it applies to the LLC, see EPA's
response to a similar comment regarding the FTP in section 3.2.1 of this document.
With respect to National Waste & Recycling Association comment on working with engine and
short-haul manufacturers to ensure emissions control technology works in stop-start operation,
we have finalized standards with the new LLC to ensure that the emissions control technology
performs under these conditions. In addition, we have evaluated technologies that enable
emissions control under this operation (e.g., CDA and closed-couple SCRs).
We agree with the comment from Cummins that for gaseous-fueled engine testing with a single-
point fuel injection system, the cycle regression criteria should be revised from the proposal in
the final provision to address the slow response of the fuel system to changes in operator
demand. As such we are finalizing the allowance for the use of the statistical criteria in 40 CFR
1036.540(d)(3) to validate the LLC for these engines.
390
-------
3.4 Criteria pollutant interim in-use standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA is soliciting comment on providing manufacturers with higher (numerical) standards
for an interim period to gain experience with the additional emission control technologies needed
to meet the proposed heavy HDE NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.54]
Verification testing of both new and in-use engines helps to ensure that production engines
comply with applicable emissions standards when they are initially produced (i.e., as they leave
the production lines) and as they are operated in-use. As U.S. EPA notes, it generally establishes
in-use test standards that are equivalent to certification standards, but has occasionally
established temporary higher in-use standards when it believes that manufacturers both need to
utilize new technologies to comply with proposed standards, and need additional time to evaluate
the capabilities of such new technologies to control emissions as engines and vehicles operate in-
use, during the time period such new standards are first implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.54]
CARB staff strongly opposes the flexibilities that U.S. EPA is considering, which would allow
temporary higher numerical values when regulatory agencies perform verification testing of new
or in-use engines for MY 2027 through 2033 heavy HDEs, such as during confirmatory testing,
Selective Enforcement Audit (SEA) testing, and in-use off-cycle testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.54]
The interim in-use standards for new engines that U.S. EPA is considering are extremely high
(i.e., loose), and further margin allowance would make the standards even higher and looser.
These interim in-use standards lie somewhere between 1.4 to 2 times the certification standards
for confirmatory and SEA testing, and 1.4 to 2 times the off-cycle standards for in-use testing.
For off-cycle standards, this allowance is on top of the in-use thresholds which, depending on
MY, are already 2 times or 1.5 times the certification standard and also include an additional
proposed 10 percent measurement allowance. U.S. EPA's justification for providing these
extremely high in-use standards is an asserted need to take into account'.. .the degree to which
there is uncertainty in how the emissions control technologies deteriorate when the engine is
installed in the wide variety of HD vehicle applications that exist in the marketplace and how to
address such uncertainty.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.54]
However, the confirmatory and SEA tests are laboratory tests on certification duty cycles and not
in field testing, and hence there is no reason why the test results should not be as close as
possible to the certification levels the manufacturer submitted during certification. In fact, new
engines tested under SEA should have no deterioration effects and should have lower emissions
than their certification test results, similar to the zero-hour (de-green) test results in the Stage 3
and Stage 3 RW demonstration programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.54]
391
-------
U.S. EPA's rationale for the verification test standards for new engines is therefore inconsistent
with the evidence, and U.S. EPA has also failed to articulate a rational connection between the
facts and its proposal. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.55]
CARB staff is especially concerned that U.S. EPA has not fully considered the adverse emissions
consequences of this proposal. The proposed increased allowances will apparently at least double
the allowable levels of pollutants emitted by heavy HDEs for a period of seven years, thereby
effectively diluting the stringency of the Option 1 standards for heavy HDEs to Option 2
standards, which CARB has previously explained in Section 5 are impermissibly inconsistent
with the statutory mandate of CAA section 202(a), and making it difficult for California and
other states with air quality issues to meet their air quality goals. CARB staff strongly urges U.S.
EPA not to include the interim in-use standard in its final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.55]
U.S. EPA's failure to analyze the scope and extent of the increased emissions resulting from this
proposal, and their impacts on the public's health and welfare constitutes a failure to consider an
important aspect of this proposal, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, and an impermissible abdication of
U.S. EPA's duty to ensure affected heavy-duty engines and vehicles mandates of CAA section
202(a) to ensure heavy-duty vehicles and engines comply with applicable emissions standards
throughout applicable useful lives. CAA sections 202(a)(1), 202(a)(3), Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-
843. (See CARB comment at Section 5.a, infra) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.55]
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA consider how early reduction credits (i.e., producing lower
FEL engines to generate credits) could provide any needed relief if manufacturers determine that
they need to provide additional compliance margin during the introduction of compliant engines
at a higher FEL (i.e., by producing credit consuming engines). Manufacturers will be producing
cleaner FEL engines meeting the Omnibus more stringent standards starting with MY 2022, and
those engines would produce significantly more credits under the federal HD program between
2022 through 2026 MYs. If manufacturers determine they need more margin, they can plan
accordingly. By encouraging early action, this flexibility approach would also provide earlier
emission reduction in our most vulnerable communities impacted by heavy HDE
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.56]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
As part of Option 1, EPA proposes several changes to its laboratory-based duty cycle tests, in-
use (sometimes called 'off-cycle') testing procedures, and verification testing. The current
regulations must be revised to better regulate low load emissions and protect public health in
communities overburdened by vehicle pollution. Commenters generally support making changes
to close gaps in the current duty cycle and in-use testing procedures to reduce the amount of
dangerous air pollution breathed by individuals living, working, and attending school in near-
road communities. But Commenters oppose EPA's proposed 'flexibilities' that would weaken
verification testing. [Comment also included in Chapter 11.6.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.54]
392
-------
Among the Option 1 'flexibilities' on which EPA requests comment is a drastic weakening of the
standards' verification testing for Heavy Heavy-Duty Engines (HHDEs)—one that would permit
emissions that vastly exceed EPA's proposed standards. The three types of verification testing
include: confirmatory testing, in which EPA verifies a manufacturer's test results before an
engine is certified; selective enforcement audit, in which EPA conducts testing of engines that
come off the production line; and in-use testing of engines that have already entered commerce.
87 Fed. Reg. at 17,563. EPA's proposed 'interim in-use [NOx] standard[s]' for HHDEs would be
based on purported 'uncertainty in how the emissions control technologies deteriorate.' 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17,563-65. The proposed flexibility is discussed in terms that suggest that it would apply
not just to in-use testing, but also to confirmatory and selective enforcement audits. But EPA's
justification—the possibility of deterioration in control technologies' performance—has no
bearing on confirmatory testing or selective enforcement audits, which apply to new engines that
have not deteriorated. There is no basis for applying the proposed interim in-use standards during
either confirmatory testing or selective enforcement audits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-
Al, pp.56-57]
As for in-use testing, EPA's standards already incorporate a margin for deterioration over time;
providing an additional allowance for deterioration in EPA's in-use testing effectively double-
counts that anticipated decrease in effectiveness. To the extent any further residual uncertainties
remain, EPA's proposed rule—through its crediting and averaging provisions, as well as its
generous scaling and measurement allowances—provides ample allowance for them. Id. at
17,467, 17,469, 17,474, 17,553. There is consequently no reasonable basis for the inflated testing
standards—even at the low end of the suggested range of alternative standards, let alone the high
end—for which EPA has requested comment. Id. at 17,564. Including the proposed interim in-
use standards would establish a substantial incentive for manufacturers to design engines to the
weaker standards, after certification, or to avoid the cost of long-lasting components that would
ensure sustained emissions performance. See, e.g., Notices of Filing Consent Decrees, 63 Fed.
Reg. 59,330-34 (Nov. 3, 1998) (describing enforcement actions against manufacturers over
defeat-devices that relaxed emissions controls after certification testing). The record fully
demonstrates the feasibility of meeting Option l's standards without an additional allowance for
deterioration. See DRIA at 108-30 (describing feasibility testing from Southwest Research
Institute).238 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.57]
238 See also Achates Power, Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine In-Use Testing (last accessed
May 12, 2022), https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-
Heavy-Duty-Diesel-In-Use-Testing-Results.p df (testing of opposed-piston design, in
fleet service with Walmart Corporation, achieving emissions well below Option 1
standards throughout life).
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EMA's comments and associated reports describe those issues and many others in detail,
pointing to the need for continued work by both EPA and industry to evaluate improvements that
should be implemented for the final rule, not just in the test and analysis protocols, but also with
respect to compliance measures and stringency. As stated before, Option 1 is not feasible,
including the proposed Option 1 off-cycle standards. For Option 2, a higher interim in-use
393
-------
conformity factor should be considered while manufacturers gain experience with new
technologies and new 3B-MAW protocol. Also mentioned before, if EPA does finalize increases
to today's useful life periods, it will need to account for additional uncertainty and variability in
the deterioration of engines operated in the field by prescribing additional in-use margins to the
off-cycle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 13]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The technical concerns expressed by the manufacturers that the proposed standards cannot be
met, in part due to a lack of compliance margin, are not warranted as the latest research by SwRI
shows that with the remaining lead time the proposed emission standards can be met. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 9]
SwRI provides an example of compliance for both the traditional FTP cycle as well as the much-
needed LLC, with ample compliance margin for an 800,000-mile useful life. The past
manufacturer comments present an incomplete picture of the technical analysis performed by
SwRI to evaluate the EPA proposal, specifically at the extended UL requirements. Manufacturers
claim that the basis of the current evaluation was the previous research work for ARB's Low
NOx omnibus rule, which included the technical package known as "Stage 3" aged to 435k
miles. They claim that EPA contracted with SwRI to "perform an aged demonstration with a
technical solution very similar to the CARB "Stage 3" technology package. Thus, the SwRI
system is the principal basis for the purported feasibility of the 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx
standard". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 9]
What the manufacturer comments fail to mention is that aftertreatment aging was extended by
SwRI to cover the 800,000 miles for the proposed UL. Moreover, the Stage 3 demonstration is
only one potential pathway to meet the standards. European manufacturers are exploring other
technology options (e.g., heated catalysts) to meet planned Euro VII standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 9]
The manufacturers claim that EPA has not demonstrated the technical feasibility of the
standards, however, their claims are unfounded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 10]
First, manufacturers claim that the Stage 3 aged-engine NOx emissions results do not
demonstrate feasibility across all required certification cycles and extended UL. This is not up to
date with the latest information. The latest SwRI update from April 2022 demonstrated
composite FTP results of 27 mg/bhp-hr at 600k miles, which demonstrates feasibility for the
2027-2030 proposal with a margin of 23%; and 37 mg/bhp-hr at 800k, which demonstrates
feasibility for the MY2031 and beyond with 8% margin. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 10]
13. Chris Sharpe et al. (2022). An Update on Continuing Progress Towards Heavy-Duty
Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond. Southwest Research institute. SAE World
Congress Experience (April 5-6 2022).
394
-------
Another consideration that supports the feasibility of the proposed NOx standards is that once the
engine begins in-use operation, off-cycle, in-use compliance standards become numerically less
stringent than the certification standards. The in-use standards provide extra margin to account
for unexpected emission deterioration and engine-to-engine variability, compared to the
certification standards. The proposed off-cycle in-use emission standards for non-idle Bins 2 and
3 are two times the certification standards for 2027-30, and 1.5 times the certification standards
for 2031+. The 150 mg in-use standard for the 2031 LLC cycle for HHD engines between 435K
and 800K miles is particularly generous, when compared to the projected SWRI data indicating
less than 50 mg at full useful life (see EPA's Figure 3-17 from the TSD, reproduced above).
These generous in-use standards support the feasibility of the proposed standards by reducing in
the initial years the compliance risk that engines have higher emissions than anticipated. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Most of the agency's laboratory work concentrated on aftertreatment aging rather than full
engine aging. As a result, data regarding the impact of engine aging on components such as
exhaust gas recirculation, camshafts, fuel injectors, turbochargers, piston rings, sensors, and
electronics is lacking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4]
EPA also requested comment on whether they should finalize interim standards for testing used
to verify that the engine meets the standards through its useful life. Unfortunately, significant
additional testing is required. Much of SWRI's recent research focused on aftertreatment aging,
and therefore was not as focused on full engine aging. As a result, not as much data is available
on EGR aging, cam wear, fuel injection holes, turbochargers, oil control rings, etc. In addition,
due to the variety and complexities of real-world use, many vocational cycles have very different
demands resulting in an unknown statistical performance distribution. Estimating full
commercial vehicle impacts based on this limited SWRI testing could be problematic -
especially for vocational vehicles. Also, the industry does not have near as much data regarding
2nd and 3rd vehicle owner usage. As a result of these shortcomings, MEMA recommends that
EPA include significantly more compliance margin for in-use testing standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1322-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA does not support finalizing any interim in-use emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 13]
EPA requests comment on a flexibility to provide manufacturers with higher numeric interim in-
use standards for verification testing for heavy HD trucks. In particular, when in-use testing is
conducted to verify that an in-use heavy HD truck meets applicable duty cycle or off-cycle
emission standards throughout useful life, the vehicle would be held to a much less stringent
standard from MY 2027 through MY 2033 (the "interim period"). According to the scenario on
which EPA seeks comment, the interim in-use standard could be up to 100 percent of (or double)
395
-------
the actual standard. EPA says the reason for this provision would be to allow manufacturers time
to gain experience with the emission control technologies while they are operating in the field.
EPA also says that depending on what it observes as part of its engine demonstration study it
may consider adopting even more lenient interim in-use standards in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 13]
Under this scheme, it appears EPA would also forfeit its own authority to verify manufacturer-
provided data as even EPA's testing of new Selective Enforcement Audit engines or the
manufacturer's certification engine itself could not be held to the regular emissions standard.
Beyond the likely emissions consequences of not pursuing corrective action on engines emitting
at up to twice the standard, such so-called in-use standards set up a perverse motivation for
manufacturers, who would be on notice that their certification submissions effectively could not
be audited. This is not theoretical as there is a recent incident of fraudulent certification
submissions by a heavy-duty engine manufacturer, resulting in loss of engine customers, truck
and construction equipment manufacturing jobs and even permanent plant
closure.30,31,32,33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 13]
30 https://wvmetronews.com/2020/12/28/hino-engine-certification-issues-the-reason-for-
production-suspension-in-wood-county-through-much-of-2021/
31 https://www.equipmentworld.eom/equipment/article/l 5065118/yanmar-isuzu-to-
supply-kobelco-engines-in-the-us
32 https://www.kobelcocm-global.com/news/2022/220225.html
33 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-revoke-hinos-engine-certification-
over-false-emissions-data-2022-03-18/
EPA should not finalize any interim in-use standards. Such "flexibility" is inappropriate and
would weaken the rule's effectiveness in reducing emissions and protecting public health.
Gaining experience with emission control technologies should be addressed by manufacturers
during product development, not after vehicles are sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p.
14]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In setting higher interim in-use NOx standards in the final rule, EPA should take into account the
inherent variability of in-use testing. For example, any factor that deviates from the original test
cell environment and reference methods must be assumed to contribute to in service test
variability including temperature, humidity, elevation, PEMS measurement allowance, test route,
vehicle maintenance history, fuel temperature, and fuel usage history. These are all aspects of the
in service fleet specific operation that are largely out of control of the OEM. The addition of the
LLC test cycle, while designed to capture low load emissions, relies on engine broadcast load
(torque), which does not provide the same level of precision and accuracy as the engine dyno
reference method. As a result, we believe that EPA should provide a significant compliance
margin initially to account for all of the various new requirements. Manufacturers need sufficient
396
-------
time to develop and validate a robust compliant calibration. Lessons learned from the 2010
emissions standard highlighted weaknesses in both the hardware and software strategy of every
OEM. Early examples of SCR-equipped trucks experienced a range of technical issues as fleets
and OEMs struggled to adapt to the new technology. By 2013, the design shortcomings were
resolved and fleets learned how to operate and maintain the trucks properly. We believe that a
similar or longer transition period, 3-5 years, may be necessary, given the simultaneous change
in the standard, technology, testing, and customer acceptance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-
Al, p. 4]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: EPA is considering finalizing higher temporary in-use standards for all
the proposed duty cycle and off-cycle heavy-duty engines and requests comment on whether the
Agency should consider including in the final rule interim in-use standards to account for
potential variabilities in performance during the early years of implementing new technology.
Tables IV-16 and IV-17 of the preamble list potential low-end and high-end ranges for the
proposed in-use standards. NESCAUM requests that EPA not finalize the proposed interim in-
use standards, or if interim standards are finalized, that they be significantly more stringent than
the ones proposed. With regard to the proposed low load interim in-use standards, test data show
that NOx emissions of 0.036 to 0.053 g/bhp-hr on the CARB low load cycle are technically
feasible. Manufacturers will have five years to prepare for commercial application of
technologies to reduce low load emissions and finalizing NOx emissions standards in-use
between 0.07 to 0.20 g/bhp-hr (70 mg/bhp-hr to 200 mg/bhp-hr) would substantially weaken the
low load emissions requirements. Similarly, the FTP, SET, and idle interim in-use standards
EPA is considering are significantly higher than what has already been demonstrated at
intermediate and full useful life.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-Al, p. 14]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Interim In-Use Standards: EPA is considering finalizing higher temporary in-use standards for
all the proposed duty cycle and off-cycle heavy-duty engines and requested comment on whether
the Agency should consider including in the final rule interim in-use standards to account for
potential variabilities in performance during the early years of implementing new technology.
Tables IV-16 and IV-17 of the preamble list potential low-end and high-end ranges for the
potential in-use standards. OTC requests that EPA not finalize the proposed interim in-use
standards, or if interim standards are finalized, that they be significantly more stringent than the
ones proposed. With regard to the low load interim in-use standards proposed, test data show that
NOx emissions of 0.036 to 0.053 g/bhp-hr on the CARB low load cycle are technically
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.15]
Manufacturers will have five years to prepare for commercial application of technologies to
reduce low load emissions. Therefore, finalizing in-use NOx emissions standards between 0.07
to 0.20 g/bhp-hr (70 mg/bhp-hr to 200 mg/bhp-hr) would substantially weaken the low load
emissions requirements. Similarly, the FTP, SET, and idle interim in-use standards EPA is
397
-------
considering are significantly higher than what has already been demonstrated at intermediate and
full useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 15]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: A nationwide
program centered around Option 2-like requirements, and including higher interim in-use
standards, would be more cost-effective, and would reduce the prospects for further delaying
fleet turnover or creating disruptive pre-buy/no-buy responses from the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.2]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States further recommend that EPA not adopt certain compliance flexibilities in the
Proposed Rule, to the extent such flexibilities undermine the emission benefits of Option 1. Most
notably, EPA should not adopt the proposed interim "in-use" standards—which are based on
emissions from vehicles in operation - that are significantly less stringent than the certification
standards that new engines must meet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 3]
EPA should not adopt interim in-use emission standards less stringent than the standards to
which manufacturers certify new engines. These proposed interim in-use standards permit 1.4 to
2 times more NOx emissions than the standards to which engines are certified under Option 1,72
effectively turning Option 1 standards into Option 2 standards immediately after certification. As
EPA recognizes, this proposal departs from EPA's typical practice, which is to "set[] the same
standards for certification testing and in-use testing."73 The industry concerns that EPA cites in
support of this departure—"to give manufacturers time to gain experience with the new
technology needed to meet the standards and [to] reflect uncertainties about potential variabilities
in performance during the early years of implementing new technology"—do not justify such a
dramatic relaxation of emission standards vital to protecting the health and welfare of our
residents. 74 The selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technologies at the heart of the NOx
standards are not novel, but are refined technologies that have been used in the heavy-duty sector
for more than a decade.75 Moreover, because CARB's Omnibus Rule takes effect three years in
advance of model year 2027, the heavy-duty sector will have the benefit of several years
of research, development, experimentation, and troubleshooting to ensure engines perform as
expected.76 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
72. Id. at 17,564.
73. Id. at 17,563.
74.Id.
75. Id. at 17,432. See also Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements, 66 Fed. Reg. 5002, 5053 (Jan. 18, 2001) (discussing initial development of
SCR technologies for NOx control within the heavy-duty fleet).
398
-------
76. 87 Fed. Reg. at 14,434.
Furthermore, manufacturers already may protect against "uncertainties about potential
variabilities in performance" of this technology through other strategies EPA acknowledges or
proposes as flexibilities: most importantly, through (1) compliance margins built into engines by
manufacturers; (2) the generous scaling factors and measurement allowances EPA builds into the
proposed off-cycle standards; and (3) the use of NOx credits.77 Each of these measures is
intended to or can be used to address unexpected performance deficiencies or similar
discrepancies between certification standards and real-world performance. Thus, for example, if
a manufacturer is concerned that its engines' aftertreatment components will deteriorate over
time, and it cannot or chooses not to design its engines with an extra margin, the manufacturer
can generate and bank credits in the lead-up to model year 2027 (for example, by introducing
HD ZEV models into its fleet) to ensure it remains compliant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-
Al, p. 18]
77. Id. at 14,467, 14,469 (describing manufacturer-included margins for deterioration);
id. at 17,474 (proposing off-cycle standards 1.5 to 2 times the certification standards and
10 percent allowance for measurement error); id. at 17,553 (discussing five-year credit
life to "cover the transition to more stringent standards").
But the proposed interim in-use standards as proposed create a perverse incentive to
manufacturers to design their engines to those looser in-use standards, as long as they can pass
the certification tests initially. EPA and the States have too much enforcement experience with
defeat devices to pretend this incentive will be universally resisted.78 Even a manufacturer not
intending to defeat the standards will face cost incentives to use lower-quality components in
aftertreatment systems that may degrade shortly after certification, with the same effect of
noncompliance.79 In short, this proposal is likely to increase emissions well beyond Option 1
standards in practice. Therefore, EPA should reject this portion of the proposal and design
its NOx standards to incentivize against engine component degradation and merely temporary
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 18 - 19]
78. See, e.g., Notices of Filing of Consent Decrees Under the Clean Air Act, 63 Fed. Reg.
59,330-34 (Nov. 3, 1998) (describing consent decrees against Caterpillar, Inc., Cummins
Engine Co., Detroit Diesel Corp., Mack Trucks, Inc., Renault Vehicules Industriels,
Navistar International Corp., and Volvo Truck Corp. to resolve enforcement actions by
USDOJ and CARB over emission-control defeat devices installed by these companies in
their heavy-duty diesel engines, which resulted in poorer performance of the engines'
NOx control systems in use than in certification testing).
79. Cf. U.S. EPA, "EPA Announces Largest Voluntary Recall of Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Trucks" (July 31, 2008) (describing 2018 recall of 500,000 model year 2010-2015
medium- and heavy-duty trucks due to SCR system components that degraded within a
few years of operation), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0146.
399
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner:
(vii) As the Agency suggests in the NPRM, the final rule should include higher interim
NOx standards for a sufficient number of years to allow manufacturers to gain in-field
experience with the additional emission-control technologies that will be required, and to
gather real-world data to assess how those systems perform and age under real world
operating conditions out to the extended useful life periods. In that regard, higher interim
NOx standards to facilitate the implementation of the new stringent low-NOx
requirements (including, for example, through higher interim in-use multipliers) are
distinct from the type of two-step progressively more stringent standards that EPA has
included in Option 1. Those types of two-step emission standards raise fundamental
feasibility and resource-constraint issues for manufacturers, including due to the potential
need for additional engine hardware and software to comply with the second step, and
ultimately would overlap and conflict with the Phase 3 GHG standards that EPA is
beginning to develop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 7]
Thus, and as detailed further below, EMA strongly agrees that the Agency should include in the
final rule "interim in-use standards to account for uncertainties about potential variabilities in
performance during the early years of implementing new technology." (87 FR at p.
17564.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 14]
As mentioned earlier in these comments, EPA and engine manufacturers need time to become
familiar with the completely overhauled in-use test protocol and measurement processes, the
capabilities and weaknesses of the ultra-low NOx emissions technology packages of the future,
the impacts of a diverse and evolving market fuel-mix over newly-extended useful life
requirements, and the numerous other factors that drive the uncertainty all stakeholders are faced
with during the course of this rulemaking. Applying a conformity factor of 2.0 for the first 7
years following the effective date of these new standards will provide that prove-out time wihout
undue risks of noncompliance. This aspect of EMA's proposal is addressed directly in Section 9
of these comments. Failing to provide adequately for a higher inteirm standard would
unjustifiably and unnecessarily put engine manufacturers at risk of managing products in the
field that were in a state of perpetual recall, simply because the requisite data was not available
to set standards in line with the realistic capability of the available technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 81]
For all of the reasons discussed above, higher interim in-use standards for NOx (i.e., using a 2x
conformity factor as opposed to a 1.5x conformity factor) are warranted for the first several
model years after the new low-NOx standards take effect in MY 2027. EPA has implicitly
conceded as much in "soliciting comment on providing engine manufacturers with higher
(numerical) standards for an interim period to gain experience with the additional emissions
control technologies needed to meet the proposed Heavy HDE standards (and their rates of
deterioration) while those technologies are operating in the field." (87 FR at p. 17563.) EPA
400
-------
further explains the clear justification for higher interim standards, as follows: Manufacturers
could use the interim period to collect data from field-aged engines in a range of applications to
inform how the engines can be designed to meet the standards throughout useful life for all
applications in which the engine is used. In setting the duration of an interim period, we would
consider how long it would take manufacturers to collect field data from engines operating out to
the full useful life mileage ultimately finalized in this rule. (Id.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 104]
EMA fully agrees with the Agency's assessment of the need for higher interim in-use NOx
standards. The known and unknown risks of early model-year product non-compliance are too
great without a reasonable phase-in of the final in-use low-NOx standards to allow for a robust
assessment of how the new Stage 3-type systems will age and perform out to the new extended
UL and warranty periods. To address those risks, EMA recommends setting the interim in-use
NOx standards by applying a 2x in-use conformity factor for the first seven model years
following the implementation of the new low-NOx standards (i.e., through and including MY
2033). Thereafter, the in-use conformity factor could drop to 1.5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 104]
EPA maintains a publicly available database containing information and test results that
manufacturers submit with their annual applications for Certificates of Conformity, a prerequisite
to offering engine products for sale in the U.S. Among the data included in those databases are
the manufacturers' emissions test results recorded on the engines for which EPA approvals are
sought. "Deteriorated" emissions test results (actual test results modified to include emissions
deterioration factors) were compared to the underlying standard (or Family Emissions Limit
("FEL") in cases where the manufacturer chose to certify the engine family to a level different
from the applicable standard as permitted under credit "averaging, banking and trading"
programs). The compliance margin that manufacturers are building-in can be readily determined
from this analysis. EMA scanned all relevant data from a single model year for each of the
previous four NOx emission reduction steps to calculate the average compliance margin in each
case. 8 The single model year was specifically selected to represent a "mature" view of the
compliance margin to which manufacturers had "settled in" (that is, after compliant engines had
been in production for a number of model years). The average FTP transient test margins are
presented below in absolute and percent-of-standard terms: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 27]
Source
Model Year No. of Families
(g/bhp-hr) (g/bhp-hr) —
Standard Margin
% Margin
EPA database 2001
EPA database 2006
EPA database 2009
EPA database 2021
45
52
31
26
4.0 0.27 6.5%
2.5 0.17 6.9%
1.2 0.12 10.0%
0.20 0.074 37.1%
8. Certification test results from all heavy-duty diesel on-highway engine families
included in the EPA database as manufactured by major manufacturers Cummins,
DDC/Daimler, Volvo, Navistar, PACCAR, Hino and Isuzu were used (smaller
401
-------
manufacturer submissions were excluded). For consistency, and to maintain a view of
margin's relationship to the relevant standard, engine families were excluded if they were
certified to an FEL less than or greater than 15% of the applicable NOx (or NOx +
NMHC) standard. For the NOx "phase-in" period from 2007-2009 the relevant NOx
standard was assumed to be the "equally-split family" FEL of 1.2 g/bhp-hr.
It is readily apparent that there has been a decreasing trend in the absolute (g/bhp-hr) margin
(NOx standard minus deteriorated certification result) as NOx standards have decreased. That is,
of course, necessary - the average margin of 0.27 g/bhphr for the US98 standard would be
fundamentally unworkable with a US10 standard of 0.20 g/bhp-hr. More significantly, when
examined as a percent of standard, the trend reveals a steadily increasing margin (orange line in
graphic above) as NOx standards decrease (from right to left), with the most significant increase
associated with the current US10 standard.9 The reason for this trend is simple - the level of
variability in production diesel engine emissions control, and long-term degradation, has not
decreased linearly with the NOx emissions standards themselves. Thus, the percentage of the
standard reflected in those margins has gone up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 27 -
28]
9. A similar examination shows steady-state cycle (or Ramped Modal Cycle) average
US10 certification margins to have increased to 70% of the NOx standard.
This should, in fact, be expected. Today's aftertreatment-based emissions control systems are far
more complex than the systems deployed to comply with US98 and US04, and therefore more
sensitive to ambient and other external influences, as well as sensor inaccuracies and the
expected range of production variability. Furthermore, tailpipe NOx emissions are very sensitive
to SCR efficiency, and therefore the "high end" of long-term SCR degradation from fuel
impurities, including metals in biofuel blends, or even severe service applications, can
compromise NOx control to a significant degree. Additionally, more fundamental factors that
influence margin requirements, such as laboratory or field emissions measurement system
accuracy, have not improved at levels proportional to the reductions of the underlying standards
over the years. All of those factors, and more, have required diesel engine manufacturers to
increase the requisite margin relative to the standard to ensure robust post-production
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 28]
Further evidence that manufacturers depend on significant compliance margins comes from the
fact that, despite the current on-average 37% margins, not a single HD diesel engine
manufacturer had certified an engine family to a level below the current 0.20 g/bhp-hr standard
until a single manufacturer did so with MY 2022. Certifying engine families to an FEL below the
standard would allow a manufacturer to earn emissions credits, which would be extremely
valuable as part of a product development plan to transition toward future low-NOx standards.
Yet even so, and after more than a decade of experience with the current US 10 standards, and
despite manufacturers' knowledge that a 75%-90% reduction in the NOx standard is being
targeted (making credits that much more valuable), not a single HD highway diesel engine
manufacturer had taken the risk to certify products with an FEL less than the current 0.20 g/bhp-
hr standard through model year 2021. As noted, one manufacturer has recently submitted model
year 2022 applications for FEL-generating families in California, but even in that case, the
402
-------
manufacturer's deteriorated certification test results are much less than 50% of the FEL, yielding
a margin greater than 50%. This pervasive reluctance to certify with an FEL below the current
0.20 g/bhp-hr NOx standard, except in cases where unusually high margins can be provided for,
highlights how essential significant compliance margins have become to ensure robust real-
world emissions compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 28]
EPA's failure to consider or provide for the necessary emissions-compliance margins is one of
the key factors that establishes the fundamental infeasibility of Option 1. It also is a key factor in
the assessment of how the Option 2 proposal will need to be modified. Indeed, without having
conducted a careful examination of how the relevant real-world factors will contribute to the
necessary margin requirements associated the proposed low-NOx standards, it is clear that
EPA's assertions of technical feasibility are deficient and, at best, premature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 28]
In quantifying this issue, the percent of margin is clearly a more compelling metric than the
absolute margin. If we return to the graph of progressively increasing emissions margins,
the shape of the orange curve indicates that it could be instructive to plot average manufacturer
margin on a logarithmic scale. If we do so, and extrapolate the US04-to-US10 trend in a straight-
line manner to a proposed 0.020 g/bhp-hr standard, the percent of margin required by this
method would be just over 70%, which translates to an absolute margin of 0.014 g/bhp-hr, as
depicted below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 28 - 29]
Including these calculated margin requirements on the original linear-scaled graph yields the
following graphic: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 29]
The dramatic bend in the absolute margin curve (in blue) is very concerning. EPA's inherent
assumption that less margin is needed than the calculated 0.014 g/bhp-hr shown, would only
sharpen the bend in the curve, and be even more concerning. The bottom line is that
assuming the percentage trends in margin requirements continue to hold - and there is no reason
to assume otherwise - in order to meet an Option 1 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard in a manner
that could reasonably assure post-production compliance, diesel engine manufacturers would
need to target an "as-designed" emissions performance level at or below 0.006 g/bhp-hr. There is
no evidence - none - that such a zero-equivalent NOx level is feasible. Indeed, if one considers
the trends in absolute margins, manufacturers would need to target negative emissions from their
engines, which is, of course, irrational and impossible. Again, the relevant data demonstrate that
Option 1 is not feasible and should be abandoned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 29 -
30]
While EMA concedes that this extrapolation exercise does not provide a complete technical basis
for understanding margin requirements in an era of ultra-low HDOH NOx standards, it is
nonetheless worthy of consideration. All diesel engine manufacturers will have to determine the
level of margin required to comply with future emissions standards based on the capabilities of
their emissions control systems. EPA should not gloss over or ignore the significance of this
point. Compliance margin is a factor that the regulators - not just manufacturers - should
account for in assessing feasibility. Accordingly, EPA simply should not finalize this rulemaking
403
-------
until this issue has been fully and fairly accounted for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
30]
EMA has started to examine in more detail the influence of individual external variables on the
stability of tailpipe NOx emissions control. EMA's approach is to combine in a statistical
manner the factors that can increase tailpipe NOx variability, while also including those factors
that drive a mean offset to tailpipe emissions, in an attempt to calculate how much additional
improvement manufacturers will have to achieve relative to the demonstrated performance of the
Stage 3 RW solution. The analysis seeks to take into account all those factors for which diesel
engine manufacturers will be held accountable for emissions compliance, but that so far have not
been considered as part of the Stage 3 RW (or CARB Stage 3) testing to demonstrate "technical
feasibility." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 30]
Recall that the Stage 3 RW achieved a 0.022 g/bhp-hr tailpipe FTP NOx emissions result at
435,000 miles. (Indeed, the CARB Stage 3 engine generated an FTP result of 0.031 g/bhp-hr at
just 290,000 miles equivalent aging (purportedly to justify a 0.020 g/bhp-hr NOx standard),
before the engine was recalibrated mid-testing to reduce the tailpipe NOx to 0.023 g/bhp-hr at
the expense of an almost 1% C02 emissions penalty.) EMA has identified multiple factors, not
yet considered by EPA, that would increase that demonstrated result by varying amounts. In light
of those multiple factors, it is obvious that manufacturers would be left to improve upon the
Stage 3 demonstrated result, first to eliminate the 0.002 g/bhp-hr exceedance as measured by
SwRI, and second to overcome the multiple real-world emissions-aggravating factors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 30]
The mathematical method applied in this "margin-stackup" analysis is straightforward and
typical of multiple variability-source analyses: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 30]
The various external sources of emissions-increasing variability and mean offset that EMA has
identified have been captured in a spreadsheet set up to calculate the combined effects, as
follows: [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 31]
404
-------
Estimated Tailpipe
NOx impact g/bhp-hr
Applies
to Dyno
Applies
In-Use
Variation/offset driving margin requirement
std dev
mean offset ©.
Custom calibration (e.g. SwRl demo project)
reference
X
X
Nominal result in production
0.0020
X
X
Production variability
0.0060
X
Packaging limitations (long exhaust piping to LOSCR)
0.0020
X
Without aftertreatment preconditioning
0.0039
X
X
Sulfur + soot accumulation (N,o make)
0.0030
X
X
Ash Accumulation
0,0010
X
X
Maintenance practices
0
X
Cold ambient operation
0,0023
X
Operation at altitude
0
X
X
Severe-service duty-cycles
0
X
Fuel Quality, DEF quality (short term emissions effects)
0.0020
X
X
Field deterioration (metals in bio-fuels, etc.)
0,0050
X
X
Lab measurement variability
0.0060
X
PEMS measurement variability rel to Lab (CARB only)
0.0000
TOTAL MARGIN REQUIREMENT, DYNO
o = 0,016
2a = 0.026
TOTAL MARGIN REQUIREMENT, IN-USE
o = 0.026
2a = 0.036
Margin of o: Protects that 84% of population are below demo reference
Margin of 2a: Protects that 97,7% of population are below demo reference
The analysis above is a snapshot of work in progress. EMA is striving to identify the most
relevant available sources of data to inform the data entries for each line item, and, to that end,
we have pulled data from a variety of available sources. Several factors have been "scaled"
linearly from reference levels to be reflective of the proposed new low-NOx standards, which is
unduly conservative for many of the reasons discussed earlier. For example, lab-to-lab NOx
measurement variability does not conveniently decrease by 90% just because the standard (and
actual NOx level) is reduced by 90%. A rigorous "round robin" measurement variability test
program in which EPA participated demonstrates this point clearly. As depicted below, the
coefficient of variability increased as the average measured NOx value decreased: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 32]
To give another example of how available data were used to populate the margin stack-up table,
consider the item identified in the table as "Fuel quality, DEF quality." For that element of the
necessary variability allowance, EMA acquired information from an OEM reporting a 0.007
g/bhp-hr increase in NOx from a USIO-compliant engine fueled with B20 when tested over
certification cycles, compared to operation with certification-spec fuel. When those results are
scaled down conservatively to the proposed NOx standard of 0.020 g/bhp-hr, the resultant fuel
impact increase is 0.0014 g/bhp-hr. A second relevant data source is a 2021 CARB study where
the impact of a 35% biofuel blend was assessed on "new technology diesel engines"
("NTDE").10 In that study, NOx emissions increased over the FTP on a 2019 Cummins HDOH
405
-------
engine, and over the NRTC on a 2018 NTDE non-road Caterpillar engine. The (again,
conservatively) scaled-down results from those tests would forecast a fuel-impact increase in
NOx emissions of 0.0090 to 0.0178 g/bhp-hr from operation on biofuel. Several stakeholders
have expressed concerns regarding the validity of the CARB study. Accordingly, in the margin
stack-up table above, EMA has relied mainly on the much lower reported NOx increase from the
OEM's fuel-impacts testing. In reality, however, we have no basis to assume the results would
scale with the absolute tailpipe emissions, but EMA conservatively makes this preliminary
estimate in the absence of other data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 32]
10. CARB Low Emission Diesel Study (LED): Low Emission Diesel (LED) Study:
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Emissions in Legacy and New Technology Diesel
Engines - Final Report (ca.gov)
Based on all of this information, and without yet evaluating the NOx increases that may result
from off-spec DEF, EMA included only a 0.0020 g/bhp-hr impact in the margin stack-up table.
Importantly, the Coordinating Research Council will be evaluating the influences of several fuel
formulations, including renewable fuels and biofuels, on tailpipe NOx emissions. That study, to
be performed by SwRI on the EPA Stage 3 engine, should be completed by mid-year, and will be
directly relevant to the margin analysis at issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 32 -
33]
Some factors in the stack-up analysis are more relevant to measurements in a test cell, while
others are more relevant to field measurements — or "in-commerce" increments — using
portable emissions measurement systems, or "PEMS". For example, cold ambient operation will
impact tailpipe NOx emissions in the field, but will not be an issue impacting engine dyno tests
in a lab. Several factors can play a role in both dyno-testing and in-use compliance testing. The
spreadsheet is setup so that only those factors for which an "x" is entered in the appropriate
columns to the left of the chart are included in the corresponding calculated results at the bottom
of the chart. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 33]
One important aspect of this margin stack-up analysis relates to the first line item in the table,
labeled "Custom calibration." This is considered the "starting point" or reference for the
analysis, because the work attempts to determine how much better OEM products must be
compared with the SwRI Stage 3 RW demonstration to ensure robust compliance in the field. In
this case, it is important to recognize that the Stage 3 RW engine was calibrated for optimized
emissions control on a single test article. If 1000 production engines were built from the same
specifications and using the same controls and calibrations, we should expect the average
emissions performance of those 1000 engines to be somewhat higher than the custom-calibrated
engine. (Any one of those 1000 engines could then be "custom calibrated" to improve its
emissions control, but such a process would not be practical for a production environment.) In
the spreadsheet, this delta between the custom-calibrated result and the production average result
(not to be confused with production variability), was estimated at 0.002 g/bhp-hr in the line item,
"nominal result in production." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 33]
Another probable increase to tailpipe NOx emissions that has not yet been included in EMA's
margin analysis stems from the fact that the SwRI Stage 3 engine is set up for a 500 HP rating.
406
-------
That is a rating that would normally be among the higher power ratings within an engine family
for an engine the size of the Stage 3 prototype. Lower horsepower ratings would, in general,
produce less thermal energy over the certification (and road) cycles, which would trend toward
reduced NOx conversion efficiencies from the SCR. A 400 HP rating, for example, would not be
atypical for a manufacturer to provide for a Stage 3-like engine, and would likely have higher
brake-specific tailpipe NOx emissions. Data showing this effect has been shared with EPA. That
emissions-increasing variable is not included in EMA's margin stack-up. Nonetheless, the
Agency will need to consider this point when setting the final standards, including sufficient
variability allowances, relative to the emissions performance that the Stage 3 demonstration
engine was able (and unable) to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 33]
To further illustrate the sensitivity of modern diesel engines and their emissions control systems
to minor variability influences, one manufacturer conducted a Monte Carlo analysis to assess the
influence of small perturbations in NOx, or NOx control variables on composite FTP results. The
analysis involved simulating an array of small NOx concentration perturbations according to the
uppermost graph below, coupled with minor exhaust flow measurement error sources. The range
of influence to composite FTP results is shown in the graph at right. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 33]
This additional Monte Carlo analysis emphasizes the extreme sensitivity of tailpipe NOx
emissions to small sources of variability, especially at low absolute tailpipe NOx levels. This is
the concern that lies at the heart of the margin stack-up analysis, and the fundamental feasibility
issues that necessarily stem from it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 34]
Returning to the margin stack-up analysis, some have questioned the validity of combining
several of these factors to quantify the impact on the real emissions development targets that
manufacturers must establish, claiming it is unrealistic to expect all of them to occur in
combination. The simple fact, however, is that as long as EPA expects manufacturers to design
their products to ensure full in-use emissions compliance for all production engines and vehicles
without allowing any special procedures to precondition aftertreatment systems — including
under conditions just before regenerations are triggered, up to the point of the prescribed DPF
ash cleaning maintenance, without regard to marginal maintenance practices, in cold ambient
conditions and at high altitudes, regardless of the vehicle's application, and while operating on a
wide range of market fuels (EPA's proposal would require compliance with "any commercially
available biodiesel fuel blend that meets the specifications for ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467") -
- then the combined effect of all of those emissions-impacting factors must be taken into account
when establishing the tailpipe NOx design targets that define the requisite compliance margin. In
other words, EPA must account for all of those factors when assessing what are and are not
achievable standards, just as manufacturers are compelled to do. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 34]
Again, this "margin stack-up" analysis remains a work in progress, but the initial results are
nonetheless quite striking and concerning. This evaluation, using conservative values in many
cases by applying a linear scaling assumption to the proposed low-NOx standard levels, indicates
that OEM products must perform 0.016 g/bhp-hr better than the Stage 3 RW engine if protecting
for a lo compliance level (84% of production engines compliant), and 0.026 g/bhp-hr better if
407
-------
protecting for a 2o compliance level (97.7% of production engine compliant). There is a clear
irrationality from these results when assessed against a 0.020 g/bhp-hr standard. More
specifically, the proposed standards are shown to be fundamentally infeasible, since the requisite
compliance margin is larger than the standards. (Note that the analysis as shown does not
account for the 0.002 g/bhp-hr by which the Stage 3 RW engine exceeded the proposed 0.020
g/bhp-hr proposed FTP transient standard, an exceedance that manufacturers will also have to
make up for through improved designs.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 34 - 35]
Without making allowance for the various factors that contribute to manufacturers' necessary
compliance margin requirements, EPA would be setting OEMs up for certain failure. The graph
below shows the difference, in terms of NOx emissions distribution for a family population,
between what manufacturers may be able to accomplish in a Stage 3 demonstration like
laboratory setting (after the still-needed improvements to Stage 3 performance), and how that
same engine family could perform in the field. The non-compliant zone in shaded grey, in
essence, amounts to a "perpetual recall zone." In that zone, manufacturers would face a
continuing series of recall actions, for which there would be no available improved technical
solution to resolve the recall. Likely, the only available response from manufacturers would be to
recover some level of NOx control by replacing the aftertreatment systems, which would mean
that EPA would have failed to achieve one of the goals it set in this rulemaking. Alternatively, if
the replacement of aftertreatment systems proved too costly or impractical, the remaining options
for OEMs faced with Option 1-like standards would be perpetual recall, or exiting the
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 35]
One way for EPA to account for the emission variabilities that inevitably result from real world
operations, as detailed in the margin stack-up above, is to provide for a "variability allowance"
that would be applied when assessing in-use emissions compliance of engines in (or from) the
field. The variability allowance would be established based on best-available data, akin to that
summarized in EMA's margin stack-up, and would be applied as an additive compliance margin
during in-use testing, or when in-commerce engines pulled from a vehicle are dyno-tested over
the certification cycles. Such an approach would avoid unfair and unwarranted compliance issues
for OEMs stemming from variabilities well outside their control, while preserving the integrity
of the Option 2-like standards that could be justified based on EPA's limited, and partially
unsuccessful, feasibility demonstration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 35 - 36]
Organization: Volvo Group
In response to the following EPA request, the Volvo Group establishes internal Compliance
Margins at a fraction of the standard to account for issues such as production variability,
maintenance, severe duty cycles, Fuel Quality, DEF quality, and measurement variability. At
some level, the variability can exceed the standard itself. This approach is in alignment with the
following EPA comment. "We understand that manufacturers generally aim to design and build
vehicles not only with a sufficient margin to ensure the emissions control technology is meeting
the applicable standards throughout the full useful life, but also an additional margin to reflect
the fact that not every vehicle manufactured and every vehicle application will perform
identically to the laboratory tests." (87 FR at p. 17564) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p.
7]
408
-------
In conclusion, the Volvo Group believes the following principles must be reflected in the final
regulation: a tailpipe NOx reduction which reasonably addresses in-use performance and
expanded useful life requirements so fleets can have confidence in new technology and eschew
purchase delays which could lead to devastating layoffs of our production workforce. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
In their comments CARB opposes interim in-use standards that would allow temporary
numerically higher in-use standards. CARB states that other program elements will help reduce
perceived uncertainty regarding deterioration of emissions control technologies, and additional
information would be available to manufacturers due to the California Omnibus regulation's
application in 2024. CARB states that, thus, there is a limited degree of uncertainty regarding
deterioration of emissions control technologies, and no rationale for allowing higher interim
standards. CARB further states that the increased temporary allowances would substantially
increase allowable emissions, making it difficult for California and other states with air quality
issues to meet their air quality goals. CARB suggests, as an alternative, that EPA consider early
reduction credits to provide relief for manufacturers who believe they need additional
compliance margin to meet MY 2027 and later standards. CARB states that EPA's inventory
modeling didn't include the impacts of the interim in-use standard. CARB states that
manufacturers will generate significant NOx credits for engines that they build to meet the
Omnibus MY 2024 standards.
With regard to general comments on higher in-use standards, CATF is concerned about
additional allowances for deterioration. CATF states that these allowances double-count
anticipated decreases in effectiveness and are not necessary because EPA's standards already
incorporate a margin for deterioration. CATF states that including the interim in-use standard
allows manufactures to design engines to less stringent limits and avoid the cost of more durable
components. CATF states that, in addition, existing credit and averaging provisions, as well as
scaling and measurement allowances, already address emission uncertainties. Finally, CATF
indicates that Option 1 can be met without an additional allowance for deterioration.
Likewise, in their comments, NACAA states that the interim in-use standards are inappropriate
and would weaken the rule, and thus should not be finalized. Also, in their comments,
OTC/MANE-VU state that the interim standards should not be finalized, or if they are, they
should be more stringent than the one proposed.
In their comments, EMA, Cummins, PACCAR, Volvo and Navistar supports higher interim in-
use NOx standards in the final rule. These commenters state that manufacturers need time to
develop a robust compliant calibration, given the inherent variability of in-use testing. Navistar
comments that implementing the 2010 emissions standard highlighted weaknesses in both the
hardware and software strategy of every OEM which required time to resolve. Navistar
comments that the higher standards are needed for 3-5 years, while EMA states that higher
standards should be in place for a sufficient number of years to allow manufacturers to gain in-
field experience with the new technology. Navistar supports higher in-use standards to provide
409
-------
margin for temperature, humidity, elevation, PEMS measurement allowance, test route, vehicle
maintenance history, fuel temperature, and fuel usage history. Cummins requests the higher
standards be considered while manufacturers gain experience with new technologies and new
3B-MAW protocol. MEMA commented that much of SWRI's recent research focused on
aftertreatment aging, and therefore was not as focused on full engine aging and not as much data
is available on EGR aging, cam wear, fuel injection holes, turbochargers, oil control rings, etc.
EMA cites historic engine emission certification values to show that as the NOx standards have
decreased over time, the compliance margin manufacturers have been certifying to have
increased as a percentage of the standard. They use this, and the fact that up until MY 2022 no
manufacturer has certified with an FEL below the 2010 NOx emission limit, to state that EPA
has not considered or provided adequate compliance margin for the proposed Option 1.
After considering the comments and supporting information submitted, historical approaches by
EPA to compliance margin in previous heavy-duty criteria pollutant standards rules, the
implementation date of MY 2027, and the data collected from the EPA Stage 3 engine and other
available data, as further explained in preamble Section III, EPA is finalizing an interim in-use
testing allowance for compression ignition Medium and Heavy HDEs. In the preamble for the
NPRM, we requested comment on if EPA should finalize higher in-use standards for Heavy
HDE and other engine classes (i.e. Light and Medium HDE). Under the final rule, for any in-use
testing of Medium and Heavy HDEs a 15 mg/hp-hr compliance allowance is added to the
applicable standard, in consideration of the other sources of variability and deterioration of the
aftertreatment that can occur once the engine enters the real world. The numeric values for the
final emission standards and interim in-use testing allowance, along with how the standards and
testing allowance were set, are discussed in Section III of preamble. As explained in Section III
of the preamble, we are setting the standards at the level which reflects the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable that we have determined to be feasible starting in MY 2027,
giving appropriate consideration to cost and other statutory factors. As discussed in Section III
of the preamble, as more data becomes available in the future, we may propose a sunset date for
the interim in-use testing allowance in a future rule.
Response:
With regards to comments from Navistar and Cummins on setting higher in-use standards with
more margin, as discussed in preamble Section III, we are finalizing standards and test
procedures that account for the factors listed. In addition, as detailed in preamble Section III, we
are finalizing NOx standards as a function of ambient temperature, and we note that there is an
existing NOx humidity correction to address humidity concerns, that an elevation exclusion is
included in this final action in 40 CFR 1036.530, and that under the qualification criteria for the
HDIUT program engines are required to be well maintained.
We disagree with comments that finalizing the interim in-use testing allowance is inappropriate
and will incentivize manufacturers to develop engines that will be less durable. As explained in
preamble Section III, in setting the final NOx emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the
statutory factors specified in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A). As part of that assessment, we
determined the numeric levels that are technically feasible starting in MY 2027 and included
consideration of compliance margin in that assessment. Given the very long useful life mileages
410
-------
for Heavy HDE and greater amounts of certain aging mechanisms over the long useful life
periods of Medium HDE, we determined that an interim in-use testing allowance approach was
appropriate for the Medium HDE and Heavy HDE NOx standards. The final emission standards
and demonstration requirements at certification provide assurance at the time of certification that
the engines will meet the standards through useful life. We also note that, as discussed further in
Section III.B, for Heavy HDE we are also requiring the durability demonstration to show that the
emission control system hardware is designed to comply with the NOx standards out to 750,000
miles, as this demonstration in a controlled laboratory environment ensures that manufacturers
are designing Heavy HDE to meet the final standards out to the regulatory useful life of 650,000
miles once the engine is in the real-world.
EPA appreciates the compliance margin analysis provided by EMA and has considered the data
showing that the NOx compliance margin built in by manufacturers has increased with the
historic increase in stringency of emission standards due to the variability of emission controls at
lower NOx levels. EPA has taken this into consideration when setting the stringency for the
NOx standards we are finalizing in this action, as described in preamble Section III.C.
See preamble Section III and Section 11 of the response to comments for how EPA is accounting
for the portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) measurement uncertainty.
With regard to C ARB's comment on modeling the effects of the interim in-use standards, we
note that we did not include higher in-use standards in the proposal but requested detailed
comment on such an approach. In this final rule, we have modeled the impacts of the final
interim in-use testing allowance on the NOx inventory for the final rule (see RIA Chapter 5 for
the details of the emissions inventory modeling).
With regard to CARB's comment on more data being available in 2024, we acknowledge that
this may be true, but we are finalizing this rule in 2022 based on the record before us.
With regard to CARB's comment on MY 2024 engines designed to meet CARB Omnibus
standards generating credits to the federal NOx standards, see our response in preamble Section
IV. With regard to CARB's comment on allowing manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits ahead of when they are required to comply with the new standards, rather than providing
additional compliance margin, we point to the response in section 12 of this document and
additional discussion in preamble Section IV. As described in section 12 of this document and
preamble Section IV, we are finalizing a modified from proposal transitional credit program,
which will allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits ahead of MY 2027; however,
we are not finalizing the proposed early credit program. As further discussed in preamble Section
III and IV, the final standards achieve the greatest emission reductions feasible starting in MY
2027, and do not require participation in an ABT program; the final ABT program is carefully
calibrated to provide some flexibility to manufacturers to transition to meeting the final NOx
standards while ensuring expected emission reductions of the program are achieved.
We acknowledge that the EPA Stage 3 demonstration conducted at SwRI was focused on the
aftertreatment, however we determined that this program is appropriate and the data is relevant
to feasibility based on the EMA deterioration study (which fully aged 3 engines and
411
-------
aftertreatments through the current useful life of each engine) showing that the engine out
emissions were relatively flat compared to the tailpipe emissions as the engines aged, see
preamble Section IV.F. 1. Our assessment is that properly designed engines would show similar
emissions through the useful life values we are finalizing, making the aftertreatment
demonstration the appropriate demonstration for feasibility of the emission standards.
We disagree with the comment from EMA that a conformity factor of 2.0 is needed for the first 7
years of these new standards. As discussed above, in Section 11 of this document, and in
preamble Section III, we have determined that the final off-cycle standards are feasible and that
they correspond to a conformity factor of 1.5 starting in MY 2027.
Finally, we are finalizing that the interim in-use testing allowance for Medium and Heavy HDEs
only applies for in-use testing (i.e. testing of engines by EPA or the manufacturer that have
entered commerce), not certification testing, selective enforcement audit testing or other
production line testing prior to the engine entering commerce.
3.5 Criteria pollutant standards for idle testing
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include: A national clean idle program developed as a nation-wide option which supports driver
comfort while providing emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
EPA proposes to allow engine manufacturers to voluntarily certify to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) clean idle standards by adding to EPA regulations an idle test
procedure that is based on an existing CARB procedure. While having a single, uniform idling
standard that can be recognized in every state is appealing, this proposal does not ensure that
outcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 19]
Operators that seek to avoid the added expense of purchasing an APU and instead choose to idle
their main truck engine for cab comfort in California must have a CARB Certified Clean Idle
label on their vehicle. A handful of other states with idling restrictions provide this as a
compliance option as well. Today, this label is only available by purchasing a truck with a
CARB-certified engine with emissions levels, including emissions levels during idling, which
are identical to a truck with an EPA-certified engine. So, while it appears appropriate to provide
such an option on a nationwide basis, it is uncertain whether such an option would be recognized
by California or other states with idling restrictions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 19]
ATA supports EPA's proposed development of a national clean idle standard program. This
program will need to balance the technical feasibility of the standard with the program's
implementation and acceptance among the states. We are concerned that a federal idle standard
that is recognized by 49 states or 45 states, for instance, will not meet the interstate uniformity
needs of trucking companies. Therefore, we ask EPA to not only focus on setting a feasible idle
412
-------
standard but also work with states to recognize the program as an option which supports driver
comfort while providing emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 19]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
In the proposed Options 1 and 2, U.S. EPA is proposing that certifying to clean idle standards be
voluntary, as currently certified federally today. For the proposed Option 1, the clean idle NOx
standards and associated certification test procedures are identical to the Omnibus requirements.
CARB staff strongly recommends that the proposed Option 1 clean idle NOx requirements be
mandatory rather than optional. In discussions with engine manufacturers, CARB staff learned
that most if not all manufacturers currently calibrate their HDEs sold nationally (CARB certified
or not) to meet CARB's optional idle NOx standards. However, vehicle manufacturers could not
apply the clean idle sticker on the vehicles they sell unless it is CARB certified. In addition,
many fleets have shown interest in having a clean idle sticker on the vehicles they purchase so
that they can idle their engines in California and many other states that have adopted California's
idle restriction requirements. Thus, making the proposed Option 1 clean idle requirements
mandatory for all HDEs used in vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000
pounds sold nationally would align with CARB's Omnibus requirements. Harmonized
mandatory requirements in turn would provide significant emissions reductions nationally as
well as eliminate the need for a clean idle sticker, thereby saving the customer money that would
have been spent for the sticker, each of which is estimated to cost about $100. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.45-46]
As mentioned above, the proposed Option 1 voluntary clean idle NOx standards and associated
certification test procedures are numerically identical to the mandatory Omnibus requirements.
When CARB staff proposed the Omnibus requirements, idling test results from the CARB Stage
3 engine testing were not available and the idle standards in the Omnibus were based on EGR
control only. As a result, CARB's Omnibus idle NOx standards are significantly higher than
what was eventually demonstrated from testing of the CARB Stage 3 engine. Testing of the
CARB Stage 3 engine on CARB Idle Test Procedure showed significant idle NOx reductions of
0.1 g/hour NOx at low idle and 0.3 g/hour NOx at high idle (i.e., 1100 revolution per minute
(rpm)), without impacts on GHG emissions. 114 Additional extended 24-hour idle testing to
mimic hoteling of sleeper cab tractors, conducted on the Stage 3 engine on behalf of U.S. EPA,
also showed very low tailpipe idle NOx emissions of about 1 g/hour. 115 These results are well
below the 5 g/hour idle NOx standard adopted in the Omnibus or the proposed Option 1 for MY
2027. CARB staff strongly recommends U.S. EPA to evaluate available test data and adopt
mandatory clean idle requirements that are at least as stringent as the Omnibus standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.46]
114 Sharp, C. 'Further Development and Validation of Technologies to Lower Oxides of
Nitrogen Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Low NOx Demonstration Program -
Stage 3,' Southwest Research Institute, ARB Contract 16MSC010, SwRI® Project
Number 03.23379, Final Report, April 16, 2021. (page 135)
413
-------
115 Sharp, C., Neely, G., Zavala, B., and Rao, S., 'CARB LowNOx Stage 3 Program -
Final Results and Summary,' SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0589, 2021,
doi: 10.4271/2021-01-0589.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
While Commenters prefer the more stringent numerical emissions standards of Option 1 to the
unjustifiably lax standards of Option 2, we urge EPA to further strengthen the standards in
certain key areas: (1) duty cycle and in-use (off-cycle) standards, (2) idle standards, and (3) the
FEL cap. EPA should also reject its proposed two-step approach for Option 1, finalizing the
more stringent standards in MY 2027 instead of delaying their application until MY 2031. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.57]
As one element of duty cycle testing changes included in Option 1, EPA proposes an optional
NOx idle standard starting in MY 2023, which by MY 2027 would align with the Omnibus clean
idle standard of 5.0 g/hr. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,464. While manufacturers would not be required to
certify compliance with the idle standard, 'once included the idle standard would become
mandatory and full compliance would be required.' Id. EPA requests comment on whether the
standard should instead be mandatory for MY 2027 and beyond. Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.58]
Commenters support inclusion of a mandatory idle standard for model years 2027 onward, to
better protect individuals from the higher emissions that occur during idling, such as when trucks
are stopped at city streetlights. EPA should set a mandatory idle standard for MY 2027 onward
that is at least as stringent as the 5.0 g/hr standard proposed in Option 1, and should consider
setting it at a lower, more protective level. A 5.0 g/hr or lower standard is technologically
feasible. Many HDE manufacturers are already planning to comply with a 5.0 g/hr standard in
MY 2027 because of the CARB standard. The best-performing current engines are already
achieving the 5.0 g/hr requirement, and some are achieving it with a wide compliance margin.
See Comments of MFN, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 on May 16, 2022. The
Omnibus idle standard was proposed before results from CARB's Stage 3 engine testing were
available, and that testing showed NOx emissions far below the 5.0 g/hr adopted in the Omnibus
and proposed by EPA as Option 1. See Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.58]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
EPA is also proposing to include a voluntary idle standard that aligns with CARB's proposed
idle certification standards. Although a number of states, including California, have laws that
prevent trucks from idling for extended periods of time,46 no such rule exists at the federal level.
Idling trucks emit an estimated 0.37 tons of NOx per year per vehicle,47 and increase public
exposure to diesel particulate matter and other tailpipe emissions.48 For this reason, CR supports
the inclusion of these standards in the final rule, and urges EPA to make this standard mandatory
rather than voluntary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.7]
414
-------
46 13 C.C.R. 2485; United States EPA, Compilation of State, County, and Local Anti-
Idling Regulations,(April 2006). Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CompilationofStateIdlingRegulations.
pdf
47 Maryland Department of Environment, Facts about Idle Reduction Technology.
Available at:
https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/MobileSources/Documents/Idling%20Technolog
y%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf
48 Hannu Jaaskelainen, Idling Emissions, (April 2017). Available at:
https://dieselnet.com/tech/emissions_idle.php
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins supports EPA's proposal to finalize a nationwide voluntary Clean Idle NOx emissions
standard. Cummins also supports EPA adopting CARB's existing two-mode idle NOx test
procedure to which Cummins has been voluntarily certifying for many years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 5]
For MY 2024 through 2026, Cummins recommends that EPA's optional Idle NOx standard align
with CARB's current Clean Idle NOx level of 30 g/hr. For those model years, there is inadequate
lead-time to develop, demonstrate, certify, produce, and integrate into vehicles new and reliable
engine technologies to further control idle NOx emissions, while at the same time avoiding
higher idle fuel consumption that increases GHG emissions. EPA's proposed 10 g/hr NOx idle
standard is not feasible without active and efficient SCR. The SCR catalyst cannot be maintained
at sufficient idle temperatures with 2024-2026 technologies without unduly increasing GHG and
fuel consumption to a point that is fuel cost prohibitive for operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 5]
For MY 2027 and beyond, Cummins recommends that EPA's optional Idle NOx standard be set
at a NOx level of 10 g/hr, with a 5 g/hr in-commerce variability allowance, primarily to account
for idle exhaust flow measurement variability. EPA has evaluated idle measurement variabilities,
as documented in a December 2019 SwRI report, "Measurement Variability Assessment of the
GHG Phase 2 Fuel Mapping Procedure" (US EPA Contract No. EP-C-15-006, OMB Clearance
Number 2031-2005, Work Assignments 2-08, 3-08, and 4-03). In the report, direct
measurements showed up to 45% idle measurement variability between maximum and minimum
measurements divided by the average. As long as EPA finalizes a 10 g/hr idle NOx standard with
a 5 g/hr in-commerce variability allowance, Cummins projects that technologies that currently
are being developed and on track for production starting in the 2027 model year could be used to
achieve that lower level of idle NOx emissions, without the fuel and GHG penalties that would
occur with 2024-2026 technologies at that level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 5]
EPA requested comment on finalizing an approved vehicle label design, which would inform
local enforcement personnel that a vehicle is equipped with an engine compliant to EPA's
optional idle emissions standard and is allowed to idle. Cummins is certain that such a label will
415
-------
be necessary for operators to avoid shutting down engines when engine power is needed.
Therefore, it is essential that EPA finalizes a label design. Otherwise, there is no incentive to
certify to the voluntary standard, which could lead to NOx emissions increases caused by further
fuel consumption optimization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 5-6]
EPA also must finalize with CARB an agreement that all vehicles with the federal Clean Idle
label will be allowed to idle the same as vehicles with the CARB Clean Idle label. That will be
essential not only in California, but also for CARB to continue to lead the other states and
municipalities that currently recognize CARB's label. Because this is a nationwide MY 2024
issue, created when CARB lowered its voluntary Clean Idle standard for 2024, Cummins is
willing and ready to work with both EPA and CARB now to achieve such an agreement in the
near term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
For manufacturers that certify their engines to EPA's proposed optional low NOx idle standards,
Daimler Truck recommends that the Agency provide an EPA-specific clean idle sticker, stalting
no later than MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.63]
Currently, only California provides an optional clean idle sticker, and the State only issues the
sticker for vehicles with engines certified to all other California emission standards. If a
customer would like a clean idle sticker, they are forced to purchase a vehicle that contains
a California-certified engine, with the accompanying emissions controls, warranty requirements,
OBD standards, and more. In this manner, a California Clean Idle sticker represents not just the
engine's idle NOx emissions but rather its compliance with the full set of California emissions
requirements. As California's standards continue to diverge from EPA's standards, this
difference becomes even starker. Starting in MY 2024, customers will not be able to get clean
idle stickers for their non-California certified vehicles, regardless of how low their idle emissions
are. We expect that there will be significant splintering of the market between EPA and CARB-
certified vehicles beginning in MY 2024, and some customers and applications will be left
without a solution that enables obtaining a clean idle sticker due to technical and/or lead time
constraints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.63-64]
As the California Clean Idle sticker encompasses a growing suite of stringent requirements
above and beyond merely clean idle status, the market still has a need for a clean idle sticker that
reflects just that—low-NOx idle emissions. Many municipalities have passed laws allowing
vehicles to idle only if they are equipped with clean idle stickers. While many of these
municipalities specifically reference the California sticker, DTNA believes that most did not
intend to force adoption of all of the other California requirements now required to equip a
vehicle with a sticker. In fact, some locales specifically anticipate that an EPA sticker might
exist. For example, Texas motor vehicle emissions regulations exempt heavy-duty vehicles from
the State's anti-idling requirements if they are equipped with a 2008 or subsequent MY heavy-
duty diesel (or liquefied or compressed natural gas) engine that has been certified by EPA or a
state agency to emit no more than 30 g-hr NOx when idling.86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.64]
416
-------
86 See 30 TAC 114.512(2).
Daimler Truck believes that the EPA should offer a voluntary clean idle certification, with an
identifying sticker, similar in nature and location to the existing California sticker, to certify that
vehicles emit no more than 30 g-hr NOx when idling. The specific threshold for certification
could be adjusted according to the applicable MY NOx idle standards and the limits the engine is
certified to. EPA should offer such a program no later than MY 2024. Customers are buying
more expensive, California-certified trucks to receive this sticker today, even though their less
expensive, EPA-only counterparts have the same low NOx idle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.64]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
EPA seeks comment on whether to include an idle standard. In the Heavy-duty NOx Omnibus
Regulation, California adopted a mandatory idle standard of five grams/hour (g/hr). Since then,
SwRI and Achates Power have demonstrated that heavy-duty trucks can achieve, and
continuously sustain, significantly lower idle standards - all below one g/hr - over an indefinite
period of time. This is an important development for heavy-duty trucks, which routinely idle for
long periods of times. Achates, for example, has field data from actual truck operation in 40° F
weather showing 0.15 g/hr average NOx at idle. EPA should finalize a mandatory idle NOx
standard for MY 2027-2030 engines in the range of 0.5 to 1 g/hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1299-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Edwin J. Ward
Increased stringency of engine idling testing requirements
An important place to start in reducing heavy duty vehicle emissions is with vehicle idling.
Section III(D)(IV) of the proposed rule explains EPA's intention to begin regulating engine
idling. According to the proposed rule, engine idling over four minutes can lead to higher-than-
expected emissions of criteria pollutants because the catalyst is allowed to cool below the "light-
off temperature" of 350°C. I strongly support EPA's proposal to take into account idling
emissions beyond four minutes and require a minimum light-off temperature of 350°C. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
The emissions associated with heavy-duty vehicle idling are most pronounced in already-
polluted, heavily urbanized areas where delivery vehicles make many stops and others are
subjected to traffic-choked streets. In the Bronx, NY, the Hunts Point Cooperative Market is the
largest food distribution center in the world, and supplies the majority of New York City's
produce. Located in a majority Black and Puerto Rican neighborhood^ the food market sees
13,000 heavy-duty trucks every single day.7 The sheer number of trucks per day in a 1.5 square
mile neighborhood alone is enough to accentuate levels of criteria pollutants. But due to
infrastructure constraints and a lack of refrigeration space, trucks must idle at all hours of the day
to keep produce cold. 8 This isn't a new problem for the residents of Hunts Point, who have
witnessed nearly two decades of failed carrot and stick programs from local and state
government, including a supposed "crackdown" on illegal idling9 and nearly $200 million
previously allocated. 8 Despite supposed state and local action, child asthma emergency room
417
-------
visits are 63% higher in Hunts Point than the rest of the city, and the neighborhood ranks seventh
highest in adult asthma emergency room visits.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
The Hunts Point neighborhood is a clear environmental justice community that has been and
continues to be negatively impacted by air pollution caused by heavy-duty vehicle emissions
from idling. Those impacts persist despite stringent local and state laws prohibiting idling,
proving the importance of EPA finally taking action on this issue. By regulating heavy-duty
vehicle idling, EPA can simultaneously reduce fuel costs for drivers and trucking companies,
while also reducing the environmental burden on communities like Hunts Point, NY. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1050]
EPA's proposed rule further requests relevant data on idling reduction technologies like "start-
stop." Having been widely deployed in light-duty vehicles in recent years, the technology must
be studied further in diesel engines as it could have the paradoxical effect of allowing the catalyst
to cool below light-off temperature and increasing emissions. Perhaps vehicle manufacturers
could implement a start-stop feature that initiates only in park and after five minutes to ensure
that the emissions saved from idling aren't outweighed by emissions in the subsequent engine
warm-up period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
Ultimately, I urge EPA to move forward on increasing stringency of engine idling standards and
testing requirements starting with requiring a minimum light-off temperature of 350°C during
idling beyond four minutes. I also urge EPA to evaluate potential new technologies like "start-
stop" while considering that these solutions alone may not achieve a significant emissions
reduction. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1050]
[Conclusion] In the short term, EPA should adopt stringent engine idling standards and testing
requirements starting with requiring a minimum light-off temperature of 350°C during idling
beyond four minutes. This will create immediate air pollution benefits for environmental justice
communities. EPA should also reject the proposed revision to Section 86.1823-08 to prevent any
further erosion of emissions standards for light-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
1 Jiawen Liu et al., Disparities in Air Pollution Exposure in the United States by
Race/Ethnicity and Income, 1990 2010, ENV'T HEALTH PERSP., Dec. 15, 2021, at 1.
2 Natalia Rommen, Syracuse's Proposed Community Grid Could Right a Decades-Old
Wrong, Next City (Aug. 13, 2019), https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/syracuses-
proposed-community-grid-could-right-a-decades-old-wrong.
3 Lanessa Owens-Chaplin et al., Building A Better Future: The Structural
Racism Built into 1-81, and
HOW TO TEAR IT DOWN 12 (NYCLU, 2020),
https://www.nyclu.org/en/publications/building-better-future.
4 Union of Concerned Scientists, Cars, Trucks, Buses and Air Pollution (2018),
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cars-trucks-buses-and-air-pollution.
5 ScienceDaily, Large trucks are biggest culprits of near-road air pollution
(2018),
https://www.sciencedaily.eom/releases/2018/09/180910111237.htm.
418
-------
6 New York City demographic shifts, 2000 to 2010, CTR. FOR URB. RSCH.,
http://www.urbanresearchmaps.org/plurality/narrative.htm (last visited Apr. 30, 2022).
7 N Y. STATE DEP'T OF TRANSP., HUNTS POINT INTERSTATE ACCESS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FINAL DESIGN REPORT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 1-5 (Apr. 2019).
8 Juliette Gaudamer & Evelyn Nam, Hunts Point Produce Market to Get $100
Million Makeover to Lose Its 'Dirtiest' Image, NY CITY LENS, (Apr. 28, 2022),
https://nycitylens.com/hunts-point-produce-market-get-100- million-makeover-
lose-dirtiest-image/.
9 N Y. STATE OFF. OF THE ATT'Y GEN., HUNT'S POINT MARKET TO REDUCE
DIESEL FUMES IN THE SOUTH BRONX (Jun. 20, 2003).
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
In addition to adopting the most rigorous engine NOx emissions standards, we urge EPA to
adopt mandatory NOx idle emissions standards. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles can spend 30-
40 percent of their time at idle and NOx emissions at idle can represent up to 20 percent of an
engine's total NOx emissions. 100 California adopted 'clean idle' standards in 2008 that required
new engines to equip a 5-minute non-programmable automatic engine shutdown system (AESS)
or certify to a clean idle NOx standard of 30 grams per hour (g/hr).101 EPA's in-use data,
presented by ICCT, shows that the majority of diesel engines across most manufacturers were
already meeting the 30 g/hr threshold in 2019.102 In 2021, California adopted its Heavy-duty
Engine and Vehicle Omnibus regulation that included updated NOx idling standards for all
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, including a 10 g/hr standard for MYs 2024-2026 and a 5 g/hr
standard for MY 2027 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.24]
100 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, Rachel Muncrief. 2019. Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States, ICCT, page 17,
Figure 10; page 18, Figure 11.
101 California Air Resources Board, 'Proposed Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicle
Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments. Staff Report: Initial Statement of
Reasons,' (June 23, 2020) ('ISOR'), page 1-7.
102 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, Rachel Muncrief. 2019. Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States, ICCT, page 20,
Figure 13.
EPA has proposed voluntary NOx idle emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
beginning in MY2023 at 30 g/mi and ramping up to meet California's 5 g/mi standard for MYs
2027 and beyond. However, a voluntary standard misses the opportunity to make significant
reductions in harmful diesel pollution that is often concentrated in urban areas where diesel
emissions are already a serious burden on local communities. Accordingly, we urge EPA to
finalize mandatory requirements to reduce idle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
p.24]
419
-------
The Air Resources Board (ARB) staff concluded in its Initial Statement of Reason (ISOR) for
the Heavy-duty Omnibus regulation that the 10 g/hr NOx idle emission standard for the 2024-
2026 MYs is feasible, based primarily on a Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) Low NOx
testing program that evaluated the emission reductions achievable by changing calibrations
during idle. 103 SwRI demonstrated that reducing exhaust flow at idle can reduce NOx emissions
during idle by almost 90 percent. In fact, with an auxiliary load, idle emissions were
demonstrated as low as 1.6 g/hr, far below the 10 g/hr standard adopted for 2024 and the 5 g/hr
standard adopted for MY2027 and beyond. ARB states that its 10 g/hr standard is indeed
conservative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.24]
103 ISOR, page 111-14.
It is critical that EPA adopt mandatory NOx idle emissions standards that are at least as
protective as California's Omnibus regulation. According to ARB, in 2019, there were already a
number of engines certified with idle emissions below 10 g/hr and a number of the best
performing engines already achieved the 5 g/hr standard. 104 Therefore, engines are already
capable of the most protective standard a full 8 model years before it goes into effect.
A voluntary standard would do little to compel action to reduce harmful NOx emissions at idle.
A mandatory standard would cement the available emissions reductions experienced by
California across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.24-25]
104 ISOR, pageIII-15.
EDF also recommends that EPA adopt a mandatory NOx idle standard for 2027 and beyond that
goes beyond California's 5 g/mi standard. SwRI conducted additional testing since the adoption
of the Omnibus regulation. 105 Over a range of different duty cycles, SwRI demonstrates that,
even at high mileage, engines can reduce NOx idle emissions to well below 1 g/mi. In fact, the
highest idle emission rate they found was 1.4 g/mi. Engine manufacturers would still have a full
5 model years to achieve the more protective standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
p.25]
105 Presentation by Christopher Sharp, SwRI, 'Update on Continuing Progress Towards
2027 Heavy-duty Low NOx Targets,' 32nd CRC Real World Emissions Workshop
(March 14, 2022). Presentation by Christopher Sharp et. al., SwRI, 'An Update on
Continuing Progress Towards Heavy-duty Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond,'
WCX (April 5-7, 2022).
It is critical that EPA utilize the most recent research and testing and the clear demonstration of
success in California to adopt mandatory and protective NOx idle standards based on the greatest
emissions reductions achievable by today's engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.25]
ARB has determined that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are capable of meeting the
mandatory idle emissions standards. California's 2008 clean idle standards exempted all
medium-duty vehicles as well as buses and recreational vehicles because it was assumed that
most manufacturers would meet the idle standards by installing an AESS, and that technology
did not make sense for those particular vehicle segments at the time the rule was adopted.
420
-------
However, all manufacturers have instead met the idle regulations by certifying to clean idle
standards through the use of EGR and air-fuel ratios. Therefore, ARB determined in its 2020
ISOR that 'EGR and air-fuel ratio controls are feasible for buses, recreational vehicles, medium-
duty vehicles, armored vehicles, and workover rigs, just like for any heavy-duty vehicle, and so
the rationale for exempting these vehicles that existed in 2005 no longer exists.' 106 ARB also
determined that other strategies for meeting the updated standards could include 'raising the
exhaust temperature to enable SCR operation using cylinder deactivation, mild hybrid systems,
stop-start systems, or a combination of all of these strategies.' 107 Therefore, it is clear that all
medium- and heavy-duty engines must be subject to health-protecting NOx idle emissions
standards that begin in MY 2024 and reflect the reductions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.25]
106 ISOR, page II-8.
107 ISOR, pageIII-15.
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We support the adoption of optional Clean Idle test procedures and standards. These optional
Clean Idle standards will be needed for non-50 state engine families and the owners and
operators of vehicles equipped with them to comply with Clean Idle requirements outside of
California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• Idle standards. EPA should finalize a mandatory idle standard of 5 g/hr for model year
2027-2030 engines as CARB has finalized for the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulations,
rather as an optional standard. Idling heavy-duty vehicles disproportionately impact
populations and communities that are already overburdened by air pollution. Based on
test results by the Southwest Research Institute, 15 a 5gm/hr (or even less) idle standard is
feasible through 800,000 miles of operation. Since heavy-duty vehicles may be operated
at idle for as much as 33% of the time, 16 the Department suggests EPA make the idle
standard mandatory and consider increasing the stringency of the standard in the final
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.7]
15Sharp, C., "Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration Program at SwRI,"
Southwest Research Institute, September 26, 2019, see Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx
Demonstration Programs at SwRI (ca.gov).
16 EPA, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicle Emission Standards," Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, March 28, 2022. See
page 75, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards - Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022)
421
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Beginning in 2008, California required new trucks sold in the state to meet a "Clean Idle"
standard. There are two means by which a truck can be certified to the standard, either by having
an automatic shut-off that cuts the engine after five minutes of idling, or by meeting a 30 g/hr
NOx idling standard. Rather than an increase in availability of stop-start and zero-emission
technologies, which CARB's idle rule was meant to promote, 138 all heavy-duty engines in 2020
comply with the standard by meeting the 30 g/hr requirement. 139 Though this standard was
implemented only in California, it has driven 50-state improvements, with EPA's in-use data
showing that the vast majority of diesel engines meet the 30 g/hr threshold. 140 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 34 - 35]
138. Chen, D. 2008. California's heavy-duty vehicle idling regulations. (Presentation).
NCSL conference call, January 28, 2008. Online at
https://www.ncsl.org/print/energy/dchenidling07.pdf.
139. CARB. 2020. New Vehicle and Engine Certification: Executive Orders for MY2020
Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Engines.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/nvepb/executive_orders/EO%20
Summaries/MDEHDE/EO Summary MDE-HDE 2020 Public.xlsx.
140. Badshah, et al. 2019, Figure 13.
In-use data shows a higher fraction of idling than current test procedures, 141 and it is well-
established by EPA's data that idling is precisely the type of low-load operation where current
emissions controls behave sub-optimally, a major rationale for the LLC. EPA's own in-use ("off-
cycle") program bases the lowest level bin on idle test emissions, indicating both a heightened
awareness of the problems these emissions hold and an understanding that it represents a
significant share of general truck operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 35]
As EPA noted, CARB has lowered this standard to 10 g/hr for 2024, and to 5 g/hr for 2027 and
beyond. This is not voluntary in California, and it should not be voluntary federally, either. The
best-performing current engines can already achieve the 5 g/hr requirement. 142 EPA's SwRI
data shows that its Stage 3RW engine is also capable of meeting such a standard, with a wide
compliance margin.143 And Achates Power's opposed-piston engine meets CARB's 5 g/hr
requirement with even greater compliance margins. 144 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p.
35]
142.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf,
Figure III-3.
143. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082
144. Salvi et al. 2022
422
-------
Given the importance of reducing idling emissions to communities near ports and warehouses
and other heavily-trafficked areas, not only should EPA make its idling standards mandatory, but
it should consider setting standards that fall well below CARB's current "Clean Idle" limits,
which appear extremely conservative given the technical capacity of the next generation of diesel
engines. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 35]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA supports inclusion in the final rule of performance requirements to ensure achievement
of emission standards across all duty cycles, including idle and low load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1232-A1, p. 11.]
EPA seeks comment on whether to include an idle standard. In the Omnibus, California adopted
a mandatory idle standard of 5 grams/hour (g/hr). Since then, SwRI and Achates Power have
demonstrated that heavy-duty trucks can achieve and continuously sustain significantly lower
idle standards - all below 1 g/hr - over an indefinite period of time. This is an important
development for HD trucks, which routinely idle for long periods of times. Achates, for example,
has field data from actual truck operation in 40° F weather showing 0.15 g/hr average NOx at
idle. EPA should finalize a mandatory idle NOx standard for MY 2027-2030 engines in the range
of 0.5 to 1 g/hr. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In particular, we support: The implementation of a national clean idle program in 2024, which is
technically feasible, and does not create negative C02 impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1318-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: We request that EPA finalize a mandatory idle standard of 5 g/hr for
model year 2027 and later engines consistent with CARB's finalized Omnibus regulation, rather
than an optional standard. A Center for Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT)
study found that vocational vehicles spend approximately 33% of the time at idle. 3 6 Idling
trucks emit pollution in crowded urban areas in communities already overburdened with air
pollution.37 Southwest Research Institute's Stage 3 research program measured idle emissions at
435,000 miles in the range of 0.30 to 1.40 grams NOx per hour on five different duty cycles and
0.40 to 3.3 grams per hour at 800,000 miles.38 These values are well below the proposed
standard and demonstrate the feasibility of NOx control at idle through 800,000 miles. Given
these and other test results, we encourage EPA to make the idle standard mandatory and increase
the stringency of the standard in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 12]
36 EPA, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards," Draft Regulatory Impact Assessment, March 28, 2022. See page 75,
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards - Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022).
423
-------
37 Michael J. Bradley & Associates, "Newark Community Impacts of Mobile Sources."
November 2020. Available at
MJBA_Report_NewarkCommunityElectrification_Nov2020.pdf (accessed May 12,
2022).
38 Sharp, C., "Update on Heavy-Duty LowNOx Demonstration Program at SwRI,"
Southwest Research Institute, September 26, 2019. Available at Update on Heavy-Duty
LowNOx Demonstration Programs at SwRI (accessed April 25, 2022).
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Idle Standard: We request that EPA finalize a mandatory idle standard of 5 g/hr for model year
2027 and subsequent model year engines, as CARB has finalized for its Omnibus
regulation, rather than an optional standard. A Center for Environmental Research and
Technology (CE-CERT) study found that vocational vehicles spend approximately 33% of the
time at idle.37 Idling trucks emit pollution in crowded urban areas in communities already
overburdened with air pollution.38 Southwest Research Institute's Stage 3 research program
found that idle emissions from 0.30 to 1.40 grams per hour at 435,000 miles on five different
duty cycles and 0.40 to 3.3 grams NOx per hour at 800,000 miles are feasible.39 These values
are well below the proposed standard and demonstrate the feasibility of NOx control at idle
through 800,000 miles. Given these and other test results, we encourage EPA to make the idle
standard mandatory and consider increasing the stringency of the standard in the final
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp.14-15]
37 See footnote 35, at p. 75.
38 Michael J. Bradley & Associates, 'Newark Community Impacts of Mobile Sources.'
November 2020. Available at
MJBA_Report_NewarkCommunityElectrification_Nov2020.pdf. Accessed May 12,
2022.
39 See footnote 24 (Sharp et al., Southwest Research Institute, April 5-7, 2022).
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports EPA's proposal to include a voluntary 'low NOx idle' emissions standard.
The specific proposed standards are a concern, however, because compliance to an idle-NOx
standard is contingent upon the low-NOx technologies that will need to be deployed to meet the
FTP, RMC and LLC standards, which will not be fully known until the NPRM is finalized. For
MY 2024 to MY 2026 there are no significant nation-wide planned engine or aftertreatment
upgrades currently anticipated, even though meeting the level proposed for MYs 2024 to 2026
(10.0 g/hr) would not be possible with today's technology. Since there is no major planned
change to technology until MY 2027, PACCAR does not support a decrease from the current
level until MY 2027. PACCAR supports a standard that does not encourage backsliding and thus
supports 30.0 g/hr through 2027. At the next step in the regulation to Low NOx in 2027,
424
-------
PACCAR would support a 10.0 g/hr standard with a 5.0 g/hr in-commerce variance allowance
that is aligned with the anticipated technology to meet that regulated level. Although PACCAR
generally supports the proposed 'Clean Idle test' provisions (see 40 C.F.R. 1036.514), PACCAR
did not identify any corresponding Clean Idle label provisions. If EPA intends to promulgate
Clean Idle testing provisions, it should also promulgate Clean Idle labeling provisions to enable
local enforcement personnel to easily identify clean idle compliant vehicles. EPA should also
secure agreement from CARB to accept the EPA clean idle provision, thereby allowing
federally-compliant labeled Clean Idle vehicles to idle in California and other CARB-aligned
jurisdictions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1 pp.40-41]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Under the current Option 1 proposal, however, idling standards and test procedures remain
voluntary.37 Data indicates thatNOx emitted during low load conditions and idling contributes
between 15 and 60 percent of NOx emissions over duty cycles,38 and we encourage EPA to
make idling standards and test procedures mandatory and consistent with California's Clean Idle
NOx standard.39
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA supports EPA's proposal to include a voluntary "low NOx idle" emissions standard, and to
base that standard on the CARB idle-NOx test procedure that has been in place since 2008. The
specific proposed standards are a concern, however, because compliance to an idle-NOx standard
is contingent upon the low-NOx technologies that will need to be deployed to meet the FTP,
RMC and LLC standards, which will not be fully known until the rule is finalized. In addition,
future developments related to the electrification of the HD fleet will offer new, more practical
alternatives to reduce emissions from extended idling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
41]
CARB created a two-speed idle emissions test procedure to support a voluntary idle-NOx
standard as an alternative to a 5-minute non-programmable automated shutdown requirement.
EPA is now proposing a voluntary idle-NOx standard of its own to reduce emissions during
periods of extended idle, such as during loading and unloading operations, as well as during the
extended idling to provide overnight hoteling loads. The Agency's proposed idle-NOx standard
would be based on the same CARB test procedure, at a level matching CARB's low-NOx idle
standard of 5g/hr, effective with MY 2027. The voluntary standard would initially become
available in MY 2023 at 30g/hr, and then would be reduced to lO.Og/hr in 2024. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 41]
As an initial matter, there are no significant industry-wide planned engine or aftertreatment
upgrades anticipated for model years 2024 through 2026. As manufacturers work to develop
emissions control strategies to comply with the MY 2027 standards (while also evolving their
product lines to zero-emissions solutions), there are minimal resources available to develop new
technical solutions to achieve idle-NOx emissions controls superior to those offered today, and
too little time to develop and verify the new hardware solutions that would be needed. For this
reason, EMA recommends that the optional Idle-NOx standards remain at 30.0 g/hr for MY
425
-------
2024-2026, and that EPA incorporate by reference CARB's test procedures and other clean-idle
requirements for MYs 2024-2026, and that EPA incorporate by reference CARB's test
procedures and other Clean Idle requirements for MY2024-2026. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 41]
EPA also proposes in §1036.104(b) that, "The mass emission rate of HC, CO, and PM in g/ hr
during the Clean Idle test may not exceed the emission results from the idle modes of the SET
duty cycle as described in §1036.505(h) or the idle segments of the FTP duty cycle as described
in §1036.510(g)." That proposed requirement is unworkable. First, it is impractical to measure
PM emissions over short durations of a cycle test. The PM demonstration requirement is also
unnecessary, because today's HDOH PM standards require the use of DPFs to comply, which
provides the maximum PM reduction technically achievable. The requirement to measure and
demonstrate PM emissions levels relative to the optional idle-NOx-measured PM emissions
should be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 42]
Regarding HC and CO emissions during the optional idle demonstration test, the proposed
requirement that those emissions not exceed the levels measured in the idle portions of the FTP
and RMC is essentially a requirement that the optional idle performance be designed to decrease
the HC and CO emissions relative to the FTP and RMC, including to overcome test-to-test
variability and minor fluctuations with operating conditions. EMA questions the need for HC and
CO controls to be in place during extended idle conditions, as there would be no perceived
benefit to manufacturers to calibrate that mode of idle operations to include higher
concentrations of HC or CO. As a result, there is no basis for the proposed requirement. If the
Agency nonetheless decides to constrain HC and CO emissions through regulation, EMA
recommends setting time specific standards under the clean-idle demonstration test for MY 2027
and beyond. Appropriate standards would have to be set following data review, especially from
the Stage 3 engine or other engines similarly equipped. Another option, though not preferred,
would be for EPA to require that the optional clean-idle results for HC and CO be no more than
30% higher than levels measured during idle portions of the FTP and RMC. EMA further
recommends that §1036.104(b) state that EPA may approve alternative procedures with regard to
controlling and demonstrating optional clean-idle NOx, and potentially HC and CO
levels. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 42]
With respect to the proposed NOx standard starting with MY 2027, achieving an idle standard of
10.0 g/hr would require the use of CD A, elevated EGR rates, and/or additional load by way of an
intake air throttle or similar technique. One or more of those strategies would be needed to
increase aftertreatment temperature sufficiently to result in the enhanced SCR efficiencies
required to achieve those levels. As discussed above, EMA has numerous concerns associated
with the implementation of CDA on heavy heavy-duty applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 42]
NVH issues are the most significant concerns, with NVH being of particular relevance for
hoteling needs during mandatory rest periods. The increased NVH with CDA could preclude
maintaining the type of quiet, low-vibration environment that is critical to enabling proper driver
rest during required service breaks. If alternating CDA control modes proves to be necessary to
optimize the minimum SCR temperature/C02 emissions trade-off, or for long-term durability
426
-------
reasons, mode switching could be particularly disruptive to drivers' needs for restful sleep.
Given that, there is additional concern that drivers will attempt to defeat or work around the
CDA functionality or diagnostic capabilities to avoid those disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 42]
Other methods to reduce idle emissions, such as increased EGR rates are known to increase the
frequency and severity of EGR cooler fouling, increased soot formation, catalyst face plugging,
and aftertreatment degradation. An alternative approach to increase exhaust temperatures
would be to increase engine loads through a variety of methods. While effective, that approach
adds complexity, diagnostic burden, and an increase in C02 emissions and operating
costs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 42 - 43]
That said, starting in 2027, a 10.0 g/hr idle-NOx certification standard could be achievable, with
an additional 5.0 g/h NOx variability allowance for any in-use testing. Anything lower than 10.0
g/hr would prove challenging to meet consistently across manufacturers' full product lines. For
example, applications such as transit buses with high accessory loads may not be capable of
meeting a standard less than 10.0 g/hr. Additionally, idle standards lower than 10.0 g/hr could
disrupt product plans that involve the use of ABT provisions to bring the entire engine lineup
into compliance with the new standards. Accordingly, EM A recommends that EPA finalize the
rule with a 10.0 g/hr optional idle-NOx standard, and also provide a 5.0 g/hr NOx variability
allowance for any in-use testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 43]
EPA has requested comment regarding whether an approved hood label should be provided for
to inform local enforcement personnel that the vehicle is equipped with an engine compliant to
the optional low-idle emissions standard. EMA believes it is imperative that such a label be
specified and controlled in a manner similar to CARB's approach to its CLEAN IDLE hood
label. Without such a federal label, there is no easy way for enforcement personnel to know that
the vehicle's idle emissions are well controlled. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 43]
EPA also should secure agreement from CARB that the State of California will allow vehicles
with the federal clean-idle label to idle for extended periods in California, including overnight
idling, in the same way that the State acknowledges the CARB CLEAN IDLE hood label. This
should be the case even if the federal idle standard is not as stringent as California's. The federal
voluntary clean-idle standard, and its associated label, will be an important feature for various
municipalities and states outside of California to allow for extended idle operation in locations
currently requiring the CARB CLEAN IDLE label. Without those necessary label provisions,
including authorization to idle for extended periods in California and elsewhere, there will be no
incentive for manufacturers to develop clean-idle capability, or to certify their products to the
optional clean-idle standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 43]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Finally, a true and workable national standard would allow the EPA to set a national clean idle
standard for trucks in all states. As TRALA members are encouraging their customers to
incorporate the latest safety and environmental technologies into their new trucks, a national
clean idle standard would reduce confusion for drivers regarding which states they can utilize
427
-------
clean idle technology and would increase the adoption of the technology for new trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group supports a federal voluntary clean idle standard and its associated label.
However, the Volvo Group believes a label must be specified and controlled in a manner similar
to the California Air Resources Board (CARB)'s Clean Idle hood label approach. Without such a
federal label, it is not easy for enforcement to know that the vehicle's idle emissions are well-
controlled. For model years 2024-2026, the Volvo Group recommends a 30g NOx EPA Clean
Idle level consistent with the current CARB Clean Idle level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-
Al, p. 5]
The criticality of this issue has already been seen due to the change in CARB's warranty
requirements for MY2022 vehicles. The current lack of a federal voluntary clean idle standard
with an associated label meant that fleets in all states that automatically opt-in to CARB's
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle standards, as well as those municipalities or entities with
existing clean idle ordinances, were required to pay over $2,000 more for their vehicles to pay
for the CARB certification and its linked Clean Idle label, even though the additional warranty
had no relevance to the idle technology, which was exactly the same as those vehicles without
Clean Idle labels. The failure of EPA to develop a federal voluntary clean idle standard and label
would lead to the forfeiture of federal rulemaking authority over vehicles for fleets seeking to
comply with state or local ordinances requiring clean idle labels and impose the increased cost
and technology risk that will be incurred under the California Omnibus NOx standard. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1324-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The Proposed Regulation demonstrates that emissions from HD vehicles are particularly high
when vehicles are idling or operated in stop and go traffic, likely because increases in exhaust
temperature causes emissions restriction devices to be less effective or ineffective. 14 Reports
estimate that in some cases, NOx emissions from vehicles operated in such low-load engine
conditions may be more than double that of emissions produced during normal operation. 15 As a
result, the undersigned believe that one of the most important ways in which EPA and MDNR
can combat transportation-related pollution is to ensure that emissions are a low as possible
during idling and low-load operation of HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.4]
14 Proposed Regulation at p.17418.
15 Id.
Purportedly as a means of addressing the ozone problem in the St. Louis area, in 2009 MDNR
enacted an anti-idling regulation applicable to the region. 10 CSR 10-5.385. This regulation
prohibits heavy diesel commercial, public and institutional vehicles from idling for more than
five minutes within any 60-minute period. This state regulation is incorporated into Missouri's
428
-------
SIP in an attempt to reduce ozone levels in the area. 16 However, Great Rivers has collected data
demonstrating that this regulation is ineffective largely because of lack of enforcement. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.4]
16 MDNR, Missouri State Implementation Plan Revision, Infrastructure Elements for the
2015 Ozone Standard at p.8 (Adopted March 28, 2019).
Great Rivers has collected data regarding the real-time use and effectiveness of anti-idling
regulations as a means of reducing ozone pollution from traffic. This task was complicated by
the fact that while MDNR enacted the anti-idling regulation and included it in the Missouri SIP,
the actual implementation of the control requirement depends upon local enforcement, which is
further complicated by the unique system of municipal governance and policing common to the
St. Louis metropolitan area. Instead of one centralized local system of government, the area
covered by Missouri DNR 10 CSR 10-5.385 is fractured into more than 120 different municipal
governments, overlaid by four different county governments. 17 Many of these local
governments have their own police force and an independent system of ordinance enforcement.
Despite the patchwork quilt of governmental structure in the St. Louis area, Great Rivers has
been able to use records requests to individual municipal agencies to ascertain that none of the
four county governments in the St. Louis metro area (Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles and St.
Louis County), nor the City of St. Louis, have records of enforcement of 10 CSR 10-5.385
within the last five years. Additionally, the 36 municipalities that have responded to Great
Rivers' records requests to date have no records of enforcement of 10 CSR 10-5.385 within
the same time period. Further, although St. Louis City and County have their own anti-idling
ordinances, neither government has records of enforcement of those provisions within the last
five years. 18 Similarly, none of the municipalities located in St. Louis County responding to
Great Rivers' records requests have issued tickets or other citations pursuant to St. Louis
County's anti-idling ordinance. A similar lack of enforcement of anti-idling laws has been
observed around the country. 19 Given the lack of meaningful implementation and enforcement
of these state and local anti-idling regulations, the stringency of the national idling standards for
HD vehicles proposed by these regulations becomes even more important. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1323-A1, pp.4-5]
17 St. Louis Magazine, St. Louis County municipalities and Better Together: 4 things to
know (March 8, 2019), located at https://www.stlmag.com/news/politics/st-louis-county-
municipalities-better-together; Franklin County, Welcome to Franklin County, located at
https://www.franklinmo.org/index.asp?SEC=FE9732F6-C363-4510-9D34-
6766EB2EE285; Aboutstlouis.com, Jefferson County Cities, located at
https://aboutstlouis.com/local/jefferson-county-missouri-cities; Aboutstlouis.com, St.
Charles County Cities, located at https://aboutstlouis.com/local/st-charles-county-
mi ssouri-cities#: ~ :text=in%20the%20city. -
,St.,that%20cover%20592%20square%20miles.
18 St. Louis City's anti-idling ordinance, section 68137 is located at https://www.stlouis-
mo.gov/government/city-laws/ordinances/ordinance.cfm?ord=68137 (limiting idling to 5
minutes when ambient temperatures are higher than 32°); St. Louis County's anti-idling
ordinance, section 612.340, is located at
429
-------
https://libraty.municode.com/mo/st._louis_county/codes/code_of_ordinances7nodeIcNTI
T VIPUHEWECH612 AIP0C0_612.340AIPONUPR (precluding idling for longer than
3 consecutive minutes).
19 Bloomberg, How to Win the War on Car Idling, (August 10, 2021), located at
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/features/2021-08-10/can-cities-finally-win-the-war-
on-vehicle-idling.
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory idling mode and low-load cycle testing of both CI and SI engines, conducted
at certification and during in-use testing; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.5]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
All commenters provided general support for EPA's proposal to set idle standards for heavy duty
engines, with some qualifications. Some commentors supported making idle standards
mandatory, while others commented that the idle standards should be optional. With regard to
the level of the idle standard, there was support from many commenters that the standards should
be set at the Proposed Option 1 level or lower, while several manufactures stated that 10 g/hr for
certification and 15 g/hr in-commerce would be the lowest feasible standards for NOx. One
manufacturer commented that EPA must set standards that do not increase CO2 emissions.
Another commenter said that NVH should be considered since many drivers idle the engine of
the truck when sleeping in the truck.
Response:
EPA has considered these comments, along with the available data including the data from the
EPA Stage 3 engine, and is finalizing voluntary idle NOx standards for MY 2024 - 2026 and MY
2027+ engines. The level of the standards, including EPA's analysis of the feasibility of the
standards and response to some of these comments, are discussed in Section III of the preamble.
We are finalizing voluntary clean idle standards for two main reasons. The first is that the
stringency of the final off-cycle standards will require that all engines have low NOx emissions
when idling. This optional clean idle test will help further ensure that NOx emissions stay well
controlled as aftertreatment temperatures are critical to controlling NOx, and this test will ensure
control over a long period of extended idle time. Second, we believe an EPA clean idle label will
facilitate the ability of state and local law enforcement officers to enforce certain state and local
clean idle rules. The reason we believe that mandatory idle duty-cycle standards wouldn't
alleviate the need for a clean idle label is because enforcement officers cannot tell from the
outside of the vehicle what the model year the engine is. We have heard from stakeholders,
including CARB, that this is important, so that enforcement officers don't have to wake up a
sleeping driver to check if the engine meets the clean idle requirements.
430
-------
Regarding the comment on considering NVH when setting the standards, as outlined in RIA
Chapter 3, we have conducted NVH testing at idle with CDA active. EPA's assessment based on
this testing is that there are several ways to reduce NVH to acceptable levels through design of
the complete system, including, where CDA is used, engine mounts, cab mounts, and seat
calibration. Based on consideration of this testing, we have determined that the final standards
are achievable without increasing NVH outside of the acceptable range.
Some commenters stated that the proposed PM, HC, and CO standards are unworkable since the
standards are set at the level the engine emits at during idle over the engine FTP and SET duty
cycles and that variability in the emissions between the different tests could cause the engine to
fail the idle PM, HC, and CO standards. EPA recognized this issue in the proposal and requested
comment on if EPA should instead set PM, HC, and CO standards that are fixed and not based
on the emissions from the engine during the FTP and SET. EPA has considered these comments
and is not finalizing idle PM, HC, and CO standards for two main reasons. The first is that we
agree that setting the standards right at the idle emissions level of the engine on the FTP and SET
could cause false failures due to test-to-test variability. Second, we believe that the final off-
cycle PM, HC, and CO standards, as discussed in Section III of the preamble, will ensure that
PM, HC, and CO emissions will be controlled at idle, as this type of operation is covered by the
FTP and LLC standards and control of these pollutants is less affected by changes in
aftertreatment temperature.
Finally, EPA agrees with the comments from EDF that there should not be exemptions for buses
and recreational vehicles, since the standards are voluntary and EPA's analysis shows that the
standards are feasible.
3.6 Other proposed requirements for Spark-ignition HDE
3.6.1 Other requirements for Spark-ignition HDE
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the proposed idle control in 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)
1036(j)(l) that requires the catalyst bed used in SI HDEs to maintain a minimum temperature of
350 °C to ensure emission are controlled during extended idling. CARB staff also supports the
proposal to use modeled exhaust component temperatures to protect the catalyst instead of
designing the engine to continuously monitor exhaust component temperatures, as specified in
40 CFR 1036(j)(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.49]
The NPRM requests comments on the proposal to allow vehicle manufacturers the option to
request approval to certify the OBD of the spark-ignited, engine-certified products using data
from similar chassis-certified Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles that meet the provisions of 86.1806-
17, provided they show that both products use the same engine and similar emission controls.
CARB staff generally agrees with the proposal since CARB's HD OBD regulation includes
similar allowances for spark-ignited engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.66]
431
-------
However, CARB staff has concerns regarding the language in 1036.110(a)(2), which seems to be
the proposed regulation language that will cover this provision but does not include language
requiring manufacturers to provide information showing the products use the same engine and
similar emission controls. Further, the language indicates that HD spark-ignited engines for over
14,000 pounds GVWR may meet the requirements of 86.1806 if the engines 'share essential
design characteristics with engines that the engine manufacturer also installs in vehicles certified
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.' CARB staff believes the phrase 'share essential design
characteristics' is vague and does not provide enough details about what design characteristics
are considered or not considered by U.S. EPA in making this determination. CARB staff
recommends that U.S. EPA make changes to the regulation language to provide more
specifics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.66]
U.S. EPA states that they are proposing that spark-ignited engine manufacturers monitoring
component temperatures to engage thermal protection modes make available the component
temperature parameters (measured and modeled, if applicable) publicly available 'as specified in
a new c However, this regulation section does not exist in the version of 1036.110 provided.
CARB staff is not sure if this was an oversight or if U.S. EPA was not going to propose such a
requirement. If this was an oversight, CARB staff cannot comment on whether the proposal has
issues or not since there is no regulation language to review. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.78]
The requirements outlined §1036.205(b) for disclosing AECD at the time of certification are
consistent with CARB guidance and the current requirements in 1039.205 (b). There is also a
long-standing guidance form U.S. EPA and CARB that prohibits the use of component
protection AECDs in the case of frail design of engines and aftertreatment components. VPCD-
98-13 (x) states, ".. .whether an AECD is justified as necessary depends in part on considerations
of currently available technology. For example, engine protection would not justify an AECD if
the need for engine protection is the results of inadequate design of the engine, when viewed in
comparison to currently available technology." And CCD-01-02 (v) states, "As set put in the
1998 guidance, U.S. EPA will not approve an AECD for a frail engine design where the need for
engine protection is the result of inadequate design of the engine, when viewed in comparison to
available technology." So, for the sake of consistency and a level playing field for the entire
industry, CARB staff believes this prohibition against component protection AECDs used in the
case of frail design should be codified in §1036.205(b)(l 1). This would be consistent with
CARB and U.S. EPA position that any manufacturer who exercise poor or negligent engineering
practices be held accountable for the impact to air quality and public health because of excess
emissions from poorly designed products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 125]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes in §1036.115(j)(l) that manufacturers must design SI engines such that catalyst
bed temperature does not fall below 350 °C during extended idle or may request an alternative
strategy to keep emissions from increasing. It is not clear for what duration the temperature must
be maintained, under what range of ambient conditions, what level of which pollutant is
considered an emissions increase, or how a catalyst with a different light-off temperature or
location would be addressed. In addition to providing clarifications to these questions, EPA
432
-------
could consider a more technology-neutral approach by referencing the target temperature
generically as "light-off temperature" rather than 350 °C specifically. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 19]
EPA also proposes in §1036.115(j)(2) that for catalyst thermal protection, manufacturers can
model exhaust component temperatures if they demonstrate at certification that modeled
temperatures are within 5 °C of actual temperatures, rather than designing the engine to
continuously monitor exhaust component temperatures. We are concerned that 5 °C is not
achievable for accuracy of the model and request for EPA to share any data used to validate the 5
°C threshold. Also, EPA should clarify that engines not using enrichment for catalyst protection
would not be subject to this provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 19]
Spark Ignited Scantool, 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(10)(i): Propose to clearly define air/fuel
enrichment, either generic enough for the modes called out in this requirement, or in the context
of the 3 modes (throttle, engine protect, catalyst protection) called out in the EPA
regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 30]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Currently, heavy-duty certification requirements—and onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements
in particular—pose a substantial barrier to entry for these technologies due to high development
and testing costs. This situation is further complicated by megatrends toward electrification in
the transportation industry. We support the aspects of EPA's proposal intended to provide
flexibility in OBD compliance, including EPA's proposal to allow, with the Agency's
approval, certain OBD test data from spark-ignition (SI) engine-certified products to be carried
over to heavy-duty vehicle certification. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,483. Under this proposal,
manufacturers would be able to certify the OBD of their engine-certified SI products using data
from similar chassis-certified Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles meeting the provisions of 40 CFR
86.1806-17 upon showing that the engine- and chassis-certified products use the same engines
and generally share similar emission controls (i.e., are "sister vehicles'"). Oshkosh requests that
EPA finalize this flexibility with clarification that "sister vehicles" need not be produced by the
same manufacturer; in other words, that OBD certification data shared between different
manufacturers of record could be used to meet this compliance option, assuming the similarity
requirement is met. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, pp. 3-4]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush believes the 350°C extended idle temperature standard, with compliance by manufacturer
description as well as flexibility to use alternative methods, as proposed in 1036.115(j)(l) is
reasonable. While we concur with EPA that reducing excess idling would be ideal, we appreciate
the clear EPA guidance on reference expectations for balancing criteria emissions with C02 and
fuel consumption in this condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.2]
Roush is concerned with EPA's approach regarding spark ignited thermal modeling discussed in
D.2.vi and proposed in 1036.115(j)(2). We believe that the OBD framework already provides a
clear methodology for ensuring that inputs (whether physical or models) meet the requirements
433
-------
for emissions controls, and that industry is continually working with the agencies on items very
similar to this (reference the performance-based demonstrations required for the thermal
modeling used for thermostat monitor, cold start emissions reductions, etc.). We recommend that
EPA not pursue this change as part of this regulation and pursue the concern with ARB and
industry for implementation in future ARB OBD regulation if necessary. Some of our specific
concerns and recommendations as follows:
• We are concerned about EPA's general assumption that temperature sensors are preferred
to models, especially in the challenging measurement environments covered here. We
believe that if EPA is concerned about the accuracy of information used for thermal
protection AECD's, the requirements should be applicable to whatever combination of
physical and virtual inputs are used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.2]
• The language of (j)(2) is confusing regarding scope of the requirement. The first sentence
is specific to 'modeled exhaust component temperatures to protect the catalyst', but later
in the paragraph requires 'all modeled and actual temperatures differ by 5°C or less'. We
recommend that EPA make it clear on whether the only accuracy requirement is for the
specific modeled parameter used to initiate catalyst protection, or whether the accuracy
requirement applies more broadly to include some or all modeled parameters associated
with exhaust, even if larger errors in those parameters would not result in excessive
activation of the AECD. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, pp.2-3]
• We are concerned that EPA seems to be assuming that manufacturers would either utilize
sensors or models ('You may use modeled exhaust component temperatures... instead of
designing the engine to continuously monitor'); in practice we believe manufacturers
almost always utilize models in addition to sensors due to the inherent limitations and
failure modes of physical sensors. Specific to catalyst midbrick, in the interest of
durability of both the sensors and the catalyst, we would almost certainly not attempt to
measure the catalyst midbrick with a production sensor; we would measure gas
temperatures at the catalyst inlet and outlet, and then use a model based largely on those
temperatures to estimate the brick temperature. The regulation as written would still seem
to consider this a 'modeled exhaust component temperature' (the catalyst midbrick
temperature is modeled, not measured) and would still require it to meet the accuracy
requirement. We don't believe this is what EPA was intending, and illustrates the issues
associated with the 'sensor or model' approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1,
p.3]
• We believe the requirement as specifically applied to spark-ignited engine catalyst
temperatures over the FTP and SET cycles is largely redundant. The FTP emissions
standards already ensure that manufacturers do not use enrichment during transient
operation expected to be seen during urban vocational use, and the new SET requirement
will ensure that enrichment is not triggered during sustained high-load operation as may
be seen on heavier over-the-road usage. It is unclear what further air quality benefit
would be associated with the additional model accuracy requirement, making it difficult
to understand the justification for the increased cost to manufacturers and consumers
(both for the initial cost of the additional sensor(s), wiring, and ECU content, the increase
in testing costs, as well as the associated increased repair costs). There is offsetting
reduction in engineering cost due to the use of sensors—a robust catalyst temperature
model would still need to be developed and validated in order to protect the catalyst
434
-------
during sensor failure conditions, to verify the sensors are accurate, etc.[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1276-A1, p.3]
• We do not believe the proposed 5°C accuracy value is reasonable, and is well beyond the
standards even for laboratory equipment. For reference, 1065.307 allows up to 1% of
Tmax variation for temperature measurement. For a catalyst midbed sensor capable of
2000°F (1367K), this would be equivalent to 14°C allowable error on a certification
quality sensor and acquisition system. Clearly the production sensor or model cannot be
expected to be anywhere near this accurate. We believe that correlation of the sensor or
model of effectively twice the 1065.307 standard (linearity within 2% of Tmax) would be
the bare minimum, but even this requirement seems excessive. Again, we don't believe
models should be required to meet any requirements which don't apply equally to
sensors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.3]
• At minimum, we believe EPA would need to develop a robust and complete test method,
specifying at least the following:
o Clarification of which components would be expected to be validated in the
regulatory language, including thorough justification in the final rule. EPA
language in the NPRM is inconsistent whether the intent is to require model
accuracy verification for catalyst midbrick only, or whether such verifications
would be required for any engine and/or aftertreatment component where
enrichment could be utilized as part of the thermal protection strategy,
o Clarification on whether EPA is allowing such instrumentation for certification
testing, or whether separate tests would be required. Roush's current assumption
is that instrumented catalysts and oxygen sensors cannot be used for certification
(the instrumentation is intrusive and modifies out of the certified configuration)
and therefore there would be additional test burden associated with the
requirements in (j)(2). Specific design and accuracy of the reference temperature
sensor for each of the component locations EPA would expect to be verified.
Catalyst midbrick and oxygen sensors can be extremely challenging even for
development purposes; we're interested in what measurement techniques EPA
would propose that would meet the requirements for 1065.307.
o Installation tolerances for the reference sensors (for instance, that the sensor must
be located within a specified radial distance of the manufacturer specified
modeled location). Obviously manufacturers will attempt to place the sensors as
accurately as possible for our own testing, but since these requirements would be
subject to agency or independent testing, it is crucial to ensure that the sensor
location is well defined,
o Methodology to account for the transient response characteristics of the reference
sensor; models do not have the response delay associated with physical
measurement. Filtering the model value based on the measured sensor system
time response prior to performing the accuracy validation would seem to be
appropriate, but we are open to other suggestions,
o What condition the engine and/or aftertreatment system should be during
testing—should this represent a stabilized (125-hour) condition, full useful life
condition, OBD threshold condition, etc.
o What compliance attestation is expected—are manufacturers considered
compliant simply because they have evidence that one engine on day in one cell
435
-------
met the requirement, or is there an expectation that any engine on any day in any
cell would pass? What level of in-use accuracy is expected, and how would
surveillance testing be performed? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, pp.3-4]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Regarding idle requirements for SI engines, §1036.115(j)(l) requires that manufacturers
maintain 350°C catalyst bed temperatures during extended idle. EMA supports the option to
propose alternative strategies to prevent emissions from increasing during extended
idling. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 43]
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a summary of comments by category and the
responses follow each summary.
EPA proposed two provisions for SI engines in a new 40 CFR 1036.115(j). Specifically, in
paragraph (j)(l), we proposed that manufacturers would be required to show how they maintain a
catalyst bed temperature of 350 °C in their application for certification or get approval for an
alternative strategy that maintains low emissions during idle. In paragraph (j)(2), we proposed to
require manufacturers to demonstrate that any thermal models used to initiate catalyst protection
are accurate to within 5 °C.
CARB and Roush supported EPA's proposal that manufacturers ensure catalyst bed temperatures
maintain a minimum of 350 °C and EMA supported the option for manufacturers to propose
alternative strategies for preventing SI engine emissions during idle. Cummins requested that
EPA clarify the duration and range of ambient conditions over which that temperature must be
maintained, the emission level that would indicate an "increase" from a given pollutant, and
whether a different temperature could be used if the catalyst has a different light-off temperature
or location. Cummins suggested EPA could consider referencing a generic "light-off
temperature" target rather than 350 °C.
Response:
• We disagree with Cummins' suggestion to replace the 350 °C target with "light-off
temperature", because we prefer to rely on a specific numeric value, based on the
industry-accepted light-off temperature for current catalyst systems, and provide
flexibility for manufacturers to identify and obtain approval for a different value as
needed. We recognize that the industry may develop new, advanced catalyst formulations
or manufacturers may relocate catalysts to a position that would merit a different
temperature specification. We are finalizing the 350 °C target, with the option to request
approval for a different strategy, as proposed. If a manufacturer chooses such an
alternative strategy, they would have to justify to EPA why their strategy is equivalent to
maintaining catalyst temperature, including any conditions where emissions vary over
time or under specific ambient conditions. We are revising our proposal to also allow
436
-------
manufacturers to request approval of a temperature lower than 350 °C; EPA review of a
manufacturer's request would allow us to adjust the temperature specification to account
for a different light-off temperature or catalyst location, which is consistent with
Cummins' suggestion in the comment.
• We did not intend to limit the scope of the requirement to meet the exhaust temperature
specification during extended idle and are therefore not adding specific conditions in
response to Cummins' requests for clarification. Manufacturers should be able to
demonstrate with engineering analysis and with testing that engines operating indefinitely
at idle in any ambient conditions would be able to keep exhaust temperatures above the
specified temperature setpoint.
• We intended for the new requirement to maintain exhaust temperatures to apply instead
of adopting a defined procedure for measuring emission levels. Our approach of focusing
on maintaining a sufficiently warm catalyst temperature, as indicated by our final
temperature threshold, avoids the complexity and burden of compliance with a standard
with a corresponding test procedure while nevertheless ensuring emissions will be
controlled. As a result, there is no need to establish an allowable level of increased
emissions.
CARB supported EPA's proposal in paragraph (j)(2) to allow manufacturers to use modeled
exhaust component temperatures to protect the catalyst instead of designing the engine to
continuously monitor exhaust component temperatures.
Response:
• We appreciate CARB's support for the proposed paragraph (j)(2), but CARB appears to
have misinterpreted the proposal as a new option to allow manufacturers to model
exhaust component temperatures. Manufacturers currently use modeled exhaust
temperatures in lieu of continuously monitoring for many of their modern emission
control systems for SI engines. Our proposal, which we are finalizing with some
revisions noted in this section 3.6.1, was intended to be a new certification step for
manufacturers to validate those temperature models.
• Manufacturers are already required to report AECDs as part of the certification process.
We are updating the proposed regulatory language to clarify that the final validation
requirement is specific to temperatures used in AECDs for catalyst protection. These
AECDs, which are often activated in sustained high load operation, inherently result in
changes in emissions levels in real world scenarios, but would not be observed in the FTP
or SET duty cycles run in the laboratory. This validation step would ensure that SI
engines relying on catalyst operation at stoichiometric ratios to certify in the laboratory
are not excessively triggering enrichment with an AECD in the real world due to
conservatively modeled component temperatures (i.e., catalysts, manifolds, exhaust
valves, sensor, etc).
Roush and Cummins commented that they do not see the proposed 5 °C allowance as a
reasonable delta between modeled and measured exhaust temperatures. Cummins requested that
437
-------
EPA share data that validates the 5 °C threshold and suggested that engines that do not use
enrichment for catalyst protection would not be subject to this requirement. Roush suggested that
changes to requirements for thermal modeling are better addressed in a future OBD regulation
with the California ARB. Roush expressed concern with EPA's assumption that temperature
sensors are preferred, when it is impractical to apply a sensor for some components, such as the
catalyst itself. Roush also suggested that a more "robust and complete test method" would be
required, and included several clarifications to the proposal.
Response:
• We are revising our proposed provision to remove the specific accuracy demonstration
requirement. We believe our revised approach will ensure EPA has the information
needed to appropriately assess a manufacturer's AECD strategy, while avoiding Roush's
concern over overlap with OBD requirements. We are revising the proposed paragraph
(j)(2) as follows:
o Clarifying that the new validation process is an additional requirement for any
spark-ignition engine that includes an AECD for thermal protection in its
application for certification,
o Replacing the proposed 5 °C accuracy demonstration with a more general
validation process that builds on the information requirements that we proposed
and are finalizing for 40 CFR 1036.205(b). Manufacturers would describe why
they rely on an AECD instead of other engine designs that can provide thermal
protection, and describe the accuracy of any modeled or measured temperatures
that would activate the AECD. Instead of requiring manufacturers to upfront
submit second-by-second data to demonstrate a specific accuracy requirement is
met, the final regulation gives EPA discretion to request the information at
certification.
• In response to Cummins, we reiterate here and in the preamble for this final rule that this
requirement would not apply to engines that manufacturers certify without an AECD for
thermal protection.
• In response to Cummins request for data, the proposed 5 °C threshold was chosen based
on EPA experience with manufacturer compliance data, but we are not including that
proposed accuracy requirement in this final rule.
• In response to Roush's requests for a test method and additional clarification, we did not
intend for this new requirement to include a defined test procedure. The more general
validation process we are finalizing in this rule will not require additional testing to
demonstrate a specific accuracy. Instead, we are requiring manufacturers to share more
specific information to justify their AECD strategy during the certification process.
Manufacturers are generally allowed to continue to use the modeled or measured
temperatures that are most appropriate for their engines. We agree with Roush's
suggestion that EPA should apply the same accuracy requirements to physical and virtual
inputs used to AECD. The final provision includes a requirement to describe the accuracy
of any AECD-triggering measured temperatures in addition to modeled temperatures.
438
-------
EPA proposed a new 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(10) with two OBD provisions requiring new
parameters to be available using a generic scan tool. For the first provision, Cummins
requested EPA clarify the term "air/fuel enrichment" in proposed 40 CFR
1036.110(b)(10)(i), requesting a definition that is either generic enough for the modes called
out in this requirement, or in the context of the 3 modes (throttle, engine protect, catalyst
protection). CARB did not comment on the proposed 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(10), but did refer
to the text for the second generic scan tool requirement that was in the preamble, noting that
their staff could not locate the specific regulatory language.
Response:
• In response to Cummins request for clarification, we revised the proposed 40 CFR
1036.110(b)(10)(i) to include a description of the engine operation we consider in
enrichment. Specifically, we are adding two sentences specifying that manufacturers
include all time after engine warm-up when the engine is not operating at the air-fuel
ratio designed for peak three-way catalyst efficiency and describing peak efficiency as
typically involving closed-loop feedback control. As proposed, we are finalizing the
requirement that the OBD system track enrichment based on throttle, engine protection,
and catalyst protection. We intend this to mean that OBD parameter will indicate if the
enrichment is due to 1) engine load, which includes inputs such as throttle, mass air flow,
manifold pressure, 2) engine and engine component protection, and/or 3) protection of
the catalyst or other exhaust emissions components.
• In response to CARB, we regret that the preamble text described the provision in
proposed 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(10)(ii), but incorrectly referred to paragraph (c). We are
not taking final action on this proposed provision to require modeled or measured
component temperature parameters for heavy-duty spark-ignition engines at this time.
We would like to clarify the type of information we would like the generic scan tool to
include for component temperatures and believe it is better to solicit additional
information in a future rule.
In a new 40 CFR 1036.110(a)(2), we proposed to allow vehicle manufacturers the option to
request approval to certify the OBD of their spark-ignition, engine-certified products using data
from similar chassis-certified Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles that meet the provisions of 40 CFR
86.1806-17. Oshkosh Corporation and CARB commented in support of the proposed OBD
flexibility and CARB suggested some revisions to the proposed regulatory language. CARB
suggested that the expression 'share essential design characteristics' was too vague, and
requested EPA provide more specific information on what EPA will use to make their
determination.
Response:
• We are revising our proposed regulatory language after considering CARB's request for
more specific information. As described in the proposed rule, we want to encourage
manufacturers to gain the advantage of more comprehensive monitoring by meeting
chassis-based OBD requirements for vehicles that are closely related to Class 2b and 3
439
-------
vehicles certified under 40 CFR 86.1806-17. Commenters shared only a general concern
regarding the ambiguity of the proposed provisions rather than responding to the request
in the proposed rule for comments suggesting regulatory changes that provide specific
criteria to qualify candidate vehicles under this provision. This flexibility is approved
through the certification process and the provision requires manufacturers to identify the
design characteristics and justify their request. We are adjusting the wording of 40 CFR
1036.110(a)(2) to more carefully track the proposed preamble for describing how
manufacturers qualify for this provision by installing the same engines into vehicles
above and below 14,000 lb GVWR that share similar emission controls.
CARB staff commented that EPA should codify in 40 CFR 1036.205(b)(l 1) the prohibition
against component protection AECDs used in frail design, as described in existing EPA guidance
(VPCD-98-13 and CCD-01-02). CARB has published similar guidance. CARB stated that the
guidance documents prohibit the use of component protection AECDs in the case of frail or
inadequate design of engines and aftertreatment components. CARB further stated that any
manufacturer exercising poor or negligent engineering practices should be held accountable for
the impact to air quality and public health because of excess emissions from poorly designed
products.
Response:
• The fundamental provision of the guidance related to "frail designs" is that EPA will not
approve an AECD for a frail engine design where the need for engine protection is the
result of inadequate design of the engine, when viewed in comparison to available
technology. The proposed provisions related to engine and catalyst protection for spark-
ignition engines were intended to accomplish that same purpose of relying on AECDs for
protection only to the extent that other engine designs are not suitable to accomplish that
protection. The final rule at 40 CFR 1036.115(j)(2) includes a requirement for
manufacturers to justify their need for AECDs instead of other engine designs for thermal
protection of catalyst or other emission-related components. We may consider revising 40
CFR 1036.205 in a future rulemaking to include additional elements from the guidance.
3.6.2 Off-cycle standards and low load cycle for Spark-ignition HDE
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comment on allowing manufacturers to attest to off-cycle emissions
compliance. CARB staff suggests adding a compliance statement for SI HDE engines with off-
cycle standards, similar to the requirements in the Omnibus regulation. 134 A compliance
statement would hold manufacturers accountable for the real-world emissions without the
requirement that manufacturers need to conduct in-use testing. This would allow U.S. EPA the
option of conducting off-cycle testing if it chooses to do so. SI HDEs do not have the same
emission control challenges faced by CI engines. SI HDEs are capable of quick thermal
440
-------
management enabling early emission control during cold starts and do not have the same
challenges to maintain emission control under extended low load operation. CARB staff
recommends adopting the Omnibus off-cycle standards for SI HDEs as implemented by CARB's
Omnibus program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.62]
134 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
U.S. EPA requested comment on allowing manufacturers to attest to off-cycle emissions
compliance. CARB staff supports the addition of 1036.205(p) requiring a compliance statement
stating the engines meet the off-cycle emissions standards when tested using the off-cycle test
procedures. This is an important change with the new off-cycle emission standards and test
procedures for newer engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.62-63]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory idling mode and low-load cycle testing of both CI and SI engines, conducted
at certification and during in-use testing; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.5]
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
We suggest the following modifications to the Proposed Option 1:
• 3. Comments on Low Load Cycle (LLC): In response to the agency's solicitation of
feedback on the proposed requirements for LLC certification for spark ignited engines,
we do not have significant concerns. 11 However, stoichiometric spark ignited engines
operating with propane do not undergo frequent catalyst deactivation; unlike diesel
engines due to the higher exhaust temperatures and shorter time for catalyst reactivation
during load changes. Therefore, the inclusion of LLC certification requirements
would provide an opportunity for propane engines to compare more favorably to diesel
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1263-A1, p.3]
11 Supra note 1, at 17460.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Regarding spark-ignited engines, EMA does not support the addition of the in-use MAW
requirements for gasoline SI engines. EPA's addition of the SET test for gasoline engines
sufficiently covers real-world operation, especially with respect to high-load operation where
gasoline engines are most challenged for tailpipe criteria emissions. Additionally, low-load
operations should not be a concern, since gasoline SI engine inherently have much higher
exhaust temperatures than diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 85]
441
-------
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a listing of the topics raised, then the
comments are summarized by category and the responses follow each summary.
CARB staff recommended EPA adopt off-cycle standards for SI HDEs as implemented by
CARB's Omnibus program. CARB staff suggested adding a compliance statement for SI HDE
engines with off-cycle standards would hold manufacturers accountable for the real-world
emissions without the requirement that manufacturers perform in-use testing. CARB indicated
that the compliance statement would allow EPA the option of off-cycle testing if it chooses.
CARB staff recommends adopting the Omnibus off-cycle standards for SI HDEs as implemented
by CARB's Omnibus program.
EMA does not support the addition of the in-use MAW requirements for gasoline SI engines,
suggesting that the SET test for gasoline engines would cover the high-load operation where
gasoline engines are most challenged for tailpipe criteria emissions in real world operation.
Response:
• We did not propose and are not finalizing separate off-cycle standards or in-use testing
requirements for Spark-ignition HDE in this rule. This final rule includes several new
requirements for manufacturers of Spark-ignition HDE that will ensure manufacturers are
designing their engines to address emissions over a broader range of operating conditions
that are not covered by the FTP duty cycle currently used for certification. We intend to
evaluate certification data from the new SET duty cycle, in combination with the new
idle and enrichment requirements we are finalizing in 40 CFR 1036.115(j), and may
consider adopting off-cycle standards or in-use testing requirements for Spark-ignition
HDE in a future rule.
• We disagree with CARB that off-cycle standards are needed for SI engines. EPA has the
ability to do any amount of inspection or testing to inform our decision making about
which engines to test for evaluating compliance with duty cycle standards. In-use and off-
cycle test results, from EPA or others, can serve as a screening tool to help EPA identify
the need for further duty cycle testing. As noted in section III of the preamble, we are
expanding the engine operation covered by heavy-duty SI duty cycle testing by setting
new standards over the SET duty cycle to apply for those engines. We believe the
combination of the SET and FTP duty cycles represent most of operation of heavy-duty
SI engines and will capture most real-world emissions from those engines. Furthermore,
EPA's current approach of reviewing designs for defeat devices will further ensure that
manufacturers will control emissions over the full range of engine operation, which can
achieve a similar result as manufacturers attesting to off-cycle emissions compliance.
Great Rivers et al. and NPGA/PERC commented in support of the LLC for SI engines. Neither
organization provided data or additional information. Great Rivers et al. also supported
mandatory idling mode to apply at certification and in-use. EMA stated that low-load operations
442
-------
should not be a concern, since gasoline SI engine inherently have much higher exhaust
temperatures than diesel.
Response:
• We did not propose and are not finalizing LLC to apply for heavy-duty SI engines at this
time. We did not include LLC as part of our SI engine demonstration program to inform
feasibility of LLC standards. We recognize that, at this time, we are primarily addressing
high-load and idle operation with the new SET duty cycle standards, enrichment
requirements, and idle requirements we are finalizing in this rule. We note that our
prioritization for this rule does not mean we agree with EMA that low-load operations
"should not be a concern"; we intend to evaluate certification data from the new SET
duty cycle, in combination with the new idle and enrichment requirements we are
finalizing in 40 CFR 1036.115(j). We may consider adopting low-load requirements for
Spark-ignition HDE in a future rule.
• We did not propose and are not finalizing mandatory idle testing for heavy-duty SI
engines. We are finalizing a requirement to ensure that SI engine catalysts maintain a
temperature of 350 °C during extended idle and we continue to believe, as noted in the
NPRM, that the catalyst temperature control provision we are finalizing would
effectively address idle emissions for heavy-duty SI engines in the lab and in the real
world. See Section III.D of the preamble to this final rule and section 3.6.1 of this
document.
3.6.3 ORVR for Spark-ignition HDE
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The Agency's proposal includes new evaporative emissions control requirements during
refueling. Those requirements, new to HD gasoline vehicles, will require Onboard Refueling
Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems to comply. EPA has requested comment on the proposed
ORVR standard level, test procedures, canister conditioning and fuel-rig testing. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
Although similar light-duty ORVR hardware could be deployed on heavy-duty incomplete
vehicles to meet the new refueling evaporative emissions limits, the large fuel tank and canister
sizes of those vehicles present a unique challenge to industry in balancing ORVR and canister
BETP emissions. They will also require complete fuel system redesigns on many heavy-duty
vehicles. Large scale use of these larger canisters to ORVR and canister BETP requirements has
not been demonstrated by industry. Due to the uncertainty regarding the use of the new canister
designs, EMA is requesting longer test schedule drive sequences and a heavy-duty ORVR
compliance three-year phase-in of 30%, 60% and 100%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 120]
443
-------
EPA acknowledges that the real-world operating conditions of heavy-duty vehicles are more
challenging than for light-duty vehicles (87 FR at p. 17491), and requests comments on possible
adjustments to the ORVR test procedure. EMA recommends that an additional FTP-75 drive
schedule be added to the 3-Day, 2-Day, canister BETP and ORVR test procedures following the
canister load and prior to the drive schedule. That procedure would align with existing approved
drive schedules utilized for certification by heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 121]
EPA also requested comment on potential adjustments to the canister-load procedure.
Manufacturers have several decades of testing experience with canisters loaded to a saturated
condition and are uncertain as to any appropriate adjustments regarding the canister-load
procedure. To propose an alternate canister-loading condition, extensive testing would be
required to determine the correct condition and resulting impact on the emission test results. Due
to that uncertainty, EMA proposes that EPA adjust the drive schedules, as proposed above, to
better reflect heavy-duty vehicle real-world operating conditions rather than consider
adjustments to the canister-load condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 121]
Also due to the uncertainty of the execution of these new canister designs to meet the ORVR
requirements, EMA requests a heavy-duty ORVR three-year compliance phase-in of 30%, 60%
and 100%), starting with MY 2027. EPA should also consider an alternative OBD2-style ORVR
phase-in schedule, which would incentivize OEMs to certify products to the heavy-duty ORVR
requirements as early as possible, and may encourage OEMs to certify 8,501 to 14,000 lb.
GVWR incomplete vehicles to the heavy-duty ORVR requirements. CARB provided for an
optional phase-in period to comply with the LEV III evaporative and refueling requirements.
OEMs found the phase-in to be useful and necessary in transitioning their product lines to the
new requirements, and therefore EMA recommends a similar option for HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 121]
For fuel system rigs and vehicles that can fit into the existing ORVR SHEDs, the light-duty test
procedures with the proposed revised drive schedules, or a bench purge of the canister for rig
testing as outlined in the CARB section 12.5.2 BETP test procedure, could be conducted. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 121]
Due to the steady-state temperature condition and short duration of the ORVR test, nonfuel-
based background emissions do not have an impact on the ORVR test results. Overall vehicle
contribution to the ORVR HC mass observed in the SHED is negligible. For example, consider
the case of a 1-hour hot soak during the 2-day evaporative test, where the vehicle may emit
0.05g/60min, while also assuming a 50-gallon fuel tank undergoing a refueling test at 9.8
gal/min (assuming a 10%> prefill and 1 minute dwell time after nozzle shutoff). Such a case
would result in 0.0001 g/gal HC dispensed, less than 0.05%> of the ORVR standard. The outcome
of this analysis under reasonable assumptions indicates that an adjustment to the ORVR standard
is not required to account for the extremely small differences in rig tests and vehicle tests. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 121]
Testing heavy-duty vehicles and rigs can present unique test procedure challenges compared to
those involved in light-duty vehicle testing. There are situations where a heavy-duty refueling
444
-------
test must be stopped and restarted (e.g., dual fuel tanks with separate filler tubes or fuel
dispensing constraints). For testing those systems, EMA recommends following the ORVR light-
duty vehicle test procedures with the proposed drive schedules, but further recommends treating
the actual refueling portion of the test as two separate fueling actions. More specifically, EMA
recommends the following provision: Measure the hydrocarbon increase in the SHED for each
refueling action. Sum the two hydrocarbon increases and divide by the total amount of fuel
dispensed for both ORVR refueling events. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 121 - 122]
The revisions to the test procedures and the ORVR phase-in schedules proposed by EMA should
be taken into consideration by EPA for future rulemakings that are applicable to 8,501 to 14,000
lb. GVWR incomplete heavy-duty vehicles. EMA also recommends that EPA clarify that the
ORVR requirements would be applicable to vehicles that operate on volatile fuels, but exclude
diesel-fueled vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 122]
EPA is proposing to use engineering analysis for heavy-duty ORVR compliance in lieu of
demonstration testing (87 FR at p. 17491). EMA supports that proposal, which is reflective of
existing practice in the current HD regulations. EMA also supports EPA's proposal to align
heavy-duty ORVR useful life requirements with the existing evaporative useful life requirement
of 15 years or 150,00 miles (87 FR at p. 17490). Such alignment reduces certification and
database burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 122]
EPA has requested comment on the appropriate ORVR SHED mixing time for heavy-duty
vehicle testing (see 87 FR at pp. 17491 and 17495). Modifications to the mixing time are not
required on existing ORVR SHEDs. If existing ORVR SHEDs and/or the rig approach are used,
SHED mixing time modifications are not required as the longer fuel-fill events for large fuel tank
refills address this concern, where canister emissions must be controlled during the ORVR fill.
The graph below presents an example of an ORVR test on a large fuel tank product, where the
FID reading is stable within the current mixing time of 60 seconds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 122]
EMA recommends that the vehicle volume used for fuel rig testing should be the same volume
used for PZEV rig testing (5 cubic feet as specified in CARB MAC 2001-03, November 2001).
Manufacturer testing of large fuel tank fuel rigs indicates that the current mixing time is
appropriate, and the 5 cubic feet vehicle volume value as specified in CARB MAC 2001-03 is
appropriate for heavy-duty ORVR testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 122]
EPA's proposal provides that in cases where there is a secondary manufacturer, the ORVR
certification and fuel system installation instructions will be controlled by the original OEM (87
FR at pp. 17491-17492). EMA supports the EPA proposal, as it is consistent with current
practice related to heavy-duty spitback compliance regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 123]
Updates and corrections are required to the proposed evaporative SHED calculations outlined in
proposed §86.117-96. EPA's proposed equation in §86.117-96(d) for Methanol mass contains a
typographical error. The temperature of the sample withdrawn (TE) is only multiplied by the
445
-------
concentration from the 1st Impinger. TEf and TEi need to move outside of the parenthesis so it
applies to the sample from both impingers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 123]
Additionally, for consistency, EPA should align the Methanol mass equation in §86.143-
96(b)(l)(i) with the Methanol mass equation in §86.117-96(d), as proposed in the NPRM. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 123]
Also related to the proposed calculations, updates and corrections are required to the SHED
evaporative calculations to be consistent with other areas of the CFR and to reflect the latest
available standard practices for evaporative calculations. For example, the THC density
referenced for the THCE equation in §86.143-96(c) is incorrect. The THC density referenced in
§1066.1005(f) is based on a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 1.85. As defined 86.143-96(b)(ii), for
evaporative emissions, the THC mass assumes a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 2.3. EMA
recommends using a density of THC with an H/C ratio of 2.3 in §1066.1005(f), and that EPA
update the reference in §86.143-96(c) accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 123]
EMA also has concerns about how the test fuel is specified for ORVR testing. Having a singular
test fuel reduces regulatory burden and streamlines the laboratory testing process. The general
testing fuel outlined in §1065.710 aligns with the other testing requirements specified in the EPA
Tier 3 regulations. Both conventional and flex-fuel vehicles use the same commercial E10 fuel
during refueling. Accordingly, the test fuel specified for both should be the same. EMA
recommends that EPA specify that the heavy-duty ORVR test fuel should meet the fuel
requirements outlined in §1065.710 for general testing for both conventional and flex-fuel
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 123 - 124]
Finally, EMA recommends that EPA revise the ORVR fuel-dispensing rate specification. Having
a uniform dispensing rate reduces regulatory burden and streamlines the laboratory testing
process. Providing for a 9.8 gpm fuel rate would align with the global ORVR fuel-dispensing
rate requirements. For fleet customers it is desirable to maximize fill rate (e.g., minimize
refueling time) to minimize vehicle down-time. EMA therefore recommends that EPA specify
the ORVR fuel dispensing rate as a uniform regulated rate of 9.8 gpm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 124]
With the above recommended modifications to the final rule, EMA believes that the refueling
evaporative emissions requirements would be workable and achievable. EMA is ready to work
with the Agency on these detailed recommendations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
124]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's proposal to expand Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) to
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles rated over 14,000 lbs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p.
6]
AVE recommends EPA expand ORVR to incomplete heavy-duty vehicles rated over 14,000
pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, with a refueling emission standard of 0.20 grams
446
-------
hydrocarbon per gallon of liquid fuel dispensed, applicable for a useful life of 15 years or
150,000 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
With regulatory developments since ORVR was first introduced in 1994, primary and secondary
manufacturers have gained significant experience with ORVR technology on all categories of
gasoline vehicles, including complete heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) and even
incomplete light-heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (LHDGVs). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-
Al, p. 6]
Cost-effective ORVR technology is available to control refueling emissions, supported by the
EPA's draft regulatory impact analysis for this proposed rule. ORVR is a proven technology to
significantly reduce evaporative and refueling emissions, resulting in meaningful emission
reductions of volatile organic compounds that lead to the formation of ozone and secondary
particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as emissions of hazardous air pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
Ingevity supports EPA's proposal to expand ORVR to incomplete heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
(HDGVs) rated over 14,000 lbs. GVWR, including the proposed refueling emission standard of
0.20 grams hydrocarbon per gallon of liquid fuel dispensed applicable for a useful life of 15
years or 150,000 miles. ORVR is a proven technology to significantly reduce evaporative and
refueling emissions, resulting in emission reductions of volatile organic compounds that lead to
the formation of ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 2]
EPA should pursue ORVR for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb. GVWR (hereinafter referred
to as HHDGVs)2, as this is the only remaining class of gasoline motor vehicles without refueling
control. With regulatory developments since ORVR was adopted in 1994, manufacturers have
gained significant experience with ORVR technology on all categories of gasoline vehicles,
including complete heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) and even incomplete light-heavy-
duty gasoline vehicles (LHDGVs). Cost-effective technology is available to control refueling
emissions and there should no longer be implementation concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1213-A1, p. 3]
2. Within this document LHDGV: means an HDGV with a GVWR between 8,501 and
14,000 lbs. GVWR. ORVR test procedures within 40 CFR 86 Subpart B apply to
complete and incomplete LHDGVs. HHDGV means an incomplete HDGV with a
GVWR more than 14,000 lbs.
OEMs and secondary manufacturers now have 35 model years of experience in working together
on measures to ensure that any actions taken by the secondary manufacturer to complete the
vehicle do not violate the certificate of conformity or create in-use issues for on-vehicle fuel
vapor control systems. In addition, there are now several regulatory provisions which provide
structure to how OEMs and secondary manufacturers may work together (40 CFR
§§1037.130,621, 622) under EPA's certification programs. This long experience together with
447
-------
the very recent regulatory provisions suggest that any concerns have been addressed and there is
no need for added regulatory measures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 3]
In the feasibility analysis for ORVR of the NPRM10, EPA includes a discussion on the activated
carbon working capacity assumptions for sizing a canister. Ingevity believes a clarification to
this text is needed for the use of the terms and values for "efficiency" and "canister loading
efficiency". The original text and a proposed change for clarification are provided below. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 4]
10. 87 FR 17493, (March 28, 2022).
Original text: "During the diurnal test, the canister is loaded with hydrocarbons over two or three
days, allowing the hydrocarbons to load a conventional carbon canister (1500 GWC, gasoline
working capacity) at a 70 percent efficiency. In contrast, a refueling event takes place over a few
minutes, and the ORVR directs the vapor from the gas tank onto the carbon in the canister at
a canister loading efficiency of 50 percent. For our analysis, we added a design safety margin of
10 percent extra carbon to our ORVR systems." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, pp. 4-5]
Proposed change for clarification: During a diurnal test, the carbon canister is loaded with
hydrocarbons from the fuel tank over the course of two or three days. Under these very slow
loading conditions, a Tier 3 baseline canister filled with 15 BWC carbonl 1 will exhibit a
gasoline working capacity (GWC) of around 70 g/L of carbon. In contrast, during a refueling
event, hydrocarbons are being directed from the fuel tank to the ORVR canister within only a
few minutes. This faster loading rate results in a reduction of the GWC to approximately 50 g/L.
For this analysis, a design safety margin of 10 percent was added to the minimum ORVR carbon
volume. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1213- A 1, p. 5]
11.15 BWC = butane working capacity as defined by ASTM D5228
Approaches to adapt the current test procedures used by lower GVWR vehicles for vehicles
above 14,000 lb. GVWR and appropriate conditioning procedure for these larger vehicles [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 5]
In the NPRM, EPA requests comment on appropriate mixing times and approaches for
calculating SHED displacement for larger SHED enclosures. In EPA's final rule, "Control of Air
Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Evaporative Emission
Regulation and Test Procedure for 1985 and Later Model Year Gasoline-Fueled Heavy-Duty
Vehicles"12, EPA included a mixing rate of 500-750 cfm/1000ft3 of SHED volume and default
vehicle volume of 100 ft3. Ingevity agrees that requiring the concentration in the SHED to
stabilize before the final concentration measurement would be an appropriate approach. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 5]
12. 48 FR 1465 (Jan 12, 1983)
EPA asked for comment on specific canister conditioning cycle or adjustments to the current
conditioning cycle to better represent real-world heavy-duty vehicles during a refueling event.
448
-------
Current evaporative emission test procedures which apply to all HDGVs and refueling emission
test procedures which apply to LHDGVs and complete HHDGVs are based on the procedures
and drive cycles specified in 40 CFR §86 Subpart B. In the past there were HDGV specific drive
cycles under 40 CFR §86 Subpart M. 13 Even in the earlier HDGV evaporative emission test
procedures, manufacturers had the opportunity to use light-duty procedures in lieu of those
specific to HDGVs. In the Tier 3 final rule, the HDGV specific procedures were dropped and
replaced completely with those in 40 CFR §86 Subpart B and the provisions of 40 CFR
§1037.103(c) were applied to all HDGVs over 14,000 lbs. GVWR as an option for evaporative
and refueling emissions certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 5]
13. See §86.1245 (Subpart M) within "Evaporative Emission Regulation and Test
Procedure for 1985 and Later Model Year Gasoline-Fueled Heavy-Duty Vehicles," 48
FR 1465, Jan 12, 1983.
Given that evaporative and refueling emission control systems depend on the same purge
systems and canisters for effective control, it would not be possible to substitute different
preconditioning drive cycles for HHDGV ORVR without also changing those for HHDGV
evaporative emission control. Beyond this, since much of the premise for certification under 40
CFR §1037.103(c) depends on LHDGV certification data developed under 40 CFR §86 Subpart
B, the current construct of the HHDGV evaporative and refueling emission regulations would
have to be reproposed. Nevertheless, EPA retains the authority and flexibility provided under 40
CFR §1066.10. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1213- A 1, p. 5]
Other testing options EPA should consider for manufacturers to demonstrate the effectiveness of
their ORVR systems on incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb. GVWR. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1213-A1, p. 6]
In our comments on the ANPRM, Ingevity suggested that HHDGV ORVR certification be based
primarily on 40 CFR §86 Subpart B test procedures, with engineering analysis only applicable
when SHED based procedures are not practical. After reviewing the language in the NPRM,
Ingevity supports a two-prong approach to the certification provisions. The refueling emission
standard (0.20 g/gal of dispensed gasoline) is a performance standard and we believe it is
essential that EPA adopt specific laboratory test procedures such as the SHED based procedures
in 40 CFR §86 Subpart B for demonstrating compliance. These test procedures already apply to
LDVs, LDTs, and LHDGVs, and with appropriate modifications, can and should be applied to
all HHDGVs. Nonetheless, there are technical and practical reasons why the current language in
40 CFR §1037.103(c) provides manufacturers of HHDGVs the option to certify evaporative and
refueling emissions using an engineering analysis approach in addition to the 40 CFR §86
Subpart B test procedures. 14 We support providing the manufacturers the option to use 40 CFR
§1037.103(c) for refueling emission certification for both complete and incomplete
HHDGVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1213- A 1, p. 6]
14. See p. 23508 of "Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards," 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014.
449
-------
EPA also sought comment on two other approaches for certification. The first is a bench test
where a fuel/evaporative/refueling emission control system mock-up is installed in a light-duty
SHED instead of on an HDGV chassis. The second is the evaluation of a component,
subassembly, and/or a full assembly in a light-duty SHED or a mini-SHED. EPA did not specify
how information from these evaluations could be used as a basis for certification.
Component/subassembly/assembly evaluations conducted by vendors and vehicle manufacturers
are valuable tools in the development and prove out of hardware and system designs and indeed
may be useful in assessments related to establishing designs, assessing some elements of
performance, functional durability, and diagnosing problems. Such information could be useful
in certification under 40 CFR §1037.103(c). A good example of this might be where an element
of design is used in an HHDGV configuration, but a similar element of design is not found in an
LHDGV system (e.g., mechanical fill pipe seal). However, information from these types of tests
alone would not provide conclusive evidence of full system performance for certification
purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 6]
The NPRM does not specifically state that the ORVR requirement would apply to new HHDGVs
sold in all 50 states. While it is possible that CARB will move to adopt HHDGV ORVR
requirements within their mobile source emission standards program, we recommend that EPA
affirmatively state in the final rule that the requirements are nationwide such as was done in the
preamble to the original ORVR final rule. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 6]
15. See p. 16266, "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Engines; Refueling Emission Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-
Duty Trucks," 59 FR 16262, April 6, 1994.
The family criteria for evaporative and refueling emissions certification are codified in 40 CFR
§86.1821-01. These criteria are quite general and leave much to the manufacturers use of good
engineering judgment. It is recommended that these provisions be clarified to address that they
apply to LDVs, LDTs, and HDGVs. Furthermore, for refueling emissions, EPA should address
whether LHDGVs certified using Subpart B test procedures can be grouped with HHDGVs
certified using the Compliance Demonstration provisions in 40 CFR §1037.103(c) or if they
should be kept separate. Also, to help inform the manufacturers use of good engineering
judgment under §86.1821-01 and 40 CFR §1037.103(c) it would be helpful to add criteria related
to fuel tank volume, total canister adsorptive capacity, and purge in certification guidance.
Finally, to facilitate certification and reduce testing burdens for HHDGVs, the evaporative and
refueling family criteria should be clarified and optimized as needed to allow for maximum
application of certification data across LHDGVs and HHDGVs, consistent with good
engineering practice and in other regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 7]
EPA has proposed that HHDGVs meet the refueling emission standards for a useful life of 15-
years/150,000 miles, consistent with their requirements for evaporative emission standards. We
support this requirement. EPA is seeking comment on other useful life periods for HDGE
exhaust emission standards for model years later than the 2027 model year implementation
proposed for ORVR implementation. In no case should future useful life requirements for
evaporative/refueling emissions be longer than for the exhaust emission standards, and since
EPA did not explicitly propose that evaporative and refueling emission standards be included in
450
-------
the potential longer useful life periods on which EPA is seeking comment for exhaust emission
standards, we recommended that the useful life for evaporative/refueling emission standards not
be extended beyond 15-years/l 50,000 miles in this rule, even if it is for HDGE exhaust
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
Evaporative/refueling emission standard durability assessment provisions are covered in 40 CFR
§§86.1824-08 and 86.1825-08. EPA is proposing a set of changes for exhaust emissions, but no
changes or new provisions were proposed for evaporative or refueling emissions. We
recommend that the current provisions for evaporative and refueling emissions be
retained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 8]
The NPRM included a brief discussion regarding the use of mechanical fill pipe seals which in
our view provided an incomplete picture of the potential for their use in HHDGVs. While EPA
did not oppose or preclude the use of mechanical fill pipe seals, previous EPA regulatory
analyses for ORVR systems were based mostly on the use of liquid fill pipe seals (dynamic and
submerged). There were several reasons for this approach. The first, as expressed by EPA in the
NPRM, was component durability and related to this the potential for adverse impacts of worn
nozzle spouts. Second, most if not all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and LHDGVs covered by ORVR
had enough fill height for a liquid seal to work effectively, even with the system backpressure.
However, EPA also favored liquid seals because overall hardware costs were less and the
viability of such designs was demonstrated by the fact that several vehicle models already had
fill neck and fill pipe geometries which effectively functioned as a liquid fill pipe seal and
included one of several types of anti-spit back valves (sometimes referred to as a fuel filler tube
check valve) needed to address spillage at nozzle automatic shut-off In discussing liquid versus
mechanical seals, it was noted that limited data indicates that refueling vapor generation is 20-
25% less in a mechanical seal versus liquid seal design. 16 This could be an advantage for some
vehicle models. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 8]
16. S.R. Reddy, "Mathematical Models for Predicting Vehicle Refueling Vapor
Generation," SAE 2010-01-1279, April 2010.
Over the past 10-15 years there have been two changed circumstances related to mechanical
seals. First, there have been improvements in the materials used in the seals which at least
directionally improves durability in areas such as tolerance to alcohols and temperature
extremes. Second, powertrains and fuel system designs have evolved, and these changes have led
some manufacturers to use mechanical seals to reduce refueling vapor generation. This has
mostly occurred in vehicles such as PHEV models (many with NIRCOS) which tend to have
powertrain designs which provide less canister purge. These vehicles now have a 15-
year/150,000-mile useful life requirement and are subject to IUVP. Thus far, EPA has not
reported issues with the durability or performance of these seals nor has CARB or EPA ever
discussed adding an OBD requirement for this technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1,
p. 8]
A few HHDGV models without adequate fill height (e.g., metal tanks mounted on the outside of
the chassis frame rail which fill through a bung-type opening) may need to use a mechanical seal
and depending on the fuel/ evaporative/refueling system configuration some dual tank vehicles
451
-------
may elect to do so as well. The rule is expected to include adequate lead time for engineering to
further optimize the design of a mechanical seal assembly and for its integration into the fuel
system and to comply with other applicable Federal regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1213-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: For SI engines, we request comment on our proposed refueling HC
emission standard for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR, including requests for
comment and data to inform test procedure updates we should consider to measure HC emissions
from these larger fuel systems and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.8]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials:Eaton supports ORVR extension to HD vehicles that use SI
engines, as this technology is cost-effective and traps evaporative emissions. As the alternative is
to retrofit fuel pumps, ORVR remains the overall cost-effective solution. We believe the
procedures outlined in the NPRM are feasible and incomplete vehicles can be managed through
delegated authority as is established for GHG certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.8]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
EPA's regulatory framework offers the most comprehensive evaporative/refueling control
program in the world for chassis certified vehicles. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR)
has been successfully implemented in the U.S. and Canada for over 25 years. Within EPA's
IUVP program, there have been over 4500 tests conducted on in-use vehicles equipped with
ORVR with an average reduction efficiency of 98% [24], The odometer readings on a large
fraction of these vehicles exceeded 100,000 miles. U.S. Tier 2 or California LEV II have reduced
evaporative emissions by 90%, and U.S. Tier 3 or California LEV III are 98% effective in
reducing evaporative VOC emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.21-22]
[24] G. Passavant, 'Summary and Analysis of 2000-2015 Model Year IUVP Evaporative
and Refueling Emission Data,' 2017.
Heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) fall into two categories. The first category, light HDGVs
(LHDGVs) (GVWR < 14,000 lb.) are usually chassis certified and have been required to meet
refueling emission standards since the 2018 model year. The second category, heavy HDGVs
(HHDGVs) (> 14,000 lb. GVWR) usually are classified as incomplete vehicles since the engine
is tested on a dynamometer for exhaust emissions and during production the engines are installed
on a chassis where the chassis is completed by a secondary manufacturer [25] [26], While Tier 3
evaporative requirements apply to HHDGVs, refueling emission standards do not yet apply to
this subcategory of HDGVs. MECA estimates that HHDGV refueling emissions are equivalent
to about 0.37 g/mile (based on 4.1 g/gallon emission rate and average fuel efficiency of 11 mpg).
Control of refueling emissions with ORVR is a significant opportunity to reduce VOC emissions
(ozone and PM2.5 precursors and air toxic emissions) from these HDGVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.22]
452
-------
[25] EPA, 'Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards,' 28 April 2014. [Online],
Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-04-28/pdf/2014-06954.pdf.
[26] 40 CFR 85.020.
Specific to EPA's proposal, MECA supports extending ORVR requirements to HHDGVs at a
refueling emission standard of 0.20 grams hydrocarbon per gallon of liquid fuel dispensed as
now applies to LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, LHDGVs, and complete HHDGVs. The OEMs have
twenty-five model years of experience with the design and certification of ORVR systems, which
together with the EPA IUVP data mentioned above, clearly demonstrate the feasibility. Very
recently, a complete HHDGV with a fuel tank of one hundred gallons was certified to ORVR for
the 2022 model year [27], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.22]
[27] PRWeb, 'ROUSH CleanTech and Blue Bird First to Achieve Certification to 2022
Heavy Duty Refueling Standard,' 2 May 2022. [Online], Available:
https://www.prweb.com/releases/roush_cleantech_and_blue_bird_first_to_achieve_certifi
cation_to_2022_heavy_duty_refueling_standard/prweb 18651222.htm.
Consistent with the current requirements for evaporative emission and refueling emission
controls for all lighter weight vehicles, MECA supports EPA's proposal to apply a useful life of
15 years/150,000 miles to the HHDGV refueling emission standard. The Tier 3 evaporative
emission standard useful life for all HDGVs is currently 15 years/150,000 miles. Given that
integrated ORVR/evaporative control system designs share hardware such as the activated
carbon canister and purge valve and functions such as vapor transport and canister purge, a
common requirement for evaporative and refueling emission standard useful life is logical and
necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.22]
MECA believes the implementation of ORVR is feasible and practical for primary and
secondary manufacturers. Since the first HDGV evaporative emission standards were
implemented in the 1985 model year, OEMs and secondary manufacturers now have thirty-five
model years of experience in working together on measures to ensure that any actions taken by
the secondary manufacturer to complete the vehicle do not violate the certificate of conformity or
create in-use issues for on-vehicle fuel vapor control systems. In addition, there are now several
regulatory provisions within 40 CFR1037 which provide guidelines on how OEMs and
secondary manufacturers may work together under EPA's certification programs [28], This
extensive experience together with these recent regulatory provisions suggest that any concerns
have been addressed and there is no need for added regulatory measures. Regarding testing
for refueling emissions certification, the ORVR test procedures promulgated in 1994 are fully fit
for purpose and, perhaps with minor changes or clarifications, should be applied to HHDGVs
using the driving cycles and SHED-test procedures currently specified in Subpart B. MECA
supports a compliance demonstration through a full vehicle emission testing and certification as
contained in Subpart B plus continuation of the manufacturers' certification option using the
compliance demonstration flexibility provided in 40 CFR1037.103(c). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, pp.22-23]
[28] 40 CFR Part 1037.130, 1037.621, 1037.622.
453
-------
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
For SI engines, EPA requests comment on their proposed refueling HC emission standard for
incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR, including requests for comment and data to inform
test procedure updates. EPA should consider measuring HC emissions from these larger fuel
systems and vehicles. MEMA also recommends avoiding "break points" in the standards that
could result in intentionally shifting a vehicle to a higher GVWR class to reduce emissions
compliance equipment. In essence developing a continuum of standards and technology
applications rather than a sharp break or jump. MEMA also recommends that on-board vapor
recovery technology be required. SI engines should have the best available evaporative
emissions control technologies. In addition, higher truck classes should use all available lower
truck class technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
EPA requests comments regarding options for sealed housing evaporative determination (SHED)
testing for heavy-duty vehicles related to evaporative and refueling emissions. See Proposed
Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,491. Oshkosh generally opposes the expansion of these requirements
based upon the same concerns raised above related to OBD test and certification burdens, as well
as the limited availability of SHED facilities sufficiently sized to accommodate larger heavy-
duty vehicles, which EPA acknowledges in the Proposed Rule. See id. at 17,490-91. Specifically,
Oshkosh notes that there are few if any existing SHED testing facilities available to
accommodate vehicles such as a fire truck or concrete mixer. These logistical concerns should be
accommodated in the final rule. Oshkosh thus supports EPA's proposal to continue to allow
manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with applicable evaporative and refueling emission
standards by using an engineering analysis rather than requiring SHED testing data. The
Company also supports EPA's proposal to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance by
testing refueling components only, separate and apart from the vehicle body and chassis. See id.
at 17,491. A final alternative would be for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance by use of
"sister vehicle" data, similar to EPA's proposal for demonstrating OBD compliance. Under this
approach, EPA could allow manufacturers to rely upon test data from vehicles with similar fuel
system characteristics (e.g., a comparable fuel tank and carbon cannister) to show compliance
with the applicable evaporative and refueling emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1226-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush is fully in support of the heavy-duty refueling emissions requirements for incomplete
spark ignited vehicles. As we have demonstrated in our 2022MY complete vehicle certification,
compliance to the standards is feasible, with significant air quality benefits. We do have a few
specific suggestions:
• We fully agree with the continued allowance for compliance by attestation for heavy-duty
vehicles. As noted, it is extremely difficult to perform the light-duty evaporative cycles
on heavy-duty vehicles, and for incomplete vehicles it is extremely difficult to determine
what a representative completed vehicle would even be. Specific to the refueling tests,
454
-------
use of rigs should be explicitly permitted as the basis for compliance judgement; this
permits the use of existing light-duty ORVR test facilities and procedures, and provides a
fully representative result as the non-refueling emissions are negligible given the short
sampling time involved.
• We recommend allowing additional drive time as part of the test sequences. In our
experience, the requirements of the refueling and BETP standards particularly are in
conflict, although different manufacturers may experience difference constraints based on
their specific designs. The existing drive cycles are all based on light-duty consumer
usage, and were never intended to be reflective of heavy-duty commercial vehicle use.
We believe that providing manufacturers the option to conduct a second series of drive
cycles for the two-diurnal, BETP, and refueling tests without need for any additional
justification is entirely reasonable. The running loss / 3-diurnal test sequence is more
complex due to the need for fuel tank heating; we would suggest simply providing
flexibility for manufacturers to request additional preconditioning for this
procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, pp.4-5]
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a listing of the topics raised, then the
comments are summarized by category and the responses follow each summary.
EPA proposed a 0.20 g HC/ gal liquid fuel refueling emissions standard for incomplete vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR and ORVR test procedures. Comments relating to the proposed
refueling emission standards fell into the following general categories:
• Support or opposition for the refueling standards or ORVR requirements in general
• Test procedure recommendations based on EPA requests for comment
• Corrections and clarifications of the test procedure
• Unsolicited recommendations for updates
Support or opposition for the refueling standards or ORVR requirements in general
Several commenters expressed explicit support for the refueling standards, useful life and/or
ORVR requirements in general, including: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA),
Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE), Ingevity Corporation, Eaton Vehicle Group,
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA), Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association (MEMA), and Roush CleanTech. Except for one comment regarding a request for a
phase-in of the ORVR standard, we received no comments opposing the refueling emission
standard for incomplete vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR. EMA commented that EPA
underestimated the challenge of implementing ORVR technology on the larger vehicles with
larger fuel tanks. To address uncertainties for those vehicles, they requested a three-year phase in
of 30%, 60%, and 100% starting in MY2027, including an option that can encourage OEMs to
certify 8,501 to 14,000 lb GVWR incomplete vehicles. Commenters did also express concern
455
-------
with some of the test procedure options EPA was considering in the proposal, discussed further
below.
Response:
• We thank the commenters for their support. As explained in preamble Section III.E and
further justified in RIA Chapter 3, we are finalizing the refueling emission standard of 0.2
g HC/gal liquid fuel as proposed, with a final regulatory useful life of 15 years or 150,000
miles (whichever occurs first).
• We disagree with EMA that a phase-in is necessary to comply with the new refueling
emission standard. We are finalizing the implementation starting in MY 2027 for the
reasons shared in preamble Section III.E.
• However, we considered that an optional phase-in that encompasses incomplete 8,501 -
14,000 GVWR vehicles may encourage OEMs to certify those additional incomplete
vehicles to the new heavy-duty refueling emission standard while also providing some
flexibility to manufacturers in meeting the new refueling emission standard.
• As detailed in preamble Section III.E of the final rule, manufacturers will have the option
of certifying all incomplete vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR to the refueling
standard in model year 2027, or in the alternative, manufacturers can opt into the
alternate phase-in that applies for all incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, regardless of
GVWR.
Test procedure recommendations based on EPA requests for comment
Ingevity and MECA commented in support of the full vehicle test. Ingevity indicated that a
bench test and component/subassembly/assembly evaluations would not provide conclusive
evidence of full system performance, but noted that an engineering analysis may be appropriate
when a full SHED test is "not practical". EMA, MECA, Oshkosh, and Roush also supported
EPA's proposal to allow engineering analysis as an option to demonstrate compliance with the
refueling standard.
Response:
• We thank commenters for their support of our proposed testing approaches. We proposed
and are finalizing that refueling emissions would be measured over the same test
procedures that currently apply for complete vehicles in 40 CFR 1037.103, including a
full-vehicle SHED test as the primary compliance demonstration pathway with
• the option for manufacturers to perform an engineering analysis in 40 CFR 1037.103(c)
for demonstrating they meet the new refueling emissions standard.
• See the comments that follow for specific revisions to our test procedures after
considering comments, and our responses to approaches raised in comments that would
be relevant to the engineering analysis. While we have not revised 40 CFR 1037.103(c)
to include reference to good engineering judgment, we note here that 40 CFR 1068.5
continues to apply for all sectors covered by 40 CFR part 1068, including highway
heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
456
-------
EPA requested comment on the updates to the conditioning procedure to account for larger
vehicles. EMA recommended adding an additional FTP-75 drive schedule to the 3-day, 2-day,
canister BETP, and ORVR test procedures following the canister load and prior to the drive
schedule. EMA noted that an additional FTP-75 would align with existing approved drive
schedules utilized for certification by heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers now and would be
preferred over updating the canister loading procedure, which would require "extensive testing"
to validate. Roush also commented on a need for additional drive time after the canister load.
Roush suggested providing manufacturers the option to conduct a second series of drive cycles
for the two-day and BETP. They also suggested that the 3-day test may require additional
conditioning.
Response:
• We thank EMA and Roush for their comments, insight, and observations regarding
conditioning procedures that occur between the canister load and drive schedule. As
noted in preamble Section III.E, we are revising the 2-day diurnal and BETP tests to
include a second FTP duty cycle for vehicles with fuel tank capacity above 50 gallons,
which have the greatest need for additional conditioning.
• We agree with EMA that updating the canister loading procedure would require
additional validation and we are not revising that procedure in this rule. We disagree with
EMA that the additional FTP-75 is also needed for the 3-day diurnal procedure; we
believe the existing 3-day diurnal procedure is already appropriate for larger fuel tanks
since it has two additional UDDS (Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule) and two
additional NYCC (New York City Cycle) as compared to the existing 2-day diurnal
procedure.
Several commenters recommended analyses or testing in response to EPA's request for comment
on approaches to consider for adapting the current 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, test procedures
used by lower-GVWR vehicles for vehicles above 14,000 lb. GVWR. We address specific
commenters' recommendations for analysis or testing below. We are not finalizing the
prescriptive test procedure changes requested at this time, but in most cases, the approaches
raised in comments would be relevant to the engineering analysis option as noted in the
responses below.
Response:
• EMA indicated that the full vehicle light-duty test procedures would work if the HD
vehicle could fit in the existing SHED, but reiterated their request for revised drive
schedules (i.e., an additional FTP-75). If a manufacturer was performing a fuel system rig
test, EMA recommended a bench purge of the canister using CARB's BETP procedure as
a reference. EMA commented, with example calculations, that the vehicle contribution of
HC mass is negligible, so the rig test and full vehicle test should be similar. For vehicle
volume, EMA recommended the fuel rig testing should be the same volume (5 cubic feet)
457
-------
used for partial zero-emission vehicle (PZEV) rig testing (CARB MAC 2001-03,
November 2001).
o We acknowledge EMA's agreement that the light-duty test procedures we are
finalizing are appropriate for HD vehicles that can fit in existing SHED
enclosures. As noted previously, we are finalizing an additional FTP-75 for 2-day
diurnal and the BETP cycles for fuel tanks with greater than 50 gallons capacity.
o As noted in the NPRM, we recognize there is limited availability of SHEDs that
can fit certain heavy-duty vehicles and a manufacturer can request approval of a
rig test as their engineering analysis for those vehicles. Manufacturer engineering
analysis of the HC mass contribution from the vehicle, as well as their
recommendation to use CARB's bench purge and the PZEV-based vehicle
volume, would be appropriate information to share with EPA to demonstrate the
use of good engineering judgment in a supporting compliance demonstration.
• Ingevity stated that a bench test of a fuel/evaporative/refueling emission control system
mock-up and component/subassembly/assembly evaluations would not, by itself, provide
conclusive evidence of full system performance.
o EPA agrees that the bench test would not by itself, prove conclusive. Rather, the
bench test will be part of a larger collection of evidence, both data and
engineering analysis, to demonstrate compliance.
• Oshkosh expressed support for EPA's proposal to allow manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance by testing refueling components only, separate and apart from the vehicle
body and chassis. Roush commented that, "Specific to the refueling tests, use of rigs
should be explicitly permitted as the basis for compliance judgement; this permits the use
of existing light-duty ORVR test facilities and procedures, and provides a fully
representative result as the non-refueling emissions are negligible given the short
sampling time involved."
o EPA agrees that component and system data, like that generated with a SHED or
mini-SHED, when applied with good engineering judgement as part of an
engineering analysis, may appropriately demonstrate compliance. Manufacturers
will need to present compelling evidence, such as component and full SHED data
that shows comparable results. We note that we are not finalizing a specific
component- or system-based procedure at this time.
• Oshkosh also requested a final alternative where manufacturers could demonstrate
compliance by use of "sister vehicle" data, similar to EPA's proposal for demonstrating
OBD compliance.
o EPA agrees that a manufacturer may apply good engineering judgement to use
data from similar vehicles in an engineering analysis to demonstrate compliance
with the refueling standard. We would expect such an engineering analysis to
include fuel system detail, vehicle design information, and vehicle expected use
information along with any other relevant information.
Corrections and clarifications of the test procedure
458
-------
For dual fuel tanks with separate filler tubes, EMA recommended: "Measure the hydrocarbon
increase in the SHED for each refueling action. Sum the two hydrocarbon increases and divide
by the total amount of fuel dispensed for both ORVR refueling events."
Response:
• We generally agree with EMA's recommendation for assessing refueling emissions from
dual-tank vehicles. Since other assessment methods may also be valid, we are not
finalizing a prescriptive approach for these vehicles; instead, as noted in the preamble
section III.E, we are finalizing a revision to 40 CFR 86.154-98 that directs manufacturers
to use good engineering judgment for dual tank configurations.
EMA agreed with EPA's assessment in the NPRM that in cases where a secondary manufacturer
finishes an incomplete vehicle subject to the new refueling standards, the ORVR certification
and fuel system installation instructions will be controlled by the original OEM as it is consistent
with HD spitback compliance regulations.
Response:
• We thank EMA for confirming our assessment from the proposal. We continue to expect,
as stated in the proposal, that the addition of any ORVR hardware and all ORVR-related
aspects of the certified configuration would continue to be managed and controlled by the
chassis manufacturer that holds the vehicle certificate. Accordingly, we do not expect that
addition of the ORVR hardware would result in any appreciable change in a secondary
manufacturer's obligations or require secondary builders to perform significant
modifications to their products.
EMA identified a typographical error in the methanol mass equation as well as an opportunity
for driving consistency in related equations.
Response:
• This correction and an update to make equations consistent are in the final regulations.
EMA also shared fuels information regarding hydrogen to carbon (H/C) ratio and the resulting
fuel density.
Response:
• This topic is responded to in section 32.2 of this document.
459
-------
Ingevity noted that the NPRM does not specifically state that the ORVR requirement would
apply to new heavy heavy-duty gas vehicles (HHDGVs) sold in all 50 states. They recommend
that EPA affirmatively state in the final rule that the requirements are nationwide such as was
done in the preamble to the original ORVR final rule.
Response:
• CAA section 203 and our regulations prohibit the sale or introduction into commerce of
new heavy-duty engines subject to EPA emission standards unless they are covered by a
valid certificate of conformity complying with EPA emission standards and regulations
for that model year. Thus, our federal standards apply to all new heavy-duty engines.
Under CAA section 209, there are circumstances under which manufacturers' compliance
with state standards shall be treated as compliance with applicable federal standards. We
intend to work with CARB and manufacturers to answer compliance questions as they
arise in a given model year.
Ingevity noted that the family criteria for evaporative and refueling emissions certification (40
CFR 86.1821-01) are quite general and leave much to the manufacturers use of good engineering
judgment. They recommended that these provisions be clarified to address that they apply to
LDVs, LDTs, and HDGVs. Ingevity also requests clarity on whether LHDGVs certified using
Subpart B test procedures can be grouped with HHDGVs
Response:
• The FRM includes edits in 40 CFR 86.1821 to state that the engine-family provisions
apply for all sizes of vehicles subject to evaporative or ORVR standards. The FRM also
includes edits in 40 CFR 86.1821 to clarify that manufacturers must certify HDV greater
than 14,000 lb GVWR in families that are separate from HDV at or below 14,000 lb
GVWR that are certified based on testing.
Unsolicited recommendations for updates
Ingevity noted that the feasibility analysis uses the term "percent efficiency" when discussing
carbon canister loading and that "g/L" may be more precise for gasoline working capacity
(GWC).
Response:
• We thank Ingevity for their thorough review and proposal on wording related to canister
efficacy. In this feasibility discussion, the term "g/L" is more precise than "%". We
have made this change. However, it is important to note that in the feasibility table and
calculations, g/L is shown and properly applied. The calculations, analysis, and
feasibility do not change.
460
-------
Ingevity shared that, "it would be helpful to add criteria related to fuel tank volume, total canister
adsorptive capacity, and purge in certification guidance".
Response:
• We did not propose to specify fuel tank and purge design criteria and are not including
any such criteria in this final rule.
EMA suggested we specify El0 for the ORVR testing (in place of EO). EMA requested EPA
streamline the laboratory test process by focusing the fuel flow rate on 9.8 gpm fuel-dispensing
rate as opposed to the current regulations in 40 CFR 86.154(e) that require proven function at 9.8
gpm and allows verification down to 4.0 gpm. EMA recommended that EPA clarify that the
ORVR requirements apply to vehicles operating on volatile fuels but exclude diesel fueled
vehicles.
Response:
• We did not expressly request comment on certain aspects of the existing evaporative and
refueling emission standards test procedures such as the test fuel(s) or fuel-dispensing
rate that we proposed to make applicable to incomplete HD vehicles greater than 14,000
lb GVWR.
• We did not propose changes to the testing fuel type and are not including any changes to
the testing fuel type in the final rule. We may consider such a change in a future
rulemaking.
• We also did not propose changes for fuel dispensing rate and are not including any such
changes in this final rule. We may consider such a change in a future rulemaking.
• The existing regulations in 40 CFR 1037.103(a) provide the clarity requested by one
commenter regarding applicability of ORVR standards, and consistent with the proposal
will be applicable to the new refueling standard for incomplete HD vehicles greater than
14,000 lb GVWR under the final rule. The existing provision specifies that evaporative
and refueling emission standards specified in 40 CFR 1037.103 apply for HD vehicles
above 14,000 lb GVWR fueled by "volatile liquid fuels (such as gasoline or ethanol) or
gaseous fuels (such as natural gas or LPG)."
3.7 Certifying hybrid electric vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• EPA should additionally simplify powertrain certification requirements for GHGs. EPA
should consider methods involving the testing of standalone components and/or a further
build-out of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model ("GEM") as an alternative to the
461
-------
proposed requirements and should not mandate powertrain testing for hybrid vehicles
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.6]
EPA has requested comments whether using powertrain testing to certify heavy-duty hybrids
should be mandatory for all hybrid engine and powertrain combinations.58 Allison believes that
powertrain testing/certification should remain an option in addition to standalone certification
and chassis dynamometer testing/certification. There are two major concerns: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.28]
58 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,457.
• If EPA were to mandate powertrain testing, this result would not only increase the direct
cost of regulation (e.g., through additional testing burdens) but also create substantial
logistical difficulties between hybrid powertrain vendors and OEMs responsible for final
assembly of the vehicles. All these expenses would be incurred in what has been a
traditionally low volume market, meaning that per vehicle costs would be proportionally
higher since they could not be allocated to high-volume vehicles. Although some
measure of empirical value might be obtained through the generation of powertrain
testing data, the per-vehicle cost increases would make it more difficult for this
technology to further expand in the commercial market sector. Requiring mandatory
powertrain criteria pollutant certification for hybrid technology is expected to drive
additional logistics and/or capital expense to certification process of a low volume
market. Added cost and logistics contributes to regulatory overhead, and this makes the
technology more difficult to apply at a reasonable cost to customers with lower volume
applications that could benefit from hybrid emissions reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.28]
• Powertrain certification testing cycles are also not reflective of real-world applications
where hybrid technology works well, such as transit bus operation. Powertrain
certification duty cycles contain sustained high load operation (under SET) and
SS55MPH/SS65MPH operation. These type of duty cycles do not reflect the typical
applications that benefit from hybrid technology and which the market will preferentially
select. Allison recommends that in lieu of the duty cycles proposed, EPA should utilize
duty cycles related to metro transit authority routes that would better represent real world
operation of hybrid transit bus operations with lower average speed and a greater number
of stops. A few metro transit duty cycles that could be considered include Manhattan
Cycle and OCTA. See Appendix 3.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.28]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes to allow manufacturers the option to certify hybrid engines and powertrains to
engine criteria pollutant emissions standards using a powertrain test procedure starting in MY
2023, including the ability to participate in the engine NOx ABT program. (EPA had previously
finalized a similar powertrain test option for certifying to engine GHG standards.) Cummins
supports adding this option which provides a path for manufacturers to better demonstrate the
emissions reductions that can be achieved with hybrids. EPA requested comment on whether
462
-------
they should require powertrain testing for hybrids rather than offering it as an option. Cummins
supports keeping it optional in addition to the existing process of engine-only certification for
hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 19]
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) can serve as a bridge to zero emissions operation in
applications where BEV or FCEV are not yet technically or commercially viable. As discussed
above, manufacturers may use the optional powertrain test procedure to certify PHEV to engine
criteria pollutant and GHG standards, which Cummins supports. However, improvements in
certification and compliance processes are needed to recognize more fully the real-world NOx
reductions that can be achieved by PHEV and to reduce complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 19]
Zero emissions (ZE) mode is a critical part of the operation of a PHEV, delivering significant
NOx and GHG reductions to the environment. EPA's proposed procedure captures the GHG
benefit of PHEV ZE mode through use of a utility factor (UF) to weight emissions from charge-
depleting (CD) and charge-sustaining (CS) operation. However, manufacturers are required to
meet criteria pollutant standards under the worst-case condition from CD or CS operation. ZE
mode is not factored into the emissions result. Cummins recommends allowing manufacturers to
use a UF-based calculation (i.e., Equation §1036.505- 10) for criteria pollutant emissions
including NOx, in order to account for the criteria pollutant reductions demonstrated by PHEV in
ZEmode. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 19]
As proposed, the 3B-MAW approach for in-use testing also does not account for ZE mode
emissions properly. When the engine is off for purposes of optimizing C02 and criteria
pollutants, the data will be excluded per §1036.515(c)(2) even though powertrain work is non-
zero. Another critical mode of operation for PHEV is when the battery/motor assists the engine.
While the hybrid certification process captures the impact of this mode, 3B-MAW will not
appropriately identify bins per the overall powertrain work which would be different from
engine-only work measured from C02. These concerns also apply to non-plug-in hybrids. The
applicability of the proposed 3B-MAW calculation method should be modified to align with
PHEV and HEV real world operation. Updates are needed in §1036.515 to address these
issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 20]
A series hybrid system can be integrated with multiple types of traction systems based on
application requirements. The proposed certification procedure would require testing of the
complete system including the traction system. However, traction systems such as hub motor, in-
wheel motor, and e-axle (6x4) configurations introduce test cell complexity. Cummins suggests
that EPA allow an option to use a generic traction system model in a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL)
simulation, analogous to the use of a generic transmission model in powertrain testing, to reduce
certification complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 20] See Appendix B for
additional test procedure comments. Cummins would like to work with EPA on continued
improvements to hybrid-related procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 20]
1036.514
463
-------
Hybrid functions enable reduction in idle fuel consumption and emission management.
Clarification is requested why hybrid functions needs to be disabled only for plug-in hybrids.
Cummins suggests hybrid functionality should be enabled for both plug-in and non-plug-in
hybrids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 25]
1036.527(e)
Clarification is requested for definition of Psys for series hybrids which have different types of
electric traction systems. See figures below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 26]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We support the added regulatory flexibility to test hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles on either
an engine dynamometer or a powertrain dynamometer. We believe that the powertrain
dynamometer test procedures produce emission results that are more representative of on-road
operation than engine-only testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Hyliion, Inc.
The heavy-duty trucking industry is one that is steeped in tradition and reliability. However, it is
an industry that is both innovative and flexible when addressing decarbonization and clean air
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 3]
As the EPA recognizes: "NOx exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases,
particularly asthma, leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing or difficulty
breathing), hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated
concentrations of N02 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase
susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly
are generally at greater risk for the health effects of N02."l [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-
Al, p. 3]
1. https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2
We at Hyliion recognized the negative effects of air pollutions particularly in the communities
that are most vulnerable. Through utilizing our All-Electric Range solution, we are able to
provide a zero-emission solution in ports, city centers, and environmental justice communities
where limited emissions are most critical. However, while addressing this urgent problem, we
encourage the EPA embrace a multi-technology approach. We agree that EVs are an excellent
option for many business models in the trucking industry, particularly in shorter distance hauls.
However, neglecting the real and nonnegotiable aspects of long-haul heavy-duty trucks is not in
the best interests of our global goals and certainly not for our communities who consistently bear
the burden and negative health implications of air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-
Al, p. 3]
BEVs available today for this space are simply too heavy to accomplish the goals we require
from this industry. A full BEV is impractical for long haul because the batteries compete with
464
-------
payload and diminish the ability of the truck to generate revenue. With this in mind, the ERX
utilizes smaller batteries that remain constantly charged by an onboard generator allowing for
drivers to maintain a cost-effective payload. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, pp. 3-4]
As a hybrid technology, we have a unique challenge to identify appropriate in use testing and
certification pathways that correctly and accurately demonstrate our ability to both perform and
be compliant with necessary standards. Regulators sometimes are challenged to understand and
integrate the hybrid duty cycle with their existing testing and certification parameters. We urge
EPA to work closely with CARB to coordinate a common approach to hybrid testing and
certification and that allows for various pathways to certification that best fit the needs of both
the manufacturers who are developing clean, advanced engine and powertrain technology and
the regulatory agencies seeking to reduce the impact of air pollution on U.S. cities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA also requests comment on the proposed clarification in 40 CFR 1036.101(b) that gives
manufacturers the option to test the hybrid engine and powertrain together, rather than testing the
engine alone. Specifically, the agency has asked for feedback on whether EPA should require all
hybrid engines and powertrains to be certified together, rather than making it optional. MEMA
agrees that an engine-only test does not show the benefits of hybrid technology, so this is a good
additional option. However, this option should not preclude engine-only or powertrain-only
testing and certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
Test cycles should be modified to be more reflective of real-world conditions including transient,
steady state, and high-speed steady state. This is especially true in the areas of lower speed,
transient, and stop and go conditions where hybrids can provide the most significant benefit.
MEMA supports EPA requiring an idle cycle for all powertrains with accountability for
hybridized systems. Any idle certification cycle should encourage available technologies like
start-stop and engine off coasting, also known as sailing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1,
p. 6]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
Hybrid powertrains present some unique testing challenges and, as such, we urge EPA to provide
sufficient flexibility in the certification and testing of hybrid natural gas/electric power-
trains; [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
As a vehicle manufacturer actively engaged in the development of battery-electric vehicles
(BEVs), Oshkosh is pleased to provide comments intended to support EPA's efforts to reduce
regulatory barriers and to facilitate market launch of these vehicles. Vocational vehicle duty
cycles in particular present unique challenges for power supply that may be solved with hybrid
or other range-extending solutions, and we encourage EPA to consider how the Agency can
facilitate the development of such solutions in this rulemaking. In the same way that hybrid
465
-------
technologies have served as a bridge between internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric
vehicle (EV) technologies in other sectors of transportation (i.e., passenger cars), hybrid and
range-extending technologies have an important role to play in bridging the transition for the
heavy-duty sector as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
EPA also proposes to establish provisions to quantify NOx emissions from hybrid electric
vehicles (HEVs) in order to allow HEVs to generate NOx emission credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
7 40 CFR 86.016-l(d)(4)
Both CARB and EU have recently raised concerns about emissions from HEVs, which can
experience multiple high-power cold-start events over a single trip. The EU has determined that
under its current certification test procedure, plug-in hybrids register only 25% of the emissions
measured under real world driving conditions.9 An analysis of REV found that they consume
more energy and may have as much as four times more emissions than attributed to them in the
certification procedure. Given concerns about the true emissions from HEV and the ability of
current test procedures to capture those emissions, it is not appropriate for EPA to allow NOx
emission credits to be generated from HEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
9 https://theicct.org/analysis-of-plug-in-hybrid-electric-passenger-car-data-conams-real-
world-co2-emissions-aretwo- to-four-times-higher-than-official-yalues/ and
https://theicctorg/publication/real-world-usage-of-plug-inhybrid- electric-yehicles-filel-
consumption-electric-driying-and-co2-emissions/
EPA Summary and Response
Preamble Section III. A provides a high-level overview of comments received and EPA responses
to comments on the proposed updates and clarifications to regulatory language, as well the
proposed test procedures for hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains. In this Section 3.7 of the
Response to Comments document, we provide additional detail summarizing comments received
and our responses to those comments.
Summary:
Some commenters generally highlight that different technology solutions may be better suited for
different use cases or duty-cycles, and urge EPA to consider multiple technologies, including
hybrid or range extending technologies, in the development of the final rulemaking.
As discussed in preamble Section III. A, commenters generally support the proposed option to
conduct powertrain testing to certify a hybrid engine or hybrid powertrain. Commenters who
stated that powertrain testing for certification should remain an option, but not be required, noted
that powertrain dynamometer test procedures produce emission results that are more
representative of hybrid engine or powertrain on-road operation than engine-only testing;
however, they state that requiring powertrain testing, rather than engine dynamometer testing,
466
-------
would add regulatory costs to hybrid vehicles, and result in logistical difficulties between hybrid
powertrain vendors and manufacturers for final vehicle assembly. They further stated the per-
vehicle cost increases would make it more difficult for hybrid technology to further expand in
the commercial market sector. Once commenter urged EPA to work closely with CARB to
coordinate a common approach to hybrid testing and certification that allows for various
certification pathways.
Commenters who stated that the proposed test cycles are not reflective of hybrid operations,
recommend that EPA utilize duty cycles related to metro transit authority routes (e.g., Manhattan
Cycle and OCTA); they stated the metro transit authority routes would better represent real
world operation of hybrid transit bus operations with lower average speed and a greater number
of stops. Another commenter recommended EPA allow manufacturers to use a utility factor
(UF)-based calculation (i.e., Equation §1036.505- 10) for criteria pollutant emissions including
NOx, in order to account for the criteria pollutant reductions demonstrated by hybrids. In
contrast, one commenter pointed to data collected from light-duty hybrid electric vehicles in
Europe that the commenter stated shows hybrid electric vehicles emit at higher levels than
demonstrated in current certification test procedures; based on those data the commenter stated
that EPA should not allow HEVs to generate NOx emissions credits.
Another commenter stated that, in addition to the defined duty cycles, the 3B-MAW off-cycle
test procedure does not properly account for emissions reductions from hybrid systems; the
commenter stated that EPA should modify the 3B-MAW calculation method to align with hybrid
operations in the real world.
One commenter also requested EPA allow an option to use a generic traction system model in a
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulation, analogous to the use of a generic transmission model in
powertrain testing, to reduce certification complexity for certifying series hybrids. This
commenter provided additional requests for clarification of two specific aspects of the proposed
hybrid test procedures. Another commenter stated that EPA should require an idle cycle for all
powertrains with accountability for hybridized systems.
In addition, one commenter urged EPA to simplify powertrain certification requirements for
GHGs.
Response:
EPA agrees with a multi-technology approach to reduce emissions as the heavy-duty industry
increasingly moves towards application of zero emissions technologies. As commenters point
out, we proposed and are finalizing test procedures for manufacturers to optionally use hybrid
engines or hybrid powertrains to demonstrate NOx emissions performance. Manufacturers and
customers can therefore select the technology that best fits the needs of their duty-cycle. If
testing the hybrid engine and hybrid powertrain together results in NOx emissions that are below
the final standards, then manufacturers can choose to certify to a FEL below the standard and
467
-------
participate in the NOx ABT program in the final rule.15 See Preamble Section III. A for more
discussion on our decision to finalize as proposed the allowance for manufacturers to use
powertrain or engine dynamometer testing to certify hybrid engines or hybrid powertrains.
EPA disagrees that metro transit authority routes or other similar test cycles would be more
representative of hybrid operations. While transit authority routes would be representative of
hybrid bus operations, they would not represent the duty cycles of other hybrid vehicle types. We
expect to continue working with manufacturers to identify data or other information that would
support updates to the test procedures for certifying hybrid systems; we may consider this
information in the development of future rules relevant to heavy-duty highway hybrid systems.
Section III of the preamble includes additional details on the certification and off-cycle test
requirements we are finalizing for hybrid systems, including clarifications on the use of HIL
simulation where appropriate. As discussed in preamble Section III, we are finalizing that the
applicable criteria pollutant standards must be met under the worst-case conditions, which is
achieved by testing and evaluating emissions from plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) under both charge-
depleting (CD) and charge-sustaining (CS) operation. This approach ensures that criteria
pollutant emissions are controlled under all conditions, which would include under conditions
where the PHEV is not charged and is only operated in charge sustaining-operation, rather than
allow the use of a utility factor curve to weight CD and CS emissions as suggested by one
commenter. 16'17 We note that by not assuming a zero-emissions tailpipe performance of all
hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains (PHEV and non-plug-in hybrids) in the final rule, we are
ensuring that hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains only generate NOx emissions credits that
are reflective of their emissions performance over the required test procedures. Further, the
updates to our duty-cycle and off-cycle test procedures ensure that a broader range of operations
are captured. The combination of updates to our test procedures and requiring manufacturers to
meet the final criteria pollutant standards under the worst-case conditions addresses the concern
that one commenter raised about allowing hybrid electric vehicles to generate NOx emission
credits if hybrid electric vehicles emit at higher levels than demonstrated in certification test
procedures.18 Section III of the preamble also includes details on the optional idle test that we are
15 We note that our approach to NOx emissions credits for hybrid engine and hybrid powertrain differs from our
approach to NOx emissions credits for ZEV in the final rule based on our consideration of several factors; see
Section 12.6 of this Response to Comment document for discussion on this topic.
16 We acknowledge that the draft RIA for the proposed rule also included discussion on the potential for higher NOx
emissions under some heavy-duty hybrid operating conditions. As discussed in this section of the Response to
Comments document, the test procedures we are finalizing address NOx emissions under all operations, and thus
will ensure that the applicable criteria pollutant standards are met under all conditions, including worse-case
conditions.
17 Testing under worst-case conditions is consistent with the Agency's longstanding approach of requiring engines
and vehicles to meet emissions standards under all conditions. As discussed in preamble Section III.B, we are
allowing a UF curve for certifying PHEVs to GHG emissions standards; we believe this difference in approach is
warranted because of differences in the spatial scale of GHG versus criteria pollutant impacts and the relative
accuracy of a UF curve when representing emissions on average versus the specific emissions of a particular engine
or powertrain configuration. Specifically, the UF approach is appropriate for capturing the average GHG emissions
from a PHEV, which is appropriate for GHG emission impacts; however, the UF approach cannot fully capture the
specific criteria pollutant emissions from a particular PHEV configuration, which is important for the local nature of
criteria pollutant emission impacts.
18 We note that the referenced data relate to C02 emissions from light-duty hybrid electric vehicles, rather than NOx
emissions from heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicles. While we're finalizing limited changes to heavy-duty test
468
-------
finalizing; EPA continues to believe it is appropriate for the idle test to be voluntary for all
powertrains, including hybrid systems, since the off-cycle standards will capture emissions
performance during idle operations.
As discussed in preamble Section III.B, we are finalizing updates to further clarify how to carry
out the test procedure for plug-in hybrids to measure GHG pollutants; however, substantive
changes to the powertrain certification requirements for GHGs are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
3.8 Regulatory useful life
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's proposed Option 1 standard, with a modification of the proposed full
useful life timelines and warranty requirements, as the best option for driving more rapid
adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1280-A1, p. 2.]
AVE asks EPA to modify the proposed full useful life timelines and warranty
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2.]
Currently, suppliers are not provided the necessary data (and certain data may not exist) nor
information to design for a reasonable warranty and to determine if the proposed full useful life
(FUL) timelines are feasible. Suppliers lack the data necessary, beyond the current goals to
extended distance, time-in-service and beyond the first owner/user of vehicle, to make accurate
assessments about the durability of many products. More research on engine wear and use
patterns that result in degradation is needed before proposing longer warranties and extending
FUL timelines. As such, AVE recommends several changes to EPA's proposed warranty
requirements and FUL timelines: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2.]
• Consider re-evaluating the FUL timeline once more engine test data is available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2.
AVE supports additional modifications to Option 1 to provide the best opportunity for driving
more rapid adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. These additional
modifications include:
procedures for hybrid engines and hybrid powertrains, we do not consider the data submitted by the commenter to
be directly relevant to the test procedure changes we are finalizing since the data are not relevant to NOx (i.e., CO2
emissions were measured in the referenced studies) and further are not relevant to heavy-duty vehicles since the data
reflect the behavior of light-duty passenger car drivers, not heavy-duty commercial vehicle drivers. Further, any
changes to light-duty vehicle test procedures based on the data submitted are outside the scope of this rule.
469
-------
• Alignment of the EPA proposed standard with California's Omnibus rule by adding an
intermediate useful life standard for MY2027 to 2030 engines up to 435,000
miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
•
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• EPA should also not finalize the Intermediate Useful Life ("IUL") standards that have
been proposed. This additional certification requirement would add to the overall costs
that customers will experience during the transition period to lower NOx standards and
such cost is of dubious value for vocational vehicles that may have a low likelihood to
exceed mileage or hours thresholds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.6]
Option 2 standards are also the preferable option for the final rule due to the inherent challenges
and lead-time required for the validation of new emission control technologies. In this regard,
EPA is concurrently proposing to extend useful life periods for both spark-ignition and
compression ignition HDVs. Like the stringency of required NOx emission levels, useful life
periods are more aggressive under Option 1 than Option 2 when fully phased-in by MY 2031,
although the first phase of Option 1 is somewhat less aggressive than Option 2 as applied to MY
2027 and later MY vehicles.8 Whatever useful life periods are contained in the final rule,
however, the longer useful life periods will impose substantial upfront engineering and materials
costs. As EPA is aware, systems will need to be designed and built to ensure sufficient "head
room" for compliance over many years, which in the case of EPA's proposed standards, may be
up to 15 years. Companies that supply original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") with various
systems, like Allison, will need to ensure that the lengthy proposed mileage/time periods can be
accommodated. Because EPA intends to move this regulation forward to completion in 2022,
there will be only four years (perhaps less) time from the finalization of the regulation to the time
where fully-engineered vehicle systems will need to be developed, produced, and sold to
ultimate purchasers. This means that interim dates for design, testing, validation, production, and
distribution will be challenging even under the least stringent options being considered by EPA.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.8]
8 Table 1 - Proposed Options 1 and 2 Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty CI and SI
Engines on Specific Duty Cycles, Id. at 17,422.
Within Option 1, EPA has proposed to utilize intermediate useful life ("IUL") standards of
435,000 miles that incorporate additional emission levels that must be met at such mileage
thresholds in order to ensure that the emissions performance of an engine or vehicle does not
degrade so as to threaten the ability to comply at the end of their applicable full useful life
periods. Compliance with IUL would be determined through the use of deterioration factors as
specified in proposed 40 C.F.R. §1036.245. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, 10]
While EPA recognizes that heavy duty highway vehicles include vocational vehicles (which
represent a "diverse array of vehicles . . . categorized into weight classes based on gross vehicle
weight ratings (GVWR) that span Class 2b trucks and vans greater than 8,500 lbs. GVWR
through Class 8 long-haul tractors and other commercial vehicles that exceed 33,000
470
-------
GVWR"16) the proposed IUL standards do not take into account this extremely varied
utilization. For MYs 2031 and later, the only variation to IUL standards occurs with respect to
whether a vehicle is spark ignition or compression ignition and regarding its broad weight class.
IUL standards are varied with respect to the three duty cycles, but all vehicles within the heavy-
duty weight class are treated the same. This regulatory structure fails to account for numerous
heavy-duty vehicles which have unique operating profiles for which the same IUL standard may
be inappropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, 10]
16 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,417.
Allison would therefore first argue that EPA should not utilize IUL standards. EPA's basic
rationale for such standards is that IUL standards are needed to ensure overcompliance with
emission standards. Specifically, EPA is "proposing intermediate useful life standards that
engines do not degrade in performance down to the duty cycle and off-cycle standards too
quickly and allow for an intermediate check on emissions performance deterioration over the
useful life." 18 This rationale has two logical faults. First, EPA standards are the legal measure of
compliance; if an in-use engine continues to meet the standards it was certified to during the
applicable regulatory period, it is compliant. An engine that is closer to or further away from the
required emission standards is still compliant. Second, intermediate useful life standards do not
allow for a "check on emissions performance." That role is served by in-use standards and EPA
is already proposing to require longer regulatory useful life and emission-related warranty
requirements as well as a "low-load test cycle and off-cycle test procedure for CI engines [to]
help ensure that the reductions in tailpipe emissions are achieved in-use, not only under high-
speed, on-highway conditions, but also under low-load and idle conditions." 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, 11]
18 87 Fed. Reg. at 17467.
19 Id. at 17,427.
The IUL standards amount to an additional certification requirement which adds additional cost
and is of dubious value for vocational vehicles that may have a low likelihood to exceed mileage
or hours thresholds. EPA's justification that "it could be many years after engines are on the road
before EPA could verify that the engines meet the standards our to useful life"20 does not
account for the fact that such assurance is also provided by longer regulatory useful life and
emission-related warranty requirements. Manufacturers are directly incentivized by such
provisions to ensure that engines will meet requirements over many years — at the very real risk
a substantial, future compliance costs related to potential recalls/remedial actions. EPA has
proposed to at least double currently applicable emission related warranty periods based on
mileage and impose new hours requirements.21 The IUL standards amount to an additional
regulatory layer that is unvalidated in many vocational vehicle applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, 11]
20 Id. at 17,461.
471
-------
21 Table 4 - Proposed Options 1 and 2 Emission-Related Warranty Periods for Heavy-
Duty CI and SI Engines Criteria Pollutant Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,425.
Although as stated above, Allison does not recommend that EPA finalize the proposed IUL
requirements, if EPA determines to include IUL standards in the final rule, EPA must at
minimum align such requirements with the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Omnibus
Regulation which is limited to an eight, versus ten year period.22 Given the broad categories of
vehicles involved, there would appear to be no rationale for not harmonizing this element of
EPA's heavy-duty vehicle program with the current California program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, 11]
22 13 C.C.R. 1956.80X11).
In the proposed rule, EPA states that it will give "full consideration" to the useful life and
warranty periods that it has proposed for Options 1 and 2, including "the full range of options
between them."23 For the reasons stated below, Allison believes that EPA should finalize Option
2 regulatory periods. In our analysis, Option 2 more appropriately balances the costs and benefits
of extended useful life and warranty periods and better takes into consideration the real-life
dynamics concerning these periods and customer behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, p.12]
23 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,421.
It seems clear that EPA intends this proposed rule to incentivize the deployment of new
emissions technology as well as deliver substantial public health and environmental benefits. But
if useful life and warranty periods are extended too far into the future, these regulatory
requirements will tend to inhibit, rather than incentivize, the development of new emissions
control technology given that the longer periods will inherently favor the deployment of
emission controls systems which can best be verified in the near-term. EPA should also consider
that it has the legal ability to revisit useful life and warranty issues in a future rulemaking; it
should therefore avoid the conclusion that it must finalize each and every component of the
proposed rule at the high end of stringency in order to obtain intended benefits. Rather, EPA
could move to finalize Option 2 useful life and warranty provisions now and assess at a later date
how these provisions worked, or did not, work in practice and whether these periods should be
extended in future years. Having the benefit of seeing how Option 2 requirements are actually
complied with could only help to inform EPA's analysis of the proper length and extent of the
useful life and warranty provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.13-14]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
To realize the maximum health benefits, US EPA recognizes the need to establish standards that
look beyond the stringency levels and proposes updated test procedures, truck 'useful life'
requirements and warranty provisions to support achieving pollution reductions across real-world
driving conditions throughout the useful life of the truck. We believe that Option 1 provides a
strong foundation, and offer the following recommendations to protect public health: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.2]
472
-------
Strengthen full useful life to 1 million miles. We appreciate that Option 1 would require
emission controls to operate as intended over a more realistic useful life of the truck. By
extending the mileage through which the control systems must operate correctly, the proposal
recognizes that emissions can rise as engines age. We appreciate that Option 1 proposes to cover
more of a vehicle's estimated full useful life than both existing rules and what would be covered
by Option 2, but we believe that the mileage requirements for heavy-duty vehicles must be set to
1 million miles in order to capture all of the operational life of the vehicle, which EPA considers
to be over 900,000 miles.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.2]
4 US EPA. Overview Briefing of the Proposal at page 11. April 2022.
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-nprmoverview-2022-
04.pdf
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
EPA claims that longer useful life periods will result in more durable emission control related
components that, combined with longer warranty periods, could reduce repair costs for new
CMV purchasers. EPA also suggests that these combined effects may increase new CMV sales
(or more likely reduce the decline in sales discussed above). 13 ATD disagrees and instead
concurs with the position taken by EMA that the higher costs associated with unreasonably
longer useful life mandates would undermine the technological feasibility of a revised NOx
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1321- A 1, p. 6]
13. 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17590.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
• Further reduction of NOx emissions over a broader range of operating conditions and
maintaining emissions control over a greater portion of an engine's operational life are
warranted. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
• Current emission warranty and useful life periods for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
should be revised from the current requirements to increase the durability and efficacy of
in-use emissions compliance. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3.]
Fleets desire durable products yet durability is a direct function of increased cost. Products age
and deteriorate and as such, they are either replaced or repaired. Proposed useful life periods up
to 800,000 miles should be reduced sufficiently so that manufacturers are not required to sell
excessively expensive extended warranty packages to fleets that factor in multiple replacements
of emission control systems and additional margins. Vehicles outside warranties but still within
useful life periods may also be subject to costly recalls and vehicle downtime. At the end of the
day one fact remains consistent - fleets will incur every cost associated with their equipment one
473
-------
way or another. In the trucking industry, every penny counts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-
Al, p. 7]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE recommends EPA expand ORVRto incomplete heavy-duty vehicles rated over 14,000
pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, with a refueling emission standard of 0.20 grams
hydrocarbon per gallon of liquid fuel dispensed, applicable for a useful life of 15 years or
150,000 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
Organization: BorgWarner
1. BorgWarner is in favor of forward progress to consistently reduce NOx, C02 and other
emissions, but we have concerns with the proposal's full useful life (FUL) and emissions
warranty provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 1.]
BorgWarner recommends EPA include a specific engine-based component life and
degradation assessment in its consideration of the final rules. The proposed FUL extension is
based only on the accelerated testing of the aftertreatment components and systems, with no
regard for engine degradation either due to mileage or time-based limits. It is impossible to
design a system for the long durations proposed with no data from current technology to this
time in service nor data on how the secondary, tertiary and other users might operate the
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 2]
Much of the analysis has considered the single use case of class 8 long haul and overlooks any
vocational applications in classes 2B through 8. It is critical to understand how the engine system
is used for all use profiles over the life, in order to translate that into correct design specifications
for function and durability over the full life anticipated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p.
2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
For MY 2031 heavy HDEs, U.S. EPA has proposed 20 mg/hp-hr NOx standard on both the FTP
and SET duty cycles and a 50 mg/hp-hr on the LLC duty cycle at the IUL of 435,000 miles
(Figure 5-1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.41]
U.S. EPA's justification for this proposal is that the longer UL of 800,000 miles for heavy HDEs
warrants IUL NOx standards to '.. .ensure that the emissions from the engine are as low as
feasible for the entire UL and provide an intermediate check on emission performance
deterioration over the UL.'96 CARB staff agrees with the justification. However, considering the
proposed UL of 600,000 miles for MY 2027 heavy HDEs, the same justification should also be
used for the need of IUL NOx standard for MY 2027 heavy HDEs. As demonstrated in the Stage
3 RW, a 20 mg/hp-hr NOx on the FTP and SET and a 50 mg/hp-hr on the LLC at 435,000
miles is technically feasible 97 (See also Figure 5-2 for test results from the Stage 3 RW engine).
There is enough lead time between now and 2027 to further develop technologies to achieve
lower emissions levels than currently demonstrated by CARB and U.S. EPA. It is important to
474
-------
note that, because Omnibus was adopted in December 2021 with a 20 mg/hp-hr IUL NOx
standard for model year 2027, manufacturers have additional lead time beyond what the CTP
proposal provides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.41-42]
96NPRM 17461
97 Sanchez, James. 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Demonstration'. Memorandum to
Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. February 10, 2022.
Adoption of an IUL NOx standard by U.S. EPA for MY 2027 would also provide much-needed
harmonization of standards with CARB's Omnibus, thereby allowing manufacturers to reduce
complexity and cost by producing a single engine design nationally. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.44]
UL periods in the Omnibus and included in U.S. EPA's proposed Option 1 were derived based
on information from engine rebuild and replacement data reflective of real-world vehicle usage,
as well as information from engine and aftertreatment system manufacturers. In both cases, the
UL periods were chosen to roughly correspond to the age when engines get either rebuilt or
replaced. 121,122 In addition, the feasibility of the standards for the Omnibus UL periods (which
are included in U.S. EPA's proposed Option 1) was demonstrated in the Stage 3 RW
demonstration program. 123 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.49-50]
121 CARB Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated
Amendments. Staff Report. June 23, 2020 (pages III-57-III-60)
122NPRM, 17497-17594
123 'An Update on Continuing Progress Towards Heavy-Duty Low NOx and C02 in
2027 and Beyond'. Sharp, Christopher, B. Zavala, G. Neely, S. Rao. Southwest Research
Institute. Presentation to the SAE 2022 WCX™ World Congress Experience. April 5-7.
Detroit, Michigan.
CARB staff strongly suggests U.S. EPA adopt the proposed Option 1 UL periods for both CI and
SI HDEs. In addition, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA adopt an IUL period of 435,000
miles for MY 2027 heavy HDEs. As mentioned above, an IUL period together with CARB
recommended IUL NOx standards on all duty cycles for MY 2027 heavy HDEs would serve as
an intermediate check to ensure emissions remain low during the earlier part of the UL. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.50]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
EPA is proposing two regulatory options for NOx. We support Option 1, which will implement
stronger NOx standards in two steps. The first improvement would be required in 2027 with a
second more stringent standard 2031 (a NOx standard that would be 90% lower than today's
standards). We support Option 1 with longer useful life and warranty periods. Ensuring that the
warranty and useful life requirements meet 100% of the expected life of these vehicles will
ensure health benefits throughout the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1,
p.l]
475
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Option l's useful life and warranty periods align with those of the Omnibus, compelling
manufacturers to make critical durability improvements that are still eminently feasible. 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17,500, 17,508. Option 2, on the other hand, shaves off years and tens of thousands of
miles from Option l's useful life periods without even attempting to provide a technological
feasibility rationale. EPA even acknowledges that, according to its data, 'most of the proposed
standards are achievable well beyond the proposed Option 2 mileage' for spark-ignition engines.
87 Fed. Reg. at 17,501 (emphasis added). Option 2 repeats the same mistake with its proposed
warranty periods. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508. In light of Congress's clear intent that EPA set
technology-forcing standards, it would be unreasonable for the Agency to adopt useful life and
warranty periods that are significantly weaker than what manufacturers can attain (and which are
already required by the Omnibus). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.50]
To further ensure that emissions will be properly controlled over a greater portion of an engine's
operational life, Commenters also support lengthening warranty and in-use periods. Emissions
controls, like other components of engines, typically work less efficiently and become more
likely to malfunction as they age. The Clean Air Act specifies that emissions standards under
Section 202(a) 'shall be applicable to such vehicles and engines for their useful life (as
determined under [42 U.S.C. 7521(d)],..) whether such vehicles and engines are designed as
complete systems or incorporate devices to prevent or control such pollution.' 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(1). EPA's standards therefore include a durability requirement: a requirement
that manufacturers demonstrate their engines will meet the standards throughout the regulatorily
defined 'useful life' of the engine.241 The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to specify a warranty
period within which manufacturers are responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing
emissions control components that fail. 42 U.S.C. 7541(a)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-
Al, pp.59-60]
241 40 C.F.R. 86.004-26(c)-(d) and 86.004-28(c)-(d). 40 C.F.R. 86.004-2.
EPA is correct to note that, 'practically, any difference between the regulatory useful life and the
generally longer operational life of in-use engines represents miles and years of operation
without an assurance that emission standards will continue to be met.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,495. In
a 2013 report, EPA found that in the real world, many HDEs did not reach the end of their
operational life (their first rebuild) until they had been driven more than twice the current useful
life mileages for those classes of engines. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,498. In other words, many HDEs
are driven hundreds of thousands of miles beyond the point to which manufacturers must
currently show emissions controls can last. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.60]
Commenters support increasing the useful life mileage values for HDEs and extending the
warranty period to cover a larger portion of the engines' operational lives. Because the current
useful life and warranty periods cover only a fraction of the real-world operational life of trucks,
older trucks on the road are very likely emitting higher levels of NOx, and neither truck
operators nor manufacturers have the proper incentives to ensure that emissions controls on those
older trucks are functioning properly. Useful life and warranty periods covering a greater fraction
476
-------
of HDEs' expected operational life will help to protect people from dangerous NOx, ozone, and
particulate matter pollution, and will shift more of the costs and risks of designing functional
pollution control equipment to engine manufacturers, who have control over design, rather than
effectively requiring operators to bear those costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.60]
Specifically, we urge EPA to adopt useful life and warranty periods at least as long as those
proposed in Option 1. EPA notes that it 'could justify proposing useful life requirements
equivalent to the operational life data presented in Section IV. A.2 [of the Proposal], but [is]
proposing somewhat shorter (less stringent) values in proposed Option 1 considering the effect
of useful life on the feasibility of meeting the proposed Option 1 standards.' 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,500. As the Proposal also notes, the Option 1 useful life periods generally align with those in
the Omnibus. Id. EPA proposes in Option 1 to adopt warranty periods covering close to 80% of
useful life, which would align with the MY 2027 and MY 2031 warranty periods adopted by
CARB. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508. The fact that many manufacturers must comply with the
Omnibus standards when they take effect supports the technological feasibility of setting useful
life and warranty periods at a level approximately as stringent as the Omnibus. Given the Clean
Air Act's command that EPA set regulations reflecting the 'greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable,' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i), and EPA's statement that it could justify even longer
useful life periods equal to operational life, we urge EPA to consider setting useful life periods
more stringent than those proposed in Option 1 if the Agency determines that longer periods
would be feasible in combination with the emissions standards it finalizes. Additionally, we urge
EPA to adopt new warranty and useful life values in a single step, finalizing its proposed Option
MY 2031 values as standards applicable to MY 2027 in order to achieve the emissions
reductions from these changes as swiftly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
P-61]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
Longer full useful life requirements will create value and overall reduced costs for U.S.
customers that use diesel fuel, biodiesel, or renewable diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-
Al, p.3]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
Under the CAA, manufacturers must only certify emission standards for 'useful life' of the
vehicle and engine.49 The CAA also directs the EPA to prescribe warranty periods for heavy-
duty engines, and requires manufacturers to provide an emissions warranty.50 The current
designated useful life for all trucks is only 10 years and between 110,000 and 435,000 miles,
depending on class. Warranties cover only 5 years of the vehicle's life. In contrast, most trucks
remain on the road between 20 and 30 years and between 550,000 and 1.2 million miles,
depending on class.51 As a result, many trucks spend more than a decade on the road while not
meeting emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.8]
49 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(8).
50 42 U.S.C 7541(a).
477
-------
51 Id.
EPA is proposing to increase the useful life of heavy-duty vehicles. Under Option 1 for light
heavy-duty engines, EPA is proposing to increase the useful life from 10 years or 110,000 miles
to 15 years or 250,000 miles. For medium heavy-duty engines EPA is proposing to increase the
useful life from 10 years or 185,000 to 15 years or 325,000 miles. For heavy heavy-duty engines,
EPA is proposing to increase the useful life from 10 years or 435,000 miles to 13 years or
800,000 miles. Under option 2, EPA is not proposing to extend the useful life years for any class
of engine, and is proposing lower mileage increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.8]
The proposed extended useful life and warranty periods are necessary to ensure that heavy-duty
certified emissions levels are achieved in real-world settings. EPA must adopt the proposed
Option 1 useful life and warranty periods. Option 2 does not go far enough to capture the real-
world longevity of heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.8]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes to significantly lengthen emissions useful life periods for all primary intended
service classes starting in MY 2027. As discussed above, EPA's Option 1 proposal, including its
associated two-step extended useful life periods, is not feasible. EPA's Option 2 proposals for
longer useful life periods, although only one step, are still significant increases. For example, in
EPA's Option 2 proposal, the mileage period for Heavy Heavy-Duty Engines (HDE) would
increase from 435,000 miles today to 650,000 miles—a nearly 50% increase in miles. Useful life
mileages would increase for all other primary intended service classes as well, with as much as a
2.3x increase in one class (Light HDE). Cummins does not support increases in emissions useful
life periods. Such changes will increase the initial purchase price of the vehicle as manufacturers
seek to re-coup the costs of paying for component replacements or other measures needed to
comply with the longer requirements. Significantly increasing the useful life at the same time as
introducing new technology will increase prices beyond just the added technology costs and
likely impact the customer adoption of new engines with those technologies. If EPA does
finalize increases to today's useful life periods, it will need to account for additional uncertainty
and variability in the deterioration of engines operated in the field by allowing additional in use
margin to the duty-cycle and off-cycle standards when those engines are tested for compliance.
For those same reasons, EPA requested comment on such margins in Option 1, but those same
uncertainties and variabilities also exist for Option 2's proposed longer useful life. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 7]
EPA proposes to continue the practice of including hours in the regulated useful life period for
the Heavy HDE class to account for engines "that operated frequently, but accumulated
relatively few miles due to lower vehicle speeds" (87 FR 17501), based on a 20 mile per hour
speed threshold consistent with today's Heavy HDE useful life criteria of 435,000 miles and
22,000 hrs. EPA requests comment on the need for a useful life hours criterion for Heavy HDE
and whether they should include one for other primary intended service classes. Cummins
supports continuing to include useful life hours for Heavy HDE as well as adding useful life
hours for the other primary service classes of Medium HDE, Light HDE, and SI HDE. Just as in
Heavy HDE, and perhaps even more so, there are applications within the other classes that
478
-------
accumulate relatively few miles due to lower vehicle speeds. It is also appropriate to use an
average speed of 20 miles per hour, the same threshold EPA is already proposing for warranty in
those service classes, for determining hours for the other classes. Cummins has submitted
average vehicle speed data and run hours to EPA for numerous vehicles and applications
operating in-use, which supports adding hours limits based on the 20 mph speed
threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 7]
EPA proposes not to migrate the provision for an alternate useful life period assigned by the
Administrator in paragraph (5) of the existing useful life definition in §86.004-2. That provision
has been used in the past and should be migrated to Part 1036 for possible future use. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA should change useful life and emissions warranty periods to be more reasonable,
specifically: 95
• Class: Heavy HDEs
o Useful Life Period: 10 years/500,000 miles
o Emissions Warranty Period: 5 years/350,000 miles
• Class: Medium HDEs
o Useful Life Period: 10 years/250,000 miles
o Emissions Warranty Period: 5 years/175,000 miles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.71]
95 Daimler Truck also supports adding appropriate equivalent standards for the number of hours
of engine operation
A significant portion of the infeasibility, cost, uncertainty, and risk in the Proposed Rule derives
from EPA's proposed extensions of the useful life and emissions warranty programs. It is cost
prohibitive and impractical for manufacturers to adequately design components and be certain of
their reliability for these extended periods, especially since EPA's rule proposals drive the
development of new technology with only four years of lead-time and three years of stability
between programs. 96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.71]
96 While Daimler Truck's comments in this section focus primarily on increased technology
costs and compliance burdens associated with EPA's useful life and emission warranty period
proposals, we also note that EPA's proposals will mean significantly increased infolmation
collection costs and burdens on manufacturers, which are relevant to OMB's review of the
Proposed Rule under the Papelwork Reduction Act, see 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Increased useful
life times, for example, will translate to increased durability testing, which will add burden to
manufacturers in terms of costs and man hours. We anticipate that the incremental burden
increase for collecting aging data alone ( as compared to current useful life periods) would
amount to thousands of hours.
479
-------
Failure rates are likely to increase exponentially in the periods EPA considers, especially as these
periods further tax manufacturers' ability to validate before production, and as engines typically
experience increasing rates of 'wear-out.' Additionally, EPA underestimates the impact of new
technology on warranty rates; new technology will always experience a period of increased
failure rates as manufacturers' experience in the field leads to more robust and mature
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.71-72]
Many manufacturers expect that, to meet the most stringent emission standards in the Proposed
Rule at the extended useful life periods that EPA proposes, proactive replacement of catalysts
will be necessary. This will be required to protect against aging and fuel-poisoning concerns that
EPA fails to adequately recognize in the standard-setting parts of the Proposed Rule.
Manufacturers will likely pay these replacement costs as warranty costs during useful life, which
will translate to increased purchase prices for customers. After useful life, operators will have to
keep replacing these components according to the same maintenance intervals (as with Diesel
Particulate Filters today), likely at significant cost in perpetuity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.72]
EPA's proposed standards are so tight that manufacturers will be required to replace
aftertreatment components that lose very little relative effectiveness. An SCR that loses 1% total
effectiveness over useful life will not reach EPA's proposed emission standards over useful life,
and manufacturers will be forced to replace them proactively, at significant cost. This represents
a phenomenal cost for a very modest improvement in emissions as a vehicle ages. EPA has not
considered these costs at all in the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.72]
EPA can limit these exorbitant warranty costs by limiting the extended useful life to reasonable
values so that manufacturers can realistically design and validate their products. By setting the
useful life to 500,000 miles for a HHD truck, and 250,000 miles for a MHD truck, EPA can
avoid costly replacement of aftertreatment components (which would have extremely limited
emissions benefit and significant uncertainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.72]
The approach that Daimler Truck proposes not only supports improved emissions outcomes, but
also reduces uncertainties for manufacturers by:
reducing the chances that a vehicle will be evaluated for in-use emissions
performance in a failed state (after the warranty period, but before full useful life),
since operators are incentivized by the warranty to repair their products
providing validation timelines are more manageable for manufacturers than the
extremely long timeframes that EPA has proposed;
ensuring that deterioration factor (DF) validation and certification data can be
compiled and completed in a timely manner; and
potentially avoiding replacement of the SCR system during useful life. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.72-73]
98 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508.
480
-------
The Company's proposed approach would also reduce manufacturer and customer cost
uncertainty, since the true cost of maintaining emissions compliance through useful life will be
calculated and priced in at the point of sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.73]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: We are requesting stakeholder input on our proposed useful life and
warranty periods, as well as the range of options covered by the proposed Options 1 and 2, or
other alternatives outside of that range [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.8]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: We can only speak to the critical components we provide
such as CDA hardware, power management devices for electrical and fuel heaters, and EGR
pumps. We design all of these components for the life of the truck, which typically exceeds FUL.
Eaton cannot speak to the rest of the system, namely the Aftertreatment catalysts and DEF
dosers, their degradation, and potential warrantee exposure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, pp.8-9]
Organization: Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
Ingevity supports EPA's proposal to expand ORVR to incomplete heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
(HDGVs) rated over 14,000 lbs. GVWR, including the proposed refueling emission standard of
0.20 grams hydrocarbon per gallon of liquid fuel dispensed applicable for a useful life of 15
years or 150,000 miles. ORVR is a proven technology to significantly reduce evaporative and
refueling emissions, resulting in emission reductions of volatile organic compounds that lead to
the formation of ozone and secondary particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory longer useful engine life requirements to ensure engines will meet applicable
emissions standards throughout their useful life [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1,
p.6]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
We understand EPA's need to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles are meeting emission standards
while in operation, which requires that emission critical components are durable and repaired
quickly if a malfunction occurs. Based on several stakeholder meetings between EPA, CARB,
and industry, we believe that EPA's Proposed Option 1 warranty and durability provisions have
struck a suitable balance between stringency and phase-in time to allow suppliers to work with
their customers to fill current information gaps and complete additional R&D to ensure future
trucks continue to be durable and meet emissions warranty requirements. The phase-in approach
will allow component suppliers to better understand the economic impact of longer warranty
481
-------
periods on their business as well as time to design longer durability into components. MECA
supports hourly limits for vocational vehicles that may operate for thousands of hours at low
speed or idle prior to reaching the mileage or year warranty clock threshold. We support
Proposed Option 1 slight increase to the emission standards at the final longer durability periods
to account for possible deterioration beyond the current FUL of 435,000 equivalent miles.
Results from the SwRI demonstration program support the NOx limits at the FUL requirements
in Proposed Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.20]
One area of misalignment between EPA's Proposed Option 1 and CARB's Omnibus is the lack
of an intermediate useful life standard for MY 2027-2030 engines in Proposed Option 1. MECA
suggests that EPA add an intermediate standard for these model years that must be met for the
first 435,000 miles of an engine's useful life. We believe that an intermediate standard will result
in two major benefits compared to Proposed Option 1. First, it will lead to more robust emission
control systems being installed on trucks and keep marginal systems off the roads. Second, this
approach has precedence and better aligns with a single national program. In addition to the
CARB and EPA engine and aftertreatment configurations being tested at SwRI, several other
technologies and system configurations were also tested on technologies that were outside the
scope of the agency work plans. Results from these parallel demonstration programs prove that
there are further options to meeting the 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard at 435,000 miles. Three recent
papers presented at the 2021 and 2022 SAE WCX meetings highlight the application of cylinder
deactivation, supplemental heat and advanced aftertreatment to achieving down to 0.012 g/bhp-
hr, which provides margin to the 0.02 g/bhp-hr proposed standard. The supplemental heat can be
via a fuel burner [3] [4]or an electric heater [5], A pre-publication paper that will be available
later this year will summarize several engine and aftertreatment technology combinations along
with calibration and dosing strategies that show great promise in achieving the Proposed Option
1 standards as well as an intermediate useful life standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr at 435,000 miles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.4-5]
[3] J. McCarthy, Jr., A. Matheaus, B. Zavala, C. Sharp and T. Harris, 'Meeting Future
NOx Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional
Aftertreatment System (SAE-2022-01-0539),' SAE WCX, April 2022.
[4] T. Harris, R. Bellard, M. Muhleck and G. Palmer, 'Pre-Heating the Aftertreatment
System with a Burner (SAE 2022-01-0554),' SAE WCX, April 2022.
[5] A. Matheaus, G. Neely, C. Sharp, J. Hopkins and J. McCarthy, Jr., 'Fast Diesel
Aftertreatment Heat-up Using CDA and an Electric Heater (SAE 2021-01-0211),' SAE
WCX, April 2021.
New aftertreatment architectures, that employ a close-coupled selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) catalyst before the diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) and diesel particulate filter (DPF) in a
twin SCR system arrangement with dual urea dosing, can meet future FTP/RMC NOx limits of
0.02 g/bhp-hr after 435,000 miles by 2027. Several potential future aftertreatment layouts have
been demonstrated in the SwRI test program. MECA has published two white papers that outline
the technologies and models used to design catalyst, substrate and architectures to meet ultra-low
NOx levels [16] [15], Over the past 8 years of demonstration work at SwRI, testing has
482
-------
confirmed MECA's modeled results while also showing the need for modest enhancement of
emissions control durability to provide margin for the FTP and RMC cycles over extended useful
life. Over the next five years, industry will embrace any remaining challenges as suppliers
continue to optimize their components and engine manufacturers hone their calibrations to
exceed what has been demonstrated to date. This continued improvement work is why MECA
believes that an intermediate limit of 0.02 g/bhp-hr is a technologically achievable up to 435,000
miles for a national program by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 10]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
[16] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Model Year 2024 Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles
in Meeting Lower NOx Standards,' 2019. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_MY_2024_HD_Low_NOx_Report_061019.pdf.
EPA has used intermediate standards previously in the Tier 2 passenger car regulation to keep
marginally designed emission control systems out of the market so only the most robust designs
remain on the roads for their useful life. This is particularly important in trucks that can last 20 to
30 years with multiple owners and duty cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 10]
Finally, we encourage continued collaboration and discussion between EPA and CARB to study
impacts of proposed warranty and durability requirements as the rule is implemented, given the
lack of information on warranty and failure modes past today's FUL of 435,000 miles. Such
efforts could be designed by working with truck fleets to survey field aged parts on in-use trucks
to examine real-world deterioration from a representative cross-section of vehicle age, state of
repair and ownership status. This would provide useful information to OEMs and suppliers
working to meet Omnibus warranty and durability requirements and lead to emission controls
with higher durability, lower warranty claims, and ultimately reduced emissions. A recent
CARB-funded project where CE-CERT conducted testing to inform a future heavy-duty I/M
program could serve as a model for a research program that identifies field aged parts in various
conditions for retrieval and analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.20-21]
As we previously commented, there is considerable uncertainty about the state of vehicles during
the time of operation beyond today's 100,000 mile warranty. Much of the data on warranty
claims and repairs as well as vehicle use characteristics originate from the time when the first
owner operates a vehicle while data from repairs made by second and third owners is very
limited. Many suppliers do not have data on the durability, replacement or diagnostics of their
parts past the warranty because the dealer network is not required to share that information. This
lack of information leads to challenges for suppliers who are trying to design parts that will meet
the extended durability requirements out to 800,000 miles. Without warranty claim information
beyond 100,000 miles, it is difficult for suppliers to estimate the cost impact of the proposed
extended 2031 warranty and challenges suppliers trying to design to the much longer 2031
durability periods. The lack of data also challenges suppliers trying to design to longer durability
periods. MECA members manufacture durable parts according to the specifications demanded by
their customers, the OEMs, as part of individual business agreements. The individual component
483
-------
specifications provided to the supplier may not include a correlation between the specification
and how that relates to mileage durability on the vehicle. Finally, besides the engineering design
time needed to design components to longer durability requirements, the testing out to the long
mileage durability requirements (such as 800,000 miles for class 8 engines), especially for on-
engine components whose aging cannot be accelerated, takes months to years on
dynamometers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.21]
Aftertreatment parts deterioration can be accelerated through well-known means such as engine
exhaust exposure at higher temperature and higher oil consumption to represent longer hours of
operation as described in the DAAAC protocol developed under a consortium at SwRI. As noted
above, wear of on-engine emission critical parts such as EGR, turbochargers, fuel injectors or
CDA is not able to be accelerated and must be run for the full duration of the useful life period.
Understanding the wear mechanism is also more challenging because parts are rarely returned in
their used state, but only after failure when it may be difficult to assess how deterioration
progressed over the life of the part. Furthermore, there is no way to properly account for and/or
accelerate the years of useful life, as this may be reached in many different types of duty cycles
and environments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.21]
Consistent with the current requirements for evaporative emission and refueling emission
controls for all lighter weight vehicles, MECA supports EPA's proposal to apply a useful life of
15 years/150,000 miles to the HHDGV refueling emission standard. The Tier 3 evaporative
emission standard useful life for all HDGVs is currently 15 years/150,000 miles. Given that
integrated ORVR/evaporative control system designs share hardware such as the activated
carbon canister and purge valve and functions such as vapor transport and canister purge, a
common requirement for evaporative and refueling emission standard useful life is logical and
necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.22]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed warranty requirements and the full useful life
timelines for all vehicles. The warranty increases of a factor of four or more are based on specific
and limited laboratory testing that does not reflect complex, real-world use. Additionally, more
data and analysis of second and third vehicle owner usage should be conducted before proposing
significantly longer warranties and FUL timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, pp. 3 -
4.]
MEMA Supports Option 1 with Modifications to Warranty Time Period/Mileage, Covered
Warranty Parts, and FUL [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5.]
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed warranty requirements and the full useful life
timelines for all vehicles. The warranty increases of a factor of four or more are based on specific
and limited laboratory testing that does not reflect complex, real-world use. Additionally, more
data and analysis of second and third vehicle owner usage should be conducted before proposing
significantly longer warranties and FUL timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5. ]
484
-------
In addition, MEMA recommends an hours limit on all implemented standards in addition to
mileage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 7]
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed factor of four increase in warranty requirements and
the full useful life timelines for all vehicles until more data is available to justify such a
substantial increase. More testing and validation of assumptions is necessary before increasing
the FUL and this is especially true for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1,
p. 9.]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Heavy-duty engines can last up to 1.2 million miles before a rebuild, yet the current warranty
extends to just 100,000 miles, and the useful-life period is only 435,000 miles. The proposed
changes to the warranty and useful-life periods for heavy-duty vehicles more closely mirrors the
real-world operation of these engines and would help maintain working emissions controls while
diminishing any costs incurred by the operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 27]
The useful life is critical to ensure adequate testing such that emissions controls are functional
for the life of the engine. The warranty period, however, is more important to minimize
tampering or disrepair, and shifts the cost of failures onto the manufacturer rather than the driver.
Currently, the market allows manufacturers to profit from producing less durable products-
increasing warranty requirements thus helps shift the responsibility for creating more durable
emissions controls back to the entity with design control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
p. 27]
EPA's two-step approach to useful life and warranty matches that of the Omnibus rule. However,
the Omnibus approach was limited, in part, to uncertainty in the research at SwRI, which forced
CARB to linearly extrapolate data on reduced aging of the emissions control system. 116 Since
then, the SwRI research has continued, and the most recent data shows that the emissions
controls at the 2031 FUL of 800,000 indeed perform as expected, with compliance margin—in
fact, for the LLC and RMC cycles, the Stage 3RW shows quite wide compliance margins of 60
percent and 22 percent, respectively, eliminating any question of uncertainty in the longevity and
durability of the system. 117 Given the increased data on the viability of the technology and the
need to ensure robust emissions reductions as quickly as possible from the largest swath of
vehicles, EPA cannot justify delayed requirements on useful life and warranty, and must pull
forward its proposed 2031 Option 1 values to 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 28]
116.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslownox/fsor.
pdf, pp. 163-4.
117. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
485
-------
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
We suggest the following modifications to the Proposed Option 1:
1. Useful Life: The Useful Life specifications that are included in the rulemaking under
Proposed Option 1 (155,000 miles/12 years for MY2027-2030 and 200,000 miles/ 15
years for MY2031 and later) over the FTP duty cycle are in line with CARB's 2027
Ultra-Low NOx standards (Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation) for
Otto cycle engines with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000
pounds. 8 This would increase the complexity and cost of the product for propane industry
manufacturing partners, which will be ultimately passed on to vehicle fleets. This may
also limit the agency's goal to achieve desired emissions levels from these engines.
As such, we recommend that EPA modify the Useful Life requirements to 10
years/150,000 miles. This modification would align with engines in the Class 2b/3
applications, and is consistent with typical usage of these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1263-A1, pp.2-3]
8 Supra note 1, at 17424.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports extending regulatory Useful Life (UL) to more accurately represent Heavy
Duty Commercial vehicle operations. However, EPA must ensure that its UL proposal is cost
effective, technically feasible, and that it does not require aftertreatment component
replacement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp. 16-17]
PACCAR supports a 600,000 miles UL standard as technically achievable in commerce. The UL
and the emissions standard will dictate whether OEMs will need to replace the aftertreatment
system during an engine's UL to maintain compliance. Emission system drift and variation will
increase as the useful life extends, making it increasingly difficult to comply with increasingly
stringent emissions standards. If replacing aftertreatment components is the only way to ensure
compliance with these stringent emissions standards over the course of the proposed extended
useful life, unreasonable cost increases for new HDOH engines and vehicles are inevitable. The
stringency of EPA's proposed Option 1 standard, coupled with (i) the significant uncertainties
regarding durability and in-field performance of the new Stage 3 emission-system componentry
over the extended useful life periods (up to 700,000 miles) and (2) the strict liability risks under
the under the new pass criteria for in use testing, make it likely that OEMs would need an
aftertreatment component replacement strategy to maintain compliance. Simply put, the risk of
recalls - perhaps multiple recalls - and the significant associated costs, would be too great for
OEMs not to have the option to have an aftertreatment component replacement strategy. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 17]
PACCAR provides for EPA's awareness the following additional observations that influence
OEMs' ability to meet extended useful life requirements:
486
-------
• The SwRI demonstration tested emissions on a nominal demonstration engine in a test
lab with an artificial aging procedure. In reality, however, vehicles likely will encounter
conditions that lead to higher aging than was demonstrated during the SwRI test, such as
specific vehicle duty cycles that lead to higher regeneration frequencies, additional aging
due to use of lower quality fuels, and specific engines that have higher oil consumption,
etc.
• OEMs must certify their nominal demonstration engines far below the legal limit to have
sufficient margin for part-to-part, lab-to-lab and aging variation.
• The SwRI program shows that the available aftertreatment technology is not capable of
controlling drift in emission performance sufficiently to a full useful life of 800,000
miles.
• Either the full useful life should be limited to a value well below 800,000 miles, or the
emission limit must be increased to have sufficient margin between the SwRI
demonstration testing and the regulated limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.17-18]
PACCAR supports an extended UL demonstration in the lab to ensure aftertreatment system
robustness, combined with other flexibilities to reduce the liability of UL in commerce. A viable
UL approach should include the following elements:
• Demonstration Standard: laboratory demo (DF) out to 700,000 miles
• Verification of DF: out to 600,000 mile (in-use)
• In-commerce Liability for Recall: less than or equal to 600,000 miles [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 18]
Under this scenario, an OEM would be subject to recall up to 600,000 miles UL. Between
600,000 miles and certification demonstration at 800,000 miles, OEMs would be responsible
for: • SEA and • Confirmatory; • But not in commerce. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.18-19]
PACCAR does not support the proposed intermediate useful life (IUL) standard. Adding a
separate IUL emission limit would add a significant burden because it would double the pass
requirements for two separate emission limits. This limits strategies designed to meet UL that
may not result in linear degradation of performance but are fully capable of maintaining
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 19]
The proposed regulation defines IUL in MY 2031 as 435,000 miles / 10 years / 22,000 hours.
However, CARB reduced the 10 years to eight years based on 435,000 miles being 72.5% of the
600,000 miles final useful life and eight years being 72.5% of the 11 years final useful life.
Consequently, EPA's standard would be more stringent than CARB's already non-feasible
standard if EPA adopts the IUL as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 19]
In sum, PACCAR supports a single step useful life standard at 600,000 miles for in-commerce
vehicles and DF validation at MY 2027 and does not support an IUL standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.19]
487
-------
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking:
• PACCAR supports an extended UL demonstration in the lab, combined with other
flexibilities to reduce the UL liability in commerce and proposes the following elements:
o Demonstration Standard: laboratory demonstration (DF) out to 700,000 miles
using accelerated aging methods
o Verification of DF: in commerce out to 600,000 miles
o In-Commerce Liability for Recall: less than or equal to 600,000 miles [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.59]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
RILA is broadly supportive of EPA's proposed changes to the regulatory useful life and
emissions-warranty requirements but urges EPA to build a stronger consensus with market
participants around the cost elements involved in this area to avoid any excessive cost-increases.
EPA should work with manufacturers and other relevant stakeholders to support a clearer
understanding of the various factors included in EPA's regulatory impact analysis (e.g.,
technology costs, warranty costs, and truck maintenance costs) that may not be immediately
apparent to market participants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.3]
The technologies used to reduce emissions from heavy-duty engines are expected to deteriorate
in effectiveness over each engine's full operating life. To ensure a reasonable longevity of the
emissions controls, EPA's existing regulations should include minimum useful life periods over
which these technologies are required to operate adequately. Such regulations around regulatory
useful life are vital to ensure that the initial standards persist across a reasonable duration and
provide the intended environmental and societal benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2,
p.3]
In this context, EPA's proposal to extend the regulatory useful life of heavy-duty engines has the
potential to ensure that the emissions controls within these engines continue to protect
communities from pollution are designed for longer into its operational life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1189-A2, p.3]
However, improvements to emission controls longevity and extended warranty periods are likely
to carry additional costs to be passed on to purchasers of vehicles that use these engines. Even
though the proposed increase to emissions warranty period and regulatory useful life could
potentially lead to reduced operating costs over an engine's operating life, any increase to a
vehicle's up-front cost could function as a barrier to adoption of new vehicles using engines
covered in the scope of this proposed rule. Such a barrier may have unintended consequences
that run counter to the intended aims of this proposed rule, as it might keep older and more-
polluting vehicles in service for longer than they otherwise might be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1189-A2, p.4]
488
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to highlight from the outset that while there are various details of EPA's
rulemaking proposal (particularly with respect to Option 1) that EMA and its members
fundamentally disagree with, there are multiple major points of substantial agreement. In that
regard, EMA agrees with EPA that:
(iii) The current emission warranty and useful life periods for HDOH engines and
vehicles should be revised to increase the durability and efficacy of in-use emissions
compliance; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner: The proposed extended useful life ("UL") requirements
should be reduced sufficiently to ensure that manufacturers are not required to assume that they
will need to replace aftertreatment systems during the extended UL periods, which necessary
replacements would result in substantial and unreasonable cost increases for new HDOH engines
and vehicles starting in the MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
On top of that, the almost doubling of the FUL period over which compliance with the already
infeasible NOx standard would be required could force OEMs to include the cost of
aftertreatment replacement as an assumed component of regular maintenance, while also leading
to undue and unreasonable risks and costs stemming from potentially increased recall
liability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
The Agency asserts, without support, that the "proposed useful life periods are feasible and
would not require manufacturers to adopt component replacement as a part of their critical
emissions-related maintenance strategies." (87 FR at p. 17496.) We disagree. As an initial
matter, EPA does not yet have the final analysis of the Stage 3 RW emission results at the
800,000 mile benchmark; nor has EPA shown that all of the Option 1 certification standards and
Bin 3 standards are even feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
As a consequence, and given (i) the significant uncertainties regarding the durability and in-field
performance of all of the new Stage 3 emission-system componentry over the extended useful
life periods (up to 800,000 miles), (ii) the lack of the Stage 3 prototype's fully demonstrated
compliance with the Option 1 standards, and (iii) the strict liability risks under the new 3B-
MAW protocols, manufacturers likely will need to adopt aftertreatment component replacement
strategies. The risks and costs of recalls, perhaps multiple recalls, would be too great for
manufacturers to do otherwise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
EPA proposes to significantly extend the emissions useful life periods for all primary intended
service classes starting in MY 2027. For example, EPA proposes to almost double the UL
requirement for HHDE (435,000 miles today, increased to 800,000 miles by 2031) and to require
a 2.5x increase for LHDE (110,000 miles today, increased to 270,000 miles by 2031). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 44]
489
-------
EMA does not support EPA's proposal to extend the useful life periods. The proposed changes
will force manufacturers to adopt new emissions-related maintenance recommendations to
replace aftertreatment systems rather than accept the significant risk of a non-compliance
determination and the expense of one or multiple recalls late in the useful life. Because EPA will
require manufacturers to pay for the aftertreatment replacement, manufacturers will necessarily
recoup those significant costs at the only available opportunity, the point of purchase. Extending
the useful life as proposed also will compel manufacturers to enhance the design of many
emissions-related components, imposing even more costs on the buyer. The result would be a
substantial increase to the initial purchase price of heavy-duty vehicles. (See Section 16 for more
details about the cost implications of EPA's proposal.) The expected cost increases invariably
will lead to deferred purchases, delaying the adoption of the latest, cleanest vehicles. EMA
stands ready to work with EPA to finalize more appropriate useful life requirements in the final
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 44]
EPA proposes to continue the practice of including hours in the regulated useful life period for
the heavy heavy-duty engine (HDE) class to account for engines "that operated frequently, but
accumulated relatively few miles due to lower vehicle speeds" (87 FR 17501), based on a 20
mile per hour speed threshold consistent with today's heavy HDE useful life criteria of 435,000
miles and 22,000 hrs. EPA has requested comment on the need for a useful life hours criterion
for all heavy HDE, and whether they should include hours criterion for the other primary
intended service classes. EMA supports continuing to include useful life hours for Heavy HDE
as well as adding useful life hours for the other primary service classes of Medium HDE, Light
HDE, and SI HDE. Just as in Heavy HDE, and perhaps even more so, there are applications
within the other classes that accumulate relatively few miles due to lower vehicle speeds. It is
also appropriate to use an average speed of 20 miles per hour in determining useful life hours for
those other classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 44]
The Agency is proposing this suite of new technical requirements while also proposing to nearly
double the mileage over which compliance will be required. In that regard, the extended Useful
Life requirements will very likely compel replacement of major emissions control systems
costing well over $10,000 within the required compliance period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 170- 171]
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a listing of the topics raised, then the
comments are summarized by category and the responses follow each summary.
Comments relating to useful life fell into the following general categories
• Support or opposition
o General support for or opposition to lengthening useful life
o Support for proposed Option 1 or Option 2
o Support for useful life periods longer or shorter than proposed
• Need for more information
• Increased purchase price, delayed effectiveness of the rule, and aftertreatment
replacement
490
-------
• Projected operating costs
• Intermediate useful life
• Hours-based useful life periods
• Useful life for refueling standards
• Alternate useful life periods
Support or opposition
Several commenters expressed general support for or opposition to EPA's proposal to lengthen
useful life periods, without addressing numeric values. Clean Fuels, GREL/DSCC, and RILA
commented with general support for longer useful life periods but did not specifically support a
proposed option. EMA expressed support for revising the useful life periods, but did not support
EPA's proposed useful life values. EMA suggested EPA reduce the proposed useful life
requirements to avoid aftertreatment replacement and the associated "substantial and
unreasonable cost increases". Cummins did not support EPA's proposal to increase useful life
periods, commenting that even proposed Option 2 included significant increases in useful life
that would increase the purchase price of vehicles. Cummins noted that either option's increase
in useful life in conjunction with new standards will further add costs and add to uncertainty and
variability in the field that would require additional compliance margin for all standards. While
MEMA supported proposed Option 1 generally, they suggested EPA reduce the useful life
periods citing a need for more data. Similarly, AVE expressed support for proposed Option 1
standards with modified useful life timelines.
Some organizations expressed support for the proposed options. Commenters supporting Option
1 included CARB and Consumer Reports. CARB cited the analysis they used to justify the same
useful life periods adopted in their Omnibus rulemaking and EPA's CI engine test program that
evaluated the engine's performance to 800,000 miles. Consumer Reports supported the useful
life periods of proposed Option 1, suggesting that Option 2 did not capture enough of the
operational life of the engines. Allison supported the useful life periods of proposed Option 2 and
suggested that opting for the less stringent of EPA's proposed options does not prevent the
agency from revisiting useful life periods in a future rule after observing the implementation of
the Option 2 periods.
Four organizations suggested EPA adopt useful life periods longer than the proposed options.
American Lung Association et al. requested that EPA extend the useful life period beyond
proposed Option 1 to 1 million miles in order to capture the full operational life of the vehicle.
Clean Air Task Force et al. requested that EPA adopt useful life periods at least as stringent as
proposed Option 1 noting EPA's statutory obligations and their preference that EPA align with
CARB's Omnibus program. They noted EPA's rebuild data that indicated some engines may be
driving on the road more than twice the mileage of today's useful life and that manufacturers
have little incentive to ensure emission controls function properly when useful life only covers a
fraction of the operational life of the engine. Clean Air Task Force et al. recommended EPA
consider useful life periods longer than proposed Option 1 if feasible with the final standards.
MFN requested that EPA pull forward the useful life periods of the MY 2031 step of proposed
Option 1 to begin in 2027. MFN noted the long operational life of the engines and the SwRI CI
491
-------
technology demonstration program as reasons EPA cannot delay the longest proposed useful life
periods to MY 2031. Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania suggested that the useful life
should cover the full life of the vehicle.
Several organizations suggested specific useful life periods shorter than the proposed options.
DTNA requested useful life periods of 10 years/500,000 miles for Heavy HDE and 10
years/250,000 miles for Medium HDE with equivalent hours criterion. DTNA noted that EPA's
proposed options are "cost prohibitive and impractical" to design their engines with certainty,
especially when new technology will be required to meet the standards. NPGA/PERC
recommended EPA adopt a useful life of 10 years/150,000 miles for Spark-ignition HDE to
match the useful life periods of Class 2b/3 vehicles. They indicated that the proposed Option 1
useful life periods would add complexity and cost to propane products and those costs would be
passed to the purchasers. PACCAR supported a 600,000 mile useful life, indicating that stringent
standards will be increasingly difficult to meet at longer useful life periods due to "emission
system drift and variation". PACCAR proposed that useful life vary for certification and in-use,
with a DF demonstration out to 700,000 miles at certification in the laboratory, DF verification
out to 600,000 in the field, and recall liability limited to 600,000 miles.
Response:
• We appreciate the expressed support from certain commenters for our proposal to
lengthen useful life periods and acknowledge the concerns raised by other commenters.
• A key objective of our proposal was to adopt useful life periods that cover a larger
portion of the operational life of the engine. We retain that original objective, and are
modifying our proposal to finalize useful life periods that cover a significant portion of
the engine's operational life while also giving appropriate consideration to the
relationship between the useful life and the stringency of the final numeric standards and
considering comments and additional information on uncertainties and potential
corresponding costs.
• As explained in the preamble for this rule, we are finalizing a single-step program for the
new useful life periods to begin in Model Year 2027. For Spark-ignition HDE, Light
HDE, and Medium HDE, we are finalizing useful life mileages that match the MY 2031
step of proposed Option 1. For the heaviest engine class (Heavy HDE), the final useful
life mileage matches proposed Option 2. See preamble section IV. A for a discussion of
the basis of our final useful life periods.
• We disagree with commenters recommending that we finalize useful life periods below
the mileages of the less stringent proposed Option 2, since we specifically indicated that
Option 2 represented the lower bound of the range of mileages we would consider
finalizing for each engine class and the EPA test programs demonstrated that low
emission levels can be maintained at mileages at least as long as Option 2 for all engine
classes.
• We did not propose and do not believe it is appropriate at this time to finalize useful life
periods beyond proposed Option 1 as requested by American Lung Association et al.,
Clean Air Task Force et al., and Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania. As noted in
the NPRM, proposed Option 1 represented the upper bound of the range of mileages we
would consider finalizing for each engine class due to the effect of useful life on the
492
-------
feasibility of meeting the standards and lack of data on emission performance at mileages
approaching the rebuild and replacement mileages. Chapter 2 of the final RIA presents
the rebuild and replacement mileages for CI and SI engines, respectively, that were used
to estimate the average operational life of each engine class and inform our proposed
useful life mileages.
• EPA's analysis and test programs demonstrated it is appropriate and feasible for the
smaller engine classes to maintain emission control at the final emissions standards over
useful life periods matching proposed Option 1 for those engines. We are less certain on
the feasibility of finalizing proposed Option 1 at the national level for Heavy HDE at this
time. Commenters listed uncertainties at the distinctly higher mileages proposed for the
largest engines, provided additional information on costs, and expressed concern over
potential economic impacts (we respond to comments related to costs in Section 18 and
related to economic impacts in Sections 25 and 26 of this document). As noted in
responses below, we considered comments, additional analysis, and all of our engine
demonstration data in setting the final useful life values in this rule.
• Our combined final useful life of 650,000 miles and lengthened durability demonstration
to an equivalent of 750,000 miles for Heavy HDE addresses many of the concerns behind
PACCAR's suggested useful life approach. See section III.B of the preamble for more
information.
Need for more information
Several organizations commented on suppliers' ability to develop technologies to meet the
proposed useful life periods. Allison commented that even proposed Option 2 would be
challenging for suppliers to design, test, validate, produce, and distribute in the four year lead
time. Allison also commented that either proposed option would result in higher upfront
engineering and material costs and that EPA should consider that manufacturers need "head
room" to ensure compliance. Eaton commented that the components they produce (CDA
hardware, power management devices for electrical and fuel heaters, and EGR pumps) are
designed to last the life of the vehicle, which typically exceeds the useful life of the engine. AVE
commented that in order for many technology suppliers to assess the durability of their products
at the proposed useful life periods, they need more information related to extended distances,
time in-service, and use patterns (including beyond the first owner). AVE recommended re-
evaluating the full useful life timeline when more engine test data is available. BorgWarner
commented that "it is impossible to design a system" to meet the proposed useful life periods
because EPA's CI engine test program, which used accelerated aging of the aftertreatment
system, did not demonstrate the degradation of the engine components over the extended useful
life periods or account for use patterns of multiple owners or vocational applications that these
HD engines may experience. MECA encouraged EPA to continue to work with CARB to study
the impacts of the rule's implementation of the warranty and useful life updates in this rule and
to gather more information on the deterioration of field-aged parts. MECA noted that while the
durability of aftertreatment systems can be evaluated using accelerated aging tests, some
technologies, such as CDA, are not able to be aged and must tested over the full useful life
period to understand its deterioration. MEMA indicated that additional data and analysis on use
493
-------
(relating to 2nd and 3rd owners and vocational vehicle applications) is needed before proposing
longer useful life and warranty periods.
Response:
• While we appreciate Eaton's comment that their technologies are designed to last beyond
the useful life periods of current engines, we recognize the concern from other
technology suppliers that stated it would be a challenge to design components for very
high mileages since there is limited durability data available at mileages beyond today's
warranty periods and even less beyond today's useful life periods. As noted by Allison,
and discussed in Section III of the preamble to this final rule, we have taken into
consideration manufacturer "head room" in the final standards by considering compliance
margin within the context of this final program.
• We recognize the concerns expressed by the four technology suppliers that they need
more information on component failures and use patterns of the range of vehicles that use
these HD engines. We understand that there is limited engine and aftertreatment data at
800,000 miles, which could make it costly to adequately design components to maintain
the emissions levels proposed for Heavy HDE at the useful life mileages in the MY 2031
step of Option 1. As noted in section IV. A of the preamble, we are finalizing a useful life
mileage for Heavy HDE of 650,000 miles, which is within the range of manufacturers'
extended warranty offerings for those engines. We expect manufacturers will share data
relating to component failures and use from warranty claims at their extended mileages as
they work with their suppliers to develop engine configurations to meet the new useful
life mileages (e.g. 650,000 miles for Heavy HDE).
• We are not planning to conduct any formal programs to collect durability data in the
near-term, as requested by MECA, but will continue to monitor test results from
certification and in-use and expect to coordinate with CARB to evaluate any new
information.
Increased purchase price, delayed effectiveness of the rule, and aftertreatment replacement
Many commenters noted that longer useful life will increase purchase price and several indicated
that the higher purchase price may delay effectiveness of the rule. ATA cautioned that, while
fleets want durable products that may result from longer useful life periods, that durability comes
at a cost to the fleets that purchase the vehicles. RILA requested EPA work with manufacturers
and other stakeholders to clarify and "build a stronger consensus" on the costs outlined in the
RIA. RILA also notes that costs of improved durability, even if they reduce operating costs, can
lead to up-front costs that may unintentionally keep older, more-polluting vehicles in service.
Several organizations specifically expressed concern over aftertreatment replacement. ATA
noted that useful life periods as long as 800,000 miles may lead manufacturers to sell their
vehicles with warranty packages that cover expensive component replacements within the useful
life, which is another cost incurred by the fleets. DTNA commented that the combination of the
proposed useful life periods and standards will require an aftertreatment efficiency that may lead
many manufacturers to replace catalysts under warranty to ensure emission control is
494
-------
maintained, and that the cost of that component replacement would be added to the purchase
price of the vehicle. PACCAR stated that stringent standards, uncertainty on durability, and
liability risks for in-use testing, make it likely that some manufacturers would replace
aftertreatment components within the useful life to ensure compliance, which would cause
"unreasonable cost increases". EMA suggested that manufacturers would likely adopt
aftertreatment component replacement due to the risks and costs of recalls considering durability
and in-field performance uncertainties, EPA's incomplete demonstration out to 800,000 miles at
the time of the comment, and liability risks under the proposed updates to the in-use test
procedures. Since aftertreatment replacements are required to be covered by the manufacturer
under this rule, the costs (that they estimate would be over $10,000) would necessarily increase
the purchase price even more than the increases due to the new technologies added to meet the
standards. EMA suggested that the increased purchase prices would cause customers to defer
purchases and delay adoption of cleaner vehicles.
Response:
• We recognize that manufacturers will need to make investments in the durability of their
emission control components in order to meet the longer useful life periods we are
finalizing. We also acknowledge that some of those costs will be passed on to customers
as an increased purchase price and that increase in purchase price has the potential to
have sales impacts. Our final cost analysis in Chapter 7 of the RIA uses the final useful
life periods to calculate updated indirect R&D costs to manufacturers. The cost updates
reflect our consideration of comments from manufacturers and others, and include a
clearer description of the factors we analyzed as requested by RILA. The updated cost
analysis informed our updated economic analysis. As outlined in chapter 10 of the RIA
and section 25 of this document, our updated economic analysis projects that sales effects
due to increased costs would be minimal and short-lived.
• Our current regulations require that manufacturers cover the cost of any scheduled
replacement of catalysts, and we note that the requirement to cover costs would not be
restricted to catalyst replacements scheduled within a warranty period. We agree with
commenters that any manufacturers opting to schedule catalyst replacement would likely
recoup those costs by increasing the purchase price of their vehicles. We also recognize
the general risk expressed by commenters that a significant increase in purchase price
may prevent some customers from purchasing new vehicles with the latest technologies,
delay fleet turnover, and reduce the effectiveness of the rule. However, as noted above,
our updated economic analysis projects that sales effects due to increased costs of this
final rule would be minimal and short lived.
• In section IV. A of the preamble, we describe how the uncertainties expressed by
commenters informed our final useful life mileages. As explained in the preamble, we
also project that the final standards and corresponding useful life periods will not require
manufacturers to plan for the replacement of the entire catalyst system as a part of their
compliance strategy and we have not included a catalyst system replacement in our cost
analysis.
Projected operating costs
495
-------
The proposed cost analysis included operating costs and the proposal projected that the longer
useful life and warranty would reduce owner costs over the life of the vehicles. ATD disagreed
with EPA's cost analysis that projects reduced repair costs due to the longer useful life and
warranty periods, and instead suggests that higher costs of "unreasonably longer useful life
mandates" would undermine feasibility of the rule. Clean Fuels agreed that a longer useful life
would reduce costs to customers. Clean Air Task Force et al. commented that a longer useful life
will shift the costs and risks of designing emission controls to be borne by the manufacturers
instead of the operators.
Response:
• In the cost analysis for this final rule, we updated operating costs for owners and
operators, including updated repair costs, based on the final standards and useful life
periods. For more information on the methodology and results, see our updated
assessment of costs RIA Chapter 7.
Intermediate useful life
Several organizations commented on EPA's proposed intermediate useful life. CARB and
MECA supported EPA adopting an intermediate useful life at 435,000, as proposed in Option 1.
MECA cited three publications achieving NOx levels below 0.02 g/hp-hr using CD A,
supplemental heat, or advanced aftertreatment and noted that passenger vehicle regulations have
included intermediate useful life standards. CARB further recommended that EPA adopt an
intermediate useful life for 2027 as well, using the same numeric values at 435,000 miles as
proposed for 2031, indicating that CARB's early adoption of an intermediate useful life as part
of the Omnibus requirements for MY 2027 provided additional lead time for the industry. In
Section 3.1, several other organizations expressed support for alignment with CARB's Omnibus
program, including an intermediate useful life standard in MY 2027.
Allison did not support intermediate useful life due to added certification costs that would be
shared by all customers, regardless of whether the vehicle they purchase would reach that
435,000-mile threshold, such as vocational vehicle applications. Allison disagreed with the need
for an "intermediate check on emissions performance deterioration" noting that the full useful
life standard should be the measure of compliance and in-use standards are the more appropriate
check. Allison further noted that the full useful life and warranty requirements are direct
incentives to meet the requirements and the intermediate useful life is an added regulatory layer
and cost. PACCAR also did not support an intermediate useful life standard due to the burden of
separate standards and the fact that some systems may not have the linear degradation but would
maintain compliance with a single standard. PACCAR notes that the 10-year intermediate useful
life age value proposed by EPA does not match 8-year value finalized for CARB's intermediate
useful life.
Response:
496
-------
• We proposed to include an intermediate useful life for Heavy HDE in the MY 2031 step
of proposed Option 1. While our CI test program did achieve a 20 mg/hp-hr NOx level at
the 435,000-mile point of the test, we proposed to allow more lead time for
manufacturers to achieve the 20 mg/hp-hr standard and we did not include an
intermediate useful life for the proposed MY 2027 step. We also note, in response to
CARB's comment on additional lead time, that the CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) minimum
lead time requirement for an EPA criteria pollutant standard under CAA section
202(a)(3) is based on the date of promulgation of such standard.
• We are not finalizing intermediate useful life standards at this time. We are finalizing a
single-step program, in part, to limit complexity. We do not believe the additional
complexity of separate standards at an intermediate useful life for Heavy HDE is
appropriate at this time. Our final standards, in combination with the final durability and
in-use testing requirements, will ensure engine manufacturers design systems compliant
for the full useful life.
• While some commenters indicated support for requiring manufacturers to meet lower
standards early in an engine's operational life, our primary focus with this final rule is to
establish feasible standards at full useful life for all engine service classes. Results from
the EPA technology demonstration program did not show a drastic increase in
deterioration after 435,000 miles that would support the need for an intermediate
standard. In addition, while we have tested catalyst and engine strategies to demonstrate
the feasibility of the standards finalized in this action, EPA standards are performance-
based and we do not wish to restrict or hamper a manufacturer's use of technologies that
may use different deterioration or calibration strategies to achieve the full useful life
standards. We acknowledge PACCAR's concern that an intermediate useful life may
unnecessarily limit manufacturers' compliance strategies.
Hours-based useful life periods
Three commenters supported the proposal to include hours-based useful life periods. MEMA
supports adding an hours limit for useful life. Cummins and EMA supported continued use of the
hours criterion for Heavy HDE useful life periods and requested that EPA add hours to the useful
life periods for other engine classes. Cummins specifically noted that smaller classes are often
used in low speed applications where an hours-based useful life may apply. Cummins and EMA
also supported the proposed 20-mph conversion factor to calculate the hours-based useful life
values for all engine classes.
Response:
• We received no adverse comments for hours-based useful life periods and are finalizing
hours as a useful life criteria for all engine classes. As described in Section IV. A of the
preamble to this final rule, we are applying a 20-mph conversion factor, as proposed, to
calculate the hours values from the final mileage values.
Useful life for refueling standards
497
-------
AVE, Ingevity, and MECA supported the proposal to apply a useful life of 15 years or 150,000
miles for the proposed refueling emission standard for incomplete vehicles greater than 14,000 lb
GVWR.
Response:
• We are finalizing the refueling emission standard to apply for a useful life of 15 years or
150,000 miles, as proposed.
Alternate useful life periods
Cummins requested that EPA allow an alternate useful life period as specified in the current 40
CFR 86.004-2.
Response:
• Our proposed migration did not include the portion of the useful life definition in 40 CFR
86.004-2 that allows manufacturers to request an alternative useful life period.
Manufacturers have not used this provision in recent years and we believe the addition of
new hours-based useful life values for all engine classes will cover the range of
applications for which manufacturers may consider requesting an alternative useful life.
Our final updated useful life provisions in 40 CFR 1036.104(c) will not include an
allowance for manufacturer to request an alternative useful life periods.
3.9 Closed Crankcase
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Closing crankcase emissions is important in controlling significant PM emissions as well as
unaccounted methane emissions emitted with the blowby gases. CARB staff supports the
proposed requirements to close crankcase ventilation system for all CI HDEs to prevent
crankcase emissions from being emitted directly to the atmosphere starting with MY 2027
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.47]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
The current open crankcase breather system has allowed turbocharger and engine manufacturers
to invest continuously in turbocharger technology and manufacturing precision over the years, to
maintain high compressor efficiency over the lifetime of an engine. This has proven to be very
successful in ensuring the fuel efficiency of today's HD diesel engines. Such efficiencies are
achieved only by maintaining a clean and contamination-free air inlet system to the turbocharger
for engine combustion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.94]
498
-------
EPA's proposal to require a closed crankcase ventilation system will have numerous adverse
impacts on engine performance and efficiency. With the addition of an engine closed crankcase
breather, the combustion vapors are made up of oil particles that are drawn into the turbocharger
compressor housing and that attach to the hot internal surfaces of the turbocharger. This
condition leads to an oil build-up that effects airflow and thereby reduces compressor housing
efficiency. As illustrated in Figure 36 below, this loss of compressor efficiency along with the
reduced width of the compressor efficiency map leads to reduced engine performance, surge
margin, and engine braking performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.94]
Figure 36 (green lines) shows the compressor efficiency of a new baseline turbocharger with 0
hours on a turbocharger Hot Gas Test Stand (HGTS). Daimler Truck introduced a close crank
case ventilation (CCV) system on this turbocharger using a mule engine on a durability test
bench for 144 hours. The test cycle used is a representative alternating load cycle, typical of a
line haul vehicle, alternating between 1050 rpm and 1450 rpm sweeping the full load points.
After 144 hours, the turbocharger was taken off from the durability engine test stand and tested
on the turbocharger gas stand for compressor efficiency. The results are shown in the blue lines
of Figure 36; compressor efficiency decreased by 4.5% at rated torque. The turbocharger was
further placed on the durability mule engine and test continued for 200 hours with the same cycle
listed above. The turbocharger was taken out from the durability mule engine and tested on a
turbocharger gas stand; the results were a loss of 8.2 % compressor efficiency at rated torque as
shown in red lines of Figure 36. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 95]
Based upon this test, we concluded that with the current closed breather system installed on a
heavy duty engine running at a customer representative high duty cycle, up to 7-8% compressor
efficiency can be expected to be lost in as little as 200 hours of high load operation. Since 7-8%
compressor efficiency loss was significant, further testing was not performed on this system.
Figure 37 below shows a picture of the compressor housing after 200 test hours.
Severe compressor coking was observed, leading to this compressor efficiency loss. During the
200 hours run, data in Figure 38 also shows decreasing compressor pressure outlet (CPO), i.e.,
the engine boost deterioration, which is in line with the compressor coking as observed in the
compressor photo: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.95-96]
Daimler Truck also performed this testing on improved crankcase breather technology (such as
an electrically driven crankcase breather, with HEPA filtration), which produces less oil fouling
and reduces compressor efficiency losses. Figure 39 shows the impact on compressor efficiency
loss with this advanced crankcase filtration system. This results in a slight improvement, but
compressor fouling or coking was still observed with a compressor efficiency drop of up to 4%
in as little as 200 hours. The test was further continued to 400 hours and observed further
degradation in compressor efficiency of up to 6% as shown in the red color lines of Figure
39. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.96-97]
Significant design and engineering efforts have been invested to reduce the coking of the oil mist
in the compressor housing by reducing internal surface temperatures at the compressor housing
with the addition of water cooled compressor stage. The reduced wall temperatures to below 160
degrees Celsius is expected to provide some reduction in the rate of contamination in the
compressor stage. Daimler Truck has further performed testing on reduced wall temperatures to
499
-------
below 160 degrees Celsius and the results (discussed later in this section) shows that even with
reduced compressor inlet wall temperature, a reduction can be expected, but is unlikely to
completely eliminate the oil coking build-up. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.97]
Daimler Truck has investigated several approaches to improve crankcase separation
performance, including using an electric drive system to reduce oil content. The new improved
electric drive systems work on the basic principle of removing or reducing the mass of the oil
droplets in the crankcase vapor before the vapor is sent to the turbocharger inlet. The new
innovative electric drive systems have approximately 2 to 3% improved oil particle separation
efficiency over the current oil pressure driven system. Even with increased efficiency of
removing the mass of the oil droplets (mainly larger sizes >0.3 (j,m), the oil contamination
affecting the turbocharger compressor efficiency loss can still be measured within 200 hours on
an engine dyno durability test. The results are slight improvement in a reduction of compressor
coking, but even with the new electric drive technologies, the compressor efficiency loss of 5-6%
is still obselved in the data (shown later in Figure 42). Figure 40 shows the ovelview of various
current and upcoming future new crank case ventilation technologies evaluated in the test
program. The results for these new technologies will be discussed later in this section. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.97-98]
Research studies 118 have shown that removing the larger oil droplets can have a significant
reduction in total oil mass and effect the rate of coking buildup . However, the smaller oil
particles below 0.5 |im (Figure 41a) that are not removed are still present contributing to the
coking buildup and compressor efficiency loss, as shown in the research studies of Sumi N. et al.
119 (Figure 4 1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.98]
118 See Sumi, N., Hirano, S., Fujimoto, K. , Nakajima, T. et al.,' Influence of Engine Oil
Properties on Soot Containing Deposit Folmation in Turbocharger Compressor,' SAE
Technical Paper 2013-01-2500, 2013.
119 See id
Daimler Truck further conducted a study of various current and future closed crankcase breather
technologies on a 15 liter heavy duty on highway engine running a customer representative duty
cycle. The various technologies investigated as shown in Figure 42 are: (42a.) current Alfdex
production system, (42b.) electric eAlfdex system, 3nine with HEPA filters (42c.), breather
discharge into the vehicle air filter (42d.). The durability cycle ran was described previously in
this section and the periodic examination of the compressor housing was done every 24 to 50 hrs.
The baseline turbocharger with zero hours compressor efficiency test was performed on Hot Gas
test Stand (HGTS). After 200 hours of durability cycle, the turbocharger assembly was tested
again on the HGTS and also examined for the soot build up. The results of this study are shown
in Figure 42 with the soot build up and the compressor efficiency losses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.99]
Daimler Truck concluded that current and future crankcase breather technologies are not
sufficient to eliminate oil contamination in the compressor housing. This contamination leads to
500
-------
a significant rate of fouling, affecting compressor efficiency loss, even with the best available
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.99]
With the closed breather system, the engine air induction system can be contaminated by
introducing crankcase gases into the engine filtered air induction system. This can produce a
significant contamination of the entire engine air system including the vehicle charge air
cooler. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 100]
Within hours of on engine testing, Daimler Truck results show the effects of engine
pelfonnance; such effects can also be detected with measurement and visual inspection of the
entire air system. These effects include fouling of the charge air cooler, engine induction system
including intake manifold, cylinder head intake runner, intake valves, valve seats and critical port
areas that can reduce port volume and disrupt critical port flow. The long term effects of the oil
contaminated air and combustion deposits within the combustion chamber are still unknown.
Downstream of the exhaust ports and exhaust manifold are also of concern with EGR cooler
effects on cooler fouling and afteltreatment contamination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.100]
Daimler Truck conducted a further study in a test cell using a DD 15 Gen 5 current production
engine over the FTP, RMC, fuel maps and the engine brake performance of a clean turbocharger
(as a baseline) and a back-to-back study with a turbocharger that has undergone 200 hours of
closed crank case ventilation system (as shown in Figure 42a for mechanical oil pressure driven
system). A DDI5 durability engine was used to age the turbocharger using a closed crank case
ventilation system in the same manner described above. The turbocharger was removed from the
mule engine after 200 hours and placed on the test cell engine for this back-to-back study. The
effects on fuel consumption of a closed crank case turbocharger over the baseline
turbocharger (using open crank case ventilation) are shown in Table 14 below. The fuel
consumption results show that with a closed crank case system, there is an increase in fuel
consumption of 1.13% over composite FTP cycle, an increase of 0.9% over the RMC cycle with
up to a 1.5 % increase over the entire 10x10 Fuel map. This fuel economy loss with only 200
hours of closed crank case ventilation is substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
pp.100-101]
Daimler Truck also ran an engine braking torque evaluation of the turbocharger and the results
are shown in Figure 43. A 7% to 10% loss in engine brake power is documented. This is a
substantial loss of engine braking power after only 200 hours of aging. This potentially has
safety implications, requiring the need to increase vehicle mechanical braking power to maintain
adequate braking performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 101]
The impact to fuel economy for an electrical oil pressure driven system ( as shown in Figure 44)
can be estimated based on the significant compressor efficiency loss recorded over 200 engine
hours. As shown in Figure 43, at the 200 hours test point, the future electric closed crankcase
breather compressor efficiency loss is 4%. Engine fuel economy degradation based on
compressor efficiency loss of 4% is estimated to be 0.7%. Apalt from 0.7% fuel efficiency loss,
the closed crank case system has other adverse impacts on the engine pe lfO lmance, including
increased particulate emissions leading to a shortened filter regeneration interval (i.e., more
501
-------
IRAF), as well as increased aftertreatment aging and poisoning, which further increases the
likelihood of increased tailpipe emissions. The reduced compressor efficiency leads to lower
boost, increasing the potential for low boost OBD monitor codes, and the need to replace
emissions relevant parts as they degrade from exposure to oil mist. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.102]
Significant progress has been made over the years to improve compressor efficiency, resulting in
a direct improvement in fuel economy and reduced C02 emissions. As shown in Figure 44, the
testing shows that intake air contaminated with crankcase breather gases even at reduced levels
can decrease overall engine fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 102]
As shown the above two sets of tests, fuel efficiency loss is significant since OEMs would have
to introduce more and more engine efficient technologies to offset this GHG loss to meet GHG
Phase 2, 2027 step which EPA did not consider during the Phase 2 rule making. Apart from this,
the need to compensate for increased GHG emissions caused by close crank case ventilation, will
lead to increased engine out NOx. More infolmation on NOx/GHG emission tradeoffs that could
occur under the Proposed Rule is provided in Section II.B.3 of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.102]
Daimler Truck also conducted a visual inspection of intake side components after 1600 hours
with active closed crank case ventilation systems on a DD 15 Gen 5 engine test. The impact of
the intake side components is shown in Figure 45 and include the following:
• Charge air cooler outlet: Oil at the bottom and also top flange (picture #1 below). The
oil was seeping through the joint.
• Charge air cooler outlet to the intake boost pipe: The hose connection before boost
pipe shows evidence of liquid oil (picture #2).
• Intake air inlet pipe to the engine: Inlet sludge/ wet accumulation observed as shown in
(picture #3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.102-103]
Introduction of crankcase breather gases into the induction air upstream of the compressor
housing of the turbocharger will potentially increase warranty liability and introduce risk
in meeting the compliance targets for full useful life. As highlighted in the previous sections, the
first component to be affected in performance, fuel economy, and eventually in service
replacement is the turbocharger. A turbocharger is a non-serviceable component, therefore, any
degradation of performance will need to be corrected with a complete replacement. Other vehicle
and engine parts that could suffer the same fate are vehicle charge air coolers, intake and exhaust
components including EGR coolers and aftertreatment systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, pp.103-104]
With the routing of crankcase gases directly into the turbocharger inlet, the risk of increased
secondary damage to engine components is high. Any engine condition that causes increased
blowby gases with increased debris contamination—including soot and material debris—will end
up overloading the crankcase breather and passing into the intake system of the engine. This
increased contamination of the entire engine intake system will need to be serviced during the
engine repair and increases the service cost, service time, customer downtime, and OEM
502
-------
warranty cost. The increased contamination will also lead to the entire turbocharger
replacement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 104]
Introducing a closed breather into the induction system airstream will negatively impact engine
warranty, service, as well as both the OEM and customer costs of the final product. Service costs
in downtime and material will also be significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 104]
More efficient crankcase breather technology will add to the cost of the engine and, most
significantly, the costs of other components to mitigate oil contamination to the turbocharger,
such as a water-cooled turbocharger compressor. This will have a significant impact by
increasing the complexity of the crossover coolant tube on the turbocharger, specifically by
requiring a dedicated compressor housing for each vehicle application due to compressor outlet
angle and orientation. The inevitable results will be significantly increases cost and
manufacturing complexity along with customer and service complexity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p. 104]
Cold weather condensation and ice formation risk to the turbocharger compressor wheel is also a
concern and could impede crankcase breather function for the engine, as well as create the
potential for added contamination and failure to the compressor stage of the turbocharger. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 104]
Daimler Truck has some experience with cold weather operation using the closed crank case
breather. There was evidence of condensation and ice formation at the breather outlet/inlet to the
airstream to the turbocharger. This has devastating results to the compressor inlet blades and
function of the crankcase breather system. With the introduction of ice particles, the risk of
compressor wheel damage is extremely high as shown in Figure 46.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.104]
Potential solutions to this would be heated systems, which adds significant additional cost and
electrical system demand from an already high demand for engine accessory electrical power
(i.e. grid heater). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.104]
Without the advantage of a throttle-controlled induction system, the safety risk of a runaway
engine increases with the addition of closed crankcase breather system. In certain failed
conditions, the breather can deliver fuel in the form of diesel fuel or motor oil to the inlet of the
turbocharger. This fuel delivery is uncontrolled, and can result in unintended acceleration events.
The nature of diesel combustion cycles limit an engine manufacturer's ability to control these
events. Since diesel engines are 'fuel-controlled' (as opposed to 'air-controlled' for gasoline
engines), an uncontrolled fueling event will lead to rapid, runaway engine acceleration with no
possibility for control systems to prevent such a condition. One typical example of such a
condition might be engine oil overfilling. If enough oil is added to the crankcase, it can be drawn
through the crankcase ventilation system, introduced into the combustion air, and lead to an
uncontrolled safety-relevant condition of a runaway engine in the field, and/or hydro-locking of
the engine as liquid oil is introduced into the cylinders. Such risks are not present on systems
with closed crankcase ventilation systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.105]
503
-------
As shown in the above sections, the 200 hour coking testing above was performed with new oil
for consistent test-to-test oil condition. Therefore, oil degradation in customer usage and
extended oil changes lead to increased oxidation leading to increased tendency of coking.
Testing and analysis will need to be performed to determine the closed breather impact to oil
quality and coking behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 105]
Closed crankcase breather systems for HD engines would be technically challenging and unduly
demanding for the transportation industry. As detailed in this section, current breather
technology cannot achieve the level of oil separation and filtration required to maintain peak
engine performance throughout the required emission compliance mileage. A closed crank case
breather system is expected to cause compressor efficiency loss, reduced fuel economy, reduced
engine brake performance, increased C02 emissions, increased service routines including
turbocharger replacement, and unscheduled truck downtime. EPA's proposal would also
increase customer dissatisfaction and cost increases for manufacturers and customers, in addition
to the increased safety risk presented by the possibility of an oil-fueled engine runaway
condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 105-106]
These challenges are present with all engines - but are especially problematic for heavy duty
engines, which have much longer service lives in which these effects will accumulate, and are
more likely to experience duty cycles which will exacerbate these challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.106]
Based on our investigation, future electrically-controlled breather technology can significantly
improve discharged oil mass and is preferable to a closed breather system. When compared to
today's engine oil pressure driven units, the discharged emissions from the future open crank
case electric breather technologies will be reduced, while continuing to maintain a high efficient
charge air circuit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.106]
Daimler Truck thus recommends that EPA continue to allow open crankcase ventilation
with robust diagnostics. We recommend that, at least for heavy-heavy duty engines, EPA set a
performance-based requirement rather than prescribing what it believes it appropriate technology
for manufactures to use. Manufactures are capable of designing highly effective open crank case
ventilation systems and demonstrating their continued emission control through deterioration
testing and in-use emissions validation. Additionally, manufacturers could be required to
diagnose the degradation in filtration efficiency and or system disconnections and leaks. In fact,
EPA's proposal to adopt CARB's latest OBD regulations would incorporate such diagnostics
requirements in the federal regulations automatically starting in MY 2024 (see CA 13
CCR 1971.1 (g)(2)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 106]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Open crankcase ventilation systems have evolved over the years, now incorporating very
effective vapor separation systems. EPA is proposing to require manufacturers to close those
crankcase systems. (§1036.115(a)). EMA believes this is an unnecessary development expense to
add to this already tremendously challenging and costly regulation, and in fact, could be harmful
to engine and aftertreatment durability, contrary to EPA's goal to extend useful life
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 118]
-------
Closed crankcase ventilation ("CCV") systems can foul turbochargers, leading to degraded
performance and turbo efficiency (increasing C02 emissions), as well as potential secondary
damage including fouled intercoolers and, as boost is reduced, increased engine-out PM.
Increased engine-out PM has multiple undesirable consequences, including increased C02 and
other emissions levels due to increased regeneration frequencies, as well as accelerated aging of
aftertreatment systems. EPA acknowledges many of these potential impacts in the preamble to
theNPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 118]
The types of failures that can be experienced with CCV systems are more severe than those that
can occur with open crankcase systems. Consider a failure of the system that filters the blowby
gas. With an open ventilation system, a failure results in a MIL and/or puddling oil on the
ground, which both will lead to relatively rapid repair, with no significant impact to emissions
before the repair is performed. If, however, the filtration system fails with a CCV system, it can
damage the turbocharger, intercooler, and downstream components (if vented to the compressor
inlet) or the aftertreatment system (if vented to the exhaust, as EPA suggests). This can turn one
relatively simple failure into several more significant and expensive ones, that can directly
impact emissions. In fact, the core issue at hand may not even be noticeable or detectable until
more serious collateral damage has occurred. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 118 - 119]
Compressor coking can occur in diesel CCV applications. Coking is most likely to develop with
high compressor outlet temperatures under high load. Although CCVs are common in lighter
duty engines, including diesels, heavy-duty engines, especially heavy heavy-duty engines, are
much more likely to experience these conditions than passenger cars. Experience with lighter-
duty products does not amount to a sufficient feasibility demonstration for heavy-duty engines.
The images below show examples of downstream damage to the turbocharger, and the resultant
impact to engine boost: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 119]
There also is a slight safety risk for closed crankcase systems that cannot be adequately
controlled. Creating a path from the crankcase to the engine intake risks introduction of a
potentially uncontrolled fuel source, potentially leading to an engine runaway condition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
More generally, today's open crankcase systems have very little emissions impact. Some
manufacturers have evaluated end of useful-life crankcase emissions and found no material
impacts. Manufacturers are required to include crankcase emissions in their certification results
(either by measuring separately and adding to tailpipe emissions, or plumbing the crankcase
ventilation into the exhaust upstream of emissions measurement sampling). The fact that these
emissions are measured and accounted for renders any theoretical environmental benefits moot,
which means an obligation to close the crankcase introduces only risk, with potential emissions
increases as already noted. There is, then, no sound basis for EMA [sic] to propose this design-
based (not performance-based) requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
The arguments in the Preamble supporting the requirement for closed crankcase systems include
concerns about CH4 emissions from natural gas engines. EPA directly acknowledges that this is
only a concern for natural gas engines, a small fraction of the HD market. Increasing the risks
505
-------
described earlier on all HD engines to reduce CH4 emissions from a small fraction of heavy-duty
engines is not practical or reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
EPA should continue the practice of setting performance-based standards, and this is no less true
with respect to crankcase ventilation systems. The emissions contribution at issue is fully
accounted for, including FUL impacts through the DF testing process. Robust diagnostics could
also be implemented to ensure ventilation system efficiency in-use, consistent with the CARB
OBD requirements effective with MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
In sum, EPA should eliminate the requirements to implement closed crankcase systems on HD
diesel engines in the final rule. EPA is effectively proposing to implement a solution to a
problem that does not exist, at the risk of creating new emissions-elevating problems. There are
no effective emissions benefits, simply unwarranted risks, introduced by this proposed
requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 120]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Because of the progress made on tailpipe particulate matter emissions, PM emissions from open
crankcases have become a dominant source of the remaining operating PM emissions from
heavy-duty trucks. Manufacturers of emissions controls estimated that "crankcase PM can
represent over 60 percent of the total PM footprint of a 2007 DPF equipped truck." 147 EPA
appropriately notes that a substantial share of the market has already adopted closed crankcases,
indicating the technological feasibility of this new requirement. Suppliers support this
requirement, noting that "closed crankcase technology is readily available." 148 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 36]
147. MECA 2020, https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0365, p. 17.
148. MEMA 2020, https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
0462, p. 6.
As a significant source of harmful particulate emissions, crankcase blowby gases pose an
obvious health risk to all communities in which heavy-duty trucks operate. However, crankcase
emissions can also provide an acute problem to the truck drivers most directly and repeatedly
exposed to such emissions. 149 It is no wonder that both industry and regulators support
containing such harmful emissions. 150 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 36]
149. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0987
150. MECA 2020, MEMA 2020, and ODEQ 2020
(https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0464).
Given the wide availability of the technology and the broad harm that these emissions cause, we
support EPA's proposal to require closed crankcases on all heavy-duty vehicles, for all
fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 36]
506
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Finally, regardless of which option it ultimately selects, EPA should revise the proposed
durability demonstration, strengthen the proposed anti-tampering and inducement provisions,
reject exemptions for vocational vehicles, and finalize the proposed PM standard and closed
crankcase requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.49]
Finally, Commenters support EPA's proposals to adopt a revised PM standard and to require
closed crankcase ventilation systems for compression-ignition engines, both of which will
achieve important reductions in PM pollution. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,461-62, 17,466-67. The
proposed PM standard of 5 mg/hp-hr is unquestionably feasible (even allowing for measurement
variability), as manufacturers are already certifying engines well below this level. Id. at 17,462.
Finalizing a PM standard at least that low will preserve these gains by preventing backsliding in
the future. Similarly, given that a sizable portion of the market has already embraced closed
crankcases, see id. at 17,466, EPA should require this eminently feasible technology on all
compression-ignition engines. Crankcase emissions comprise a significant portion of the direct
PM (and other pollutant) emissions from HDVs,245 exposing communities and vehicle operators
to unnecessary health risks. EPA must carry out its duty to protect public health and welfare by
requiring manufacturers to eliminate these harmful emissions by adopting this readily available
and affordable technology. See DRIA at 139 (estimating initial technology cost of $37 per
engine). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.64]
245Michael Gerhardt et al., Crankcase Emissions for MY2007+ Heavy-Duty Diesel
Trucks 12, EPA (2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/04-
moves3-crankcase-hd-diesel-trucks-2020-10-14.pdf
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The California Air Resources Board (CARB, Moving Forward Network (MFN), Clean Air Task
Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra
Club all support closed crankcase ventilation systems for compression-ignition engines as
originally proposed. MFN commented that such technology is readily available (referencing
MECA and MEMA in their comment), and these commenters suggest that technology is
affordable for manufacturers. They also commented that the proposed PM standard of 5 mg/hp-
hr is feasible and would support public health by reducing harmful PM emissions and currently
unaccounted for methane gas.
Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
oppose EPA requiring closed crankcases and support a performance-based standard with a
method of compliance that allows leaving the crankcase open with additional robust diagnostics.
DTNA conducted various studies to assess impacts of coking of the oil mist in the compressor
housing using various closed crankcase technologies. On a closed crankcase ventilation system
with a new baseline turbocharger, DTNA tested a cycle that was typical of a line haul vehicle
507
-------
with results showing compressor efficiency loss up to 7-8% in as little as 200 hours. Compressor
efficiency loss can lead to reduced engine and engine braking performance. Another test DTNA
ran was on the same cycle but with electrically driven crankcase breather technology. Results
improved but compressor efficiency loss was still seen up to 4% in 200 hours. For another test,
DTNA added a water-cooled compressor stage to reduce internal surface temperatures at the
compressor housing, which reduced coking but did not eliminate it. Finally, a new electric drive
system that removes mass of the oil in the crankcase vapor before sending it to the turbocharger
inlet was investigated by DTNA but an efficiency loss of 5-6% was still observed. DTNA
concluded that crankcase breather technologies do not eliminate oil contamination. Fouling of
the charge air cooler and engine induction system components were observed within hours of
testing in DTNA's tests. DTNA voiced concern that the long term effects of oil contaminated air
and combustion deposits are unknown.
Additionally, further studies by DTNA done over the FTP, RMC, fuel maps and engine brake
performance with a clean turbocharger compared with a turbocharger that has undergone 200
hours with a closed crankcase, resulted in increased fuel consumption across all cycles. DTNA
conducted an engine braking torque evaluation of the turbocharger resulting in 7-10% engine
brake power loss, which DTNA stated poses a potential safety risk. Estimations on the impact to
fuel economy for an electrical oil pressure system were provided by DTNA. Approximately 4%
compressor efficiency loss and 0.7% engine fuel economy degradation were estimated by
DTNA. DTNA stated that this could lead to increased particulate emissions, increased
aftertreatment aging and lower boost. After 1600 hours, a visual inspection was done by DTNA
on an active closed crankcase ventilation system and oil and sludge accumulation were observed.
Other concerns DTNA noted based on these studies include the difficulty of achieving warranty
and useful life compliance due to the addition of crankcase breather gases into the induction air
upstream of the compressor housing of the turbocharger, secondary damage to engine
components, increased service cost, increased service and customer downtime, OEM warranty
costs, potential damage to the compressor wheel due to cold weather condensation and runaway
engine risk.
DTNA commented that EPA did not consider the complexity of adding closed crankcase
technologies for OEMs during the Phase 2 rulemaking or how compensating for increased GHG
emissions caused by closed crankcases will lead to increased NOx.
DTNA recommends EPA include an allowance of leaving the crankcase open with additional
deterioration determination and in-use emissions validation of the open crankcase ventilation
system.
EMA lists similar concerns of closing the crankcase as DTNA, including coking, degraded
performance and turbo efficiencies leading to increased C02 emissions, secondary damage to
components, increased engine-out PM, and risk of engine runaway condition. EMA commented
that due to closing the crankcase, severe damage can occur if the filtration system fails which
would not be the case if the crankcase is left open. EMA stated that open crankcases have very
little emissions impact and recommend allowing the crankcase to remain open with additional
robust diagnostics, consistent with CARB OBD requirements.
508
-------
Response:
After consideration of these comments, EPA is finalizing a standard that is technology neutral
with respect to closing the crankcase or keeping it open, which manufacturers may comply with
through either closing the crankcase or meeting certain measurement requirements and including
accounting for emissions from an open crankcase in demonstrating compliance with the
standards in 40 CFR 1036.104 (see Preamble section III Crankcase Emissions for further
details).. EPA conducted a HD Chassis Crankcase test on an open crankcase that showed THC
and CO crankcase emissions to be a significant fraction of total emissions from recent model
year heavy-duty diesel trucks. As EPA explained in the proposed rule, closing the crankcase
would prevent crankcase emissions from being vented directly to the atmosphere by routing the
emissions back into the intake air system or routing them upstream of the aftertreatment in the
exhaust.
After consideration of DTNA's and EMA's concerns, we are providing an additional method of
compliance as an alternative option to a closed crankcase. While we understand the safety
concerns that DTNA and EMA have raised, we do not believe that those concerns are
unresolvable, nor do we believe that they should serve as the sole barrier to the introduction and
use of closed crankcase systems. We believe that both closed and open crankcase systems are
comparably effective at emissions reductions as both pathways require the manufacturer to meet
the same emission standard. Using an open crankcase is an appropriate way for manufacturers to
meet the overall purpose of the proposed closed crankcase requirements if they have durability
and safety concerns with impacts of future closed crankcase technologies. Manufacturers that
elect to follow this method of compliance may have an open crankcase, but those manufacturers
must account for the contribution of crankcase emissions to the total tailpipe emissions from the
engine at the time of certification and throughout the engine's useful life. Determination of
deteriorated crankcase emissions and accounting for any crankcase emissions during
manufacturer run in-use testing will be included in overall engine compliance (see Preamble
Section III.B regarding crankcase emissions for further details).
3.10 Additional technology pathways to meet proposed criteria
pollutant standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Achates Power, Inc.
Achates Power developed and demonstrated a 10.6L heavy duty opposed-piston (OP) diesel
engine in a project supported by the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and other
organizations 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 1]
1. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Achates-Power-HD-
Demo-Technical-Review-1 .pdf
509
-------
Achates Power tested the heavy-duty OP engine against the established (Federal Test Procedure,
Supplement Emissions Test) and new (low-load, idle) dynamometer test protocols. The engine
demonstrated the ability to comply with the most stringent CARB (2027) NOx regulations.
These tests used engine measurements with full-aged (450,000) aftertreatment system models
from BASF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 1]
Even at the fully aged point, the engine had a compliance margin of 30% or more against all
cycles2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 2]
2. Salvi, A., Redon, F., Youngren, D., and Fromm, L., "Low C02, UltralowNOx
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine: Experimental Results," SAE Technical Paper 2022-
01-0426, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4271/2022-01-0426.
https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Achates-Power-Ultralow-
NOx-at-Low-Loads-and-Idle.pdf [[See table on p.2 of EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1216-A1]]
Achates Power continues to test and develop the engine. It is the process of testing tailpipe
emissions with an aftertreatment system aged to 800,000 miles by Southwest Research Institute's
Exhaust Composition Transient Operation Laboratory using the Diesel Accelerate Aging
Cycles3 to confirm emissions compliance with a fully aged aftertreatment system. These results
will be reported later this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 2]
3. https://www.swri.org/press-release/ecto-lab-epa-cleaner-trucks-initiative-emissions
One of the engines was installed in a Peterbilt 579 truck and operated in service by a major
retailer. In-use tailpipe emissions were measured by researchers at the University of California
Riverside (UCR) using a Portable Emissions Measurement System. While the demonstration is
continuing, an initial set of tailpipe measurements met the most stringent in-use NOx limits from
CARB and proposed by EPA (2031) with a compliance margin of 52% or greater to the most
stringent proposed EPA limit4. Kent Johnson, the Principal Investigator for UCR said "The
Achates Power 10.6L heavy duty opposed-piston engine demonstrated NOx emissions control
far better than other diesel engines we have tested. This first round of measurements... showed
between a 99% and 50% margin to the most stringent EPA 2031+ in-use NOx proposed
Regulations, which is outstanding." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 2]
4. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-Heavy-Duty-
Diesel-In-Use-Testing-Results.pdf
Importantly, all these tailpipe measurements only included conventional underfloor
aftertreatment systems. The latest results use a one-box DOC/DPF/SCR/ASC system currently
used by one of the Class 8 tractor market leaders. No additional emissions control technology is
utilized or is required for the opposed piston engine to meet ultralow NOx levels over an
extended full useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 2]
510
-------
The heavy-duty diesel OP engine also demonstrated the ability to meet the fully phased (2027)
EPA Green House Gas II regulations, with a margin of 4% or more5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1216-A1, p. 3]
5. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Achates-Power-Opposed-
Piston-Heavy-Duty-Diesel-Engine-Demonstration-Performance-Results-Ul tralow-NOx-
without-additional-hardware.pdf [[See table on p.3 of EPA-HQ-OAR-0055-1216-A1]]
Moreover, the fleet operator measured a 10%+ fuel economy advantage of the Peterbilt truck
with the heavy duty OP engine vs. a model year 2021 reference truck operating the same routes
with similar loads6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 3]
6. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-Heavy-Duty-
Diesel-In-Use-Testing-Results.pdf
We commissioned FEV, a leading independent engineering firm and expert in this field, to
prepare an independent, detailed cost analysis of a commercial vehicle OP engine vs. a
conventional engine of the same power and torque. FEV's conclusion is that with everything else
being equal - volume, sourcing strategy, machining rates, overhead rates - that the OP engine
costs 7% less than the conventional engine considering the base engine only7. And since - as
discussed above - the aftertreatment system does not to grow in cost or complexity - the
ultralow emissions OP engine will cost less than current conventional engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 3]
7. https://achatespower.eom/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Achates-Power-Cost-Study-
White-Paper_March-2020.pdf
Achates Power is confident a heavy-duty diesel opposed piston engine can be in volume
production by 20298, following a normal 6-year industrialization cycle. One path to market is
with established engine companies/OEMs as they manufacture, distribute, and service engines
under license from us, as we do on other projects, like the Advanced Combat Engine for the U.S.
Army developed by Cummins and Achates Power. Another path to market is for Achates Power
to work with a series of established partners to manufacture, distribution, and service the engine.
There is ample capacity and capital at all levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 3]
8. https://achatespower.eom/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Achates-Power-Opposed-
Piston-Engine-Commercialization-Pathway.pdf
Beyond diesel fuel, the opposed-piston engine can operate cleanly and efficiently on renewable
diesel, and Achates Power is developing hydrogen combustion capability on the engine platform.
A common engine platform can operate in a near-zero manner with diesel and renewable diesel
in the short term; and with renewable and zero carbon fuels in the long-term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1216-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
511
-------
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE asks EPA to consider the proven capabilities of the cost-effective technologies that exist
today to meet EPA's proposed Option 1 and the most stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
More than two-years ago, EPA began extensive research to analyze the performance of available
technologies to meet more stringent emission standards. Since then, ongoing, and recently
published data confirms that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard can be met by manufacturers.
Examples of available technologies include: Advanced Engine Architecture: Thel0.6L heavy-
duty opposed piston diesel engine has been tested in a demonstration project supported by the
California Air Resources Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and other organizations.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
2. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Achates-Power-HD-Demo-
Technical-Review-1 .pdf
More than two-years ago, EPA began extensive research to analyze the performance of available
technologies to meet more stringent emission standards. Since then, ongoing, and recently
published data confirms that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard can be met by manufacturers.
Examples of available technologies include: Advanced Aftertreatment: Since 2010, emission
control systems have advanced greatly. Today's applications are significantly smaller, lighter,
and less expensive. By 2027, further improvements in aftertreatment technologies, engine
calibration and thermal management are expected to help meet the 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard
over the FTP and also meet the NOx standards for the Low-Load Cycle.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
3. MECA Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027
More than two-years ago, EPA began extensive research to analyze the performance of available
technologies to meet more stringent emission standards. Since then, ongoing, and recently
published data confirms that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard can be met by manufacturers.
Examples of available technologies include: Active thermal management: To assist with cold-
start emissions, active thermal management technologies such as fuel burner and electric heaters
have been developed and can be deployed to further help meet the 2027 standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
More than two-years ago, EPA began extensive research to analyze the performance of available
technologies to meet more stringent emission standards. Since then, ongoing, and recently
published data confirms that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard can be met by manufacturers.
Examples of available technologies include: Cylinder Deactivation: Data shows cylinder
deactivation is a technology able to reduce fuel consumption and increase exhaust temperature to
facilitate improved NOx conversion. Combined with close-coupled selective catalytic reduction,
this will further help with low-NOx compliance.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
512
-------
4. Matheaus, A., Neely, G., Sharp, C., Hopkins, J. et al., "Fast Diesel Aftertreatment
Heat-up Using CDA and an Electrical Heater," SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0211,
2021, doi: 10.4271/2021-01-0211.
More than two-years ago, EPA began extensive research to analyze the performance of available
technologies to meet more stringent emission standards. Since then, ongoing, and recently
published data confirms that a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard can be met by manufacturers.
Examples of available technologies include: Particulate Filters: Existing diesel applications
which use diesel particulate filters (DPFs) provide sufficient margin for meeting the lowered PM
limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p .3]
Numerous pathways exist to meet stringent standards: Supporting all pathways gives the U.S. an
opportunity to reach its environmental goals faster while supporting the automotive industry. The
chart below outlines available technologies to greatly reduce NOx and PM emissions from HD
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc.
EPA should keep in mind several additional perspectives when determining the final standards to
apply to MY 2027 and later HDVs:
• EPA should adopt a regulatory pathway that will allow for the use of emerging low-
carbon fuels, such as hydrogen. As EPA recognizes, there are certain uses where it is
currently difficult to fully electrify all product offerings. Renewable liquid fuels may be
effectively required for certain vehicles for the foreseeable future. Compliance flexibility
will therefore be necessary to allow manufacturers to both meet the new NOx standards
as well as the need to make longer-term investments in low-carbon fuels. Apart from
hydrogen, other low-carbon intensity fuels such as natural gas and propane may be used
as well as higher octane gasoline in certain HDV commercial applications. While EPA
has considered these fuels to some degree in its supporting analysis, EPA should not
foreclose their further development and potential use by adopting standards that would
effectively restrict the ability of the market to pursue different fueling options for the
medium-duty and heavy-duty sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1 pp.9-10]
Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
Of utmost concern is that an electrification-only approach will take significantly longer to
implement than an approach that allows NZEVs. Also, renewable non-fossil biogas produced at
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) will need a long-term home in the national effort to
decarbonize the economy, which is not addressed in this proposed rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1301-A1, pp.1-2]
Essential public services must operate at all times to protect public health and the environment.
As essential public service providers and fellow dedicated environmental stewards, CASA
members provide reliable wastewater treatment to protect public health and the environment.
CASA members are public, local agencies responsible for providing wastewater conveyance and
513
-------
treatment to over 90 percent of the sewered population across California. While our primary
objective is to reliably convey and treat wastewater and residual biosolids to state and regional
standards, CASA's members also support the state and nation's clean air goals, which rely
heavily on clean vehicles. To support these goals, many of our members produce renewable
wastewater biogas as an inherent component of wastewater treatment, and via co-digestion, that
can be used as a low carbon transportation fuel (reducing GHGs, NOx, and PM relative to diesel
options), which can also support specialty vehicles that must be deployed to meet increasingly
frequent mutual aid and critical response demands due to natural disasters (e.g., wildfires,
extreme weather events, etc.) and other types of emergencies and routine functions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, p.2]
CASA members operate medium-and heavy-duty vocational trucks that perform maintenance
and repair operations. On any given day they are required to travel long distances (to maintain
over 110,000 miles of public sewers and facilities), overcome rough terrain, and provide
extended operation of auxiliary equipment via power-take off (PTO) devices at project sites. It is
critical to consider the high level of energy and hours of operation required while at worksites
and the need for certain trucks to be outfitted with equipment driven by PTO devices.
Vehicles are often called upon to tow equipment such as generators or pumps, perform welding
operations, power onboard pumps, vacuums, welding machines and air compressors, and other
tasks that require long duty cycles. We also utilize heavy duty vehicles to transport biosolids to
agricultural fields for beneficial recycling via land application. At this point in time, there are no
ZEV options available that provide the level of service required to maintain reliable service to
protect public health and the environment, as well as remain in compliance with existing State
Water Board and Regional Water Board regulations and permit requirements, while providing
critical and timely response services. CASA strongly supports EPA's approach, to balance ZEV
and NZEV development to ensure we meet existing air quality standards, while also providing
vehicle options that can support critical response needs of our communities and our core
functions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, p.2]
NZEVs are not only critical for supporting community resilience, but also reducing NOx
emissions to remain in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Our members have already begun purchasing ultra-low emission natural gas powered on-road
heavy duty vehicles (supported by Cummins-Westport engines) to comply with restrictive local
air quality regulations (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 1196). These vehicles are immediately available and
emit 90 percent fewer NOx emissions relative to current standards for heavy-duty vehicles -
comparable to emissions from an equivalent all-electric heavy-duty vehicle when the emissions
associated with the electricity production are taken into account. Under CAA section
202(a)(3)(A), standards for emissions of NOx, PM, HC, and CO emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines are to "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology." When fueled by renewable biogas,
the Cummins-Westport ISX12N engine can provide even greater GHG emissions reductions than
ZEVs by also reducing the emissions from renewable waste sources (i.e., fugitive methane
emissions from landfills). Some of our members have recently invested significant capital into
co-digestion and biogas conditioning infrastructure, as well as compressed natural gas (CNG)
514
-------
vehicles - all in support of California mandates for achieving GHG emission reductions by 2030
and carbon neutrality, as well as complying with local regulations. Additionally, specialty and
critical response vehicles must be able to travel long ranges that include the individual service
territory as well as assisting with regional and remote disaster efforts and other types of
emergencies. CAS A strongly supports including the use of NZEVs fueled by non-fossil,
renewable biogas, especially where ZEVs are not feasible or available, allowing for immediate
emissions reductions while meeting critical demands reliably across large regions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, pp.2-3]
Wastewater biogas is a non-fossil, renewable, low carbon transportation fuel that should continue
to be used to support community resilience and critical response - not wasted!
Regulations under California's Senate Bill 1383 began implementation in 2022 (requiring
diversion of organic waste from landfills to achieve methane reduction) and significantly more
renewable biogas will be produced at POTWs through the co-digestion of wastewater sludge
with methane producing organic waste diverted from landfills. Co-digestion is a proven approach
of economically producing renewable energy/fuel, as well as a soil amendment (biosolids) to
improve California's soil ecosystem. In fact, more than 90 percent of California's wastewater
flow is treated through anaerobic digestion, generating biogas and will continue to do so. As
quantified in the SWRCB's Co-Digestion Capacity Analysis (released by the Governor's office
in August 2020), POTWs can utilize available existing infrastructure in the form of anaerobic
digestion to receive and co-digest all of the divertible food waste across the state thereby
removing a major source of fugitive methane from landfills (which account for about 20 percent
of the state's methane inventory). Co-digestion also further advances two initiatives undertaken
at USEPA - the joint challenge with the Department of Energy to expand renewable resources at
POTWs and the "Winning with Food Waste" initiative to divert food waste away from landfills.
Both initiatives favor codigestion of food waste at wastewater treatment plants. Utilizing co-
digestion, California's POTWs can significantly increase biogas production to provide, among
other benefits, a source of low carbon fuel, on- and/or off-site renewable energy production, and
biosolids which help mitigate climate change when land applied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1301-A1, p.3]
Accordingly, CAS A strongly supports:
-EPA's approach, to balance ZEV and NZEV development to ensure we meet existing air quality
standards, while also providing vehicle options that can support critical response needs of our
communities.
-Continued beneficial use of wastewater-derived biogas for the production of a low carbon fuel.
-The use of NZEVs fueled by non-fossil, renewable wastewater biogas, especially where ZEVs
are not feasible or available, allowing for immediate emissions reductions to comply with federal
standards for ozone while meeting critical demands reliably across large regions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1301-A1, p.3]
Organization: CALSTART
Manufacturers should be given flexibility in meeting NOx emission targets through accelerated
deployments of battery and fuel cell technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.26]
515
-------
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
Near-zero engines can be powered by RNG thereby achieving both significant NOx reductions
and net-negative carbon emissions. What truly sets near-zero trucks apart from other alternatives
is they have similar power, range, and refueling times as their diesel counterparts. Thus, further
technological development is not needed for these engines to perform the duty-cycles
required by America's trucking and bus fleets as evidenced by Amazon, United Parcel Service
(UPS), Waste Management and LA Metro's large-scale deployments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1350-A1, pp. 1-2]
We urge EPA to amend the greenhouse gas regulations to incorporate the benefits of renewable
natural gas as part of the medium and heavy-duty engine and vehicle certification regulations.
Under California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, RNG is the lowest carbon intensity fuel available
based on the weighted average. EPA should reinstate the 0.15 factor for calculating GHG
emissions for natural gas vehicles to reflect RNGs increasing utilization. RNG is now the
dominant fuel used in on-road natural gas vehicles throughout the country. In 2021, RNG made
up 64 percent (up from 53 percent in 2020) of the fuel used in natural gas vehicles in the United
States. 12 We see no reason why the GHG reduction benefits of NGVs should be excluded given
the surge in RNG production and use and the GHG benefits of electric trucks recently being
questioned. An ATRI study released in May of 2022 'found that while electric trucks have no
direct tailpipe emissions, C02 production associated with vehicle, battery and electricity
production would only result in a 30percent decrease in CO2 emissions when compared to a
standard diesel truck. '13 According to ATRI,' the marginal environmental benefits of electric
trucks are due, in large part, to lithium-ion battery production - which generates more than six
times the carbon of diesel truck production.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.4]
12 https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NGV-RNG-Decarbonize-2022-
5.2.22.pdf
13 https://truckingresearch.org/2022/05/03/understanding-the-co2-impacts-of-zero-
emission-trucks/
EPA's regulatory programs should be designed to accelerate the production of trucks and
engines that reduce carbon emissions - they should not be designed to favor or support one
technology over others. EPA has indicated that electric vehicles are a game changer and
therefore warrant treatment that other technologies do not. But near-zero engines that are capable
of achieving carbon net-negative emissions right now are also a game changer, and they too
should be encouraged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, pp.5]
Organization: Clean Energy Ventures et al.
We also believe that the Agency needs to embrace an innovation-driven, data-driven, 'all-of-the-
above' approach to achieve rapid decarbonization this decade. We are very concerned that EPA
is proposing to provide technology-specific incentives to only two of the many technologies that
are being developed to decarbonize the nation's trucks and buses, rather than continuing the fuel-
neutral, technology-neutral, performance-based approach that has proven to be so successful for
516
-------
more than five decades of Clean Air Act mobile source regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2339-A2, p.2]
Instead of providing incentives that are limited to specific technologies, we urge EPA to
establish fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, performance-based standards and incentives that will
allow all effective technologies to be recognized for their contributions and that does not stifle
innovation by companies that are developing non-BEV or non-FCEV technology solutions or
biofuels-based decarbonization strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2339-A2, p.2]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
The biodiesel and renewable diesel industry is on a path to sustainably double the market to 6
billion gallons annually by 2030, eliminating at least 35 million metric tons of C02 equivalent
greenhouse gas emissions annually. With advancements in feedstock, use will reach 15 billion
gallons by 2050 or sooner. These fuels are among the cleanest and lowest-carbon fuels available
today to help tackle the climate challenge. Biodiesel and renewable diesel are helping companies
drive decarbonization in their supply chains and should continue to be viewed as a primary tool
of the Administration to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions now and to meet President
Biden's near- and long-term climate goals, particularly in hard to decarbonize sectors. 2 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.l]
2 Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis
at Home and Abroad, 86 FR 7619 (February 1, 2021), available at
https://www.federalregister.gOv/d/2021-02177
We would like to first thank you for recognizing the progress in fuel quality made by the
biomass-based diesel industry and its producers. With advancements in production technology, a
greater understanding of fuel performance issues, and the BQ-9000 quality management system,
we believe that the industry is now a leading example of how biofuels can offer performance
benefits beyond just the reduction in GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1,
pp. 1-2]
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advanced biofuels also reduce particulate
matter emissions. This benefits all populations including minority, low-income, and indigenous
populations. For every 100 million gallons of U.S. biodiesel used today in place of petroleum,
particulate matter is cut by approximately 252 tons. According to EPA and the California Air
Resources Board, biodiesel and renewable diesel significantly reduce criteria pollutants from
diesel transportation and heating oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
Last year, the National Biodiesel Board, now Clean Fuels Alliance America, launched a report
prepared by Trinity Consultants that quantifies the health benefits and corresponding economic
savings from converting petroleum-based diesel to B100.10 The report estimated that displacing
diesel with biodiesel in communities with high diesel emissions rates could result in significantly
improved health outcomes for the local population. In the 13 sites analyzed throughout the
country, Trinity estimated that a switch from diesel to 100 percent biodiesel would avoid or
lessen 240,000 asthma attacks, recover 46,000 lost workdays, and avert 1,100 cases of cancer -
517
-------
among other key benefits - generating a societal value of $3 billion dollars a year. 11 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
10 Trinity Consultants. (March 2021). Assessment of Health Benefits from Using
Biodiesel as Residential Heating Oil. https://www.biodiesel.org/news-
resources/health-benefits-study.
11 Id.
In the transportation sector, benefits included a potential 44 percent reduction in cancer risk
when heavy-duty trucks such as semis use B100, resulting in 203,000 fewer or lessened asthma
attacks for the communities studied. When biodiesel is used for home heating oil, the study
found an 86 percent reduced cancer risk and 17,000 fewer lung problems for the communities
studied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
The American Lung Association has found that major trucking corridors, warehouse distribution
centers and other diesel hot spots can inflict serious harms to human health and often highlight
disparities in the impacts of transportation pollution. 12 Biodiesel can make a difference now in
reducing harmful tailpipe emissions that have this adverse impact. Biodiesel is one the simplest
sustainability solutions available right now. Continuing to use cleaner, better fuels today can
lower health impacts and costs for cities and transportation corridors into the future. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.5]
12 American Lung Association. (2020). The Road to Clean Air.
The immediacy of these potential health benefits is even more critical when one considers the
years, possibly decades, it will take for states to pursue electrification and other deep
decarbonization strategies. Further, the economic impact of utilizing biomass-based diesel in
today's diesel technologies is more achievable with current fleet financial constraints and limited
access to other immature technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.5]
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)
In addition to recognition from the EPA and other regulatory agencies, Clean Fuels is also
discussing higher blend approvals and support from several engine manufacturers. We realize
that not every Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supports biodiesel at higher levels, but
those that do support higher blends of biodiesel recognize its ability to support their fleet
customers and users and their commitments towards climate change and immediate
decarbonization when compared to longer term solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1,
p.2]
For example, New Holland recognizes the importance of biodiesel as an alternative source of
energy and the opportunities that it brings to their customers. They were the first agricultural
equipment brand to fully embrace the potential of biodiesel and support their customer's fuel
choices. As a result, New Holland provides products with the flexibility to confidently run on
everything from petroleum diesel to 100% biodiesel.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.2]
518
-------
5 https://www.newholland.com/Pages/splash.html
These new proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards are an important part of our
country's continued push for cleaner air and a cleaner environment. The new Ultra-Low
Emissions Diesel Engines (ULEDEs) produced under these regulations will be substantially
cleaner than New Technology Diesel Engines (NTDE) in the market today and will approach
near-zero regulated emissions of PM, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.3]
Utilization of increasing volumes of ultra-low carbon liquid fuels like biodiesel and renewable
diesel will provide the one important environmental aspect that these new regulations do not
directly address—reduction of GHG emissions from the existing fuel supply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1248-A1, p.3]
Biodiesel is a solution that reduces carbon now. Specifically, when compared to electric vehicles
(EVs), utilizing biomass-based diesel now will allow the United States to meet our carbon
reduction goals earlier than if we were to rely on EVs alone. It has been shown that the
immediate investment in a mature, currently commercialized biomass-based diesel fuel yields
higher annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions than waiting for a technology that is still
considered immature, such as EVs. 7 The benefits of using and increasing the use of biomass-
based diesel now will not only provide immediate greenhouse gas reductions, but also will have
a positive impact on health in disadvantaged communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1,
p.3]
7 Frank, Jenny & Brown, Tristan & Haverly, Martin & Slade, Dave & Malmsheimer,
Robert. (2020). Quantifying the comparative value of carbon abatement scenarios over
different investment timing scenarios.
When considering options to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and
equipment, there are two essential elements to consider: the amount of the reduction and when it
happens. This is because carbon emissions are persistent and accumulate. The resulting increased
levels of GHGs in the atmosphere contribute to global warming now and for decades to come. A
reduction in GHG emissions now can avoid decades of associated heating, thus having
significantly more value than carbon reductions made in the future. The time value of carbon is
key, and the next decade is critical.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, pp.3-4]
8 National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel.org. (2021). Cutting Carbon: Comparing Biomass-
Based Diesel & Electrification for Commercial Fleet Use.
The immediate reductions achieved by biodiesel and renewable diesel are crucial to reach our
near- and long-term carbon reduction goals. The importance of increasing biomass-based diesel
and reducing carbon cannot be understated as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) clearly reaffirmed in their Sixth Assessment Report: Carbon reductions today are more
important than carbon reductions in the future.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
519
-------
9 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021) Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The most recent update to the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
Technologies (GREET) model published in October of 2021 estimates that the average gallon of
biodiesel and renewable diesel reduces emissions by approximately 74%, considering the U.S.
biodiesel feedstock mix published by EIA. Additionally, since 2010, use of these fuels has
avoided 143.8 million metric tons of carbon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, advanced biofuels also reduce particulate
matter emissions. This benefits all populations including minority, low-income, and indigenous
populations. For every 100 million gallons of U.S. biodiesel used today in place of petroleum,
particulate matter is cut by approximately 252 tons. According to EPA and the California Air
Resources Board, biodiesel and renewable diesel significantly reduce criteria pollutants from
diesel transportation and heating oil. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
Last year, the National Biodiesel Board, now Clean Fuels Alliance America, launched a report
prepared by Trinity Consultants that quantifies the health benefits and corresponding economic
savings from converting petroleum-based diesel to B100.10 The report estimated that displacing
diesel with biodiesel in communities with high diesel emissions rates could result in significantly
improved health outcomes for the local population. In the 13 sites analyzed throughout the
country, Trinity estimated that a switch from diesel to 100 percent biodiesel would avoid or
lessen 240,000 asthma attacks, recover 46,000 lost workdays, and avert 1,100 cases of cancer -
among other key benefits - generating a societal value of $3 billion dollars a year. 11 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
10 Trinity Consultants. (March 2021). Assessment of Health Benefits from Using
Biodiesel as Residential Heating Oil. https://www.biodiesel.org/news-resources/health-
benefits-study.
11 Id.
In the transportation sector, benefits included a potential 44 percent reduction in cancer risk
when heavy-duty trucks such as semis use B100, resulting in 203,000 fewer or lessened asthma
attacks for the communities studied. When biodiesel is used for home heating oil, the study
found an 86 percent reduced cancer risk and 17,000 fewer lung problems for the communities
studied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.4]
The American Lung Association has found that major trucking corridors, warehouse distribution
centers and other diesel hot spots can inflict serious harms to human health and often highlight
disparities in the impacts of transportation pollution. 12 Biodiesel can make a difference now in
reducing harmful tailpipe emissions that have this adverse impact. Biodiesel is one the simplest
sustainability solutions available right now. Continuing to use cleaner, better fuels today can
lower health impacts and costs for cities and transportation corridors into the future.[EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.5]
520
-------
12 American Lung Association. (2020). The Road to Clean Air.
The immediacy of these potential health benefits is even more critical when one considers the
years, possibly decades, it will take for states to pursue electrification and other deep
decarbonization strategies. Further, the economic impact of utilizing biomass-based diesel in
today's diesel technologies is more achievable with current fleet financial constraints and limited
access to other immature technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.5]
Organization: CleanAirNow (CANKC)
CANKC does NOT support the false solutions that come from non-renewable and heavy
polluting sources like natural gas and biomass in the Heavy Duty Truck Rule and other emission
standards. Our communities do not need the false promises of'cleaner trucks,' we need zero
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
CANKC supports the following recommendations from the Moving Forward Network:
• The Heavy Duty Truck Rule must not include false solutions like natural gas, which
only further environmental and public health harms for EJ communities [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
As you update the Agency's Phase 2 GHG standards for certain heavy-duty vehicles and as you
develop EPA's expected proposal for new Phase 3 GHG standards that will apply to all heavy-
duty engines and vehicles, we strongly urge you to adapt EPA's successful fuel-neutral,
technology-neutral "systems approach" to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all of
the nation's heavy-duty engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
An innovation-driven, all-of-the-above approach will lead to more rapid carbon mitigation than
pre-selecting particular technologies. The current Proposal includes provisions that reward BEVs
and FCEVs that are not available to other technologies, including but not limited to ours. This
approach will delay -and ultimately reduce - the overall GHG benefits of the program, an
unintended consequence with real-world climate impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1,
p. 3]
We strongly urge EPA to revise these provisions in its final rule to enable all technologies to
qualify under these provisions, thereby sending a market signal that encourages all innovations
that may achieve the same - or even greater - emissions benefits when upstream and other
indirect emissions are considered, at greater speed, scale, and/or cost-effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
We strongly urge EPA to revise its definition of "Fuel" and other provisions that will be
necessary to ensure that a ClearFlame engine can be certified and operate using any high-blend
ethanol orbiofuel, including E85 andE98. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
521
-------
The Proposal lists ethanol only as a blend option for gasoline. It is critical that EPA sends the
right market signal here - that an ethanol-fueled compression-ignition engine can receive the
appropriate EPA certification and any incentives that it qualifies for, by virtue of its emissions
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
EPA Should Maintain its Historic Fuel-Neutral, Technology-Agnostic Performance-Based
Approach in the Proposal's Final Rule and Next Year's Expected Phase 3 GHG Proposal.
For the reasons outlined above, a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, "systems approach" is still
critically necessary - both for this Proposal and for next year's expected proposal to reduce
GHGs from all heavy-duty engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
Here are just a few reasons why: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
First, diesel engines will continue to emit a significant portion of the transportation sector's NOx
and GHG emissions inventories in 2050. Even in states that have adopted California's Advanced
Clean Truck Rule, up to 60% of the truck tractor sales market will still be diesel in 2035.5 These
engines are likely to remain on the roads for decades thereafter. In other words, diesel engines
that are sold in 2035 will still be in use deep into mid-century. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-
Al, p. 4]
5. California's Advanced Clean Truck Rule, which has been adopted by New York and
other states, requires 55% of Class 2b-3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck
sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales to be zero-emission by 2035.
Second, EPA's Heavy-Duty Highway Engine and Vehicle Rule of 20016 (the "2001 Diesel
Rule") showed that a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, performance-based "systems approach"
reduced emissions and related health harms at scale, faster and most cost-effectively that any
approach that picked specific technology winners. Indeed, when the 2001 Diesel Rule was
finalized, it was widely anticipated that NOx adsorbers would be the "technology winner" that
would enable diesel engines to meet the NOx standard in that rule. A competing technology,
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), was considered impractical and unlikely to succeed, due to
the logistical hurdles posed by the need for SCR-equipped engines to use urea to operate cleanly.
By 2010, SCR had become the industry standard, and NOx adsorbers never reached widespread
use in the heavy-duty truck market. The lesson from that rule is clear: despite pressure to anoint
NOx adsorbers as the technology "winner," the final Rule was drafted in a fuel-neutral,
technology-neutral, performance-based manner, which enabled the market to innovate and then
shift quickly to a technology solution that enabled implementation at scale, in the most cost-
effective and fastest way possible, within a decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 5]
6. EPA, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Control Requirements, Regulatory Announcement, accessed on May 15, 2002 at
https://nepis. epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/Pl 00 lCXZ.PDF?Dockey=P 1001CXZ.PDF.
We encourage the EPA to establish objective and transparent emissions-based criteria that
qualify a technology as zero or near-zero emissions. Any and all technologies that demonstrate
522
-------
proper emissions reductions should be able to qualify. It is essential for market fairness and to
send the appropriate market signal to technology developers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-
A2, p. 4]
In sum, we strongly urge EPA to adopt a final NOx and GHG program that is open to all
demonstrated, cost-effective emissions-reduction solutions. Doing so is critical to achieve near-
term and long-term goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 4]
It is important to avoid unnecessarily limiting innovation at this stage of decarbonization.
Encouraging and rewarding innovation will be necessary to reduce emissions in hard-to-
decarbonize sectors like heavy-duty transportation. Such an open approach should also yield
technology development benefits that pay dividends later when EPA seeks to decarbonize the
non-road diesel sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 4]
Ever since the first federal vehicle emission standards for heavy-duty engines were adopted, EPA
has correctly assumed that compression-ignition engines would be fueled by diesel fuel. This
assumption predates those first emission standards, and has been appropriate for more than a
century. Indeed, most people simply call these engines "diesel engines," and most people
probably have never even heard the phrase "compression-ignition." For most engines over this
time, the diesel fuel powering these engines was a petroleum product; in recent years, biodiesel
and renewable diesel has entered the fuel market, and those fuels have been integrated into
EPA's fuel and vehicle emissions regulatory architecture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1,
p. 8]
Similarly, EPA has historically assumed that ethanol would only be used in spark-ignition
engines. Again, this has been the correct assumption for decades. Even within this Proposal, EPA
considers the impacts of ethanol blends on the cost of emission control aftertreatment devices
used in spark-ignition engines 10 and discusses ethanol only in the context of current and
proposed test procedures for spark-ignition engines. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p.
8]
10 See Proposal, at 17488.
11 See, e.g., Proposal at 17490, 17491, 17631, 17703, 17849, and 17866.
It is now time to update these assumptions, and to integrate the use of ethanol in a compression-
ignition engine into the policy architecture that will govern future heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. Thus, ClearFlame strongly urges EPA to finalize this Proposal in a way that explicitly
anticipates that future compression-ignition engines may operate on high-blend ethanol fuels
(e.g., E85 or E98). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
As we have stated above, ethanol can play a major role in decarbonizing the hard-to-electrify
segments of the highway and nonroad diesel engine and vehicle markets. In order for this to
happen, EPA must remove any uncertainty surrounding whether or not ethanol can be used to
certify future compression-ignition engines or whether this fuel must be used thereafter
throughout the useful life of such future engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
523
-------
Organization: Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (RNG Coalition)
As EPA recognizes, '[h]eavy-duty vehicles and engines are important contributors to
concentrations of ozone and particulate matter and their resulting threat to public health, which
includes premature death, respiratory illness (including childhood asthma), cardiovascular
problems, and other adverse health impacts.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,414. In the proposal, EPA seeks
to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides ('NOx') and other pollutants, as well as proposing further
greenhouse gas ('GHG') emissions starting for model year 2027. RNG submits these comments
because, while it appears EPA considered natural gas vehicles ('NGVs') technologies in
developing the proposed standards, see, e.g., id. at 17,430, it does not appear to have considered
the benefits of using RNG. RNG is increasingly being used in NGVs and also can be used in the
production of hydrogen. We believe this is a lost opportunity for EPA to achieve greater
emissions reductions, including GHG emissions, from the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1204-A1, p.l]
RNG is biogas-derived fuel that has been captured from organic waste streams—including
agricultural wastes, municipal wastewater, and municipal solid waste in landfills—and upgraded
to achieve quality standards necessary to blend with or substitute for geologic natural gas.
Every community in America produces waste. As that waste breaks down, it emits methane,
which is a naturally occurring, but potent and harmful GHG. RNG projects capture this methane
from existing food waste, animal manure, wastewater sludge and garbage, and redirect it away
from the environment, repurposing it as a clean, green energy source. As such, RNG can produce
carbon-negative results when fueling on-road vehicles like short- and long-haul trucks, transit
buses, and refuse and recycling collection vehicles. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-A1, pp.l-
2]
1 Decomposition of wastes in landfills was identified by EPA as a major source of
methane emissions in the United States. See EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020, atES-7 (2022), available at
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2020.
RNG can be used in the same applications as conventional natural gas, including in
transportation, industrial, and heating/electricity applications. RNG is currently sold in the
transportation fuel market as renewable compressed natural gas ('CNG') and renewable liquefied
natural gas ('LNG'), and RNG makes up over 95 percent of our nation's cellulosic biofuel
production under the Renewable Fuel Standard ('RFS') program. During power outages, RNG
can also be tapped to provide reliable, sustainable energy. This dependability is also why it is
already being used to power essential services for food storage, airports, universities, hospitals,
and other important facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-A1 ,p.2]
Heavy-duty vehicles are the fastest growing segment of U.S. transportation in terms of energy
use and emissions.2 Ultra-low NOx, medium- and heavy-duty natural, gas-powered trucks and
buses are on the road today and perform at levels that are 95 percent below the current NOx
standard and 98 percent below the particulate matter standard.3 They provide cost-effective
524
-------
emissions reductions in the heavy-duty sector compared to electric options still in
development.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-A1, p.2]
2 NGVAmerica, Breathe Cleaner Air Right Now,
https://ngvamerica.org/environment/?msclkid=787e309ece741 Iecacf726e33f83661d (last
visited May 13, 2022).
3 NGV America, A First, California Fleets Fueled with Bio-CNG Achieve Carbon-
Negativity, June 2, 2021, https://ngvamerica.org/2021/06/02/a-first-california-fleets-
fueled-with-bio-cng-achieve-carbon-negativity/; see also
87 Fed. Reg. at 17,433 (noting that only natural gas and liquified petroleum gas engines
have been certified to meet California's more stringent, optional standards).
4 NGV America, Breathe Cleaner Air Right Now,
https://ngvamerica.org/environment/?msclkid=787e309ece741 Iecacf726e33f83661d (last
visited May 13, 2022).
According to EPA's GHG Inventory, the largest source of carbon dioxide ('C02'), and of
overall GHG emissions, is fossil fuel combustion primarily from transportation and power
generation.5 RNG is key to reducing these emissions and meeting this Administration's climate
change goals. In 2021, 64 percent of all on-road fuel used in NGVs was RNG.6 Using California
Air Resources Board data, the average carbon intensity value of RNG in its Low Carbon Fuel
Standard program was carbon negative at -44.41 gC02e/MJ for calendar year 2021. Based on
this data, RNG use in transportation fuel displaced 3.8 million metric tons of C02 equivalent in
2021, which is equivalent to removing C02 emissions from more than 427 million gallons of
gasoline consumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-A1, p.2]
5 See EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020, at ES-7
(2022), available at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-and-sinks-1990-2020.
6 NGV America and RNG Coalition, Decarbonize Transportation with Renewable
Natural Gas, May 2022, available at https://ngvamerica.org/resource-center/.
Importantly, RNG use can provide significant GHG emissions reductions today. NGV America
reports that 74 percent of heavy-duty trucks are not certified to the latest NOx emission
standard.7 Fleet turnover is important to ensuring the emissions reductions being sought are
actually achieved. 'Technological and commercial maturity of medium- and heavy-duty natural
gas vehicles have encouraged adoption of natural gas for commercial vehicle fleets, with
reported reductions in the total cost of ownership through fuel cost savings and reduced
maintenance, in addition to substantial emission reductions.'8 'RNG availability enhances the
economic value of converting trucking and municipal fleets from diesel to natural gas, which in
turn supports investments in supply infrastructure, increasing the value and viability of further
conversions.'9 EPA's proposal should ensure that it is supporting these conversions and
increased use of RNG in the transportation fuel sector. A large part of EPA's focus, however,
appears to be to transition to electric vehicles, which is much more difficult to accomplish in the
525
-------
heavy-duty sector and is likely on a much longer time frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-
Al, p.3]
7 NGVAmerica, Breathe Cleaner Air Right Now,
https://ngvamerica.org/environment/?msclkid=787e309ece741 Iecacf726e33f83661d (last
visited May 13, 2022).
8 Bates White Economic Consulting, Renewable Natural Gas: Transportation Demand, at
4 (2022), available at
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/53a09c47e4b050b5ad5bf4f5/t/626c52a437caa619c
ddf533b/1651266213212/Bates+White+RNG+Transpo+Demand+Study+Feb+2022+plus
+April+2022+Supplement.pdf.
9 Id. at 3.
EPA recognizes that development of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell heavy-duty
vehicles, while considered to be zero emissions, may be more challenging. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,562. While we believe EPA should recognize all the available technologies to reduce
emissions and ensure thatNGVs are equally supported (not just electric vehicles), 10 it should be
noted that RNG can be used to produce renewable hydrogen. Renewable hydrogen at scale could
significantly reduce carbon emissions from the heavy-duty transportation sector where
electrification is difficult or impossible, such as in the heavy-duty transportation sector. When
renewable hydrogen production is paired with carbon capture and sequestration, the RNG
process is ultimately carbon-negative. Therefore, the material used for RNG today can be
deployed as renewable hydrogen, providing another avenue for zero-carbon and carbon-negative
renewable gas in the energy, transportation, and industrial sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1204-A1, p.3]
10 Nonetheless, we agree that EPA should not provide multipliers for electric vehicles to
meet the NOx emissions standards. See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,426. In light of the
numerous benefits of NGVs today and the incentives already included for electric
vehicles, it is unclear why electric vehicles should receive additional incentives to meet
any of the standards being proposed, particularly where NGVs provide similar emissions
profiles, and, when using RNG, can provide even better lifecycle GHG emissions
reductions. Because of the various sources of biogas, RNG can be an available (and
abundant) fuel across the entire country. Nonetheless, much of the use in the
transportation fuel sector is concentrated in California due to that state's low-carbon fuel
standard, and NGVs similarly could benefit from incentives for increased investment in
infrastructure, such as fueling stations, nationally.
In short, this Administration's decarbonization and clean air goals will only be achieved by
focusing on a multi-technology approach. RNG provides a cost-effective, carbon-negative
solution, that can provide carbon reductions right away. EPA's proposal should take this into
account and, as appropriate, support continued production and expansion of NGVs and hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles, not just electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1204-A1, p.3]
526
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Internal combustion engines fueled by hydrogen (H2 ICE) are under development at Cummins
(see Hydrogen Engines). H2 ICE offers the potential for significant near-term emissions
reductions because it is an affordable zero carbon, low NOx technology that can be produced at
scale at existing manufacturing facilities. However, more regulatory clarity is needed for
manufacturers to certify such engines to applicable criteria pollutant and GHG emissions
standards. Regulation updates may be needed to address emissions measurement and testing,
OBD, DF testing, etc., to recognize this advanced technology. In addition, regulatory incentives
that would recognize H2 ICE as a ZEV-like zero carbon technology would help drive demand
for H2 ICE, which in turn would accelerate the development of the hydrogen refueling
infrastructure that will be needed to support the future implementation of hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles. Cummins would like to work with EPA as this rule is finalized and during the Phase 3
GHG rulemaking to address specific needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 20]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines (H2-ICEs) provide an important pathway to
rapid penetration of vehicles with effectively zero C02 emissions and near-zero NOx emissions.
This rulemaking presents an opportunity for EPA to encourage innovation in alternate fuel
engine development generally, and H2-ICEs specifically. Currently H2-ICE new technology is in
the primitive proof-of-concept stage of innovation, and regulatory pathways are needed to bring
this new near-zero C02 and NOx technology to the market. Such technology could bring carbon
neutral transportation to sectors that are not currently ripe for battery or fuel-cell applications,
given the current state of technology development. It could also create a use-case for widespread
hydrogen fueling, which could spur the development of hydrogen infrastructure and lay the
groundwork for future fuel cell vehicles, which would rely on the same infrastructure. We also
believe that H2-ICE is a favorable technology, even in the long term, for vehicles with high
power demands and high daily mileage requirements (which BEVs and FCEVs may not serve
well). Daimler Truck's vision for H2-ICE applicability in a zero-emissions future is illustrated in
Figure 47 below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 125]
Importantly, this technology can be implemented rapidly, using existing products, processes, and
technical expertise. In concept, H2-ICEs are very similar to existing combustion engines and can
leverage the extensive technical expertise manufacturers have developed with existing
products—in many cases, using the same components for many key systems. Similarly, these
products can be built on the same assembly lines, by the same workers and with existing supply
chains already in place, preventing costly plant retooling and American manufacturing job
losses. H2-ICEs thus have an important role to play in facilitating the ZEV transition with
minimal supply chain and economic disruptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 126]
Although H2-ICE technology is promising, it is in an infant state, and near-term penetration
potential is relatively low. By developing a regulatory framework that facilitates H2-ICE
development, EPA could speed the adoption of such technology and help revolutionize certain
applications in the HD transportation sector that are otherwise difficult to decarbonize. This
could be achieved by eliminating regulatory obstacles to market introduction of H2-ICEs.
527
-------
Specifically, EPA should use the opportunity presented in this rulemaking to create a favorable
regulatory environment for these engines by providing relief in areas such as DF testing, GHG
certification and testing requirements (under Parts 1036 and 1037), and expensive diagnostic
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 126]
Daimler Truck has performed a concept study of H2-ICE by converting a diesel engine to adapt
all the relevant hardware components to accommodate H2 combustion. The results are shown in
Figure 48. Along with effectively zero C02 emissions, near-zero NOx emissions are also
possible with H2-ICE innovative technology. Engine-out NOx levels are extremely low when
compared to diesel emissions, and the temperatures created are extremely favourable for
adapting existing SCR aftertreatment technologies—leading to further NOx reductions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 126]
Similarly, when measured at the tailpipe, C02 emissions from these vehicles are extremely
low—two orders of magnitude lower than a conventionally-fueled heavy duty engine. Figure 49
below shows a typical breakdown of C02 emissions as measured at the tailpipe of an H2-ICE.
Most of these emissions are ambient in nature (e.g., from the ambient air, or from the carbon
content of urea) and do not represent a net increase of C02 to the environment. EPA already
allows the removal of background C02 from emissions calculations; in these conditions, H2-ICE
engines are as close as practical to zero, and are competitive with BEVs and FCEVs from a total
carbon lifecycle perspective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.126-127]
As manufacturers move aggressively towards decarbonization, global consistency in the
regulatory approach to ZEVs is essential to provide the certainty and predictability necessary to
spur investment, especially in markets that are likely to adopt such technologies first. European
Union (EU) regulators have already recognized the advantages of H2-ICE engines, and the EU
framework provides a path for these engines to be certified as 'zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicles' by defining such vehicles as follows: 'Zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle' means a
heavy-duty vehicle without an internal combustion engine, or with an internal combustion engine
that emits less than 1 g CO 2 /kWh as determined in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
595/2009 and its implementing measures, or which emits less than 1 g CO 2 /km as determined
in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council
and its implementing measures. 138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 127]
138 See Regulation (EU) 2019/1242, Art. 3(11) (June 20, 2019).
It is also expected that the EU regulations will be further updated to more explicitly recognize
these engines as a zero-emission technology. Such recognition provides significant benefits for
manufacturers by reducing regulatory burdens, as well as development and certification costs,
and by otherwise incentivizing commercialization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.128]
Similarly, CARB ZEV standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks already recognize
extremely low-emissions from H2-ICEs, providing a mechanism for manufacturers to generate
credits for producing such vehicles that can be applied towards their ZEV sales obligations: (E)
Credit for Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. A hydrogen internal combustion
engine vehicle that meets the requirements of subdivision 1962.2(c)(2) and has a total range of at
528
-------
least 250 UDDS miles will earn an allowance of 0.75, which may be in addition to allowances
earned in subdivision 1962.2(c)(3)(A), and subject to an overall credit cap of 1.25.139 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 128]
139 See 13 CCR 1962.2(c)(3)(E).
We recommend that EPA recognize, as CARB and the EU have, the potential of H2-ICE engines
to play an important role in the zero-emission transition, and to take steps to reduce regulatory
burden and incentivize manufacturers to introduce this technology. As a global manufacturer
with deep roots in U.S. and European market, Daimler Truck recommends global alignment in
recognizing H2-ICE as a zero-emission technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.128]
EPA could reduce manufacturer burden, and thereby accelerate the penetration of zero-
C02 technologies in the commercial truck sector, by regulating HDVs with H2-ICEs as
ZEVs, or, at a minimum, by removing the most costly and onerous engine certification
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 128]
Currently the market for H2-ICE technology, especially in the near-term, is limited. Since H2
infrastructure does not exist in any significant quantity, it is expected that manufacturers will
face difficulties recouping their H2-ICE investment costs, and a high regulatory burden may
prevent manufacturers from bringing these technologies to market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.128]
By making several changes to how H2-ICE vehicles are certified, EPA could regulatory burdens
in a manner that would help to ensure the success of these new technologies, enabling immediate
carbon reductions at low cost and with few lost jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.128]
First, we recommend that EPA recognize vehicles powered by H2-ICEs as effectively zero
emission, placing them in a category similar to BEVs and FCEVs, which do not require costly
certification, demonstration, diagnostic, and compliance requirements. We do not believe such
compliance obligations have any value with respect to H2-ICE emissions performance, since the
engines already emit effectively no C02, NOx, PM, and other constituent pollutants of
concern— even in degraded or failed states, based on the fundamental physics governing this
combustion cycle and fuel. ZEV recognition for these products would significantly incentivize
their production, as they would qualify for emissions credits and advanced credit multipliers in
the same manner as BEVs and FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 128]
Alternatively, if EPA decides to continue to require H2-ICEs to be certified under its program for
traditional combustion engines, we recommend that EPA significantly reduce the certification
burden by making the following modifications to its certification requirements:
• Reduced DF validation burden and Durability requirements.
o DF validation is extremely expensive and burdensome, and carries a several-year
lead-time to complete for new technologies.
529
-------
o EPA could allow manufacturers to attest to durability and useful life requirements
(as proposed for ZEV durability and useful life requirements in the NPRM).
o EPA could consider a reduced Useful Life standard for H2-ICE in the HHD
category - consistent with how SI engines in the LHD and MHD categories are
treated.
• Simplified OBD regulation.
o The development and demonstration of an OBD system, as required in EPA's
proposed Section 1036.110, is extremely time consuming, expensive, and risky
for manufacturers.
o It also drives significant material cost to the engine, as sensors are added purely
for the purpose of diagnostic requirements,
o The combustion mechanisms of an H2-ICE mean that, even in a failed condition,
increased emission potential is extremely limited. C02, PM, and hydrocarbon
emissions are effectively zero in any combustion regime with H2 fuel, and even in
the case of a failed catalyst, engine-out NOx emissions are extremely low with
this technology. The value of an OBD system in an H2-ICE-powered vehicle is
extremely limited—especially when considered in light of its cost,
o EPA could reduce this burden by requiring the OBD system only to detect circuit
faults—which make up the vast majority of real world failures—and avoid
requirements for threshold diagnostics and rationality checks which add cost and
complexity and are onerous to develop and demonstrate.
• Simplified GHG regulation and certification.
o Current certification procedures and demonstration requirements are not
necessary for the demonstration of an engine that does not use carbon as a fuel,
o EPA could declare such engines to emit zero C02 for the purposes of GEM inputs
for vehicle certification under 40 C.F.R. Part 1037 and allow a default FCL/FEL
of zero g/hp-hr for engine GHG certification under 40 C.F.R. Part 1036. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 129]
EPA has an important opportunity in this rulemaking to encourage the development of
technologies with effectively zero C02 emissions today, in applications that would not otherwise
be ripe for ZEV penetration in the foreseeable future. Daimler Truck recommends that EPA
work with manufacturers to determine the best path to enable these technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 129]
Organization: David Pedersen
Furthermore, as the Federal Register document for this proposed rule explains, the existing
emissions controls - most notably the DPF (a euphemistic term which conceals the true name
PTOX, or particulate-trapping oxidizer) and SCR systems - are known to cause not only
downtime and in-use de-rating problems2; they are also emissions sources in their own sense.
When regenerating, DPFs emit 1000 times the legal soot limit for up to 15 kilometres (ca. 9.3
miles) or more3, often in populated areas where soot accumulates more rapidly due to lower
engine RPMs and thus cooler combustion:
530
-------
New diesels, new problems
Filter cleaning spikes particle numbers xiooo times - 32-115% over legal limits in entire tests
Results of laboratory tests based
on Real-Driving Emissions (RDE) cycle 1.3x10"
1.3x10"
1.2x10"
1.1x10"
1x10"
9xl0" «n 8.5x10"
7.9x10
8x10"
4 I
L *.v TiuZ L
6x10" —Eu limit —— j '¦
Lj pg
4x10"
IE k
Ww-'
o I M i i ,
Nissan Qashqai
1st cleaning
TRANSPORT & Jf@transenv |]@transenv
|Z ENVIRONMENT ©transportenvironment.org
https:/M'wwJransportem>iro>iment.orgAvp-conterit''i
-------
hard look at where things stand and set the earliest date for the phase-out of sales of new diesel
vehicles and machinery. The sooner such a mandate is implemented, the sooner the suffering
will stop. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1059]
In summary, I urge the Agency to abandon its proposed rulemaking unless it is willing to
mandate electric trucks as soon as possible AND eliminate the need for DPFs and SCR to
decrease the burden on owners and operators and increase the safety of the public. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1059]
2 https://downloads.regulations.gOv/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0983/content.pdf
3 https://www.transportenvironinent.org/discover/new-diesels-particle-einissions-spike-1000-times-nonnal-
levels-tests/
4 https://www.ipcc.cli/site/assets/uploads/2019/02/1805_Expert_Meeting_on_SLCF_Report.pdf
There are also 2 attachments: screenshot of T&E article and this:
3.0
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
2. The regulations need to be based on data that evaluates recent technologies developed to
address the NOx challenges, accounting for major improvements achieved since the data
used in the NPRM was created. The EPA evaluations of Aftertreatment-focused technologies
recently published show marginal feasibility of Option 1. However, Eaton and other suppliers
have developed an array of technologies, 6 years ahead of the new regulations, that show in a
certification test environment that CARB limits are achievable through multiple pathways, with
compliance margins well in excess of 40%. with less fuel consumed (C02 neutral or better).
532
-------
based on conventional robust and very cost-effective components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1252-A1, p.2]
Eaton and other suppliers, in collaboration with Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), have
tested a significant array of NOx reduction technologies using the same certification-oriented test
rig as the work in support of developing both the Omnibus and EPA standards. The data from
these investigations showed in 2021 that the Omnibus 2027 NOx levels are achievable with
margins in excess of 40%, while contributing to lower C02 emissions, at reasonable cost
increments that are offset by fuel savings, and with robust technologies designed for the life of
the truck. We have recently supplied the relevant data to the EPA for consideration. Below are a
few salient examples: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.2]
• In a recent memol, the EPA showed results of an advanced Aftertreatment system that
achieved 20mg NOx on the Composite FTP cycle at 435,000 miles, which is the exact
limit of the Omnibus and Option 1 proposed limit in 2027. Eaton added Cylinder
Deactivation (CDA) as an active thermal management technology, and in the new
configuration, we demonstrated 18 mg in 20192 with a 0.5% C02 improvement, and then
further improved to 15 mg NOx in 20203, while maintain lower C02 emissions. On the
LLC cycle, the EPA measured 29mg, well within the Omnibus and Option 1 limit of
50mg. The addition of CDA technology, further reduced the LLC emissions to 24mg.
Thus, the addition of the CDA technology enables achieving the most stringent targets of
the Omnibus rule and Option 1 with a 25% margin on the FTP cycle and 50% margin on
the LLC cycle seven years ahead of actual implementation using a technology that has
been used in gasoline engines for over two decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.2]
1 Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration, May 3rd 2022, Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019 0055
2 Neely, G., Sharp, C., Pieczko, M., and McCarthy, J. Jr., 'Simultaneous NOx and C02
Reduction for Meeting Future CARB Standards Using a Heavy-Duty Diesel CDA-NVH
Strategy,' SAEInt. J. Engines 13(2):2020, https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-
papers/content/03-13-02-0014/, first published online Dec. 10, 2019
3 Matheaus, A., Neely, G. A., Sharp, C. A., Hopkins, J. and McCarthy, J. Jr., 'Fast Diesel
Aftertreatment Heat-up Using CDA and an Electrical Heater,' SAE 2021-01-0211, April
6, 2021.
• In addition, Eaton and other suppliers examined the effects of using alternative active
heating, implemented through either electrical heaters or fuel burners. The addition of the
electrical heater achieved 16 mg on the Composite FTP cycle (and 0.9% C02
improvement) and 12mg on the LLC cycle (with an additional 1.8% C02 savings).
Further refinements in calibrations4 achieved 12mg on the FTP cycle, while saving 1.5%
C02. Together these configurations show that the compliance margins are significant:
40%) on FTP and 50%-75% on LLC (while also improving C02 by 2.9%). Noteworthy is
that tests of the Beverage cycle produced 1 mg/hp-hr NOx, which would be considered
533
-------
near-zero and less than 10% of the LLC certification value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1252-A1, p.3]
4 Zavala, B., McCarthy Jr., J., Matheaus and Sharp, C. A., 'Fast Diesel Aftertreatment Heat-
up Using CDA and an Electrical Heater between 1.2 and 5.0 kW,' Accepted in Frontiers In
Mechanical Engineering, April 11, 2022
• Eaton and other suppliers also evaluated active heating using a fuel burner5. Together
with the advanced Aftertreatment system aged at 435,000 miles and CDA, the NOx
emissions achieved were 12 mg on the Composite FTP and under 10 mg on the LLC
cycle, demonstrating 40% and 80% compliance margin to Option 1 and Omnibus levels.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1252-Al,p.3]
5 Thomas Harris, James McCarthy, Jr., Chris Sharp, Bryan Zavala and Andrew Matheaus,
Meeting Future NOx Emissions Limits with Improved Total Fuel Efficiency, ATZ live:
Heavy-Duty, On- and Off-Highway Engines 2021, Heavy-Duty_2021_Paper_14, 12/1/21
• The results above led us to explore eliminating the need of the Light-Off Catalyst and
achieve the emissions using a conventional Aftertreatment architecture and active
heating. In this configuration (CDA engine, heater and conventional Aftertreatment), we
achieved 6mg on the LLC cycle (an 88% compliance margin) and near-zero (1 mg) on
realistic drive cycles (beverage truck cycle)6. Updated calibrations recently achieved 11
mg on the LLC and 20mg on the Composite FTP. These results are not yet optimized but
are encouraging as they achieve the Omnibus and Option 1 levels for the FTP and an
80%) margin on the LLC. Further optimization of calibrations is expected to recover
margin on the FTP cycle as well. However, these results are significant because they
achieve the NOx targets using conventional Aftertreatment, while the additional
technologies (CDA and burners) are designed for the life of the truck and not subject to
the high initial cost and degradation of the catalysts when using a Light-Off SCR. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.3]
6 McCarthy, J. Jr., Matheaus, A., Zavala, B., Sharp, C. and Harris, T., 'Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional Aftertreatment
System, SAE 2022-01-0539, 3/29/2022
• A different approach to achieving low NOx is afforded by the Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) pump, which in conjunction with advanced turbomachinery, helps achieve a 4%
reduction in C027. However, the EGR pump also is capable of reducing the engine-out
NOx by 40-60%) while raising exhaust temperature at low load and idle. Using a similar
approach, Achates Power (on a different engine architecture but using the same physics
principles) also demonstrated better than 50%> compliance margin with Option 1 and the
Omnibus limits. While the EGR pump is a new technology, it relies on conventional
Roots rotor technology that Eaton has manufactured for over 50 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1252-A1, p.3]
534
-------
7 Nilesh Bagal, Chris Bitsis, Analytical and Experimental Evaluation of Next Generation
High Efficiency Powertrains with 48V EGR Pump, Vienna Engine Symposium, 2022
The key results to date (5 years ahead of proposed implementations) based on Aftertreatment
systems aged at 435,000 miles, can be summarized as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1252-A1, p.3]
In conclusion, we recommend the Agency adopts a modification of Option 1 that aligns with the
CARB Omnibus limits because:
• This approach achieves a single national standard that includes the needs of states with
non-attainment issues, hence it is a long-term solution that provides stability and
incentives to invest.
• The limits are in fact achievable with significant compliance margin, with multiple
technology pathways, based technologies that are robust (in fact modifications of existing
technologies) and designed for the life of the truck.
• The incremental costs of these technologies are minimal (approximately 3% of the truck
or less) and many options also reduce C02 (and thus also achieve fuel savings), as
illustrated in the surveys by National Renewable Energy Lab, CARB, and Manufacturers
of Emissions Controls Association (representing the suppliers that actually design,
produce and sell the technologies above). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.4]
4. The regulations should drive simultaneous NOx and C02 reduction. There are multiple
pathways for internal combustion-based powertrains to achieve stringent NOx levels, together
with 5-10% C02 reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.5]
As shown above, there are several technology pathways to achieve the low NOx limits proposed
in the Omnibus rule and Option 1. Some of these also reduce C02, and thus have value in both
achieving the 2027 GHG limits as well as real fuel efficiency benefits that translate in
transportation fuel cost reductions, which further helps reduce the modest incremental costs of
the additional technologies. To illustrate this point we submit the following examples: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.5]
• CDA has an immediate C02 benefit at low load (5-20%, but also 1% on GHG cycles).
However, the CDA function is a significant part of high efficiency engine braking, thus
its incremental costs are in fact small and they enable higher power engine brakes as well.
• Electric heaters typically require 48V power. Once installed on the vehicle, this is the
basis of micro- and mild-hybridization, with benefits in the range of 2-3% (micro) and 5-
8%> (mild).
• Furthermore, the additional electrical power has non-emission benefits such as power for
advanced computing needed for ADAS applications or power for electrical HVAC that
improves driver comfort through faster cabin cooling.
• Heavy Duty electrical diesel hybrids have potential as vocational powertrains with 15%-
25% C02 reduction, while providing full heater capability for the Aftertreatment function
535
-------
• EGR pumps enable better breathing and efficient turbo machinery with a 4% C02 benefit
but also 40%-60% engine-out NOx, and up to 90C temperature increase that reduces the
load on the Aftertreatment system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.5]
We recommend the following:
• The Agency should take into consideration the system-level effects of combining the low
NOx and low C02 technologies when calculating the impact and cost of
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.5]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
Current zero-emission technologies are capable of dramatically reducing NOx emissions. In fact,
the White Paper EDF has submitted along with these comments finds that ZEV deployment in
the 2027-2029 timeframe can deliver 840,000 tons of NOx reductions beyond EPA's proposed
option 1 through 2050 and 2.2 million tons of NOx reductions beyond a 2026 baseline through
2050. Accordingly, in both these and future standards, we prefer that EPA adopt multipollutant
standards that achieve reductions in both criteria and climate pollution and drive zero-emitting
technologies. A multipollutant approach is firmly grounded in EPA's authorities under 202(a)(1),
discussed above, and 202(a)(3), which, directs the Administrator to establish standards for NOx
and particulate matter reflecting the 'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.22]
Setting standards in this manner would allow both a heavy-duty NOx engine standard and a
heavy-duty GHG standard to be set in a way that incorporates the dual criteria and climate
benefits of zero-emission vehicles and ensure there are not pollution trade-offs between two
different sets of standards and between ICE vehicles and ZEVs. As addressed in more detail in
our comments on EPA's proposed adjustments to the Phase 2 GHG standards, it is clear that a
rapid increase in the market share of zero emission vehicles has begun and will continue in the
coming years. Neither EPA's proposed NOx nor GHG standard adequately account for this
market shift. While EPA has estimated that ZEVs will comprise 1.5 percent of the fleet during
the period of these standards, analysis conducted by ERM projects ZEV sales of up to 34 percent
in 2027-29.99 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.22]
99 See supra fn 72.
Organization: Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA)
Hydrogen has significant potential to promote environmental justice. Using hydrogen as a fuel or
energy source in combination with fuel cells produces no NOx, SOX, and particulate matter that
directly affect corridor adjacent communities. For example, replacing heavy-duty trucks, port
equipment, buses, vans, and other vehicles with zero-emission fuel cell electric options would
significantly reduce harmful pollutants and noise in these communities, improving local air
536
-------
quality and public health. These medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are especially important from
an environmental justice standpoint as our nation's highways often cut through disadvantaged
and minority communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1187-A2, p. 2]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Major suppliers continue to develop and test technologies that can be used to simultaneously
achieve lower NOx emissions and reduced C02/fuel consumption. An example is the Eaton
Corp development of a 48- volt electric heater to increase catalyst inlet temperatures at low
loads. The heater combined with cylinder deactivation cut low load NOx emissions in half
compared to cylinder deactivation alone, while reducing C02 and fuel consumption by nearly 2
percent. FTP C02/fuel consumption was reduced by slightly less than 1 percent. 10 Another
example is use of an EGR pump to optimize turbocharger and EGR flow. Testing at SwRI
indicates a fuel consumption reduction of approximately 3 percent on the hot FTP. 11 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
10. SAE paper 2021-01-0211, Tables 8 and 17a, April 6, 2021.
11. Int'l Vienna Engine Symposium 2022 - Session: Latest results in engine and
component development
Another promising option for compliance with the proposed Option 1 standards is the opposed
piston diesel engine being developed by Achates Power in San Diego, CA. On the dynamometer
the demonstration engine met the proposed 2031 NOx standards using a current, conventional
aftertreatment system. More importantly, this 400 hp, 10.6-liter diesel engine has been installed
in a Peterbilt class 8 tractor and placed into fleet service by Walmart. Recent PEMS testing of
this truck performed by UC Riverside demonstrated NOx emissions over 50 percent below the
proposed in-use limits. Walmart also compared fuel consumption of the Achates/Peterbilt truck
to a comparable truck with a Detroit Diesel 15-liter engine. The Achates-powered truck had 10
percent better fuel economy. An independent study showed the cost of volume production of the
opposed piston engine including compliance with the proposed standards will cost no more and
possibly less than current diesel engines. 12 This technology provides a second feasible pathway
for engine manufacturers to meet the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 9]
12. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-Heavy-Duty-
Diesel-In-Use-Testing-Results.pdf
Organization: Loren Marz
There should be some provision for use of renewable/synthetic diesel fuels in any future
regulatory action regarding GHG emissions. In some scenarios, these non-fossil diesel fuels are
more effective in reducing overall GHG emissions than electrification. See, e.g.,
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c05893,
https://www.velocys.com/2019/10/10/negative-emission-fuel-agreement/. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1394]
537
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (22,659)
- Cleaner trucks are not only available and ready now, they also are projected to deliver critical
cost savings for operators and drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
- Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be
cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 2 (959)
Lastly, in addition to phasing out diesel engines, the rule should make clear that natural gas-
powered engines are not the solution. Studies have shown that trucks running on methane can be
as polluting as diesel, and we need to be driving investments in cleaner energy sources, not
deploying more fossil fuel infrastructure.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1608-A1, p.l]
4 https://theicct.org/publication/a-comparison-of-nitrogen-oxide-nox-emissions-from-
heavy-duty-diesel-natural-gas-and-electric-vehicles/
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
In addition to on engine and aftertreatment technology innovation over the course of the
demonstration program, a new engine architecture has been developed and tested. The engine
has been commercialized by Achates Power and is a 400 hp, 10.6L opposed-piston
configuration. Besides being tested on an engine dynamometer, the engine has been installed in a
Peterbilt 579 tractor that is current in fleet service with Walmart. The results from the test
program show that the opposed piston engine combined with current commercially available
aftertreatment systems can achieve NOx emissions of 0.007 g/bhp-hr on the FTP cycle, 0.014
g/bhp-hr on the SET, 0.02 g/hr on the clean idle cycle and 0.021 g/bhp-hr on the LLC after
435,000 equivalent aging. These values offer substantial margin (30-65%) relative to the 2031
limit of the Proposed Option 1 standards with greater than 50% margin under all operating
modes [14], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.8]
[14] A. Salvi, F. Redon, D. Youngren and L. Fromm, 'Low C02, UltralowNOx Heavy
Duty Diesel Engine: Experimental Results (SAE 2022-01-0426),' SAE WCX, April
2022.
Another promising technology that is being explored to both reduce the NOx and GHG footprint
of heavy-duty vehicles is the hydrogen internal combustion engine (H2ICE). These engines,
when coupled with advanced NOx aftertreatment, have the potential to meet the proposed NOx
limits while emitting zero tailpipe carbon emissions when operated on any hydrogen fuel and
zero lifecycle carbon emissions when operated on renewable green hydrogen. There is broad
industry support for internal combustion engines fueled with clean hydrogen, including most
engine manufacturers and component suppliers conducting significant development work and
on-road demonstration in trucks. H2ICE are attractive options in commercial trucking where
538
-------
challenges exist in applying current BEV technology, with one of the main benefits being the
opportunity to leverage existing investments in manufacturing capacity in engines and
aftertreatment while growing the market for on-board hydrogen storage technology and
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.8-9]
H2ICE vehicles share many components with today's diesel and natural gas powered vehicle
fleet, including the base engine, installation parts, powertrain components and aftertreatment
system architectures. Furthermore, H2ICE can borrow technology from currently available
natural gas engines, such as cylinder heads, ignition systems, fuel injection, turbochargers,
cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and engine control unit/software, among others. Nearly
all on-road and off-road engine OEMs, along with their suppliers, are developing H2ICE for
commercial introduction in the MY 2025-2027 time frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-
Al, p.9]
Engines and aftertreatment systems can be designed and optimized for simultaneous
reductions in NOx and CQ2 emissions. rEPA-HO-OAR-2019-0055-132Q-Al. p. 10]
The penetration of fuel-saving technologies into the heavy-duty fleet has been spurred by U.S.
EPA's Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Phase 1 and Phase 2 Standards. At the same time, research
undertaken by multiple teams as part of the Department of Energy's SuperTruck I program has
demonstrated how these technologies can be combined to achieve a 16% boost in fuel economy
and improved freight efficiency. Participants in the SuperTruck II program have been
demonstrating even greater gains in fuel and freight efficiency, with engines achieving 55%
brake thermal efficiency through the use of technologies like waste heat recovery. Last year
DOE awarded five OEMs funding to develop electric powertrains in SuperTruck III. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.10-11]
Component suppliers have continued to innovate, and many technologies that were not even
considered as compliance options in the Phase 2 rule are now likely to be deployed on limited
engine families in 2024 and more broadly in 2027. Furthermore, engine efficiency technologies -
such as cylinder deactivation, advanced turbochargers, and hybridization - have also been
demonstrated in combination with advanced aftertreatment technologies on heavy-duty diesel
engines. Testing has shown the ability of several advanced engine technologies to be optimized
to improve fuel efficiency while increasing exhaust temperature in diesel engine exhaust, which
improves SCR NOx reduction performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 11]
The calibration of internal combustion engines is a delicate balance that has to deal with trade-
offs to optimize performance and emissions. For example, there is an inverse relationship
between PM and NOx emissions that engine manufacturers applied to meet emission standards
up through the 2006 heavy-duty highway regulations. In 2007, the requirement to reduce both
PM and NOx emissions caused OEMs to install DPFs on diesel vehicles, which allowed engine
calibrators to optimize the combustion in the engine to meet lower NOx emissions while relying
on the DPF to remediate the resulting higher PM emissions. This example of effective emission
regulations provided a technology solution to overcome the traditional barriers of engine
thermodynamics. In 2010, SCR systems were installed on most trucks in response to a further
tightening of NOx limits. SCR allowed calibrators to not only reduce the soot load on DPFs (and
539
-------
in turn provide a better NOx-to-soot ratio to promote passive soot regeneration) as a way of
improving fuel efficiency but also to take advantage of another well-known trade-off in
combustion thermodynamics between fuel consumption (or C02 emissions) and NOx emissions
from the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.ll]
Since 2010 the predominant technologies to reduce tailpipe NOx from diesel engines have been
EGR from the engine and SCR in the exhaust, and every generation of SCR system has led to
improvements in catalyst conversion efficiency. In 2011, U.S. EPA adopted federal GHG
standards for heavy-duty trucks that were implemented in 2014 through 2020. The Phase 2
regulation was adopted in 2016 to cover trucks from 2021 through 2027. Engine manufacturers
quickly recognized SCR as a very effective technology option that has allowed them to meet the
first phase of heavy-duty GHG standards while still achieving NOx and PM reduction targets
from the engine. OEMs have accomplished this by calibrating new engines to burn less fuel and
rely on the SCR system to remediate the additional NOx emissions that result from such
calibration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.ll]
The portfolio of technology options available to reduce GHG emissions from heavy-duty trucks
and engines is continually growing in response to federal GHG standards. In fact, a review of
heavy-duty engine certifications from 2002 to 2019 shows that once emission control and
efficiency improving technologies were required on engines in 2010-2011, the
inverse relationship between C02 and NOx emissions at the tailpipe was overcome and both
were reduced simultaneously (see Figure 1). Several engines certified since 2010 have shown the
ability to achieve 0.1 g/bhp-hr or lower NOx emissions over the composite FTP certification
cycle, which is 50% below the current standard. Of those engines, several have demonstrated the
ability to meet future Phase 2 GHG regulation limits for vocational engines that go into effect in
2021, 2024 and 2027. Setting stringent emission targets for both C02 and NOx through realistic
regulations has caused engine calibrators to expand their toolbox from the engine to the
powertrain to enable simultaneous NOx reductions and engine efficiency improvements. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp. 11-12]
Advances in thermal management air handling and electrification technologies enable high
catalyst performance required to reduce NOx to meet the proposed emission
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 12]
Thermal management of the SCR system is critical to achieving low NOx emissions during low
load operation. Traditionally, under colder exhaust operating conditions, engines would be
calibrated to run hotter via higher idle speeds, late fuel injection into cylinders or by injecting
fuel over the DOC to keep aftertreatment hot, both of which result in additional fuel consumption
and C02 emissions. Recent emission control packaging architectures have included innovations
in materials and designs to minimize thermal losses from the exhaust system. Double-walled
exhaust pipes and canning designs with either air gaps or ceramic fiber insulation - as well as
packaging exhaust components close together in a compact space, referred to as a 'one-box
system' - help retain exhaust heat over long periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
P 12]
540
-------
In addition to passive ways to retain heat in the exhaust system, technologies can be installed on
engines that deliver exhaust heat when needed. It is possible to use bypass hardware to minimize
heat loss in turbochargers or EGR coolers, upstream of the exhaust system. All modern diesel
engines include turbochargers to provide boost and increased fuel economy and EGR systems to
control NOx emissions. These can both contribute to lower exhaust temperatures by either
converting the heat into useful boosting work or reducing the combustion temperature for in-
cylinder NOx control, which results in lower heat energy in the exhaust stream through their
operation. During low-speed operation and low exhaust flow, a turbocharger offers limited boost.
Therefore, in the future, engines may employ turbocharger and EGR bypass valves that can be
activated at times when it is more desirable to deliver hot exhaust to downstream catalysts for
warm-up and stay-warm operation. Transient response challenges that may result from bypass
systems can be resolved with electric assist motors built into the turbocharger or by the addition
of an electric or mechanically driven boost compressor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
P 13]
At low load, a bypass alone may not yield enough heat using standard diesel engine combustion
techniques. Several advanced thermal management strategies will provide options for engine
manufacturers to calibrate engines to simultaneously heat up exhaust and save fuel, which can
offset the costs of the technologies to their customers. Technologies such as fuel burners and
electric heaters in combination with cylinder deactivation and advanced aftertreatment systems
have been demonstrated to achieve ultra-low NOx levels without increasing C02 emissions [3]
[4] [5], The reason for this is due to their efficiency in generating heat compared to traditional
methods of late post-injection of fuel across a DOC. In fact, these technologies have been tested
across several drive cycles in conjunction with the systems in the SwRI demonstration program.
Results for the FTP show the ability to meet 0.012 g/bhp-hr with a 1.6% reduction in C02.
Depending on the actual calibration and control of the heat source, the system can be optimized
to reduce both NOx and C02 or favor one of these for greater reductions while holding the other
neutral. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 13]
[3] J. McCarthy, Jr., A. Matheaus, B. Zavala, C. Sharp and T. Harris, 'Meeting Future
NOx Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional
Aftertreatment System (SAE-2022-01-0539),' SAE WCX, April 2022.
[4] T. Harris, R. Bellard, M. Muhleck and G. Palmer, 'Pre-Heating the Aftertreatment
System with a Burner (SAE 2022-01-0554),' SAE WCX, April 2022.
[5] A. Matheaus, G. Neely, C. Sharp, J. Hopkins and J. McCarthy, Jr., 'Fast Diesel
Aftertreatment Heat-up Using CDA and an Electric Heater (SAE 2021-01-0211),' SAE
WCX, April 2021.
Cylinder deactivation (CDA) is an established technology on light-duty vehicles, with the
primary objective of reducing fuel consumption and C02 emissions. This technology combines
hardware and software computing power to, in effect, 'shut down' some of an engine's cylinders,
based on the power demand, and keep the effective cylinder load in an efficient portion of the
engine map without burning more fuel. Based on decades of experience with CDA on passenger
cars and trucks, CDA is now being adapted to heavy-duty diesel engines. On a diesel engine,
541
-------
CDA is programmed to operate differently than on gasoline engines, with the goal of the diesel
engine running hotter in low load situations by having the pistons that are firing do more work.
This programming is particularly important for vehicles that spend a lot of time in creep and idle
operation modes. During low load operation, CDA has resulted in exhaust temperatures
increasing by 50°C to 100°C when it is most needed to maintain effective conversion of NOx in
the SCR. In some demonstrations, CDA has been combined with a 48V mild hybrid motor with
launch and sailing capability to extend the range of CDA operation over the engine, and this may
deliver multiplicative C02 reductions from these synergistic technologies [15], [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 13]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
The use of variable valve actuation (VVA) is another approach for active thermal management.
VVA approaches include: early exhaust valve opening (EEVO), early intake valve closing
(EIVC) or late intake valve closing (LIVC), all considered active thermal management strategies.
Both EIVC and LIVC reduce the amount of air trapped at valve closing. Both methods reduce
the effective compression ratio and volumetric efficiency, resulting in lower NOx emissions and
reduced air-fuel ratio, and in turn, hotter exhaust temperature. EEVO results in hotter exhaust gas
to heat-up aftertreatment; however, more fueling is needed to maintain brake power output. This
results in a C02 emissions penalty that must be accounted for in calibrating for better fuel
economy and higher engine-out NOx during hot operation when the SCR can be used to
remediate NOx emissions. VVA offers some potential cost savings and is therefore used in some
medium-duty applications as a fast heat-up strategy. OEMs will have multiple pathways at
varying costs to achieve their thermal management objectives and achieve ultra-low NOx
emissions in low-load and low-speed operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 14]
Modern turbochargers have a variety of available design options enabling lower C02 emissions
by improving thermal management capability, such as: i.) state of the art aerodynamics, ii)
electrically-actuated wastegates that allow exhaust gases to by-pass the turbocharger to increase
the temperature in the aftertreatment, and iii.) advanced ball bearings to improve transient boost
response. These and other technologies are available to support further reductions in C02 and
emissions. More advanced turbochargers are designed with a variable nozzle that adjusts with
exhaust flow to provide more control of intake pressure and optimization of the air-to-fuel ratio
for improved performance (e.g., improved torque at lower speeds) and fuel economy. These
variable geometry turbochargers (VGT), also known as variable nozzle turbines (VNT) and
variable turbine geometry (VTG), also enable lower C02 emissions through improved thermal
management capability to enhance aftertreatment light-off Finally, modern turbochargers have
enabled engine and vehicle manufacturers the ability to downsize engines, resulting in fuel
savings without sacrificing power and/or performance. The latest high-efficiency turbochargers
are one of the more effective tools demonstrated in the DOE SuperTruck program [17], In
addition to affecting the power density of the engine, turbochargers play a significant role in
NOx and C02 regulations compliance. Continuous improvement in turbocharger technology is
making it possible to run very lean combustion (high air/fuel ratios), which is efficient. This
542
-------
improvement allows for very low particulate generation and even low engine-out NOx. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 14]
[17] Navistar, 'Final Scientific/Technical Report for SuperTruck Project: Development
and Demonstration of a Fuel-Efficient, Class 8 Tractor & Trailer Engine System,' 2016.
Turbo-compounding is a variant of turbocharger technology that allows for the mechanical
energy from the exhaust gas to be extracted and added to the engine crankshaft through a
transmission. Mechanical turbo-compounding has been employed on some commercial diesel
engines, and EPA estimated penetration to reach 10% in the U.S. by the time the Phase 2 GHG
Regulation is fully implemented in 2027 [18], An early 2014 version of a turbo-compound-
equipped engine was used during the first stage of testing at SwRI under the CARB HD Low
NOx Test Program, and the results from this engine with advanced aftertreatment have been
summarized in several SAE technical papers [10, 8, 9], While turbo-compounding has the
potential to reduce fuel consumption, it can result in lower exhaust temperatures that can
challenge aftertreatment performance. Therefore, it is important to consider turbo-compound
designs that incorporate bypass systems during cold start and low load operation or electrically
driven turbo-compounding systems where the unit can be placed after the aftertreatment
system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp. 14-15]
[8] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, M. Carter, S. Yoon and C. Henry, 'Achieving Ultra
Low NOx Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine
and an Advanced Technology Emissions System - Thermal Management Strategies (SAE
2017-01-0954),' SAE International Journal of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1697-1712,
2017.
[9] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, S. Yoon, M. Carter and C. Henry, 'Achieving Ultra Low NOx
Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine - Comparison
of Advanced Technology Approaches (SAE 2017-01-0956),' SAE International Journal
of Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1722-1735, 2017.
[10] C. Sharp, C. C. Webb, G. Neely, J. V. Sarlashkar, S. B. Rengarajan, S. Yoon, C.
Henry and B. Zavala, 'Achieving Ultra Low NOx Emissions Levels with a 2017 Heavy-
Duty On-Highway TC Diesel Engine and an Advanced Technology Emissions System -
NOx Management Strategies (SAE 2017-01-0958),' SAE International Journal of
Engines, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1736-1748, 2017.
[18] U.S. EPA, 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles — Phase 2,' Federal Register, pp. 73478-74274,
25 October 2016.
Driven turbochargers can be used to control the speed of the turbomachinery independently of
the engine's exhaust flow and vary the relative ratio between engine speed and turbo speed.
Driven turbochargers may be utilized for several reasons, including performance, efficiency, and
emissions. Considered an 'on-demand' air device, a driven turbocharger also receives transient
power from its turbine. During transient operation, a driven turbocharger will behave like a
543
-------
supercharger and consume mechanical or electrical energy to accelerate the turbomachinery for
improved engine response. At high-speed operation, the driven turbocharger will return
mechanical or electrical power to the engine in the form of turbo-compounding, which recovers
excess exhaust power to improve efficiency. This cumulative effect lets a driven turbocharger
perform all the functions of a supercharger, turbocharger, and turbo-compounder. NOx emission
control uniquely benefits from the application of driven turbochargers in several ways, including
the ability to decouple EGR from boost pressure, reduce transient engine-out NOx, and improve
aftertreatment temperatures during cold start and low load operation. Bypassing a driven turbine
can provide quick temperature rises for the aftertreatment while still delivering the necessary
boost pressure to the engine through supercharging, which also increases the gross load on the
engine to help increase exhaust temperature [19], Testing has shown that routing engine exhaust
to the aftertreatment by bypassing a turbocharger is one of the most effective methods to heat up
the aftertreatment [15], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.15]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
[19] J. Brin, J. Keim, E. Christensen, S. Holman and T. Waldron, 'Applying a Driven
Turbocharger to Improve Diesel NOx Conversion,' in SAE WCX, Detroit, MI, 2022.
48-volt mild hybrid electrical systems and components are expected to make their way onto
heavy-duty vehicles in the near future. These 48-volt systems can be found on many light-duty
vehicle models (primarily in Europe) from Mercedes, Audi, VW, Renault and PSA. In the U.S.,
FCA is offering a 48-volt system on the RAM 1500 pick-up and the Jeep Wrangler under the
eTorque trademark. Because the safe voltage threshold is 60 volts, which is especially important
when technicians perform maintenance on the electrical system, 48-volt systems are
advantageous from an implementation standpoint. From a cost perspective, 48-volt systems
include smaller starter and wire gauge requirements, offering cost savings from a high voltage
architecture of a full hybrid. The U.S. Department of Energy's SuperTruck II program teams
employed 48-volt technologies on their vehicles to demonstrate trucks with greater than 55%
brake thermal efficiency. A recent study demonstrated through model-based simulations that a
48-volt technology package combined with advanced aftertreatment can achieve a composite
FTP emission level of 0.015 g/bhp-hr [20], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.15]
[20] F. Dhanraj, M. Dahodwala, S. Joshi, E. Koehler, M. Franke and D. Tomazic,
'Evaluation of 48V Technologies to Meet Future C02 and Low NOx Emission
Regulations for Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines (2022-01-0555),' in SAE WCX,
Detroit, MI, 2022.
Similar to the passenger car fleet, truck OEMs are considering replacing traditionally
mechanically-driven components with electric versions to gain efficiency. Running accessories
off of 48-volt electricity rather than 12-volts is more efficient due to reduced electrical losses
and because components that draw more power, such as pumps and fans, have increased
efficiency when operating at higher voltages. The types of components that may be electrified
include, electric turbos, electronic EGR pumps, AC compressors, electrically heated catalysts,
544
-------
electric cooling fans, oil pumps and coolant pumps, among others. Another technology that 48-
volt systems could enable is electric power take-offs rather than using an engine powered
auxiliary power unit or idling the main engine during hoteling while drivers rest. MECA
members supplying commercial 48 V components for commercial vehicles believe that the
technology may be feasible to apply to a limited number of engine families by 2024, and it is
likely to see greater penetration by 2027, especially on Class 8 line-haul where full hybridization
is less practical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.15-16]
Mild hybridization covers a range of configurations, but a promising one includes an electric
motor/generator, regenerative braking, electric boost and advanced batteries. Stop/start
deployment also provides a thermal management benefit to the aftertreatment by preventing
cooling airflow through the aftertreatment during hot idle conditions. In this way, 48-volt mild
hybridization is complementary technology to CDA and start-stop capability, allowing the
combination of multiple technologies on a vehicle to yield synergistic benefits and justify the
cost. By shutting off the engine at idle or motoring using start/stop, micro hybrid technology can
help to maintain aftertreatment temperature by avoiding the pumping of cold air through the
exhaust. Capturing braking energy and storing it in a small battery for running auxiliary
components when the engine is off offers another C02 reducing strategy for OEMs to
deploy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 16]
In lighter medium-duty applications, advanced start-stop systems have been developed that use
an induction motor in a 48-volt belt-driven starter-generator (BSG). When the engine is running,
the motor, acting as a generator, will charge a separate battery. When the engine needs to be
started, the motor then applies its torque via the accessory belt and cranks the engine instead of
using the starter motor. The separate battery can also be recharged via a regenerative braking
system. In addition to the start-stop function, a BSG system can enhance fuel economy even
during highway driving by cutting off the fuel supply when cruising or decelerating. Such
systems can also be designed to deliver a short power boost to the drivetrain. This boost is
typically 10 to 20 kW and is limited by the capacity of the 48 V battery and accessory belt linking
the motor to the crankshaft. New designs are linking the BSG directly to the crankshaft and
allowing additional power boost of up to 30kW to be delivered, giving greater benefits to light
and medium commercial vehicles [15], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.16]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
Full hybrid configurations are currently found on several models of light-duty passenger cars and
light trucks in the U.S. and a limited number of medium-duty trucks. These include models that
can also be plugged-in to enable some all-electric operation, usually described as all-electric
range (AER). A full hybrid can enable electrification of many of the components described
above for mild hybrid vehicles, but the higher voltages allow for more parts to be electrified and
to a larger degree. Full hybrids implement larger electric motors and batteries, which support
greater acceleration capability and regenerative braking power. Mild hybridization is well-suited
to heavy-duty vehicles used for long-haul transportation because of the limited fuel economy of a
full hybrid at highway speeds. Full hybridization and electrification are more practical for small
545
-------
heavy-duty vehicles (e.g., Class 4-6) that do not travel long distances or operate for long periods
without returning to a central location. Full hybrid vehicles have made the highest penetration
into parcel delivery, beverage delivery and food distribution vehicles because they can take
advantage of regenerative braking in urban driving [21], We expect to see some application of
strong hybrids combined with a lowNOx engine to reduce C02 emissions in several vocational
applications. Integrated electric drivetrain systems, consisting of a fully qualified transmission,
motor and power electronics controller, are now commercially available. With power levels of
over 160kW and the ability to meet high torque requirements, these systems enable
electrification of medium-duty commercial vehicles. There is also an increasing number of
electric drivetrain solutions up to 300kW that are suitable for Class 8 vehicles that can be used
with either battery or fuel cell power sources [15], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.16-
17]
[15] MECA, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90%
Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' 2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
[21] CARB, 'Draft Technology Assessment: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Vehicles,' 2015.
As noted above, the types of technologies that enable electrified heavy-duty vehicles are already
commercially available with more anticipated by 2027. MECA supports EPA's proposal to
revise the Phase 2 vehicle GHG limits for MY 2027 based on EPA's analysis in this rule of the
projected penetration of heavy-duty electric vehicles. Some barriers that remain, such as
infrastructure needs, should be addressed through state and national efforts. MECA supports
EPA revisiting projections of heavy-duty electric vehicle penetration, as challenges to
electrification of the heavy-duty sector are overcome. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
P-17]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA strongly discourages any technology mandates (i.e., avoid ZEV mandates). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
EPA's rule stringencies do not fully reflect the technological capability to reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides from conventionally powered vehicles in the timeframe of this rule. The co-
proposed options considered by EPA (Options 1 and 2) are not reflective of the full range of
emissions reductions technology potential for diesel engines. Below, we outline ways in which
the proposal must be strengthened to reflect the best available evidence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 23]
Mild hybridization is an emissions reduction strategy that is synergistic with the VVA strategy
mentioned previously. Mild hybridization can offer a lower cost opportunity for emissions
reductions than strong hybrids, particularly with increasing movement towards 48 V
electrification. Higher voltage allows for more efficient power distribution, and shifting the
546
-------
number of hydraulically or mechanically-driven accessories to electric operation has benefits not
just for efficiency but also packaging of the engine compartment. A 48V mild hybrid system
simply builds upon these already existing rationale for moving to a 48V electric system and uses
it for better regenerative braking and more responsive stop-start. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 25]
Many strategies would benefit from 48V mild hybridization—for example, a 48V electrical
system is an enabler for devices like an electrically driven turbocharger,103 an electrically
heated catalyst, 104 or an electrified EGR pump. 105 Recent analysis shows such a system
deployed in a medium-duty application is capable of simultaneously meeting both a 20 mg/bhp-
hr standard on the FTP cycle and its 2027 GHG target. 106 A recent study by Eaton at SwRI
showed that an electric heater connected to a 48V system worked synergistically with CD A,
further reducing fuel use while improving NOx reduction at low-load conditions. 107 According
to the paper, this system, too, is broadly applicable to a range of heavy-duty classes and
operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 25]
103. MECA. 2020. Technology feasibility for heavy-duty diesel trucks in achieving 90
percent lower NOx standards in 2027. February 2020. Online at
http://www.meca.org/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf.
104. Dorobantu, M. 2019. Commercial Vehicle Powertrains in the Era of Simultaneous
NOx and C02 Reduction. (Presentation). 16th SAE Brasil forum on diesel and alternative
technologies for commercial and off-road vehicles, September 4, 2019.
105. McCarthy 2019b
106. Dhanraj et al. 2022
107. Matheaus et al. 2021
The cost-competitiveness of these 48 V systems is well established. One analysis projected that
48V systems in line-haul operation would cost less than $7,000 for up to 4 percent fuel savings
in 2025.108 A recent report by the National Academies estimated 2022 costs for a 48V mild
hybrid system to range from $4,584- 5,010 (Class 4) up to $10,080-11,700 (Class 8 vocational),
noting that "costs will likely come down in the 2022 and 2030 timeframes," with fuel savings
ranging from 16-22 percent depending on the duty cycle. 109 These costs are substantially
reduced compared to those previously used by EPA. 110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p.
25]
108. Tarnutzer, S.A. 2017. New and Emerging Energy Conversion Opportunities.
(Presentation). SAE Commercial Vehicle Engineering Conference, Chicago, Sept. 2017.
109. NRC. 2020. Reducing Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: Final Report. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. Online at https://doi.org/10.17226/25542. p. 230.
547
-------
110. Compare to EPA-420-R-16-900, p. 2-175.
EPA noted the potential for opposed-piston engines to play a significant role in emissions
reductions:
"Opposed-piston engine technology has not yet been proven feasible in Class 8 on-highway
applications, but if feasibility is shown, then the technology could provide another pathway to
ultralow NOx, high efficiency engine technology for heavy-duty vehicle fleets. If the
demonstration project cited above is successful, then it may lead to early-commercial
deployment of opposed piston diesel engines for heavy-duty on-highway applications in the
near-term. As such, it may be reasonable to anticipate commercialization of heavy-duty opposed-
piston diesel engine technology by model year 2027." (EPA Draft RIA, p. 22) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 26]
Recent data from Achates Power confirms the success of the cited demonstration program, with
wide margins for compliance. Lab test results confirm that this engine design is capable of
meeting simultaneously EPA's greenhouse gas engine emissions requirements for 2027 and the
Omnibus rule, "in a cost-effective and robust manner." 111 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
p. 26]
111. Salvi, A., Redon, F., Youngren, D., and Fromm, L., "Low C02, Ultralow NOx
Heavy Duty Diesel Engine: Experimental Results," SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0426,
2022, doi: 10.4271/2022-01-0426.
Not only has this novel design been confirmed in the lab, but this engine is now being deployed
in real world operation, pulling freight for Wal-Mart. Early test results indicate compliance with
EPA's proposed in-use requirements. 112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 26]
112. https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-In-Use-
Emissions-Measurements.pdf
It is vital that EPA avoid incentivizing natural gas vehicles, which perpetuate reliance on fossil
fuels whose production and use—from drilling to transporting to refining to storage—is rife with
emissions that adversely impact communities, public health, and the environment. 175 Moreover,
supporting combustion technologies, particularly where additional fueling infrastructure is
required, locks in long-term fossil fuel investments that risk becoming stranded assets. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 44]
175 https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/infographics/infographic-natural-gas
Beyond the financial and stranded cost risks, there is also risk that natural gas vehicles will not
achieve their claimed emission levels. Preliminary results from an on-going study of 200
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles show that natural gas vehicles emit well above their
certification when tested in the real world. 176 Thirty natural gas vehicles certified at the current
NOx standard of 0.2 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) and 15 natural gas vehicles
certified at the optional low NOx standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr were tested using a Portable
548
-------
Emission Measurement System (PEMS). The results were alarming, with 0.2- certfied vehicles
emitting, on average, roughly double their certification rate, and the 0.02-certified vehicles
emitting roughly triple (Figure 7). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 44 - 45]
176 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
04/Natural_Gas_HD_Engines_Fact_Sheet.pdf
The study also found that "[a]s vehicles age and accumulate mileage, emission control systems
can deteriorate as a result of natural degradation or mal-maintenance, which can lead to
emissions that are often much higher than their certification standard." A related study
comparing technology specific emission control system deterioration found that as natural gas
vehicles age, they can and do pollute more than their diesel counterparts and, by extension,
exponentially more than EVs. 177 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 45]
177 Marc Besch et al., In-use emissions and chassis dynamometer emissions rates of
heavy-duty diesel and alternative fueled vehicles operating in Southern California, 30th
CRC Real World Emissions Workshop (Mar. 2021) [hereinafter "30th CRC Real World
Emissions Presentation"].
Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
NACWA asks that EPA include NZEVs that are fueled by biogas produced by POTWs. Utilities
across the country are expanding their efforts to recover the resources available from wastewater,
including biogas that is produced from the anaerobic digestion of biosolids. Biogas production
can be increased through co-digestion of biosolids and food waste, which is becoming more
common as communities and states encourage or require the diversion of food waste from
landfills. Since the disposal of food waste in landfills increases the fugitive methane emissions
from landfills, co-digestion and use of biogas as a vehicle fuel can result in significant
greenhouse gas emission reductions. EPA should therefore provide incentives for renewable
biogas - whether produced from anaerobic digestion of biosolids alone or co-digestion with food
waste - to be used as a vehicle fuel for NZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1343-A1, p.2]
Organization: National Center for Health Research (NCHR)
Lastly, in addition to phasing out diesel engines, the rule should make clear that natural gas-
powered engines are not the solution. Research has shown that trucks running on methane can be
as polluting as diesel, and any future investments should ensure cleaner energy sources, rather
than incentivize the extraction, transportation or use of fossil fuels. [4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1227-A1, p.l]
[4] The International Council on Clean Transportation. A Comparison of Nitrogen Oxide
(NOx) Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel, Natural Gas, and Electric Vehicles.
https://theicct.org/publication/a-comparison-of-nitrogen-oxide-nox-emissions-from-
heavy-duty-diesel-natural-gas-and-electric-vehicles/.
September 2021.
549
-------
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
The current propane vehicle market as well as the evolution of renewable propane are evidence
of the industry's abilities to meet the environmental goals of the agency. Renewable propane has
entered the U.S. and European markets, unveiling new opportunities to transition from
conventional fuel and equipment to renewable fuel produced from vegetable oil, used
cooking oil, animal tallow and biomass waste. 14 Renewable propane maintains all the
advantages of conventional propane, but with even greater reductions in lifecycle carbon dioxide
emissions. 15 One domestic operation based in Louisiana produces approximately 75 million
gallons/year of renewable fuels including renewable propane. 16 Starting this year, a new
biorefinery in California is slated to produce 13 million gallons/year of renewable propane. 17
The produced renewable propane is currently utilized in the propane market throughout the U.S.
with a carbon intensity of 20.5 - 43.5 gC02e/MJ.18 Further, renewable propane is identical in
chemical composition to conventional propane, which means that it is a drop-in replacement for
conventional propane applications and engines and equipment do not require add-ons or
modification to utilize renewable propane or a blend of renewable and conventional propane, in
contrast to diesel and electric alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1263-A1, pp.3-4]
14 REG, REG Renewable Autogas - Brining 'Bio' to Propane,
https://www.regi.com/products/transportation-fuels/reg-renewable-propane; see also
NESTE, Products, Renewable Propane,
https://www.neste.com/companies/products/renewable-fuels/renewable-propane.
15 REG, REG Renewable Autogas - Brining 'Bio' to Propane,
https://www.regi.com/products/transportation-fuels/reg-renewable-propane.
16 Supra note 15.
17 Press Release, UGI Corporation, UGI and Global Clean Energy Announce Partnership
to Distribute Renewable LPG (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.ugicorp.com/news-
releases/news-release-details/ugi-and-global-clean-energy-announce-partnership-
distribute.
18 LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities, California Air Resources Board,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathway-certified-carbon-intensities.
We ask the agency to consider the modifications and advantages shared through this comment in
order to present the most beneficial landscape for all alternative fuels. We recognize the value of
uniform nationwide standards to relieve burdens for our manufacturing partners. Under Option 1
of the proposal, the propane industry is best positioned to assist the agency in reaching its
environmental goals. We encourage the agency to revise the maximum butanes standard to yield
further benefits. Also, we emphasize the innovation of the propane industry in the research,
development, and deployment of renewable propane to progress the advantages the industry
offers. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1263- A 1, p.4]
550
-------
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
Ultra-low NOx medium- and heavy-duty natural gas-powered trucks and buses are on the road
today and perform at levels that are 95 percent below the current federal NOx standard and 98
percent below the federal particulate matter standard. When fueled by renewable natural gas
(RNG) recovered from landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and food and agricultural waste
digesters, these trucks and buses produce greenhouse gas emissions that are up to 331 percent
lower than diesel powered vehicles and deliver carbon neutral or carbon negative emissions in
even the most specialized real-world applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.l]
The latest data from California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard program demonstrates how clean
and low carbon RNG fueled heavy-duty vehicles truly are. The most recent data (Q4, 2021)
confirms that the average carbon intensity (CI) value of California's bio-CNG mix is -62.3
gC02e/MJ and has had a negative CI value for the last six reporting quarters. California fleets
that fueled with bio-CNG in 2020 achieved carbon negativity for the first time ever, with an
annual average CI score of -5.85 gC02e/MJ. The 2021 annual average CI was -44.41 gC02e/MJ
as a result of more, lower-carbon fuel coming into the mix.l [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-
Al, p.2]
lhttps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/low-carbon-fuel-standard-reporting-tool-
quarterly-summaries
Based on data available from 2021, NGVAmerica and the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas
calculate that domestically produced, low-carbon, renewable natural gas now accounts for 64
percent of natural gas used in on-road transportation.2 This important milestone is made possible
by the U.S. EPA's implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard, and other important
regulatory programs that encourage the production of low-carbon fuels and the deployment of
advanced clean technology vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.2]
2 https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NGV-RNG-Decarbonize-2022-
5.2.22.pdf
We fervently believe that the Administration's decarbonization and clean air goals will only be
achieved by focusing on a multi-technology approach that includes cost-effective carbon-
negative solutions like RNG trucks that can begin accruing and compounding significant clean
air and carbon reductions right away. We, therefore, respectfully request that EPA build on the
incentives it has proposed in this rulemaking to included additional incentives for natural gas
vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.2]
Many state and local authorities have requested that EPA adopt a new limit of 0.02 grams per
brake-horsepower-hour (0.02 g/bhp-hr), a level that is 90 percent more demanding than the
current federal limit of 0.20 g/bhp-hr. California state authorities have adopted new engine
standards that require moving to the 0.02 NOx level beginning in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1330-A1, p.3]
551
-------
Engine manufacturers that produce EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified
natural gas-powered engines already meet the 0.02 NOx standard, and more, even cleaner natural
gas engines are on the way as a result of research and development programs that include
additional development of lower-polluting engines and also hybridization of natural gas
platforms. Businesses that produce lower polluting natural gas engines and vehicles can deliver
the benefits this rulemaking seeks without waiting for new developments or the statutory lead
time requirements imposed on EPA. Natural gas-powered vehicles also provide significant
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions due to the fact that an increasingly larger percentage of
natural gas used in the on-road transportation market is renewable natural gas, sourced from
renewable feedstock. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.3]
In this rulemaking, EPA can lead the way for new, cleaner emission standards; but EPA also
could have a more immediate impact on emissions if it accelerates efforts to turn over the legacy
fleet of older, more polluting vehicles, and ensures that natural gas vehicles and other cleaner
fueled vehicles are given full consideration. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides billions
in new funding to accelerate use of low- and zero-emission technologies. To ensure that the
benefit of this funding is maximized, it is critical that policy makers give full consideration of all
available options and evaluate technologies based on cost-effectiveness as opposed to trying to
ensure that one technology is selected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.3]
There is no reason to wait to act until new standards are developed and implemented since
vehicles and engines powered by natural gas are already available today, delivering significant
emission reductions across every on-road application. In the near term, EPA could have a
significant impact on the market for commercially available, natural gas vehicles by leveling the
playing field in incentives and ensuring fair regulatory treatment relative to other technologies.
EPA's notice is extremely frank about the reasons that it has provided significant regulatory
credits for electric vehicles. Pertinent parts of that discussion are provided here:
As stated in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking, our intention with these multipliers was to create
a meaningful incentive to those considering adopting these qualifying advanced technologies
into their vehicles. The multipliers are consistent with values recommended by California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in their supplemental HD GHG Phase 2 comments.802 CARB's
values were based on a cost analysis that compared the costs of these technologies to costs of
other conventional GHG-reducing technologies. Their cost analysis showed that multipliers in
the range we ultimately promulgated would make these technologies more competitive with the
conventional technologies and could allow manufacturers to more easily generate a viable
business case to develop these technologies for heavy-duty vehicles and bring them to market at
a competitive price. As we stated in the 2016 HD GHG Phase 2 final rule preamble, we
determined that it was appropriate to provide such large multipliers for these advanced
technologies at least in the short term, because they have the potential to provide very large
reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption and advance technology development
substantially in the long term. However, because the credit multipliers are so large, we also
stated that we should not necessarily allow them to continue indefinitely. Therefore, they were
included in the HD GHG Phase 2 final rule as an interim program continuing only through MY
2027. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.3-4]
552
-------
The above restated passages appear on pages 17594 and 17595 of the Federal Register notice. It
is noteworthy that the credits are not based on current emission benefits. The credits are based on
cost with the intent on making electric vehicles 'more competitive' with conventional
technologies. We are mindful that EPA has sought to balance the use of credits with other
safeguards, but it is also important to note that these incentives are anti-competitive when it
comes to natural gas vehicles because they create an unlevel playing field. Natural gas vehicles
involve significant cost (like hydrogen fueled vehicles) due to their low-volume and the cost of
the storage vessels and systems. Like electric vehicles operating on a renewable grid,3 natural
gas vehicles when powered by RNG have the potential to deliver significant greenhouse
emission reductions and therefore should be similarly encouraged. Thus, EPA has every reason
to treat natural gas vehicles like electric vehicles when providing regulatory incentives -
moreover, since natural gas has largely not qualified for these incentives, it is reasonable to
extend similar size incentives for natural gas technology at least for a period of time to allow
natural gas trucks to increase in market share. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.4]
3 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2020 renewable energy
sources accounted for about 12.6% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 19.8% of
electricity generation.
It is important to note that these Ultra-Low NOx natural gas engines - commercially available,
scalable and supported by a mature infrastructure of fuelers and suppliers today - perform at or
below certification standards during a full range of duty cycles. A report by the University of
California Riverside's College of Engineering - Center for Environmental Research and
Technology found that while natural gas technology was cleaner than certified standards
across duty cycles, its heavy-duty diesel counterparts emitted higher levels of NOx than their
certification standards in the same duty cycle.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.4-5]
4 'Ultra-Low NOx Natural Gas Vehicle Evaluation,' University of California Riverside,
CE-CERT, November 2016. Available at: https://cngvc.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/UCR-Ul traLow-NOx_NGV-Evaluation_Final-Report.pdf.
Further, a November 2019 study by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that
a disproportionate amount of NOx emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles is emitted during
low-speed operation characteristic of urban driving. 5 By contrast, natural gas engines thrive in
such operational environments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.5]
5 'Current state of NOx emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the United
States,' International Council on Clean Transportation, November 2019. Available at:
https://theicct.org/publications/nox-emissions-us-hdv-diesel-vehicles.
Natural gas vehicles also offer significant climate change benefits. Compared to diesel, natural
gas engines fueled with geologic natural gas provide marginal greenhouse gas emission
reductions, that like diesel fueled vehicles will be reduced by improvements in engine efficiency
and power-train efficiencies. When fueled with renewable natural gas (RNG or biomethane)
captured from agricultural, food, landfill or wastewater, even greater C02 and greenhouse gas
benefits are achieved, up to 331 percent lower than diesel.6 Renewable natural gas supplies can
553
-------
be delivered to customers for direct use or blended with supplies of conventional natural gas
either as CNG or LNG as needed to provide low emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-
Al, p.5]
6 Dependent upon RNG source. Reductions of 45% up to 331% compared to diesel;
values based on CARB LCFS program data under CA-GREET 3.0.
RNG currently accounts for an estimated 64 percent of the fuel used in on-road vehicles, and
many fuelers are committed to ensuring much higher levels in the near future. The latest data
from California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard program demonstrates how clean and low carbon
these heavy-duty, high fuel use vehicles truly are. The most recent data (Q4, 2021) confirms that
the average carbon intensity (CI) value of California's bio-CNG is below zero at -62.3
gC02e/MJ and has had a negative CI value for last six reporting quarters. California fleets that
fueled with bio-CNG in 2020 achieved carbon negativity for the first time ever, with an annual
average CI score of -5.845 gC02e/MJ. 2021 's annual average CI was -44.41 gC02e/MJ as a
result of increased supplies of dairy gas.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 5]
7 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/low-carbon-fuel-standard-reporting-tool-
quarterly- summari e s
RNG benefits the whole country. Based on a review of California and U.S. EPA data, it appears
that current allocation of RNG across the country is roughly split with 50 percent in California
and the remainder outside California. It is expected that, as more states move to incentivize RNG
production either through low-carbon fuel standards or clean-fuel standards, the uptake of RNG
outside California will continue to increase. In addition, we currently anticipate that RNG will
replace most if not all conventional natural gas in the on-road market. Last year, NGVAmerica
members committed that 80 percent of natural gas motor fuel dispensed through their operations
will be from renewable sources by 2030. Given accelerating production, we now project that our
industry will meet that goal by 2025. This projection is based on recent annual growth and the
desire of large transit agencies and trucking fleets to maximize the environmental benefit of
using natural gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.5-6]
Investments in Ultra Low-NOx and Near Zero emission natural gas vehicle technologies can
greatly benefit communities, especially the underserved and marginalized communities in
metropolitan and industrial areas. With vehicle costs closer to that of diesel than other competing
technologies, and fuel price differentials of up to $1.50 (more in recent months as diesel prices
continue to spike) less than diesel fuel per diesel gallon equivalent, natural gas transportation
provides the largest and most cost-effective reductions in transportation-related pollutants than
other powertrain options commercially available today or near-term.8 Based on our estimates,
natural gas is at least twice as cost-effective as electric power-trains in offsetting NOx
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.6]
8 https://www.ngvamerica.org/environment/.
Natural gas is a viable transportation fuel for a variety of applications from medium- and heavy-
duty on-road vehicles, including short-haul and regional trucking, refuse trucks, school buses,
554
-------
utility and other work trucks, and transit buses of all types. With the advent of the Cummins 15-
liter9 and Westport's HPDI10 technology, natural gas is well poised to tackle the largest of Class
8 trucks including trucks that operate in the most demanding conditions. Hyliion's hybrid and
hyper truck offer significant emission reductions, uncompromised 1,000-mile range, and power,
and in the case of the hyper truck, an all-electric range of up to 75 miles. 11 For these reasons,
natural gas as a transportation fuel provides the most significant near-term and long-term
opportunity to deliver meaningful and cost-effective emission reductions for fleets and
communities. Despite these advantages, regulatory treatment and the lack of incentives for
natural gas vehicles continues to limit the market penetration of new natural gas vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.6]
9 https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/10/14/moving-heavy-duty-trucking-
down-path-zero-emissions
10 https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220504-h2hpdi.html
11 https://www.hyliion.com/
As recognized in the Biden Administration's 'Long Term Strategy,' released during the COP26
policy discussions, achieving net-zero emissions will require focusing on a variety of strategies
beyond just electrification. The plan states that the Administration will 'prioritize clean fuels like
carbon-free hydrogen and sustainable biofuels where electrification is challenged.' The plan
elsewhere specifically calls attention to the limitations of electrification and the need to expand
efforts to promote the use of low-carbon biofuels and hydrogen: 'Accelerated research,
development, demonstration, and deployment of lower-carbon fuels, such as clean hydrogen and
sustainable biofuels, will contribute to the decarbonization of applications that may be more
difficult to electrify including aviation and marine transportation and some medium- and heavy-
duty trucking segments' (emphasis added). 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.6-7]
12 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-
Strategy.pdf
In comments to the previous administration, NGVAmerica has consistently advocated that
renewable natural gas should be a key part of any inclusive mix of technologies and fuels.
Today, renewable natural gas is the dominant fuel used in on-road natural gas vehicles. In 2021,
RNG made up 64 percent (up from 53 percent in 2020) of the fuel used in natural gas vehicles in
the United States.21 In California with its Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program, 92 percent of
natural gas motor fuel consumed in 2020 was produced from renewable sources.22 Based on
recently released data from CARB, we believe that RNG will make up about 98 percent of fuel
consumed in NGVs in California in 2021. Renewable natural gas is already helping to achieve
significant reductions in carbon emissions. As noted earlier, bio-CNG sold in California now has
an average carbon intensity that is negative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.9-10]
21 https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NGV-RNG-Decarbonize-2022-
5.2.22.pdf
555
-------
22 NGVAmerica and Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas. Available at:
https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/NGV-RNG-CA-Decarbonize-2020-
FINAL-6.2.21.pdf.
In the coming years, the carbon intensity of renewable natural gas is expected to be even lower
as greater amounts of extremely, low-carbon biomethane is produced and used in natural gas
vehicles. A recent analysis estimates that by 2024, the average carbon intensity of renewable
natural gas in California will be -101.74.23 Our industry fully expects and is committed to
ensuring that renewable natural gas use will continue to increase in the coming years.
NGV America's members recently endorsed a commitment that by 2030, 80 percent of natural
gas on-road motor fuel in the United States will be derived from renewable sources, rising to 100
percent by 2050.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 10]
23 https://www.gladstein.org/gna_whitepapers/an-assessment-californias-in-state-rng-
supply-for-transportation-2020-2024/
24 NGV Am erica Statement on Climate Change, July 29, 2021. Available at:
https://ngvamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NGVAmerica-Climate-Change-
Statement-FINAL-7.29.21.pdf.
NGV America agrees that climate change is cumulative; the longer we wait, the harder it gets to
solve. We also believe that there is no single perfect, affordable, and immediate solution to
addressing transportation related climate change emissions. Some of us are old enough to
remember the promises of the past: methanol will be the dominant alternative fuel, soon
everyone will drive a car that gets 65 miles to the gallon (A1 Gore's PNGV Program), MTBE in
gasoline, an 18-year-old born today will drive a hydrogen fueled vehicle (George Bush 2002).
Today, the big promise is electrification of everything. But as former Energy Secretary Ernest
Moniz recently opined, 'full electrification of the economy is simply not an achievable goal.'25
He went on to remark that hard to decarbonize sectors of the economy will require a fuel source,
such as low-carbon fuels and carbon negative fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.10]
25 https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/091521-moniz-
wants-to-turn-more-focus-to-clean-alternative-fuels-negative-emissions
We support electrification where it makes sense and even anticipate that in the near future an
increasing larger share of heavy-duty natural gas vehicles will employ hybrid electric
powertrains.26 Significant investments are being made to bring natural gas/hybrid powertrains to
market. Light-duty natural gas fueled vehicles could someday employ similar hybrid-electric
powertrains as hybrid vehicles become more prolific. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1,
p.10]
26 https://www.truckinginfo.com/10150691/hyliion-launches-improved-hybrid-truck-
powertrain-all-electric-hypertruck-erx
EPA's motor vehicle certification standards should be used to support vehicles that operate on
low-carbon fuels. If there are no vehicle incentives, technologies with higher upfront costs will
556
-------
continue to struggle. They will struggle even more if other more expensive technologies are
given generous incentives or are mandated. We ask that EPA provide NGVs with the same level
of support and incentive as it does electric vehicles in order to encourage manufacturers to ramp
up production and achieve economies-of-scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 11]
Such incentives are needed to encourage the commercialization of a greater variety of vehicle
models and technologies in the US market and stimulate competition. For example, the Westport
HPDI technology has now been successfully deployed for heavy-duty trucks in Europe for about
five years, providing significant GHG emission reductions thanks to its diesel-like performance,
but is currently not commercialized in North America. The availability of both compressed and
liquefied natural gas vehicles (CNG and LNG), using either spark ignition or compression
ignition engine technologies, together with the continuous deployment of CNG and LNG
refueling infrastructure27 and increasing share of biomethane28, are all important factors that
encourage fleets to invest in CNG and LNG trucks29. As a result, over 10,000 CNG and LNG
trucks have been registered in Europe in 2021, accounting for 3.6 percent of all new trucks
registered in 2021 and representing over 40 percent increase compared with 2020.30 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 11]
27 https://www.ngva.eu/medias/500-lng-stations-in-europe-new-gas-refuelling-
infrastructure-milestone-reached/
28 https://www.ngva.eu/medias/2510-biocng-in-2020-new-data-proves-rapid-growth-of-
biomethane-in-transport/
29 Examples include: https://www.gnvmagazine.com/en/sandahls-logistik-completes-the-
largest-order-for-biogas-trucks-in-sweden/ -
https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/truck-news/2022/01/26/dhl-supply-chain-adds-
new-volvo-bio-lng-trucks-to-fleet - https://www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/news/press-
releases/2020/december/asda-scales-gas-fleet-fast-with-huge-volvo-fh-lng-order.html -
https://www.globalgasmobility.com/60-volvo-lng-trucks-for-cargo-service-europe-cse/ -
https://www.hzlogistics.eu/en/nieuws/30-volvo-lng-trucks-for-hz-logistics
30 https://www.acea.auto/files/Trucks-by-fuel-type-full-year-2021.pdf
For greenhouse gas emissions, we previously have requested that EPA use the 0.15 factor for
greenhouse gas emissions as a way to reward manufacturers for RNG use and to create an
efficient method of calculating the benefit of renewable natural gas until EPA moves to adopt a
well-to-wheels regulatory approach for all fuels, or until EPA is prepared to come up with
a detailed assessment and emission factor specific to RNG use. A benefit of the 0.15 factor is
that it is consistent with the fuel efficiency credits and has been used in the past in EPA's
regulations. Importantly such factors must be in place for sufficient number of years to allow
automakers to incorporate them into their production plans, which typically require 2-3 years
lead-time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.11-12]
557
-------
The concept of adjusting the regulatory framework to encourage low-carbon fuels is explained in
much greater detail in a recent NGVA Europe study, which we urge EPA to review.31 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 12]
31 https://www.ngva.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Frontier-Economics-Study-for-
NGVA-Carbon-abatement-costs-260421-stc.pdf
EPA's regulatory programs should be designed to accelerate the production of trucks and
engines that reduce carbon emissions - they should not be designed to favor or support one
technology over others. EPA famously indicated that electric vehicles are a game changer and
therefore warrant treatment that other technologies do not. But low-carbon fuels that achieve
carbon neutrality or carbon negative emissions right now are also a game changer, and they too
should be encouraged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.12]
There is no reason not to provide an incentive for natural gas trucks operating on low-carbon
biofuel, when the alternative is that fleets will continue to rely on petroleum fueled vehicles if
not provided a cleaner alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Neste US, Inc
Renewable diesel is a safe, proven, and affordable solution that is ready to play a larger role in
the country's energy mix to address climate change. Neste's renewable diesel is fully compatible
with all diesel engines and, because it has similar chemical composition to fossil diesel, can be
used as a drop-in replacement fuel. Unlike fossil diesel, however, Neste's renewable diesel
contains near-zero aromatics or impurities, has a high cetane number to ensure efficient and
clean combustion, and can significantly reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.l]
EPA should acknowledge Renewable Diesel's role in climate policy
PA should acknowledge the utility of renewable diesel and encourage its use in heavy-duty
vehicles as a method of GHG emissions without relying on EVs. While electrifying heavy-duty
vehicle fleets may eventually significantly reduce GHG emissions across the country, by
overlooking the use of renewable diesel in favor of full electrification, EPA is missing a quicker
and similarly effective way to reduce such emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.4]
The Renewable Fuel Standard is the cornerstone of the U.S. climate policy
Neste is concerned by other commenters urging the Agency 'to establish standards requiring 100
percent of all new heavy-duty vehicles be zero-emission no later than 2035.3 While EPA has
stated this rulemaking is not considering that action, it is worth noting that any EV mandate is
inconsistent with the statutory mandate of the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), which
incorporates the congressional assumption that de-carbonization of liquid fuel will remain a
cornerstone of the United States' climate policy for the foreseeable future.4 Because Congress
directed EPA to implement the RFS program, EPA cannot promote the substantial or exclusive
558
-------
use of another technology that will frustrate Congress' RFS goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1225-A1, p.4]
3 Id. at 17420.
4 Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA, 864 F.3d 691, 697 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting the
Energy Independence and Security Act, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007)
(noting that Congress enacted requirements in the Renewable Fuels Program in order to
'move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, [and] to
increase the production of clean renewable fuels').
The majority of heavy-duty vehicles run on diesel. As noted above, Neste's renewable diesel,
because it has the same chemical composition of fossil fuel, can be used as a one-to-one
replacement in vehicles already built to run on diesel. Renewable diesel is significantly cleaner
than fossil fuel and today can reduce GHG emissions by up to 75% over the fuel's life cycle
today, with the potential to improve as producers reduce GHG emissions from their own
operations and additional lower carbon intensity feedstock are developed. In fact, in California,
the use of renewable diesel in the transportation sector accounted for 30% of the state's GHG
emissions reductions.5
5 California Energy Commission. 2020. Low Carbon Fuel StandardDashboard. Available
at https://www.dieselforum.org/images/dmImage/StandardImage/biofuel-co2-reductions-
2021.png
Organization: Northwest Alliance for Clean Transportation
[From Hearing Testimony, April 12, 2022; Alex Schay] I take this opportunity to point out that
renewable natural gas engine technology, or RNG technology, is currently the only technology
that, A, meets the 0.02 grams per braking horsepower NOx requirement, the requirement that is
proposed as the 90-percent reduction via this draft rule; and, B, RNG technology is the only
currently commercially-available technology that enables payloads of 105,000 pounds with a
range of 600 to 700 miles, thereby meeting most duty cycles for nearly all trucking fleets. With
that context in mind, I suggest to those on the call and those taking testimony that RNG
technology is the most appropriate technology at present both for reducing NOx emissions and
for making significant near-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. With that backdrop in
mind, I would ask the EPA to consider providing incentives that enable fleet owners to cover the
additional vehicle costs and the additional costs associated with setting up a fueling station that
can fuel RNG vehicles and/or provide incentives for making alterations to maintenance bays that
enable safe maintenance of vehicles that use a gaseous fuel rather than a liquid fuel. If you
should have additional questions about the Northwest Alliance For Clean Transportation, please
feel free to visit us at www.nwalliance.net, and with that, I yield my time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867]
559
-------
Organization: Odyne Systems, LLC (Odyne)
Methods to eliminate or abate high NOx emissions during PTO operation: There are various
methods to provide zero emissions PTO operation. The PTO receives power from the traction
engine of a medium or heavy-duty vehicle to typically power equipment mounted to the
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Manufactures of powertrains can use known methods that reduce NOx such as cylinder
deactivation (CDA), dual-SCR aftertreatment configuration and heated diesel exhaust fluid
(DEF) dosing during PTO operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Electrification is a different method that can be used to eliminate NOx and GHG emissions
during PTO operation, by enabling the engine to be turned off. A plug-in electric Power Take-
Off system (ePTO) is recharged by the grid and then operated in a charge depleting mode of
operation when equipment requires power typically provided through a PTO by the chassis
engine. Since the battery is recharged by the grid, the emissions during PTO operation are zero if
the battery has sufficient capacity to provide all the energy required to operate the truck mounted
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Sometimes an ePTO battery system is not of sufficient capacity to provide the needed energy to
keep the truck engine off until the battery can be recharged by the grid. In those situations, such
as during double shift operations, mutual assistance during emergencies, or if the grid is
unavailable or down, the engine can be used in a hybrid ePTO mode of operation to prevent the
high emissions associated with a conventional PTO. Such a hybrid ePTO mode operates the
engine under a higher load that quickly recharges the batteries using the engine while continuing
to power equipment. Once the batteries are recharged to a predetermined levels with the engine,
the engine is then turned off, eliminating the low load mode of PTO operation that produces high
NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.8]
NREL tested the ePTO in a charge sustaining mode (hybrid ePTO mode) rather than a charge
depleting mode to measure a worst-case scenario. The hybrid ePTO mode begins with a certain
battery state of charge (SOC), then as truck equipment requires power, depletes the battery, and
then the ePTO system uses the chassis engine to recharge the battery while continuing to power
the PTO load, resulting in a net-zero change in the battery SOC. During recharging of the
battery, the engine is under a higher load, resulting in much better NOx abatement than an engine
running continuously to supply power to a PTO. See Page 54: Text and graph from the published
report 75782. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75782.pdf [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-
Al, p.8]
A previously published report by SCAQMD using measured field data showed that more than
half of an average workday is composed of a combination of idling and PTO based on a large
sample of trucks operating at worksites, resulting in high emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1264-A1, p.8]
Page 48: text from NREL report 'Results indicate that the hybrid vehicle produces roughly an
order of magnitude less NOx exhaust emissions and consumes 4-5 times less fuel than the
560
-------
conventional vehicle while operating a PTO work cycle.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1,
pp.8-9]
NREL report Page 54: text from the published report 'This is calculated by assuming all the
energy used by the electric PTO system will be recharged back to the batteries via the vehicle
engine, so no plug-in capabilities were considered here (e.g. if the vehicle PTO used lkW-hr of
energy then lkW-hr of energy would be put back on the battery packs by engine recharging
mode operation). The vehicle is a plug-in hybrid so in reality vehicle out emissions for this
scenario could effectively go down even lower. Also, emissions during charging of the batteries
could potentially be optimized to have lower NOx emissions as shown in the engine mapping
section discussed previously. Figure 54 demonstrates that the Odyne electric PTO system can
have a dramatic impact of an order of magnitude on NOx emissions from utility vehicles when
performing stationary PTO work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.9]
NREL report page 57, figure 56, shows much lower total NOx output with ePTO in hybrid mode
in comparison to a conventional PTO in which the engine is on continuously during PTO
worksite operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.9]
There are PTO electrification systems (ePTOs) in production for a wide range of heavy-duty
truck PTO applications that eliminate NOx emissions for typical duty cycles and are capable of
reducing NOx by up to 90% and GHGs by 80% even if not grid recharged, per testing performed
by NREL and paid for by CARB. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Renewable Energy Group
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Ezra Finkin] I'm the senior manager for corporate
affairs and development with Renewable Energy Group. Renewable Energy Group operates 11
bio refineries in the U.S. and Europe. Last year, REG produced 480 million gallons of cleaner
fuel including biodiesel, enabling 4.1 million metric tons of carbon reduction. I would like to
state our support for EPA in its finding included in this proposed rule that the pool of biodiesel
available to fleets across the country is of very high quality and that biodiesel blends about 5
percent, or B5, are expected to operate in future catalysts and filters developed to meet this
proposed standard. Through this proposed rule, future emission control technologies are
expected to generate closer to zero tailpipe emissions, to deliver cleaner air benefits to
communities in need of cleaner air. When fueled with high blends of biodiesel, we can expect
significant climate benefits alongside expected clean air benefits from the heavy-duty vehicles
equipped with these next-generation emission control technologies. Today, biomass-based diesel,
including biodiesel, plays a large role in decarbonizing the heavy-duty on and offroad fleets.
Just over 3 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel were supplied to the U.S. market last year
and, according to the Energy Information Administration, substantial growth is expected this
year and next. EPA's proposed renewable volume obligation for 2022 recognizes the availability
of feedstock and production capacity to expand volumes of biomass-based diesel this year. Three
billion gallons of biomass-based diesel equates to about 21 million tons of greenhouse gas
emission reductions. In a single year the benefits of the switch to biomass-based diesel
represents the emissions generated from nearly 4.5 million passenger vehicles or switching them
overnight to a truly zero-emission option, according to EPA's greenhouse gas equivalencies
561
-------
calculator. We recognize that the climate crisis is a code red emergency, to use President Biden's
own words. A crisis requires immediate action and with growing volumes of biomass-based
diesel we have a ready to go option to reduce emissions today from the heavy-duty fleet.
Analysis included in this proposed rule provides evidence for the need to support the use of
higher biodiesel plans by engine manufacturers. Many engine makers already approve the use of
20 percent biodiesel, or B20, and those that currently do not approve B20 should consider
evidence presented in this proposal to do so. We encourage other engine manufacturers to
consider support for higher blends above 20 percent, or B20. Widespread access to high-quality
biodiesel across the country, the use of higher blends of biodiesel may contribute significantly to
immediate term greenhouse gas emission reductions while also allowing next-generation
emission control technologies to function properly to deliver air quality benefits to those
communities most in need of cleaner air. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our
views and suggestions at this public hearing. REG will also be submitting written topics. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Martin Haverly] I'm the senior manager of research
and development and innovation with Renewable Energy Group. As you've already heard from
my colleague earlier, Renewable Energy Group is an industry leader delivering high-quality low-
carbon biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel to markets in the U.S. and abroad. I would like to
reiterate our support for the EPA and its finding that the pool of biodiesel available to vehicle
and equipment operators across the country is of very high quality while biodiesel blends above
5 percent, or B5, are not expected to impede the performance of next-generation after treatment,
devices developed to meet this proposed new tailpipe standard. According to findings, including
the proposed rulemaking, EPA reports that the presence of metals and other quality metrics has
greatly improved. These findings are derived from a robust fuel sampling survey conducted by
the agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The vast majority of fuel samples show the presence of impurities far below specified and
allowable levels. We support EPA in its proposal to require engine manufacturers to provide
detailed evidence to document claims of off-spec biodiesel when seeking an exemption of test
results as part of an end-use compliance. Decades ago, REG developed processes to produce and
deliver to the marketplace the highest quality biodiesel. As the industry leader, we are
encouraged to know that our competitors have also stepped up to develop and deliver high-
quality low-carbon bio-based diesel fuel including biodiesel, and that plays a disproportionate
role in reducing transportation sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence in this proposed
rule demonstrates that access to high-quality biodiesel is prevalent and that higher blends of
biodiesel are not expected to impede the performance of after treatment devices. Through the
renewable fuel standard, the EPA has proposed growth in bio-based diesel volumes in 2022 and
we believe that even more fuel may be delivered to the market this year and beyond. Blends of
20 percent biodiesel, or B20, should be the norm and we encourage engine manufacturers to
work alongside fuel producers like Renewable Energy Group to support blends above B20. The
diesel commercial trucks of the future can deliver cleaner air through the next-generation after
treatment devices while delivering even greater climate benefits when operating using higher
blends of low-carbon bio-based diesel fuels. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present
our views and suggestions at this public hearing. As already noted, Renewable Energy Group
will also be submitting written comments and we look forward to supporting the EPA as you
562
-------
continue your important mission to fight global warming and increase investment in renewable
fuels while improving air quality and reducing emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867 ]
Organization: State Soybean Associations (SSA)
While we appreciate EPA's efforts to reduce nitrogen oxide ('NOx') and greenhouse gas
('GHG') emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, we are concerned with EPA's reliance on electric
vehicles ('EVs') to justify more stringent emission standards from such vehicles, while failing to
fully recognize the emissions reductions that renewable fuels provide. In terms of GHG
reductions, the rule also understates the greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis from EVs and gives
short shrift to the potential role that renewable fuels play in advancing the administration's
climate change objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.l]
The State Soybean Associations urge EPA to better reflect the importance of biodiesel and
renewable diesel in reducing tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. While EVs are a
valuable tool for emissions reduction, they require replacing full fleets, which is costly and could
take decades, especially in the heavy-duty vehicle industry. Biodiesel and renewable diesel, on
the other hand, can be used immediately in place of traditional diesel in existing vehicles while
producing a significantly reduced level of emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.l]
Increased EV penetration into the heavy-duty market is not required for emissions reduction.
Where more stringent standards need to be justified or met, increased use of biodiesel and
renewable diesel, which can be used immediately and is compatible with current fleets, can help
EPA achieve those goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.2]
EV mandates also are inconsistent with the statutory mandate of the Renewable Fuel Standard
('RFS'), which employees a market-forcing approach to creating annual standards. This is true for
the partial EV mandate in the proposal and would be increasingly true for higher EV penetration
rates, if adopted. Indeed, in the Proposed Rule EPA notes that it has received comments
requesting that the agency 'establish standards requiring 100 percent of all new heavy-duty
vehicles be zero-emission no later than 2035.'2 EPA cannot meet Congressional intent behind the
RFS to increase the volume of renewable fuels in the transportation sector while implicitly
mandating vehicles that do not run on any type of liquid fuel. When Congress enacted the RFS, it
signaled that the decarbonization of liquid fuel should and would remain a cornerstone of the
United States' climate policy. EPA cannot promote the exclusive use of a technology that will
frustrate these Congressional mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.2]
2 Id. at 17420.
Moreover, EPA fails to acknowledge that electrification is not the most economically or
technologically feasible option for achieving its desired emission reductions. As CARB has
recognized in its 2022 Draft Scoping Plan Update, which recognizes the importance of continued
use of liquid fuels, the 'transition to complete ZEV technology will not happen overnight. ICE
vehicles from legacy fleets will remain on the road for some time, even after all new vehicle
sales have transitioned to ZEV technology.'3 For that reason, CARB concluded that, '[i]n
addition to building the production and distribution infrastructure for zero-carbon fuels, the state
563
-------
must continue to support low-carbon liquid fuels during this period of transition... .'4 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3]
3 Cal. Air Resources Bd., '2022 Draft Scoping Plan Update' (May 10, 2022), at 152.
4 Id.
Given the significant benefits associated with renewable fuels and the uncertainties regarding the
benefits of EVs, EPA should not favor EVs over other vehicles that can run on renewable fuels
in planning for the decarbonization of the U.S. transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2035-A1, p.3]
Organization: Tenneco
In this white paper, Tenneco highlights the feasibility of meeting that level of NOx emission
standards with a burner as a "drop-in addition" to existing ATS. Additionally, the Tenneco
recommended solution promotes DPF durability and the data demonstrates "C02 neutrality" can
be achieved.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1284-A1 p.l]
In Stage 3 of the CARB Low-NOx Demonstration, one technology package was shown to be
feasible for meeting the NOx limit of 0.02 g/hph on the FTP [1-3], This package included a
market available 15-liter engine, otherwise known as the Stage 3 engine, up-fitted with cylinder
de-activation (CDA) and recalibrated to provide hotter exhaust during a cold start, as well as a
dual-dosing aftertreatment system that included advanced catalyst formulations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1 p.l]
1. Zavala, B., Sharp, C., Neely, G., and Rao, S., "CARB Low NOx Stage 3 Program -
Aftertreatment Evaluation and Down Selection", SAE Technical Paper 2020-01-1402,
2020.
2. Neely, G., Sharp, C., Pieczko, M., and McCarthy, J. Jr., "Simultaneous NOx and C02
Reduction for Meeting Future CARB Standards Using a Heavy-Duty Diesel CDA-NVH
Strategy," SAE Int. J. Engines 13(2):2020.
3. Sharp, C., Neely, G., Zavala, B., and Rao, S., "CARB Low NOx Stage 3 Program -
Final Results and Summary," SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0589, 2021.
Tenneco is developing an exhaust burner for an alternative technology package that offers
several advantages relative to the "Stage 3 system". A cut-away image of the burner and an
illustration of the complete technology package are provided below. The package utilizes the
"classic" heavy-duty aftertreatment system (ATS) in production today, which includes a diesel
oxidation catalyst (DOC), a diesel particulate filter (DPF), a selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
catalyst, and an ammonia slip catalyst (ASC). The exhaust burner is located upstream of the
DOC; it is relatively small (not to scale in the figure) and thus can be located within the engine
compartment, adjacent to the turbocharger outlet.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-Al p.l]
564
-------
To demonstrate the technical feasibility of the burner-based technology package, Tenneco and
Eaton (supplier of a Roots blower that provides combustion air to the burner) funded testing at
SwRI [4,5], This testing utilized a production market available 15-liter engine (i.e. not up-fitted
with CD A) running on its production calibration. The ATS utilized was of the classic
architecture (illustrated above) and included catalyst formulations similar to those in the Stage 3
system, in the hydrothermally-aged state. The exhaust burner was located immediately
downstream of the turbocharger. The downpipe between the burner and DOC was insulated.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.2]
4. Harris, T., McCarthy Jr., J., Sharp, C., Zavala, B., Matheaus, A., "Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Limits with Improved Total Fuel Efficiency", presented at the ATZ Heavy -
Duty, On- and Off-Highway Engines 2021 Conference, Rostock, Germany, December 1,
2021.
5. McCarthy, Jr., J., Matheaus, A., Zavala, B., Sharp, C. et al., "Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional Aftertreatment
System," SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0539, 2022.
NOx and C02 results from several FTP tests (Federal Test Protocol - for heavy duty engines)
carried out during this testing campaign are shown in the table below [4], The "burner on" cases
differed in terms of the burner control strategy, specifically with respect to an "on/off switch"
associated with the DPFout temperature. The best NOx result obtained, 0.023 g/hph, does not
quite meet the standard of 0.02 g/hph, but it is worth emphasizing that this result was obtained
without any modification of the engine's calibration; co-optimization of the engine and
aftertreatment calibrations should enable the 0.02 g/hph NOx emissions limit to be achieved.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.2]
4. Harris, T., McCarthy Jr., J., Sharp, C., Zavala, B., Matheaus, A., "Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Limits with Improved Total Fuel Efficiency", presented at the ATZ Heavy -
Duty, On- and Off-Highway Engines 2021 Conference, Rostock, Germany, December 1,
2021.
It can be noted in the table that "C02 neutrality" was also achieved in the test with the lowest
NOx. This surprising result was realized because a) the burner took over some of the
responsibility for exhaust thermal management from the engine, and b) the burner is more
efficient than the engine at converting fuel energy into exhaust heat. Data collected during this
study provided clues to the engine's behavior, indicating that the engine transitioned from
thermal management mode (extra exhaust heat-producing) to fuel economy mode much sooner
when the burner operated (see illustration below). Therefore, the engine consumed less fuel over
the cycle, and this amount of fuel saved was almost equal to that consumed by the burner. In
addition, an energy balance analysis conducted on the data indicated that the efficiency of the
burner at converting fuel into exhaust heat is -85%, with a majority of the -15% inefficiency
associated with heating up the combustion air utilized by the burner. In comparison, the
efficiency of current engine measures for converting fuel into extra exhaust heat is -60% [6],
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.2]
565
-------
6. Kovacs, D., Rauch, H., Rezaei, R., Huang, Y. et al., "Modeling Heavy-Duty Engine
Thermal Management Technologies to Meet Future Cold Start Requirements", SAE
Technical Paper 2019-01- 0731, 2019.
The burner testing at SwRI also included vocational and low-load engine test cycles [5], On the
beverage cycle, tailpipe NOx was reduced from 2.15 g/hph to near zero (0.001 g/hph), while an
additional 13.5% C02 was emitted. On the new low-load cycle (LLC) compliance test, tailpipe
NOx was reduced from 0.918 to 0.006 g/hph, while C02 increased by 9.0%. Once again, these
results were obtained with a prototype burner and controls along with a production engine and
calibration, so better results can be expected from continuing development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1284-A1, pp.2-3]
5. McCarthy, Jr., J., Matheaus, A., Zavala, B., Sharp, C. et al., "Meeting Future NOx
Emissions Over Various Cycles Using a Fuel Burner and Conventional Aftertreatment
System," SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0539, 2022
It is worthwhile to compare these results with those from the Stage 3 technology package also
tested at SwRI [2, 3], As noted above, this package included a market available 15L engine up-
fitted with cylinder de-activation (CDA), and a dual-dosing ATS (i.e. an ATS similar to that
employed in the Tenneco-Eaton study, but that also included a light-off SCR). On the LLC, the
burner system achieved much lower NOx (0.006 g/hphr) compared to the Stage 3 package (0.024
g/hphr), but produced an additional 8.4% C02. It can be concluded that while the burner is more
efficient than a conventional engine at converting fuel energy into exhaust heat, it is not as
efficient as an engine equipped with CDA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.3]
2. Neely, G., Sharp, C., Pieczko, M., and McCarthy, J. Jr., "Simultaneous NOx and C02
Reduction for Meeting Future CARB Standards Using a Heavy-Duty Diesel CDA-NVH
Strategy," SAE Int. J. Engines 13(2):2020.
3. Sharp, C., Neely, G., Zavala, B., and Rao, S., "CARB Low NOx Stage 3 Program -
Final Results and Summary," SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0589, 2021.
The test results detailed above identify two remaining challenges for the burner technology
package. First, on the FTP cycle, engineering margin is required for the NOx emissions value;
even 0.020 g/hph is not sufficient, but 0.016 g/hph might be acceptable. Second, on the LLC, the
burner is consuming too much additional fuel. The testing and simulation studies described
below address both of these issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.3]
One means of providing NOx margin on the FTP is to use the burner to pre-heat the ATS before
the engine is started. Pre-heating was investigated in a separate testing study conducted at
Tenneco [7], This study used the same burner as in the SwRI testing, a 13L engine, and a classic
ATS with substrates similarly sized to those used in the SwRI testing described above. Important
learning from this study included:
566
-------
• Using lean combustion conditions for pre-heating results in low CO, HC and NOx
emissions, and rapid warming and activation of the DOC drives the CO and HC to zero
after only a few seconds.
• An air flow rate greater than that required to sustain combustion within the burner
enables it to be operated at a higher power without over-heating the DOC (in the figure
below, the DOC-in temperature is being limited to ~500°C by the burner's controls); this
means that a higher-capacity air pump will be required if pre-heating is desired.
• Most of the heat produced by the burner during pre-heating is stored in the DOC and
DPF, but this heat is rapidly transferred to the SCR once the engine is turned on and
begins to produce exhaust (see DPF-out temperature plot below).
• Pre-heating for 300s enabled the DPF-out temperature to exceed the 300°C before 60s of
the cold FTP cycle has elapsed; pre-heating for 180s was nearly as effective. Once the
engine has been turned on, the burner can be operated at higher average power to
compensate for a shorter preheating period (this strategy was employed in the 3-min pre-
heating case).[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.3]
7. Harris, T., Bellard, R., Muhleck, M., and Palmer, G., "Pre-Heating the Aftertreatment
System with a Burner," SAE Technical Paper 2022-01-0554, 2022.
To connect these results to the Tenneco-Eaton-SwRI test results described above, a "ID" model
of the SwRI test system was developed using the software GT-POWER. This model included
nearly all of the relevant physics and chemistry needed to predict accurately the NOx emissions
at the tailpipe. Data from the cold FTP tests (with and without the burner operating) run at SwRI
were used to calibrate the model; it validated well against LLC test results (see plots below).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.4]
This model was used first used to investigate the effect of pre-heating on NOx emissions. The
simulation results presented below correspond to cases for 3, 1, and 0 minutes of pre-heating. It
can be seen that even 1 minute of pre-heating can significantly increase the DPF-out temperature
at 100s into the cold-start FTP cycle relative to operating the burner only when the engine is
running. More importantly, this temperature increase translates into lower NOx emissions at the
tailpipe (TP); the 1-min pre-heating provided a 20% reduction in NOx relative to the no-pre-
heating case. A similar improvement was observed on the hot-start FTP as well. Collectively, a
20% reduction in NOx on both the cold and hot cycles would enable the 0.023 g/hph NOx
emissions test result noted above to be reduced to 0.019 g/hph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1284-A1, p.4]
Next, the model was used to consider substituting an SCR-on-DPF (SCRF) for the DPF in the
classic ATS. An SCRF is simply a DPF with higher porosity walls that can be coated with some
amount of SCR catalyst. With an SCR-on-DPF, some of the SCR catalyst will warm up and
become active for NOx reduction much sooner in the FTP test, because that material does not
have to wait for the DPF substrate itself to be heated by the burner. In the plot below, simply
deleting the DPF from the ATS is shown as the limiting case. Substituting an SCRF for the DPF
does not provide NOx emissions as low as that limiting case, but the impact is still positive. The
positive effect is strongly dependent on the "loading" of SCR catalyst on the SCRF (i.e. the
567
-------
number of catalytic sites), as well as on the amount of ammonia (NH3) stored on the catalyst at
the beginning of the FTP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.5]
Finally, the model was used to consider the burner's fuel consumption by the burner during the
LLC. The on/off control of the burner that was utilized in the Tenneco-Eaton-SwRI testing
produced a large oscillation in the DPF-out temperature (apparent in the simulation results
below). A new control strategy was developed that provided much tighter control of that
temperature. More importantly, this new strategy provided a 35% reduction in fuel consumed by
the burner for an equivalent level of NOx at the tailpipe. In addition, this control strategy only
requires the calibration of a single parameter to achieve the desired trade-off between NOx
emissions and fuel consumed (this parameter is being varied in the plot on the right). [EPA-IIQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1284-A1, p.5]
In conclusion, we believe that the alternative technology package considered here (i.e. burner
plus classic ATS) optimizes the lowest NOx emissions performance without compromising C02
emissions and eases the integration into the vehicle. The test results from SwRI supports the
conclusion; the additional test and simulation results presented above indicate that the remaining
challenges can be overcome. Furthermore, this package provides some clear advantages relative
to the Stage 3 technology package:
• The burner is a "drop-in addition" to existing ATS, with the potential to minimize re-
design and revalidation of the ATS itself.
• The burner (as well as the electrically-powered air pump) readily fits within the existing
engine compartment space; this means that re-arranging components on the engine, or re-
designing the hood, will not be necessary.
• The burner promotes DPF durability in two different ways. First, it reduces DPF active
regeneration frequency by enhancing passive regeneration, building upon the reasonable
amount of passive regeneration afforded by the classic ATS as a result of its action to
raise the exhaust temperature when the engine is experiencing low-load conditions.
Second, the burner can improve DOC temperature control when the DOC is receiving
fuel to produce heat for active regeneration of the DPF.
• The burner, along with the DEF dosing system, can be operated to "post-load" NH3 onto
SCR after the engine has been turned off. This additional amount of NH3 on the catalyst
will facilitate NOx conversion during the next cold start, and will eliminate the need for
extraordinary hardware (e.g. a heated DEF doser, or electrically heated mixer) that would
enable DEF dosing to begin sooner during that start.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1284-
Al, pp.5-6]
Organization: Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
Long-haul road freight is recognized as one of the most challenging transport sectors to
decarbonize due to the demanding use profiles, and the pressures of cost competitiveness. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
There is considerable expectation that Battery Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell technologies can
provide the solutions to a future sustainable road freight sector, and the trajectory of many
568
-------
proposed rulemaking initiatives is presumptive of these technologies being ubiquitous across the
freight fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
While battery electric and fuel cell technologies can play a role, this commentary highlights why
the options to decarbonizing freight must also include cost-effective approaches that include a
central role for Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs), fueled by renewable natural gas and/or
hydrogen (H2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
ICE solutions using the WFS HPDI™ fuel system can significantly reduce emissions both at the
tailpipe and across the lifecycle. As such, changes to policy frameworks that recognize more than
the singular metric of zero tailpipe emissions will enable a greater diversity of solutions. This
approach will better suit the diverse needs of the freight sector, and deliver faster, larger, C02
reductions, at the lowest cost. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
As policymakers create frameworks to both encourage and support the deployment of new
technologies, RNG and Hydrogen ICEs should be given equal footing to Fuel Cell Electric
Trucks and battery electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
Some policy considerations laid out in the EPA rulemaking docket referenced above prioritize
battery electric and fuel cell trucks (ZEV). These technologies can certainly play a key role in
transitioning to a sustainable, decarbonized heavy-duty road freight sector, but limiting the
spectrum of options means missing an opportunity to accumulate reductions faster, particularly
in the next 10-15 years. A holistic perspective of technology, environmental metrics and
economics show that a broader range of solutions is not only required but is equally compelling
and necessary if we are to reach C02 reductions targets in a timely manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1278-A1, p.2]
Advances in ICE technology have already led to growing market adoption of ICEs using ultra
low carbon biomethane. Increasing attention is being focused on the potential of Hydrogen ICE
for heavy-duty vehicles. Many vehicle manufacturers, Tier 1 automotive suppliers, consultancies
and academic institutes have disclosed R&D programs centered on hydrogen ICEs for heavy-
duty, including Cummins, Deutz, Scania, Ricardo, AVL, Mahle, to name a few. These programs
largely examine Spark Ignition ICE technology. Westport's HPDI Fuel System has been
successfully integrated in commercial heavy-duty LNG trucks which in turn have been adapted
for use with Hydrogen or 'H2 HPDI'. Engines optimized with H2 HPDI overcome many of the
challenges of either spark ignited ICEs, or fuel cell and battery electric options, to deliver the
attributes needed for sustainable freight operations: highest power density, highest efficiency,
manufacturability and cost-effective C02 abatement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1,
pp.2-3]
EPA's motor vehicle standards should be used to support vehicles that operate on low-carbon
fuels. If there are no vehicle incentives, technologies with higher upfront costs will continue to
struggle. They will struggle even more if other more expensive technologies are given generous
incentives. We ask that EPA provide NGVs with the same level of support and incentive as it
does electric vehicles in order to encourage manufacturers to ramp up production and achieve
economies-of-scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.2]
569
-------
Such incentives are needed to encourage the commercialization of a greater variety of vehicle
models and technologies in the US market and stimulate competition. For example, the Westport
HPDI technology has now been successfully deployed for heavy duty trucks in Europe for about
five years, providing significant GHG emission reductions thanks to its diesel-like performance,
but is currently not commercialized in North America. The availability of both compressed and
liquefied natural gas vehicles (CNG and LNG), using either spark ignition or compression
ignition engine technologies, together with the continuous deployment of CNG and LNG
refueling infrastructure 1 and increasing share of biomethane2, are all important factors that
encourage fleets to invest in CNG and LNG trucks3. As a result, over 10,000 CNG and LNG
trucks have been registered in Europe in 2021, accounting for 3.6% of all new trucks registered
in 2021 and representing over 40% increase compared with 20204. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.2]
1 https://www.ngva.eu/medias/500-lng-stations-in-europe-new-gas-refuelling-
infrastructure-milestone-reached/
2 https://www.ngva.eu/medias/2510-biocng-in-2020-new-data-proves-rapid-growth-of-
biomethane-in-transport/
3 Examples include: https://www.gnvmagazine.com/en/sandahls-logistik-completes-the-
largest-order-for-biogas-trucks-in-sweden/ -
https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/truck-news/2022/01/26/dhl-supply-chain-adds-
new-volvo-bio-lng-trucks-to-fleet - https://www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/news/press-
releases/2020/december/asda-scales-gas-fleet-fast-with-huge-volvo-fh-lng-order.html -
https://www.globalgasmobility.com/60-volvo-lng-trucks-for-cargo-service-europe-cse/ -
https://www.hzlogistics.eu/en/nieuws/30-volvo-lng-trucks-for-hz-logistics
4 https://www.acea.auto/files/Trucks-by-fuel-type-full-year-2021.pdf
Frontier Economics in their study 'C02 Emission Abatement Costs of Gas Mobility and Other
Road Transport Options'5 considered a 2030 timeframe, and examined ICEs using liquefied
natural gas (LNG) and liquefied biomethane (LBM), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). The
target vehicle segment is Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV), with 40-tonne gross vehicle weight
capability, for use in long haul operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
5 https://www.frontier-economics.com/media/4643/carbon-abatement-costs.pdf
Compared to a reference diesel heavy-duty truck, analysis of purely tailpipe C02 (Tank-To-
Wheel, TTW) yields the expected 100% reduction via FCEV. The H2 HPDI ICE exhibits very
high tailpipe C02 reductions {91%) but falls short of the zero tailpipe C02 metric due to the use
of small quantities of diesel for ignition, the use of which is fundamental to the high efficiency
and power density of H2 HPDI compared to H2 spark ignition ICE. On a Tank-to-Wheel basis
the HPDI Liquified Biomethane (LBM) options produce -20% C02 reductions since they use
fuel containing elemental carbon; the large benefits of biomethane are derived from the Well-To-
Tank portion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
570
-------
On a Well-to-Wheel (WTW) basis, including vehicle manufacturing emissions, it is evident that
there is a far greater range of C02 reductions, and clearly the relationship between tailpipe C02
and total C02 reductions is not directly correlated to a simple tailpipe only perspective. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
Due to the high efficiency of HPDI, H2 HPDI can deliver equivalent C02 reductions as fuel cell
vehicles, though even with green hydrogen neither technology results in zero C02. Indeed, the
40% biomethane option delivers similar C02 reductions as the hydrogen pathways. Only the
100% biomethane pathway achieves zero WTW C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1,
p.3]
Acknowledging that most, if not all, decarbonization strategies represent added cost, the cost of
C02 abatement is a critical differentiating factor between technologies and should be carefully
considered in any rulemaking, especially where there is broad parity in environmental
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
Both biomethane and hydrogen ICEs are strongly advantaged in this aspect due to their
commonality with high volume diesel powertrains, resulting in lower capital cost estimates.
Consequently, they result in far more cost-effective abatement strategies than fuel cell only
strategies. Such is the economic advantage of HPDI that it is more cost effective to deploy H2
HPDI with 100%) green hydrogen than it is to deploy fuel cell with the lower cost option of blue
hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
What is also evident is that while it is disadvantaged by a proposed policy focus on tailpipe C02
emissions, the HPDI fuel system with biomethane is the most cost-effective pathway, offering
the greatest overall C02 reductions. This simply cannot be overlooked and must be strongly
supported in any balanced road freight decarbonization strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.3]
The cost-effectiveness of the HPDI approach translates into far greater C02 reductions for every
dollar of public and private investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.3]
One of the dimensions of sustainability laid out at the beginning of this commentary is energy
efficiency. Efficiency translates into operating economics due to fuel costs and is increasingly
important when considering the need to maximize the supply capacity of precious low-carbon
renewable energy sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
It is acknowledged that full battery electric powertrains are the most energy efficient options
available, and where they are suited to the operational demands of road freight they represent a
valuable solution to decarbonization. However, concerns over their cost, weight, range and
charging requirements mean there is considerable uncertainty about their suitability to long-haul,
heavy-duty trucking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
Given that 'grey hydrogen' should not be used in transport (produces no C02 reduction, or even
increases total C02), hydrogen fueled options are reliant on blue or green hydrogen, that is not
readily available at scale and is subject to competing demands for other industrial sectors. To this
571
-------
end, comparing energy efficiency remains an important aspect of comparing hydrogen vehicle
options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
The analysis presented so far demonstrates that while fuel cell solutions for heavy-duty trucks do
provide 100% reduction in tailpipe C02, this is a very narrow and misleading perspective. On a
Well-To-Wheels basis, fuel cells produce no incremental C02 reductions, no discernible
increase in energy efficiency, and are a far more cost intensive approach to decarbonization
compared with hydrogen internal combustion engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1,
p.4]
Fuel cell solutions do offer an advantage over ICE - the absence of tailpipe sources of air
pollutants (disregarding water vapor, and other vehicle pollutant sources such as tire and brake
wear). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
To illustrate, consider the marginal cost-benefit analysis of the NOx abatement of fuel cell
compared to hydrogen ICE with HPDI in the European Union context. For simplicity, we used
illustrative NOx emissions of Euro VI trucks as the baseline6, recognizing that future Euro VII
NOx levels are likely to be lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
6 TNO 2019 R10193
The most common technical approach to H2 ICE is spark ignition (SI), lean burn or
stoichiometric. SI solutions are typically burdened with challenges surrounding lower
compression ratio (knock limited) and high wall heat transfer losses, that impact both power
density and efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
The HPDI fuel system is a unique ICE approach, successfully deployed in natural gas heavy-
duty trucks. When adapted to hydrogen, the HPDI technology delivers significant performance
advantages compared to spark ignition H2 ICE namely: higher BMEP and power density, and
increased thermal efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.4]
H2 HPDI has shown an ability to exceed the efficiency and power density of current diesel
engines with recent simulations showing 52.5% BTE. High efficiency HPDI leads to lower WTT
emissions than Spark Ignition and lower cost of C02 abatement [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.4]
An important consideration for differentiating between different hydrogen technology options is
fuel quality sensitivity. Because of the highly sensitive catalysts used in FCEVs, the hydrogen
they use must be extremely pure or they risk permanently damaging/disabling the vehicle.
FCEVs require hydrogen of purity 99.91% and furthermore contaminants at volumes as low as
<0.00000004% sulphur or <0.0002% CH4 can destroy the catalyst. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.4]
Transitioning heavy road freight to a sustainable, decarbonized, future is a clear societal need. It
is also well understood to be a very challenging prospect. A number of potential powertrain / fuel
/ energy solutions exist, including battery electric, fuel cell electric, hydrogen ICEs and
572
-------
biomethane fueled ICEs. There is a large array of attributes that defines sustainable freight, and
there are equally numerous trade-offs between different solutions; trade-offs that in all likelihood
have different optima when seen from the differing perspectives of policy and end user. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
Westport Fuel Systems believes that an optimal pathway to sustainable road freight requires
keeping all these options available, recognizing that different technical pathways are at different
stages of technical and commercial viability, and that there will be segments of the road freight
sector where, for example, battery electric may prove to be an ideal solution, but for heavier
vehicles, in long haul operation, hydrogen and biomethane have a stronger set of attributes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
Vehicle C02 regulation should take account of carbon intensity of fuel/energy production. The
extremely strict definition of HDZEV (from a C02 perspective) as referenced in many sections
of the EPA proposal rulemaking should be restated to encompass ICE options that are near-zero
tailpipe C02 and deliver equivalent or greater WTW C02 reductions. Other pieces of legislation
should encourage investment in all options that deliver urgently needed C02 reductions while
moving away from fossil fuels. As well, regulatory instruments used in the certification and type
approval of vehicles should accommodate both spark ignition and dual-fuel HPDI hydrogen
ICEs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
Hydrogen fuel approved for use in transport should not be restricted to the same, extremely high
purity, grades required for fuel cells. Hydrogen ICEs are much more tolerant to lower
specification hydrogen, making them more robust in the marketplace, increasing compatibility
with distribution systems, and eliminating some of the cost components of fuel cell grade
hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
US policy, regulation, investment and R&D funds/incentives should consider the highly
competitive, cost-effective option of hydrogen and biomethane fueled ICEs among the suite of
options to decarbonize the heavy-duty freight sector in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.5]
Key WFS commentary/observation highlights include:
• Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) powertrains fueled with hydrogen or biomethane
(RNG) can achieve equal (or greater) C02 reductions to fuel cells. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1278-A1, p.6]
• Hydrogen ICEs with the HPDI fuel system can be as energy efficient as fuel cell
pathways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.6]
• While fuel cells will produce zero tailpipe NOx emissions, the marginal cost of NOx
abatement is extremely high, and will only be further exacerbated by the future North
American emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.6]
• Hydrogen ICEs are far less sensitive to fuel quality than fuel cells and can offtake
hydrogen from diverse sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.6]
573
-------
Organization: William F. Limpert
EPA should also consider increased use of "green" hydrogen for transportation needs. This is
hydrogen that is produced only with renewable energy. EPA should not consider hydrogen that is
produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, or any other method that emits greenhouse gases.
The green hydrogen should be produced as locally as possible to avoid long transmission pipes
that create environmental damage, take away property rights, have an extreme explosion
potential, and are vulnerable to terrorist acts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Neither the structure of the rule nor EPA's assessment of benefits and impacts should arbitrarily
favor a single technology or fuel source. Just as we noted in comments on EPA's proposal for
Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emission Standards, EPA should
not favor one technology over all others in designing standards to reduce air pollution
particularly when doing so EPA disregards the pollution and other adverse impacts of that
favored technology. Valero incorporates those comments as part of these comments and asks that
EPA take those comments into consideration for this proposed rule. The comments are attached
to these comments as Attachment A. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, pp.6-7]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters urge the EPA to establish standards that support neutrality and flexibility in
fuel and technology options such that the standards do not limit innovation. One commenter
specifically lists concerns regarding EPA providing incentives that are limited to specific
technologies, and states that they would like all effective technologies to be recognized for
emissions improvement contributions. Another commenter states that they would like EPA to
revise the definition of "fuel" and other provisions to encourage all innovations that may achieve
the same, or greater, emissions benefits beyond BEVs and FCEVs. These commenters suggest
that for market fairness, any and all technologies that demonstrate proper emissions reductions
should be able to qualify as zero or near-zero emissions.
Many commenters also discuss alternative fuel options. For example, several of commenters
state their support for using hydrogen fuel in heavy-duty internal combustion engines (H2ICE).
They state that EPA standards should support vehicles that operate on low-carbon fuels, and
H2ICEs should be given equal consideration as fuel cell and battery electric trucks. One
commenter states that their HPDI Fuel System has been adapted for use with hydrogen and has
been integrated in commercial heavy-duty trucks; they further state that these trucks deliver
sustainable freight options that are cost effective and achieve CO2 reduction. Another commenter
also suggests that there is wide industry support for hydrogen fuel in meeting NOx limits while
emitting zero tailpipe carbon emissions.
In addition, a subset of commenters further expressed their support for the widespread use of low
carbon fuels. Some commenters urge the EPA to send what they characterize as "the right
574
-------
signal" by allowing certification of an ethanol-fueled compression ignition engine based on its
emissions performance. Other commenters discussed the benefits of renewable natural gas and
urge EPA to amend the greenhouse gas regulations to incorporate these benefits. One commenter
also requested that EPA incentivize renewable natural gas. A subset of these commenters stated
their support for renewable biogas produced at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). They
support near-zero emissions vehicles that are fueled by renewable biogas when ZEVs are not
feasible as a way to comply with federal ozone standards. Still other commenters provided
information on what they characterize as the benefits of biodiesel and renewable diesel. They
state that these fuels will provide immediate greenhouse gas reductions. One commenter
suggests EPA should acknowledge renewable diesel in their climate policy and any EV mandate
is inconsistent with the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS). Another commenter is concerned that
the focus on EVs takes away from the emissions reductions renewable fuels provide. Finally,
other commenters discussed renewable propane and the CO2 emissions reductions from this fuel.
They state that under proposed Option 1, the propane industry is best positioned to help the EPA
achieve its environmental goals. In contrast, other commenters do not support the use of natural
gas as an emissions solution; they mention studies that show that methane can be as polluting as
diesel.
Still other commenters provided perspectives on other types of engine technologies, in addition
to or in lieu of discussion on specific fuel types. For instance, some commenters stated their
support for the opposed-piston (OP) diesel engine technology. One commenter described tests
they have conducted on an OP engine; they state that the test results demonstrate that OP engine
technology can be used to comply with the proposed standards. The commenter also discussed
how the engine can operate on renewable diesel.
Several commenters also discuss thermal management technologies, such as fuel burners and
electric heaters. They comment that these technologies can assist with cold start emissions. One
commenter demonstrated CO2 improvement with the use of alternative active heating. They
mention the regulations should simultaneously drive NOx and CO2 reductions. Another
commenter submitted comments on the feasibility of meeting NOx emissions standards with a
burner as a drop-in addition to existing aftertreatment technology; they stated that they are
currently working on a technology package including this burner component.
Two commenters stated their support of variable valve actuation (VVA) for heavy-duty vehicles.
They go into detail on early exhaust valve opening (EEVO), early intake valve closing (EIVC)
and late intake valve closing (LIVC) as examples of strategies to utilize VVA. Cylinder
deactivation (CDA) is another strategy listed to address low-load emissions and fuel
consumption. One of these commenters also discusses how mild hybridization is an emissions
reduction strategy that is synergistic with VVA and is low cost but still creates movement
towards 48V electrification.
Finally, one commenter provided information on a plug-in electric power take-off system
(ePTO) and how this system can be used to eliminate NOx and greenhouse gases due to the
engine being turned off. They stated there are currently ePTO systems in production for a wide
range of heavy-duty truck applications.
575
-------
Response:
EPA appreciates the comments and supporting information regarding alternative technology
pathways for complying with heavy-duty engine emissions standards. Several commenters stated
that EPA should not rely on electrification to achieve the standards and should instead consider
the emissions reductions achievable from alternative fuels. Other commenters stated that for
many vehicle applications, ZEV technologies are projected to be cheaper to own and operate
within five years. Several other commentors stated their support for biogas, RNG, RNP, and
other low-carbon fuels, while other commentors expressed concerns with the use of these fuels.
Finally, other commenters urged the EPA to establish standards that support neutrality and
flexibility in fuel and technology options that do not limit innovation.
As discussed in preamble Section III.A.3, while we have referenced a technology pathway for
complying with our final heavy duty engine criteria pollutant standards (Chapter 3 of the RIA),
which is consistent with CAA section 202(a)(3), there are other technology pathways that
manufacturers may choose in order to comply with the final performance-based standards. We
did not rely on alternative technology pathways in our assessment of the feasibility of the final
standards, however, manufacturers may choose from any number of technology pathways to
comply with the final standards (e.g., alternative fuels, including biodiesel, renewable diesel,
renewable natural gas, renewable propane, or hydrogen in combination with relevant emissions
aftertreatment technologies, and electrification, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
battery-electric or fuel cell electric vehicles). We acknowledge that in some cases such
alternative technology pathways may further address manufacturers' concerns regarding
compliance margin and/or offer a lower cost alternative, or other advantages such as
simultaneous reductions in GHG emissions, and as such offer additional pathways to feasibly
meet the final standards. See also our responses to general comments regarding the level and
feasibility of the final standards in section 3.1.1 of this document.
In response to comments on providing incentives for alternative technology pathways, or treating
certain technology pathways as near-zero or zero emissions technologies, we note that we are not
finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
heavy-duty ZEVs, or any credit multipliers that were included in the proposed NOx ABT
program (see preamble Section IV.G and section 12 of this Response to Comments document for
additional details). In response to comments related to GHG emissions standards and the use of
alternative technology pathways to meet GHG emissions standards, EPA is not taking final
action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD
GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more
stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards). Section 28 of this
Response to Comments document details the comments we received specific to the proposed
revisions to the GHG Phase 2 standards. Finally, in response to comments related to criteria or
GHG emissions that occur upstream of a vehicle (e.g., from production of fuel or energy), we
point to section 19.3 of this document.
In response to comments requesting regulatory relief (e.g., DF testing, GHG certification and
testing requirements, diagnostic requirements) for H2ICE or other technology pathways, we did
not propose or request comment on such revisions and are not including them in the final rule.
576
-------
As discussed immediately above in this response, manufacturers may choose from any number
of technology pathways to comply with the final standards, including H2ICE. Should
manufacturers or other stakeholders continue to want regulatory relief for H2ICE products, or
other technology pathways, then EPA encourages manufacturers to continue working with EPA
on these matters separate from this final rulemaking process.
3.11 Other comments on criteria pollutant standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
Allison supplies transmissions for many vocational vehicle applications which are utilized in a
variety of different applications; many of these vocational vehicles accumulate mileage much
more slowly than long-haul freight vehicles. Apart from mileage, vocational vehicles may also
have vastly different utilization, from school buses with regular routes to beverage delivery
trucks, utility vehicles, refuse trucks, construction and/or specialized agricultural or silvicultural
vehicles. Applying the same broad standard for criteria pollutants, like NOx, for these vehicles
varies from the treatment of such vehicles pursuant to the Phase 2 GHG rule wherein vocational
vehicles have 18 different separate subcategories. 17 EPA has not provided a rationale why
similar subcategorization of these vehicles with regard to "criteria" air pollutant standards like
NOx should not apply. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp. 10-11]
17 81 Fed. Reg. at 74,242-3 (Oct. 26, 2016).
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
As EPA points out, the Clean Air Act (CAA) framework has provided significant advances in
improving air quality, through cleaner burning fuels and emission control standards - and this is
not to suggest additional improvements cannot be made. As stated by the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association (EMA) in 2018, "Over the past 20 years EMA manufacturers have
innovated and implemented advanced clean technologies to reduce NOx emissions by over 90%
and particulate emissions by over 98%." But there needs to be a balance, accounting for all of the
actual costs and benefits associated with the motorcoach industry and the impact of the emissions
control program on these businesses and weighing what is truly feasible and makes sense over a
reasonable time horizon. It does not serve to increase the stringency of the emission control
standards and testing, if the result is fewer motorcoaches on the road due to an excessive increase
in cost to purchase a new vehicle, the weight of the new vehicle exceeding federal limits, or the
new emission control system on the engine further degrading the reliability of the vehicle. EPA
must consider all heavy-duty vehicles users, including bus and motorcoach operators, and take
into account the unique challenges and federal laws beyond the environmental arena, when
considering this rule. Further, the proposed rule leaves major open questions about its impact on
engine size and weight. Any significant increase in either the size or weight of engines could
counter-productively serve to potentially reduce the number of passengers that could be
transported on a motorcoach. For example, both under federal and state laws buses are subject to
strict weight limits (23 USC 127). However, the proposed rule contains no useful analysis of its
577
-------
bus weight implications. Vehicle redesign costs to accommodate any increased weight to the
engine or emissions control system components should have also been considered in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.4]
The Proposal, in its current form, and in particular Option 1, raises several concerns for ABA.
Most notably, ABA is concerned about the feasibility, weight, cost and resulting reliability of
implementing the proposed stringent emission control standards and testing protocols, along with
the extension of the engine useful life and engine manufacturer warranty. If EPA proceeds with
the Proposal, ABA strongly advocates for pursuing Option 2, under the proposed standards and
test procedures. ABA also notes that EPA could alleviate a number of concerns raised by the
motorcoach industry by expanding the Relief Measures provided to engine manufacturers in
2012, that allow for modifications to emission control systems to prevent reducing engine
performance, to engines manufactured for use in motorcoaches. Based on EPA's current time
schedule for this rulemaking, if no relief from the proposed requirements is provided, EPA does
not appear to be interested in ensuring the motorcoach industry remains a viable option of travel.
Under the Proposal the motorcoach industry will face increased safety risks and exorbitant
increases in costs to operate. In turn, those communities most reliant on motorcoach services,
including disadvantaged and rural communities, emergency responders and the military, will all
note a reduction in service capacity across the national transportation network. As previously
noted, ABA will supplement these comments as appropriate.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-
Al,p.l2]
Organization: RVIndustry Association (RVIA)
RVIA supports EPA's objective of reducing the negative health effects associated with the
pollution from motor vehicles and we recognize that the proposed regulation will have benefits
relating to improved air quality. These benefits, however, are directly correlated to vehicle miles
traveled and the benefits to those in disadvantaged communities are tied to vehicles that tend to
operate in those communities. As detailed in our Oct. 1, 2015 comments to EPA's Phase 2 GHG
NPRM8, annual VMT for motorhomes has been determined to be 4,290 miles9. This is about 1/3
the VMT of a typical delivery trucklO and about 1/16 the VMT of a typical Class 8 truckl 1. This
means that benefits linked to motorhomes will be about 1/3 those of the typical delivery truck
and 1/16 of Class 8 truck benefits. In urban communities most negatively affected by truck
pollution, the relative benefit tied to motorhomes will be even less, given that motorhomes are
generally not operating in these communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 4]
• 8. Letter from Dianne Farrell to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827, Oct. 1,
2015, page 6.
• 9. This figure is based on a survey of odometer readings taken from 987 three-year old
motorhomes sold in calendar years 2012-2014.
• 10. Average annual vehicle miles traveled for a delivery truck is 10,309 miles.
Averagewww. afdc. energy .gov/data/10309
• 11. Average annual vehicle miles traveled for Class 8 truck is 62,751 miles.
Averagewww. afdc. energy .gov/data/10309
578
-------
The cost benefit relationship described above necessitates EPA doing more than simply putting
in place 'one-size fits all' standards applicable to all categories of vehicles covered by the
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 4]
Unlike most vehicles subject to this rulemaking, motorhomes are not generally used for
commercial purposes and are not providing the end user a source of revenue. Motorhome owners
do not benefit financially from motorhome ownership. This reality makes the cost/benefit ratio
seen for commercial trucks even further from reality for motorhomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1270-A1, p. 4]
For motorhomes, the cost/benefit ratio is magnitudes of order worse than it is for the commercial
trucks that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the pollution for which this
regulation seeks to curtail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA is also concerned about the lack of data regarding vocational applications and the
difficulties that this will cause. Vocational applications could also be regulated as a separate
category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Some commenters urged EPA not to finalize 'one-size fits all' standards applicable to all
categories of vehicles covered by the regulation, but rather consider setting separate standards or
requirements for different vehicles types. EPA recognizes the concerns raised by commenters,
but consistent with the current criteria pollutant standards, we are not finalizing vehicle-specific
standards in this rulemaking. Rather, we are finalizing standards specific to the heavy-duty
engine categories used in the existing criteria pollutant standards (i.e., Heavy HDE, Medium
HDE, Light HDE, SI). We think the current categorization is a reasonable exercise of our
discretion, that sufficiently accounts for differences in vehicle type and emissions performance.
Response:
Preamble Section III.A.2 includes additional discussion on the factors we considered when
setting the final standards; as discussed in preamble Section III and RIA Chapter 3, our technical
assessment demonstrated feasibility of the final standards over several different duty-cycles,
which reflect real world operations of a variety of different vehicle types. In setting the final
emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the
application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model year the final
standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the application of
such technology). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We also evaluated additional factors, including
factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lend further support to the
final rule. See also our response to similar comments in section 18.9 of this document. We note
579
-------
that the final provisions for engine derating, or inducements, which one commenter notes, are
discussed in preamble Section IV.D, with additional information included in section 8 of this
Response to Comments document.
4 Warranty
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's proposed Option 1 standard, with a modification of the proposed full
useful life timelines and warranty requirements, as the best option for driving more rapid
adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1280-A1, p. 2.]
AVE asks EPA to modify the proposed full useful life timelines and warranty requirements.
Currently, suppliers are not provided the necessary data (and certain data may not exist) nor
information to design for a reasonable warranty and to determine if the proposed full useful life
(FUL) timelines are feasible. Suppliers lack the data necessary, beyond the current goals to
extended distance, time-in-service and beyond the first owner/user of vehicle, to make accurate
assessments about the durability of many products. More research on engine wear and use
patterns that result in degradation is needed before proposing longer warranties and extending
FUL timelines. As such, AVE recommends several changes to EPA's proposed warranty
requirements and FUL timelines: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2.]
• Engine-related warranty regulations apply only when a vehicle has full maintenance
records of required servicing and shows no sign of abusive use;
• Exclude from a longer warranty standard parts that will be replaced by routine
maintenance and identify which vehicle systems and/or specific parts should be covered
by longer warranties; and
•
The proposed longer warranties for new vehicles are intended to protect consumers and ensure
emission systems work properly throughout the life of new heavy-duty trucks. Due to unknown
risks to suppliers and manufacturers, these extended warranties, as proposed, will add extensive,
unknown costs to vehicles. This added cost could disincentivize new vehicle purchases, thereby
undermining the goals of the Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 2.]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Overly aggressive extension of emissions warranties associated with Option 1 will also
drive up cost of technology, exacerbating difficulties for individual vehicle sectors in
meeting the standards and exacerbating the difficulty in turning over fleets reliant on old
technology. This is another reason that Allison believes a single-phase approach, as in
Option 2, is a better long-term strategy. The focus on mileage in repair cost analysis
580
-------
associated with tractor application underestimates the cost of seven-to-ten-year warranty
structures, particularly with respect to demanding vocational vehicle applications.
Allison's own data (see Table 1) shows that vocational vehicle usage differs substantially
from tractor usage, meaning that hours of operation may be the operative factor with
respect to the extent of warranty coverage. EPA data utilized to develop warranty periods
does not adequately take these very real differences in utilization into account. EPA
should therefore consider alternative warranty concepts that it first advanced last year in
the 2021 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR").4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, pp.5-6]
4 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards, 85
Fed. Reg. 3,306 (Jan. 21,2021).
• Neither Option 1 or Option 2 reflects concepts EPA introduced in the 2021 ANPR to
tailor emissions warranties by component and vocation. We would like to encourage EPA
to reconsider those concepts given one size does not fit all for diverse uses and unique
customer needs in commercial vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.6]
In the proposed rule, EPA states that it will give "full consideration" to the useful life and
warranty periods that it has proposed for Options 1 and 2, including "the full range of options
between them."23 For the reasons stated below, Allison believes that EPA should finalize Option
2 regulatory periods. In our analysis, Option 2 more appropriately balances the costs and benefits
of extended useful life and warranty periods and better takes into consideration the real-life
dynamics concerning these periods and customer behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, p.12]
23 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,421.
As a vendor to vehicle OEMs, Allison recognizes that longer warranty periods required of a
vehicle manufacturer will inevitably filter into contract negotiations affecting the cost of
components which will need to be designed for longer periods and may require increased
material costs. OEMs will need to additionally project the costs of future repairs under warranty,
even while its testing of vehicle systems may not be conclusive of future issues. This tends to
result in companies making conservative estimates going forward to reduce risk of large-scale
and unanticipated financial exposure; these estimates in turn directly impact pricing to the
ultimate purchaser. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.12]
Balanced against these cost increases, EPA makes several projections and assumptions: EPA
believes longer emissions warranty coverage will reduce the overall costs of heavy-duty
commercial vehicles over the long-term.25 This is based on forecasting that longer emissions
warranty coverage encompassing a greater percentage of a vehicle's extended useful life period
will result in the most efficient behavior across the manufacturing process. This, in turn, will
result in lower lifetime costs attributable to the servicing and maintenance of vehicles in-use.
EPA's theory appears to be that because more of future repair costs would be covered by the
manufacturer, rather than operator, manufacturers will have the incentive to design covered parts
581
-------
and systems in a manner that will result in lower repair costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, p.12]
25 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,428.
While Allison appreciates the logic of this argument, there are several issues that serve to
challenge EPA's conclusions. Specifically, while component and system validation can serve to
identify issues that may occur in the future, testing has limited ability to accurately predict how
frequently such conditions will be experienced in real world operation. This is particularly true
with respect to durability issues given the range of operations involved for different vehicle types
as well as the actual behavior of customers in their use and maintenance of vehicles and
equipment overtime. In addition: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp. 12-13]
• Testing limitations mean that manufacturers have limited data available to inform how
prices may be set to fully account for lengthened useful life and warranty periods. This
situation will tend to cause companies to set prices conservatively (in this context, higher)
to address the inherent risk involved in accounting for extended warranties and increased
periods for potential liability. It may take several years of experience addressing longer
useful life/warranty periods before more accurate projections can have a lower or more
realistic price impact.
• At the same time, under EPA's proposed emission warranty periods, which distinguish
between vehicles solely on the basis of whether they are spark-ignition or light, medium
or heavy heavy-duty engines ("HDEs"),26 the supply chain structure of the North
American Heavy-Duty manufacturing sector will tend to limit individualized pricing.
That is, the broad categories utilized by EPA will tend to drive similar pricing of
components for all vehicles in each of the four different intended service classes. A
component supplier may or may not know the precise end use for which a component
will be used, leading to a natural inclination to default to assumptions based on end uses
with potentially high exposure to emissions warranty claims. Again, this would not
produce the most efficient result in obtaining EPA's expressed policy goals.
• Due to all these factors, the initial price of longer warranties when combined with the
initial price of new emissions control technology will tend to increase incentives for
customers to engage in "pre-buy" activities. This, in turn, will directionally delay
projected emissions benefits and increase incentives for fleet owners and others to keep
older, repaired and rebuilt technology vehicles on the road. In the context of this
rulemaking, EPA should at minimum, examine this issue as part of its planned analysis of
pre-buy and low-buy activities which is not yet complete.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.13] 27 Id. at 17,590-1.
26 Table IV-9, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508.
Allison appreciates EPA's objectives in proposing to extend both the useful life and warranty
periods and the policy goals that have been articulated: promotion of better engine maintenance,
less tampering and maintaining emission performance over time.28Allison also does not contest
that other indirect results could occur, e.g., that longer useful life and warranty periods could
lead manufacturers to "simplify repair processes and make [manufacturers] more aware of
582
-------
system defects that would be tracked and reported to EPA over a longer period of time."29 These
are valid policy goals. EPA, however, should be reticent to push out such periods too far even
while it seeks to harmonize standards with California programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.13]
28 See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,497, 17,505.
29 Id.at 17,424, 17,505-6.
It seems clear that EPA intends this proposed rule to incentivize the deployment of new
emissions technology as well as deliver substantial public health and environmental benefits. But
if useful life and warranty periods are extended too far into the future, these regulatory
requirements will tend to inhibit, rather than incentivize, the development of new emissions
control technology given that the longer periods will inherently favor the deployment of
emission controls systems which can best be verified in the near-term. EPA should also consider
that it has the legal ability to revisit useful life and warranty issues in a future rulemaking; it
should therefore avoid the conclusion that it must finalize each and every component of the
proposed rule at the high end of stringency in order to obtain intended benefits. Rather, EPA
could move to finalize Option 2 useful life and warranty provisions now and assess at a later date
how these provisions worked, or did not, work in practice and whether these periods should be
extended in future years. Having the benefit of seeing how Option 2 requirements are actually
complied with could only help to inform EPA's analysis of the proper length and extent of the
useful life and warranty provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp. 13-14]
When EPA solicited comments on the Clean Truck Initiative in early 2020, Allison indicated that
the Agency should explore mechanisms which would "vary the length of warranty coverage
across different types of components."37 As Allison commented at the time, it may not be
possible in all cases to design, or cost-effectively design, every emission related component to
reach the same useful life period required with respect to a new engine. Both EPA and CARB
have explored different concepts to, among other options, prorate parts and labor through more
limited coverage, or to limit warranty to include only the most expensive components.38 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p. 17]
37 85 Fed. Reg. 3,306, 3,325 (Jan. 21, 2020).
38 CARB Post-September 26 [2019] Workshop presentation at 7.
Allison recognizes that EPA has articulated somewhat different goals in connection with this
proposed rule. In broad brush, EPA appears to have adopted the view that more expansive useful
life and longer warranty periods are an unmitigated good. While it has refrained from proposing
the longest theoretical periods based on data that it reviewed regarding rebuilds,39 EPA has not
sought to further explore any of the concepts contained in the ANPRM. Rather, EPA is
proposing useful life periods from 10 to 15 years that incrementally vary only with respect to
whether a vehicle is spark ignition, or in the case of compression-ignition, only with respect to
weight. Alternative standards that are proposed only vary with respect to increased mileage.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, p. 17]
583
-------
39 See, e.g., mileage for Class 8, out-of-frame rebuild periods. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,498,
Table IV-1.
Similarly, under the Proposed Rule, warranty periods may be subject to exponential extension in
terms of mileage and will be subject to a concurrent hours of operation limitation, but are not
further segmented as between different vehicle types or different portions of emissions-related
equipment.40 Hours limitations are based on the use of a static 20 mile per hour average vehicle
speed across all vehicle service classes.41 EPA has requested comment on whether the existing
regulatory list of emission-related components should be expanded to include additional more
specific components or systems,42 but not whether useful life and/or warranty periods might be
differentiated as between such specific components or systems. This approach contrasts with
EPA's 2021 ANPRM which sought comment on alternative warranty approaches.43 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p. 17]
40 Table IV-9, Id. at 17,508.
41 Id. at 17,508.
42 Id.
43 85 Fed. Reg. at 3,325.
In addition to the proposed alternatives, EPA should consider the following options:
• EPA should consider taking a targeted approach to emission warranties that focuses on
components with the highest emissions impact or known degradation concerns. While
EPA is taking comment on expanding the current list of warrantable parts, it should, as
part of that analysis, consider the incremental value of adding any new systems as well as
the incremental value of focusing on parts that more directly impact emissions. Blanket
approaches, such as "anything that lights the MIL" should be avoided. Focusing on the
most essential components could have multiple benefits, including ensuring that issues
with large emission impacts are promptly identified and, in the end, recalled and/or
repaired. More is not necessarily better if compliance efforts are spread among numerous
subsystems with only incremental emissions impact.
• EPA should also consider tailoring emissions warranties to different vehicle classes and
vocations, rather than just relying on the type of engine involved and weight class.
Vocational markets tend to value warranties based on years and hours of use — whereas
freight and tractor trailers tend to value warranties that cover more mileage. While EPA
has proposed both mileage and hours as parameters, the Agency could utilize a finer-
targeted system that prioritizes miles in some sectors such as long-haul freight, while
prioritizing time/hours in vocational segments. A more focused and tailored approach to
emissions warranties obviously will have the downside of increased complexity and
additional reliance on warranty tracking systems. But at the same time, the costs of
extended warranty periods could be better contained through a targeted approach. Allison
has included Table 3 below so that EPA may review the 2022 vocational models Allison
uses to differentiate warranty terms and pricing to meet customer needs based on
584
-------
different customer usage. Within the vocational market applications vary in use and how
end- users value different coverage terms beyond base warranty [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, pp.17-18]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
To realize the maximum health benefits, US EPA recognizes the need to establish standards that
look beyond the stringency levels and proposes updated test procedures, truck 'useful life'
requirements and warranty provisions to support achieving pollution reductions across real-world
driving conditions throughout the useful life of the truck. We believe that Option 1 provides a
strong foundation, and offer the following recommendations to protect public health: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.2]
Strengthen warranty provisions to match full useful life. Again, we appreciate that Option 1
proposes strengthening the emissions control warranty provisions to cover a greater period of a
truck's operational life, but recommend full warranty coverage for emissions controls to ensure
repair and replacement throughout the life of the vehicle. Warranty coverage provides a level of
certainty to the owner of a new or used truck that the vehicle emission controls will function
properly or be repaired by the manufacturer, therefore restoring emission benefits in the event of
failure. US EPA also notes that warranty coverage reduces the likelihood of tampering or
delayed maintenance of emission controls, which must remain the case in the later stages of
vehicle life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.3]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
ATD supports reasonable revisions to existing HDE/CMV emissions warranty periods. The
proposal acknowledges that longer emission warranty periods are likely to increase the purchase
price of new CMVs.14 By definition, an emission warranty is included in the price a first
purchaser pays when buying a new CMV. However, given that CMV and HDE OEMs must
"pass on" the costs associated with emission warranty (and useful life) mandates, the practical
result will be an increase above the prices first purchasers would otherwise pay for the new
CMVs and HDEs they buy. ATD also is concerned that new CMV purchasers with short trade
cycles will not value and want to "pay for" the incremental cost of lengthy emissions
warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 6]
14.Id.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include:
Current emission warranty and useful life periods for heavy-duty engines and vehicles should be
revised from the current requirements to increase the durability and efficacy of in-use emissions
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3.]
585
-------
Requiring the purchase of costly extended warranties does not prevent tampering or the purchase
of illicit emission defeat devices. Enforcement of emission standards under the Clean Air Act
("CAA") does. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 15]
The CAA prohibits tampering with emissions controls, as well as manufacturing, selling, and
installing aftermarket devices intended to defeat those controls. EPA's National Compliance
Initiative began in FY 2020 and focused on stopping the manufacture, sale, and installation of
defeat devices on vehicles and engines used on public roads as well as on nonroad vehicles and
engines. In FY 2021 alone, EPA settled 40 civil enforcement cases, the greatest number of
resolutions for tampering and aftermarket defeat devices for any one year in the agency's history
- thereby stopping the manufacture or sale of devices intended to defeat required emissions
controls on vehicles and engines used on public roads. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p.
15]
Enforcement Alerts, such as the December 2020 EPA "Aftermarket Defeat Devices and
Tampering are Illegal and Undermine Vehicle Emissions Controls," are widely distributed by
trade associations representing truck dealers and fleets. 11 While rates of tampering with
emission control systems and the installation of illicit emissions defeat devices have plummeted,
nothing can prevent rogue trucking operations from circumventing the law better than
enforcement and the detection of devices which enable such behaviors. Longer, more expensive
warranty packages are not justified to curtail unscrupulous activities on the part of some. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 15]
11. EPA Enforcement Alert, "Aftermarket Defeat Devices and Tampering are Illegal and
Undermine Vehicle Emissions Controls", EPA 300-F-20001, December 2020.
Organization: BBUEnvironmental Services
As small trucking business owner I can state that the def systems are not reliable. I not only loose
money to repair costs i also lose productive time of the unit. I think these systems should be
warrantied by the manufacturer for life of the unit and there should be a penalty for down time
while they are being worked on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1020, p. 1]
Organization: BorgWarner
1. BorgWarner is in favor of forward progress to consistently reduce NOx, C02 and other
emissions, but we have concerns with the proposal's full useful life (FUL) and emissions
warranty provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 1.
To help mitigate unknown and unquantified risks that would be placed on suppliers, the
EPA could consider identifying specific parts and systems that should carry longer
warranties and ensure that evidence is collected to demonstrate that any life limits are
feasible. Due to vehicle ownership patterns, automotive suppliers have neither visibility nor
access to the information and data required to design for an appropriate warranty for the mileage
and temporal limits being proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 1]
586
-------
BorgWarner recommends adjusting engine-related warranty regulations such that they
apply only when the vehicle has full maintenance records according to service schedules
and there is no evidence of abuse leading to failures. Owner/Operator maintenance and repair
can have a significant impact on engine and emission systems' performance and life. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 2]
When truck components or systems experience failure, the root cause needs correct diagnosis as
failure can be the result of mechanical failure elsewhere within the engine system. Inadequate or
incomplete service diagnostic routines might incorrectly identify faults in the wrong components.
Therefore, it is important that poor or incomplete protocols in the service shops do not manifest
themselves with replacement of good parts, repeat symptoms and inflated costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 2]
Some components and systems require routine maintenance or replacement during the service
life of a vehicle. It is important to correctly determine these intervals and define these by
component. A manufacturer's warranty exposure can be limited by having a FUL definition for
each system component. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requested comments on the proposed warranty mileage values.
CARB staff strongly supports Option 1, which is consistent with the Omnibus Regulation's
warranty periods. It is important that warranty periods be uniform throughout the nation. As
discussed in the proposed rule, the longer warranty periods are critical in encouraging vehicle
owners to repair their vehicles and providing incentives to manufacturers to improve their
products to minimize the repair costs to reduce emissions. During the Omnibus Regulation
rulemaking process, industry stakeholders raised concerns regarding the potential cost impact of
warranty requirements. In response, the Board directed CARB staff to engage with affected
stakeholders to conduct a warranty cost study. Accordingly, CARB staff convened an industry
stakeholder work group to analyze and study the various differences in the cost estimate
methodologies used for estimating warranty costs. The work group met a total of 16 times over a
period of nine months. The details of the study are available in the final report. 172 Based on
what was learned from the workgroup process and study, CARB staff believes that our
methodology provides reasonable and defensible estimates of the average incremental warranty
cost ($1,104 for a heavy heavy-duty diesel engine with a 600,000 mile, 10 year, 30,000 hours
warranty for 0.02 g/bhp-hr at 435,000 miles and 0.04 g/bhp-hr at 800,000 miles) that affected
parties will face under the Omnibus Regulation. Although U.S. EPA's warranty cost estimation
method is significantly different than the CARB staff methodology and we comment on the
warranty cost estimation method in comment b of this section, U.S. EPA's estimated per-engine
warranty costs of Option 1 are reasonable and comparable to those of Omnibus
Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.109]
172 California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study for 2022
and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, December 2021,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/warranty_cost_study_final_report.pdf
587
-------
U.S. EPA requested comment on applying a different conversion speed for all classes or a unique
speed to each engine class to calculate the hours-based periods. CARB staff supports the use of a
consistent 20 miles per hour conversion factor, which is consistent with the approach taken by
CARB's Omnibus Regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.l 12]
The 20-mph average speed was derived from a 2017 CARB-funded study conducted by the
Bourns College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research & Technology 175 that
collected in-use activity data for 90 on-road HD diesel vehicles. The different types of vehicles
that were included in the study spanned several vocational areas, such as shuttle buses, refuse
haulers, utility repair vehicles, etc. The average speed derived from the study inherently takes
into account the different environmental factors and engine loads experienced by vocational
vehicles and is a reasonable value to use to determine the operational hours period for the
proposal. Assigning a unique speed to each engine class would require additional data. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 112]
175 Collection of Activity Data from On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles, ARB
Agreement No. 13-301, May 2017,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/classic//research/apr/past/13-301.pdf
CARB staff have significant concerns regarding the proposed components covered by emission
warranty. U.S. EPA requested comment on whether it is appropriate to expand the list of
components covered by emission warranty to include any component whose failure causes the
vehicle's OBD MIL to illuminate, as adopted by CARB. The proposed rule states, 'If we were to
finalize a link between warranty and OBD MILs, we expect the cost of expanding the list of
warrantable components to include all components that may trigger an OBD MIL, regardless of
their direct impact on emissions, would be unreasonable.' CARB staff disagree with this
statement and suggest linking the warranty to OBD MILs as adopted by CARB Omnibus. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 112]
Emission-related components are monitored by OBD because they provide necessary input for
the monitoring of other components and systems, which can directly affect emissions (e.g.,
engine misfire monitoring, fuel system monitoring, SCR, etc.), and because they can be used to
enable AECD operations. These components shown in Table 10-1 from the CARB staff report
176 can contribute to severe emissions increases due to the improper monitoring of components
and systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.112-113]
176 Appendix C, Economic Impact Analysis / Assessment, page C-15,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarrantyl8/appc.pdf?_ga=
2.100296222.1089019171.1648488649-859068364.1628622434
In CARB staffs analysis, the additional cost due to linking warranty to OBD was small. For
example, for HHDD, CARB staff estimated that the additional OBD-related repair cost would
only be $7.33 per engine (in 2017$) as shown in Table 10-1. U.S. EPA staff should carefully
consider and publicly share their estimates of associated cost increase estimate before concluding
the additional cost would be unwarranted and unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.l 13]
588
-------
Furthermore, the proposed 1068.120(c) states that'The emission-related warranty covers all
components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions of any regulated pollutant,
including components listed in 40 CFRpart 1068, appendix A, ' Therefore, even if a certain
component is not directly related to emission control, if the failure indirectly increases the
emission, it should be covered by the emission-related warranty. Since OBD monitors emission-
related engine systems or components, it is illogical not to link warranty and OBD MILs because
defects in such components contribute to increases of emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp.113-114]
CARB staff is providing data regarding the following request for comment: '... on the extent to
which emissions warranty period is an important aspect ofpurchasers' business decisions, and
the specific impacts purchasers anticipate for the range of emissions warranty periods we are
considering in this rule. For instance, we are interested in how a longer regulatory emissions
warranty may impact the timing of an engine or truck purchase, how long an engine or vehicle is
kept, and/or how well an engine is maintained.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 114]
Relevant data is available in Section V (Goal #2) of CARB staffs final report of the recently
conducted HD warranty cost study. 177 As the regulatory warranty periods are lengthened in
California through the Step 1 (equivalent to Option 2) warranty and Omnibus Regulation, it is
likely that more vehicles produced under these newer warranty requirements will be later re-sold
in the secondary market as used vehicles with a portion of the lengthened warranty period
coverage remaining (i.e., residual warranties). To better understand the secondary market value
of such residual warranties, CARB staff conducted an online survey in April 2021 as part of
Goal #2, and collected 694 responses from fleets and owner/operators and from five dealers. The
survey results indicate that the remaining residual warranties do in fact add value to vehicles sold
in the secondary market, with the value increase averaging approximately $2,000 for a 2
years/200,000 miles period of residual warranties, and $4,000 for a 4 years/400,000 miles
residual period. The survey did not evaluate the impact of different year-to-mile ratios (e.g., 6
months/200,000 miles, etc.) because it would have added complexity to the survey
process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 114]
177 California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study for 2022
and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, December 2021, Section V,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/warranty_cost_study_final_report.pdf
These results suggest that higher initial vehicle purchase prices which offset later repair costs
will likely be passed on with their attendant benefits to the subsequent vehicle owners to some
extent, which potentially will reduce the cost impact that the Omnibus Regulation warranty
amendments may have on first owners as seen in the increased value recognized by subsequent
vehicle owners. CARB staff expects the same impact would occur with lengthened warranty
requirements finalized nationally by U.S. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.114-
115]
CARB staff have significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of graduated warranties being
considered (not proposed). U.S. EPA asked for comments related to graduated warranties on
page 17512:
589
-------
'We are not proposing and did not analyze a graduated warranty approach for this proposal.
However, we may consider a graduated warranty as a viable alternative to our proposed
warranty periods if we receive additional information that would support such an approach. A
graduated warranty approach could extend beyond our proposed warranty periods in mileage,
hours, and years, to cover more of the operational life of the engine, but it could be based on
different phases of varying coverage. These could include, for example:
• Phase 1: Full parts and labor coverage for all emission-related components,
• Phase 2: Parts and labor coverage for limited emission-related components, and
• Phase 3: Parts-only coverage for limited emission-related components.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 115]
CARB staff do not believe graduated warranties are necessary. CARB staff believes that the
warranty period should remain applicable to the entire engine and its emissions control systems,
and not vary by component. If the warranty period were to vary by component, this could be
confusing for vehicle owners and manufacturers. Instead, CARB staff recommends linking OBD
to warranty, which in turn would avoid the needing to rely on separate parts lists and would
simplify the process. The full parts and labor coverage for all emission-related components of
Option 1 provides the greatest emission benefit, and its cost is reasonable and defensible (as
discussed above in comment 10.a of this section). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.115]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
EPA is proposing two regulatory options for NOx. We support Option 1, which will implement
stronger NOx standards in two steps. The first improvement would be required in 2027 with a
second more stringent standard 2031 (a NOx standard that would be 90% lower than today's
standards). We support Option 1 with longer useful life and warranty periods. Ensuring that the
warranty and useful life requirements meet 100% of the expected life of these vehicles will
ensure health benefits throughout the life of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
The warranty period is the period during which the Clean Air Act requires a manufacturer to
warrant to the purchaser that an engine will conform with applicable Section 202 regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7541(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. 1068.115. As the Proposal notes, warranty periods have remained
the same since 1983, even as useful life has increased, so that today the emissions warranty
periods range from 22-54% of regulatory useful life. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,505. With EPA's
proposed changes to lengthen the useful life, this gap would grow even larger if warranty periods
are not correspondingly increased. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.60]
As the Proposal notes, extending the warranty period to cover a greater fraction of an engine's
regulatory useful life and operational life provides important incentives for behaviors and actions
that lead to reduced NOx emissions. Because a warranty is voided if operators do not properly
maintain the engine, an increased warranty period would incentivize proper maintenance for a
590
-------
longer period of time. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,505. Owners similarly would be incentivized not to
install emissions control defeat devices that would void the engine warranty. Id. Manufacturers
would be incentivized to simplify repair processes and better train technicians if they are
responsible for the costs of repairs for a longer period. Id. Because manufacturers investigate
possible defects whenever warranty claims are submitted, 40 C.F.R. 1068.501(b), a longer
warranty period would provide more information and greater opportunity to identify defective
parts, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,506. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.60]
Commenters support increasing the useful life mileage values for HDEs and extending the
warranty period to cover a larger portion of the engines' operational lives. Because the current
useful life and warranty periods cover only a fraction of the real-world operational life of trucks,
older trucks on the road are very likely emitting higher levels of NOx, and neither truck
operators nor manufacturers have the proper incentives to ensure that emissions controls on those
older trucks are functioning properly. Useful life and warranty periods covering a greater fraction
of HDEs' expected operational life will help to protect people from dangerous NOx, ozone, and
particulate matter pollution, and will shift more of the costs and risks of designing functional
pollution control equipment to engine manufacturers, who have control over design, rather than
effectively requiring operators to bear those costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.60]
Specifically, we urge EPA to adopt useful life and warranty periods at least as long as those
proposed in Option 1. EPA notes that it 'could justify proposing useful life requirements
equivalent to the operational life data presented in Section IV. A.2 [of the Proposal], but [is]
proposing somewhat shorter (less stringent) values in proposed Option 1 considering the effect
of useful life on the feasibility of meeting the proposed Option 1 standards.' 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,500. As the Proposal also notes, the Option 1 useful life periods generally align with those in
the Omnibus. Id. EPA proposes in Option 1 to adopt warranty periods covering close to 80% of
useful life, which would align with the MY 2027 and MY 2031 warranty periods adopted by
CARB. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508. The fact that many manufacturers must comply with the
Omnibus standards when they take effect supports the technological feasibility of setting useful
life and warranty periods at a level approximately as stringent as the Omnibus. Given the Clean
Air Act's command that EPA set regulations reflecting the 'greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable,' 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i), and EPA's statement that it could justify even longer
useful life periods equal to operational life, we urge EPA to consider setting useful life periods
more stringent than those proposed in Option 1 if the Agency determines that longer periods
would be feasible in combination with the emissions standards it finalizes. Additionally, we urge
EPA to adopt new warranty and useful life values in a single step, finalizing its proposed Option
MY 2031 values as standards applicable to MY 2027 in order to achieve the emissions
reductions from these changes as swiftly as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.61]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
As shown in the table in Section I of Cummins' comments, EPA proposes to significantly
lengthen emission warranty periods across all primary intended service classes. The two-step
emission warranty periods proposed in Option 1 would drive excessive increases to the initial
purchase price of the vehicle, as manufacturers would need to build in additional cost to cover
longer warranty and therefore should not be finalized. Even Option 2, the generally less stringent
591
-------
of EPA's two options, will result in significant increases to the initial purchase price of the
vehicle. EPA's proposed Option 2 aligns with the warranty periods finalized by CARB for MY
2022-2026 diesel engines, also known as CARB Step 1 warranty. The price increases associated
with CARB's Step 1 longer warranty periods are known for current technologies because
manufacturers are selling those products this year. Cummins provided our engine pricing for
CARB's Step 1 warranty to EPA in May 2021 as CBI. That information shows that EPA has
underestimated the cost impact of lengthening emission warranty and should reconsider its
proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 6]
EPA requests comment on whether it is appropriate to expand the list of components covered by
emission warranty to include any component whose failure causes the vehicle's OBD MIL to
illuminate, as adopted by CARB. EPA has not proposed this expansion, citing "concerns that not
all OBD MILs are tied directly to an emission-related component" and "the cost of expanding
the list of warrantable components to include all components that may trigger an OBD MIL,
regardless of their direct impact on emissions, would be unreasonable" (87 FR 17509). Cummins
agrees with EPA's reasoning and supports EPA's proposal not to expand the list of covered
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 8]
EPA proposes to add hours-based warranty periods based on a 20 mile per hour average vehicle
speed threshold to convert from the proposed mileage values. EPA requests comment on
applying a different conversion speed for all classes or a unique speed to each engine class to
calculate the hours-based periods. Cummins supports the addition of hours to warranty periods
across all engine classes (SI HDE, Light HDE, Medium HDE, Heavy HDE) in recognition that
some applications within those classes accumulate relatively few miles due to lower vehicle
speeds. Similar to useful life periods, Cummins again supports using an average speed of 20 mph
for determining the hours limit across all engine classes. As mentioned above, Cummins has
submitted average vehicle speed data and run hours to EPA for numerous vehicles and
applications operating in-use, which supports hours limits based on the 20- mph speed
threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA should change useful life and emissions warranty periods to be more reasonable,
specifically: 95
• Class: Heavy HDEs
o Useful Life Period: 10 years/500,000 miles
o Emissions Warranty Period: 5 years/350,000 miles
• Class: Medium HDEs
o Useful Life Period: 10 years/250,000 miles
o Emissions Warranty Period: 5 years/175,000 miles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.71]
95 Daimler Truck also supports adding appropriate equivalent standards for the number
of hours of engine operation.
592
-------
A significant portion of the infeasibility, cost, uncertainty, and risk in the Proposed Rule derives
from EPA's proposed extensions of the useful life and emissions warranty programs. It is cost
prohibitive and impractical for manufacturers to adequately design components and be certain of
their reliability for these extended periods, especially since EPA's rule proposals drive the
development of new technology with only four years of lead-time and three years of stability
between programs. 96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.71]
96 While Daimler Truck's comments in this section focus primarily on increased
technology costs and compliance burdens associated with EPA's useful life and emission
warranty period proposals, we also note that EPA's proposals will mean significantly
increased information collection costs and burdens on manufacturers, which are relevant
to OMB's review of the Proposed Rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, see 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Increased useful life times, for example, will translate to increased
durability testing, which will add burden to manufacturers in terms of costs and man
hours. We anticipate that the incremental burden increase for collecting aging data alone (
as compared to current useful life periods) would amount to thousands of hours.
In Section 1 l.B. 1 of these comments, Daimler Truck explains why EPA's cost estimates for the
Proposed Rule are inaccurate. Much of that inaccuracy comes from EPA's insistence that
warranty costs will only increase slightly, and linearly. Several independent studies suggest that
such assumptions are grossly incorrect, as we note in Sections 1 l.B. 1 and II.B.3 of these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.71]
Failure rates are likely to increase exponentially in the periods EPA considers, especially as these
periods further tax manufacturers' ability to validate before production, and as engines typically
experience increasing rates of 'wear-out.' Additionally, EPA underestimates the impact of new
technology on warranty rates; new technology will always experience a period of increased
failure rates as manufacturers' experience in the field leads to more robust and mature
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.71-72]
EPA can limit these exorbitant warranty costs by limiting the extended useful life to reasonable
values so that manufacturers can realistically design and validate their products. By setting the
useful life to 500,000 miles for a HHD truck, and 250,000 miles for a MHD truck, EPA can
avoid costly replacement of aftertreatment components (which would have extremely limited
emissions benefit and significant uncertainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.72]
Daimler Truck's proposed useful life and emissions warranty periods (set forth above) would
still achieve EPA's objective of ensuring that warranty mileage would cover 'at least half 98 of
the useful life mileage for Heavy and Medium HDEs, as Daimler Truck's proposed warranty
mileages would be 70% of the useful life mileage for Heavy HDEs and 87.5% of the useful life
mileage for Medium HDEs. Thus, the Company's proposal would help to ensure that all of
EPA's envisioned emissions benefits are realized during useful life and that customers are
incentivized to replace failed components because they will be covered by warranty.
98 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,508.
593
-------
Finally, Daimler Truck supports EPA's position that the emissions warranty coverage should not
extend to all components which illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL). The Company
agrees that many components that illuminate the MIL have no impact on emissions. Such
examples include fuel level sensors, vehicle speed sensors, real-time clocks, and any number of
other components that have an input to the diagnostics system (and are thereby required to light
the MIL) but do not have any input to any emissions controls. Daimler Truck does not believe
that these components should be considered emissions control components, and therefore should
not be covered by the emissions warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.73]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory extended emissions warranties to improve engine maintenance and to help
defeat tampering [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.6]
Organization: Hyliion, Inc.
Although it is understandable that EPA would seek extended emissions and useful life
warranties, it is important to recognize the downsides of such enhanced performance guarantees.
Extended warranties require OEMs to guarantee the performance of their products for longer
times and more miles and are not without significant cost. It is like purchasing insurance for the
engine. These costs will inevitably be passed through to the customer and thus are likely to
dampen demand as both the cost of the warranty and the cost of the new, cleaner technology are
included in the price of the engine. EPA must take this into account when considering the
implementation of its draft rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 4]
Longer warranties put unknown and potentially massive risks on the motor vehicle parts
manufacturing industry, which could result in significant price increases on vehicles. Increasing
costs could impede momentum toward the replacement of the legacy fleet with desire for low
emissions vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 4]
With this in mind, Hyliion supports Option 2 as it would match CARB's Step 1 warranty periods
that will already be in effect beginning in Model Year 2022 for engines sold in California. We
believe a consistent and uniform approach will provide the industry with greater predictability
and thus increases the odds that OEMs will be able to rein in costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1238-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
We understand EPA's need to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles are meeting emission standards
while in operation, which requires that emission critical components are durable and repaired
quickly if a malfunction occurs. Based on several stakeholder meetings between EPA, CARB,
and industry, we believe that EPA's Proposed Option 1 warranty and durability provisions have
struck a suitable balance between stringency and phase-in time to allow suppliers to work with
594
-------
their customers to fill current information gaps and complete additional R&D to ensure future
trucks continue to be durable and meet emissions warranty requirements. The phase-in approach
will allow component suppliers to better understand the economic impact of longer warranty
periods on their business as well as time to design longer durability into components. MECA
supports hourly limits for vocational vehicles that may operate for thousands of hours at low
speed or idle prior to reaching the mileage or year warranty clock threshold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.20]
As we previously commented, there is considerable uncertainty about the state of vehicles during
the time of operation beyond today's 100,000 mile warranty. Much of the data on warranty
claims and repairs as well as vehicle use characteristics originate from the time when the first
owner operates a vehicle while data from repairs made by second and third owners is very
limited. Many suppliers do not have data on the durability, replacement or diagnostics of their
parts past the warranty because the dealer network is not required to share that information. This
lack of information leads to challenges for suppliers who are trying to design parts that will meet
the extended durability requirements out to 800,000 miles. Without warranty claim information
beyond 100,000 miles, it is difficult for suppliers to estimate the cost impact of the proposed
extended 2031 warranty and challenges suppliers trying to design to the much longer 2031
durability periods. The lack of data also challenges suppliers trying to design to longer durability
periods. MECA members manufacture durable parts according to the specifications demanded by
their customers, the OEMs, as part of individual business agreements. The individual component
specifications provided to the supplier may not include a correlation between the specification
and how that relates to mileage durability on the vehicle. Finally, besides the engineering design
time needed to design components to longer durability requirements, the testing out to the long
mileage durability requirements (such as 800,000 miles for class 8 engines), especially for on-
engine components whose aging cannot be accelerated, takes months to years on
dynamometers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.21]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA's proposed Option 1 should be modified to include a significant reduction of the proposed
the warranty time periods and mileage requirements, a special consideration for vocational
vehicles, and an exclusion of normal maintenance and wear parts from the warranty. Each of
these modifications is described in further detail below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p.
3]
These modifications are necessary because Option 1 significantly increases the Warranty period
and Full Useful Life (FUL) for HD engines based on minimal testing. While we understand the
desire to ensure that vehicles maintain their lower NOx performance throughout the FUL, the
costs of implementing such long warranties are relatively unknown and will therefore increase
the financial risk to component suppliers as OEMs push the longer warranty requirements on the
supply base. In addition, many emissions components that have a shorter life and are routinely
replaced due to wear should not be covered under by the warranty requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 3]
595
-------
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed warranty requirements and the full useful life
timelines for all vehicles. The warranty increases of a factor of four or more are based on specific
and limited laboratory testing that does not reflect complex, real-world use. Additionally, more
data and analysis of second and third vehicle owner usage should be conducted before proposing
significantly longer warranties and FUL timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, pp. 3 -
4.]
Longer warranties on criteria emissions systems put unknown and potentially massive risks on
the motor vehicle parts manufacturing industry, which could result in significant price increases
on vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4]
EPA's envisioned increases in warranties and full useful life requirements on vocational vehicles
are less validated than other commercial vehicles, with little to no testing and verification
conducted on these uses. The real-world uses for heavy-duty vocational vehicles are different
and extremely complex because of the vast range of duty cycles, load configurations, and
application demands. Thus, more testing and validation of assumptions is necessary before
greatly increasing the warranty time periods/mileage and FUL on vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4.]
MEMA urges EPA to not require warranty coverage on parts that have a shorter life and are
routinely replaced due to wear, such as sensors, injectors, rings, filters, and valves. Instead, such
parts and components should be defined as standard maintenance or replacement items. We urge
EPA to work with industry stakeholders, including suppliers, to develop a list of wear parts and
components with these criteria in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4]
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed warranty requirements and the full useful life
timelines for all vehicles. The warranty increases of a factor of four or more are based on specific
and limited laboratory testing that does not reflect complex, real-world use. Additionally, more
data and analysis of second and third vehicle owner usage should be conducted before proposing
significantly longer warranties and FUL timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5.]
MEMA is also concerned about the lack of data regarding vocational applications and the
difficulties that this will cause. Vocational applications could also be regulated as a separate
category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
EPA is essentially asking industry to design parts without clear functional requirements - well
past their current state-of-the-art design life. Frequency of failure past the design life is relatively
unknown and therefore, the costs are also unknown. MEMA recommends EPA not require
warranty coverage on parts that have a shorter life and are routinely replaced due to wear, such
as sensors, injectors, rings, filters, and valves. Instead, such parts and components should be
defined as standard maintenance or replacement items. We urge EPA to work with industry
stakeholders, including suppliers, to develop a list of wear parts and components with these
criteria in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
MEMA members have concerns about the uncertainty regarding 7- and 10-year emissions
warranties. MEMA strongly supports a phased-in approach as this helps address suppliers' need
596
-------
for adequate lead-time to understand and improve component durability. Suppliers would take on
significant cost implications early in the timeline. They currently do not have access to the
necessary data to assess and make improvements. EPA should provide data on HD vehicles on
the road today including higher quality data on usage patterns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-
Al, p. 7]
In addition, suppliers also require drive and duty cycle data from second and third truck owners
as well as vocational vehicles to more fully understand those use cases and successfully design
components to meet them. However, MEMA does support incremental changes in the warranty
time periods/mileage including a series of step changes based on additional data and with the
assumption that normally replaceable emissions components would be left out of the warranty
coverage. The lack of data on 2nd and 3rd truck users is especially concerning in terms of
warranty coverage. Many older trucks that are repurposed into specialized vocational
applications, like dedicated snowplow trucks, may sit for months before the next use. MEMA is
concerned about using a one-size-fits-all approach to a very complex set of use cases. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 7]
MEMA is supportive of the EPA's suggestion that their proposed provisions will increase the
likelihood that emission controls will be properly diagnosed and maintained through more of the
service life of heavy-duty engines as this seems logical. See comments above about designating
more parts as service parts versus warranty parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 7]
MEMA urges EPA to reduce the proposed factor of four increase in warranty requirements and
the full useful life timelines for all vehicles until more data is available to justify such a
substantial increase. More testing and validation of assumptions is necessary before increasing
the FUL and this is especially true for vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1,
p. 9.]
Wear items should be defined as standard maintenance or replacement items and therefore not
covered by a warranty. We urge EPA to work with industry stakeholders, including suppliers, to
develop a list of wear parts and components with these criteria in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1322-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Heavy-duty diesel engines last well beyond the current useful lifetime, with 90 percent of
engines lasting nearly double the current regulatory requirement, and 50 percent of Class 8
engines nearly triple (Figure 3). As a result, the regulatory 100,000-mile warranty requirement is
only a very small fraction of the expected lifetime of the engine and is well behind typical
warranties and extended warranties of 250,000 and 500,000 miles. 113 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 26]
Heavy-duty engines can last up to 1.2 million miles before a rebuild, yet the current warranty
extends to just 100,000 miles, and the useful-life period is only 435,000 miles. The proposed
changes to the warranty and useful-life periods for heavy-duty vehicles more closely mirrors the
597
-------
real-world operation of these engines and would help maintain working emissions controls while
diminishing any costs incurred by the operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 27]
The useful life is critical to ensure adequate testing such that emissions controls are functional
for the life of the engine. The warranty period, however, is more important to minimize
tampering or disrepair, and shifts the cost of failures onto the manufacturer rather than the driver.
Currently, the market allows manufacturers to profit from producing less durable products-
increasing warranty requirements thus helps shift the responsibility for creating more durable
emissions controls back to the entity with design control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
p. 27]
Repair costs and downtime can be a significant burden for drivers, and survey data has shown
that there is a significant interest in coverage that better reflects the operational lifetime of the
vehicle. 114 Nearly one-quarter of respondents in that study already opt for an extended
warranty, with a substantial share of those respondents' choosing warranties that exceed the
current useful-life requirements of the engine. A majority of owner-operators suggested future
warranty coverage should meet or exceed 500,000 miles, well above the current minimum. This
is borne out in more recent analysis of the market, which shows that 85 percent of the market
already opts for an extended warranty, with just about half of those users opting for warranty
coverage of at least 500,000 miles. 115 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 27]
114. Kerschner, B., and D. Barker. 2017. Survey and analysis of heavy-duty vehicle
warranties in California (15MSC009). Prepared by the Institute for Social Research for
the California Air Resources Board, December 2017. Online at
https ://ww3. arb .ca.gov/regact/2018/hdwarranty 18/apph.pdf.
115. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01 /warranty_cost_study_final_report. pdf
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Also, option l's increased requirements on warranties will invariably increase the costs of new
trucks more than option 2's lower standards. With longer term warranties, truck manufacturers
will be forced to factor the costs of parts and labor that are covered by the warranties into the
cost of a new truck. This forces fleet owners to pay a higher upfront cost when purchasing
vehicles instead of allowing them to pay the cost farther down the line when maintenance is
needed. With most fleet owners managing small operations, as according to the American
Trucking Association over 97% of carriers operate fewer than 20 trucks, these increased upfront
costs will not be something that all owners can cover.3 These increased warranties also dissuade
fleet owners from purchasing newer trucks in the long term, resulting in older vehicles on the
road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 4]
3. American Trucking Association, 'Economics and Industry Data,' Trucking.org, ATA,
https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industry-data
598
-------
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
Improved warranty coverage so more of emission system and parts failures' costs of servicing
are borne by OEMs instead of truckers and carriers. We agree that enhanced, improved warranty
coverage would help reduce truck owners' costs of servicing emission system-related problems.
Also, explicit statements that manufacturers may not deny warranty claims based on the use of
commonly available DEF would clarify responsibilities and balance the equities of
manufacturers and commercial product owners and users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1,
p. 3]
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
NWRA member companies have a unique perspective in that the association represents the
manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks and the haulers such as WM, Republic, GFL, and Waste
Connections, along with over 700 other members. This enables NWRA to understand the impact
that new air pollution regulations would have particularly on the short-haul trucking industry.
Our drivers start and stop hundreds of times a day, averaging as low as 9 to 12 MPH throughout
the day, equating to a run time of 4,500 hours over two years, instead of the 4,500-hour run time
for one year used in the proposed regulation. NWRA asks that EPA consider using the maximum
number of hours a driver could drive in a year based on FMCSA's hours of service regulations to
calculate the warranty hours that are being proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1242-A1, p. 1 -
2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
4) Address longer life vehicles and required warranties for vehicles and emission systems
equally across all vehicle technologies as EPA has proposed; but, we express concern that the
costs of providing new longer warranties will be passed along to suppliers and customers and
could create an unintended barrier to entry to new and innovative technologies by increasing
costs associated with those technologies and needed components. NGVAmerica believes that the
proposed warranty provisions in Option 2 represent a more balanced approach that is likely to
achieve much of what EPA intends without negative consequences placed upon suppliers and
ultimate customers and on the acquisition and deployment of cleaner trucks; [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
We also welcome improvements to vehicle warranties and believe all of these provisions must be
included in any final rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.6]
OOIDA supports the NPRM's restructuring of current warranty offers. Given drivers' concerns
about emissions technologies, sensible warranty programs are critical for encouraging
investment and implementation. While the proposed warranty options would be an improvement
599
-------
over some current coverage policies, OOIDA recommends 500,000 miles as opposed to the
450,000 miles under option 1 or the 350,000 miles for option 2. 500,000 would be more aligned
with fair-market warranty values. Additionally, OOIDA favors alternative programs that would
offer longer, prorated warranties that provide different levels of coverage based on a vehicle's
age or mileage. The warranty could be limited to include only certain parts after a certain amount
of time, and/or not include labor for some, or even all, of the duration of coverage. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.7]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
As discussed above, PACCAR supports EPA's initiative to extend Heavy-Duty engine warranty
periods to cover a greater portion of UL. We specifically support a single step in MY 2027,
which is aligned with CARB Step 1 Warranty period, and EPA's proposed Option 2 of 350,000
miles. This step would increase the UL warranty coverage from 22% to 58% of useful life based
on a 600,000 commercial useful life. PACCAR also supports other approaches to ensure long-
term in commerce-emissions performance and initiatives that work to incentivize fleet turn over
to facilitate the adoption of the new low NOx technology. However, we have concerns about
certain aspects of EPA's proposal that addresses warranty and allowable maintenance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.52]
Proposed section 1036.120(c) addresses' [components covered' and provides that 'the emission-
related warranty covers all components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions of
any regulated pollutant, including components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, and
components from any other system you develop to control emissions. The emission-related
warranty covers these components even if another company produces the component.' (emphasis
added). This broadly worded section needs to revised. Manufacturers have invested billions of
dollars developing their products to ensure and maintain emission systems compliance, while
keeping pace with increasingly stringent emissions standards. However, as proposed, EPA's
provision conceivably could make OEMs liable for customers installing non- original
manufacturer-produced components. OEMs are incapable of validating third-party produced
components to ensure they comply with respect to emissions performance and durability as the
original manufacturer's components. OEMs accordingly should not be potentially liable for
components produced by another company. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.52-53]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking: PACCAR supports EPA's initiative to increase warranty to cover
a greater percentage of useful life (currently at 22% of UL). PACCAR supports EPA's proposal
to extend the warranty period of at least 50% of Useful life, and would recommend EPA align
with the CARB Step 1 warranty period of 350,000 miles (which is 58% of the proposed in-
commerce useful life of 600,000 miles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p. 60]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
Additionally, EPA's separate proposal to extend the emissions-related warranty period for heavy-
duty engines will likely lead to improved engine maintenance over each engine's lifetime and
600
-------
may even induce the development of simplified repair processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1189-A2, p.3]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to highlight from the outset that while there are various details of EPA's
rulemaking proposal (particularly with respect to Option 1) that EMA and its members
fundamentally disagree with, there are multiple major points of substantial agreement. In that
regard, EMA agrees with EPA that:
(iii) The current emission warranty and useful life periods for HDOH engines and
vehicles should be revised to increase the durability and efficacy of in-use emissions
compliance; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
(vi) The increase in manufacturers' costs to cover the proposed extended warranty
requirements will be substantial, and necessarily will be passed on to
purchasers at the point of sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
Those elements of the low-NOx regulations will result in much higher warranty claims,
maintenance costs, and recall liability, at least until the multiple new low-NOx technology
systems are proven-out over a multi-year period following the implementation of the 2027 MY
standards and compliance programs. More specifically, the substantially extended warranty
periods will at least triple the cost of coverage on existing emissions-related components, while
also adding warranty costs to cover the new emissions-related components that manufacturers
will need to utilize to meet the new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
The proposed warranty provisions under §1036.120(c) require that, "The emission-related
warranty covers all components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions of any
regulated pollutant, including components listed in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, and
components from any other system you develop to control emissions." That proposed expansion
of warranty is overly broad. Current provisions allow that an emissions-related components' is
one that has a "primary purpose to reduce emissions or whose failure would commonly increase
emissions without significantly degrading engine/equipment performance." (See item IV in the
referenced Part 1068 Appendix I, and definition of Critical Emissions-Related Component
proposed in §1068.30.) EPA should not expand the universe of components to be covered under
the emissions warranty provisions to include those components whose only relation to emissions
control is that a failure would increase emissions. EMA agrees with EPA's assessment that, "the
cost of expanding the list of warrantable components to include all components that may trigger
an OBD MIL, regardless of their direct impact on emissions, would be unreasonable." (87 FR at
p. 17509) EMA recommends that this aspect of §1036.120(c) be eliminated in the final
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 128]
Also of concern is the proposed requirement under §1036.120(b) that the emissions-related
warranty should not be shorter in duration than any published warranty a manufacturer "offers
with or without charge." EMA believes the use of the word "offers" could be misleading, as it
does not directly reflect the warranty actually provided as part of a vehicle sale, whether with or
without charge. EPA should clarify this language. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 128]
601
-------
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a listing of the topics raised, then the
comments are summarized by category and the responses follow each summary.
Comments relating to emissions warranty fell into the following general categories
• Support or opposition
o General support for or opposition to lengthening warranty periods
o Support for proposed Option 1 or Option 2 warranty periods
o Support for warranty periods longer or shorter than proposed
• Need for more information
• Potential costs and economic impacts of extending the warranty period
• Reactions to EPA's stated advantages of longer warranty periods
• Hours- and years-based warranty periods
• Components covered by emissions warranty
• Recommended changes to the structure of the emissions warranty program
• Miscellaneous regulatory changes
Support or opposition
ATD, ATA, Great Rivers, and RILA generally supported EPA taking action on lengthening
emission-related warranty periods without addressing numeric values. ATD commented in
support of "reasonable" revisions. EMA agreed that EPA should revise emissions warranty
periods to increase the efficacy of in-use emissions compliance, but did not explicitly support or
oppose the warranty periods of either proposed option.
ALA, CARB, and MECA supported the warranty periods of proposed Option 1. MECA and
MEMA both supported a phase-in. AVE expressed support for proposed Option 1 standards with
modified warranty requirements to limit coverage. Allison, Hyliion, NGVAmerica, and
PACCAR supported the single-step proposed Option 2. Allison commented that Option 2 more
appropriately balances the costs and benefits and takes into consideration the real-life dynamics
and customer behavior. Allison also suggested that EPA could adopt Option 2 now and
reevaluate warranty periods in a future rule. Hyliion commented that Option 2 matches CARB's
Step 1 warranty, which would provide greater predictability that may limit costs. Cummins
recommended that EPA not finalize Option 1 and noted that even Option 2 would result in
significant cost increases.
Several organizations recommended warranty periods that differed from the proposed options.
Clean Air Task Force et al and MFN suggested that EPA finalize a single-step program that pulls
ahead the MY 2031 warranty periods of proposed Option 1 to start in MY 2027. BBU
Environmental Services and Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania suggested that warranty
period should cover the full life of the vehicle. OOIDA recommended a 500,000-mile warranty
citing the preferences their members expressed in a recent owner-operator survey. DTNA
suggested alternate warranty periods for two engine classes: 5 years/350,000 miles for Heavy
HDE and 5 years/175,000 miles for Medium HDE.
602
-------
Response:
• We appreciate the expressed support from certain commenters for our proposal to
lengthen emission-related warranty periods and acknowledge the concerns raised by other
commenters.
• We did not propose and do not believe it is appropriate at this time for the warranty
periods to cover the full life of the engine, but we retain our proposed objectives to
lengthen warranty periods to cover a larger portion of the operational lives and to be
more consistent with the final useful life periods. See preamble section IV.B.l for a
discussion of the basis of our final warranty periods, including our consideration of
comments on the advantages of longer warranty periods and concerns for the highest
mileages in our proposal.
• As explained in section IV.B. 1 of the preamble, we are finalizing a single-step program
for the new warranty periods to begin in Model Year 2027. Clean Air Task Force, et al.
and MFN recommended we pull ahead the proposed MY 2031 warranty periods from
Option 1 to start in MY 2027. We agree on that approach for the smaller engine classes
and our final warranty mileages match the MY 2031 step of proposed Option 1 for Spark-
ignition HDE, Light HDE, and Medium HDE. We disagree on applying that approach for
Heavy HDE and we are not pulling ahead the MY 2031 step (600,000 miles) for the
Heavy HDE warranty mileage. Similar to our approach for useful life, we are finalizing a
warranty mileage that matches the longest mileage proposed for MY 2027, which
matches the mileage proposed for Option 2 (450,000 miles). See preamble section IV.B.l
for a discussion of the basis of our final warranty periods, including our consideration of
comments on the advantages of longer warranty periods and concerns for the highest
mileages in our proposal.
• Allison suggested that we could adopt Option 2 in this rulemaking and reevaluate
warranty in a future rule; however, we believe warranty periods that are longer than
Option 2 are justified in this rule, starting in MY 2027. A delay in implementing the
longest warranty periods will delay the extra miles, years, or hours of coverage for
owners and delay the extended emissions control assurance due to proper maintenance
and repair for more of the life of heavy-duty engines.
• MECA and MEMA indicated that a phase-in would help suppliers prepare for the longer
warranty periods. As we noted in the preamble section IV.B. 1, we do not believe a phase-
in is needed for suppliers to address data needs at the warranty mileages we are
finalizing.
Need for more information
Several organizations commented on suppliers' ability to develop technologies to meet the
proposed warranty periods. AVE commented that more research on engine wear and use patterns
is needed. BorgWarner indicated that suppliers do not currently have access to data required to
design to the proposed warranty provisions. MEMA suggested that EPA's proposal is asking
industry to design parts without clear functional requirements and the rule needs more testing
and validation specific to vocational vehicle applications and more data and analysis of
603
-------
subsequent owners' usage. MEMA specifically cautioned against applying a one-size-fits-all
approach for warranty periods and recommended a separate category for engines intended for
vocational applications. Allison also noted real world operational data is best and that validation
testing in the design process may not accurately predict the frequency of failures, due to varying
vehicle types, operations, maintenance, and use. Allison further commented that suppliers may
not know the end-use of their components/sy stems, causing them to inefficiently design and
price their components based on a worst-case assumption. DTNA commented that it is cost
prohibitive to design components and be assured of their reliability, given 4 years lead time and
3 years of stability
Response:
• For Heavy HDE, where the highest mileage data is currently most limited, the final
warranty mileage of 450,000 is similar to the current useful life mileage for those engines
and we expect suppliers are currently designing to that mileage. We expect that suppliers
and engine manufacturers will continue to collect additional warranty information,
beyond today's federal requirements, from extended warranty packages available for
current engines. We also note that the CARB Step 1 warranty may be an additional data
19 20
resource. '
• We agree with MEMA that it is not appropriate to establish warranty periods that are
one-size-fits-all. As noted in response to other comments in this section and preamble
IV.B.l, we are finalizing three warranty thresholds (i.e., mileages, years, and hours) for
each heavy-duty engine class, which we believe will lead to more appropriate warranty
obligations across the range of possible vehicle applications for which a heavy-duty
engine may be used. At this time we do not have sufficient information to establish
application-based categories for engines beyond the primary intended service classes that
currently apply.
Potential costs and economic impacts of extending the warranty period
Several organizations commented on the costs of lengthened warranty periods and potential
economic impacts. CARB commented that EPA's costs are reasonable and comparable to the
costs presented in their Omnibus program. CARB also indicated that the higher initial cost will
be offset by lower repair costs and that they expect resale value of warranty will be maintained
as first owners sell to subsequent owners. AVE commented that extended warranties as proposed
will add extensive unknown costs to vehicles. ATD (and, similarly, ATA in section 18.3 of this
document) expressed concern about cost impacts on first purchasers, with a specific mention of
19 For more information on the California Air Resources Board HD Warranty 2018 rule see, "Proposed Amendments
to California Emission Control System Warranty Regulations and Maintenance Provisions for 2022 and Subsequent
Model Year On-Road Heavy- Duty Diesel Vehicles with Gross Vehicle weight Ratings Greater Than 14,000 Pounds
and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines in such Vehicles," June 18, 2019. Available online:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2018/hd-warranty-2018. Last accessed September 21, 2022.
20 EPA is reviewing a waiver request under CAA section 209(b) from California for the Step 1 Warranty rule. See
"California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty
and Maintenance Provisions; Request for Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public
Comment" at 87 FR 35760 (June 13, 2022).
604
-------
purchases whose current business model includes short trade cycles and would not keep their
vehicles/engines through the longer warranty period to get the full value of the higher purchase
price. Cummins noted that even the less stringent proposed Option 2 would significantly increase
the initial purchase price, as indicated by the price increases due to CARB's Step 1 warranty
program starting in MY 2022. Hyliion suggested that longer warranties would put unknown and
potential massive risks on parts manufacturing industry that can lead to additional price
increases. Allison, EMA, and DTNA noted the likelihood of high failure rates and warranty
claims for new technology, especially in the early years of implementation. Allison commented
that OEMs will likely be conservative in estimating costs of future repairs to reduce risks; those
increased warranty projections will be passed to customers in the purchase price.
Many commenters indicated that purchase price increases due to the longer warranty periods
may delay effectiveness of the rule. Allison suggested that "overly aggressive" warranties will
drive up costs, incentivize pre-buy, and reduce turnover of old technology which would delay
emissions benefits of the rule. Hyliion, NACD, and NGVAmerica also commented that the cost
of extended warranties will be passed on to the customer and decrease demand for new trucks.
Allison, DTNA, EMA and several other organizations suggested EPA's cost analysis was
inaccurate. Allison stated that EPA's repair cost analysis, which focused on tractor mileage-
based repair cost, is not representative of vocational vehicle repair costs. EMA claimed that
extended warranty will triple the cost of coverage on existing emissions-related components
while also adding warranty costs to cover the new emissions-related components. DTNA also
commented that a longer useful life would impact a manufacturer's decision to schedule
maintenance to replace catalysts and the manufacturer may consider the catalyst replacement
costs as warranty costs.
Response:
• We acknowledge comments highlighting increased purchase prices due to the lengthened
warranty periods and note that, in the proposal for this rule, we described an expectation
that manufacturers would continue their current practices of estimating warranty repair
costs actuarially and adding the costs to the purchase price of the engine or vehicle. We
received no comments that would change that expectation for the final rule.
• We also acknowledge comments indicating a risk of pre-buy and low-buy with increased
purchases prices.
• In response to ATD's specific concern relating to purchasers with short trade cycles, we
expect, to the extent that fleets currently base their short trade cycles on the time at which
today's warranty periods expire, that these companies would consider adjusting their
current business model to accommodate the longer warranties in this final rule.
• As explained in section 3.8 of this Response to Comments document and in preamble
IV.A, we project the final standards and useful life periods will not require manufacturers
to plan for the replacement of the entire catalyst system as a part of their compliance
strategy, as DNTA suggests may occur. Since DTNA connected an extended useful life
and potential aftertreatment replacement to "exorbitant warranty costs", we are clarifying
here that the current and final requirement to pay for any replacement of catalyst beds or
particulate filters as part of scheduled maintenance is independent of whether the
605
-------
scheduled replacement interval falls within the warranty period. A manufacturer that opts
to schedule replacement outside of the warranty period, but within useful life, would also
be required to pay the cost of the replacement. We agree that, to the extent a
manufacturer opts to schedule replacement of their aftertreatment system, they would
likely add the cost to their purchase price whether is labeled a "warranty" or
"maintenance" replacement. Again, as noted in preamble section IV. A, such replacement
is not expected under the final rule.
• See section 18.3 of this document for a complete list of organizations that commented
with additional information specific to our analysis of warranty costs. That section
provides our responses, including our response to Allison's concern relating to our use of
the tractor mileage-based repair cost, and a summary of updates we made for the final
analysis.
• We updated our cost and economic impact analyses to reflect the final warranty periods.
For more information, see our complete assessments of costs in Chapter 7 and economic
impacts in Chapter 10 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule.
Reactions to EPA's stated advantages of longer warranty periods
We discussed four potential beneficial outcomes of longer warranty periods in the proposal (see
Section IV.B. 1 of the NPRM preamble). Many commenters agreed that longer warranties would
incentivize owners to maintain their engines over more of the life of the vehicle. Allison
expressed support for our expectation that longer warranties may promote better maintenance,
reduce tampering, maintain emission performance over time, improve awareness of defects, and
encourage manufacturers to simplify repair processes. NASTC agreed that longer warranty
would reduce owner costs of servicing emission-related problems. MFN agreed that the
warranty period is important to minimize tampering or disrepair, and noted that warranty periods
shift the cost of failures onto the manufacturer rather than the driver. Allison disagreed that
manufacturers would be motivated to improve their component designs to reduce repair costs
due to longer warranty periods. ATA noted that requiring all owners to pay for longer warranties
would not prevent tampering, since there will always be "rogue" operations willing to tamper;
instead, ATA indicates that enforcement of the CAA is a better tool for reducing tampering.
Response:
• We appreciate the expressed agreement from certain commenters on the possible
beneficial outcomes of lengthened emission-related warranty periods and acknowledge
the disagreement raised by other commenters.
• In response to NASTC, we clarify that, while repair costs will be covered by the
manufacturer over a larger portion of the operational life of the engine and we believe a
longer warranty period may incentivize manufacturers to reduce the costs of servicing
their emission-related components, at least some of the repair costs will be paid upfront
by the first purchaser of the engine. Similarly, in response to MFN, while the emission-
related warranty does ensure manufacturers take responsibility for the repair of
component failures, we expect they will continue to estimate the cost to address future
606
-------
repairs under warranty and add that cost to the purchase price such that owners pay for
the repairs upfront instead of throughout the life of the engine.
• We agree with ATA that enforcement is an effective deterrent for tampering and that
longer warranty periods will not eliminate tampering. We disagree that a longer warranty
would be ineffective, since we expect even "rogue" trucking operations would, at
minimum, delay their tampering until the longer warranty period has ended to continue
having repair costs covered by not voiding their warranty, thus providing many additional
miles of ensured emission control.
Hours- and years-based warranty periods
Several organizations commented on the proposed years or hours criteria for useful life. MEMA
stated that members had concerns with the proposed 7 and 10 year limits, but did not provide
specific information. Allison noted that data collected at the higher mileages may not accurately
predict the use of vocational vehicles that are more limited by hours of operation. Allison
suggested EPA should "utilize a finer-targeted system" and further differentiate warranties by
vehicles classes and vocations. NWRA suggested EPA consider hours-of-service regulations as
the basis of our warranty hours. Cummins and CARB supported applying an hours-based
warranty period for all engine classes to cover lower-speed applications and the 20-mph
conversion factor that we proposed.
Response:
• While MEMA indicated concern for the proposed Option 1 years values, they did not
provide specific information to update our proposed years. To account for engines that
are less frequently used (e.g., seasonal vehicles such as motorhomes or snowplows), we
are continuing to apply year-based warranty periods and the final years values are
increased from 5 years to 10 years for all engine classes, which matches the MY 2031
step of proposed Option 1. See preamble IV.B.l.
• We agree with Allison that vocational vehicles have distinct use patterns; however, we
did not propose and are not finalizing warranty periods at the vehicle level. See preamble
IV.B.l.
• Regarding NWRA's suggestion, it is our understanding that the hours-of-service
regulations would not be appropriate for determining hours, because those regulations
target drivers operating high speed vehicles that travel many miles per year. High mileage
vehicles would likely reach the warranty mileage criteria first and do not represent the
vehicles that would be hours-limited. The hours criterion is intended to limit an engine
manufacturer's warranty obligation for lower-speed vehicles, such as refuse trucks, that
may not accumulate many miles, but operate frequently in modes that can stress the
engine.
• We appreciate Cummins and CARB support for hours-based warranty periods. We
received no adverse comments on this issue and are adding hours-based warranty periods
for all engine classes in the final rule. Consistent with our final hours-based useful life
periods, we are calculating the final hours-based warranty periods by scaling the final
mileages using a 20-mph conversion factor.
607
-------
Components covered by emissions warranty
The NPRM included a request for comment on expanding the list of components covered under
warranty to include any component that triggers an OBD MIL. CARB recommended EPA adopt
the provision to align with their program, referring to proposed 40 CFR 1036.120(c) to suggest
that the phrase "covers all components whose failure would increase an engine's emissions of
any regulated pollutant" logically connects warranty to the OBD system, since it monitors for
emissions increases and would indicate that a failed component has led to an emissions increase.
Allision, Cummins, DTNA, and EMA opposed expanding the list of components. DTNA
provided examples of components (e.g., fuel level sensors, vehicle speed sensors, real-time
clocks) that provide an input to the OBD system and could trigger a MIL. EMA suggested we
update the regulatory text describing the components covered by warranty to be consistent with
the proposed 1068.30 definition of "critical emission-related component" and paragraph (IV) of
1068, appendix A. Specifically, they requested that warranty to be limited to components whose
"primary purpose to reduce emissions or whose failure would commonly increase emissions
without significantly degrading engine/equipment performance."
Response:
• While we did not directly propose to use a component's connection to a MIL as an
indicator that it should be covered under warranty, EMA and CARB seemingly
interpreted our proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1036.120(c) as expanding the list of
components covered.
• We agree with CARB that OBD is an effective tool to identify components that fail and
lead to emissions increases. However, we retain our proposed position and disagree that
all components that trigger a MIL should be covered under warranty. Since a failure of
some components would not directly increase emissions, we would not consider them a
component covered under emissions-related warranty.
• We are revising proposed 40 CFR 1036.120(c) to refer directly to appendix A of 1068 as
the list of components covered under warranty. This revision is consistent with the
original intent of the list of emission-related components in 1068, appendix A, which
states that "This appendix specifies emission-related components that we refer to for
describing such things as emission-related warranty or requirements related to rebuilding
engines." By removing the proposed phrase "covers all components whose failure would
increase an engine's emissions of any regulated pollutant" in 40 CFR 1036.120(c), we
clarify that we are not expanding the list of components beyond what is currently covered
under emissions-related warranty.
• We note here and in our maintenance discussion in preamble IV.B.2 that we are also
replacing the current text of paragraph IV of 40 CFR 1068, appendix A, with a reference
to the new part 1068 definition of critical emission-related components. This revision
avoids having similar text in the appendix and definition. We expect that these updates,
along with the revised 40 CFR 1036.120(c) reference to the 1068 appendix, will address
EMA's recommendation since their recommended text is consistent with the new
definition of critical emission-related components.
608
-------
• We note that the warranty provisions for other sectors continue to use the language
proposed for 40 CFR 1036.120(c) and we may consider addressing any potential
inconsistency in a future rulemaking.
Two manufacturers requested that EPA clarify the regulatory text in proposed 40 CFR
1036.120(b) and 1036.120(c). EMA commented that the phrase "offers with or without charge"
in 1036.120(b) is misleading. PACCAR expressed concern that, under the proposed 1036.120(c),
OEMs would be liable for third-party components added to their engine.
Response:
• We are revising the proposed 40 CFR 1036.120(b) to remove "with or" in the final
provision, which was added in error. The phrase "offers without charge" is consistent
with the corresponding provision in other sectors (e.g., 40 CFR 1039.120(b)) and with the
current definition of warranty in 40 CFR 86.004-2 that refers to a "basic mechanical
warranty" that would be offered without charge.
• We are revising proposed 40 CFR 1036.120(c) to clarify one aspect of the components
covered by warranty. Since manufacturers rely on many suppliers to create the emission-
related components on the engine they are certifying, we continue to believe it is
appropriate for an emission-related warranty to cover any components, regardless of the
company that produced them, that are the original components or the same design as
components from the certified configuration, We note that we are adding the same
clarification to the corresponding vehicle provision in 40 CFR 1037.120(c). We also note
that we proposed no changes and are finalizing no changes to the existing 40 CFR
1068.115, which specifies when manufacturers may or may not deny warranty claims.
See also section 6.3 of this document for our description of the relationship between
warranty and scheduled maintenance under the final rule.
Recommended changes to the structure of the emissions warranty program
In the ANPR and NPRM for this rule, we requested comment on alternative approaches we
should consider for emissions-related warranties. Allison and OOIDA expressed support for the
graduated warranty approach that included options for pro-rating certain components over time.
Similarly, Allison, AVE, and BorgWarner recommended that EPA identify certain components
to be covered by the longest warranties.
Response:
• While we recognize that there could potentially be value in these approaches, we did not
propose and do not have sufficient data at this time to develop a graduated warranty
program or determine appropriate warranty periods for specific components. We may
consider those approaches in a future rule.
609
-------
AVE, BorgWarner, and MEMA noted that many components require routine maintenance and
that those components should not be covered under warranty. MEMA suggested that, instead,
such parts and components should be defined as standard maintenance or replacement items.
BBU Environmental Services requested that DEF systems be covered by manufacturer warranty
for the full life of the vehicle.
Response:
• In our updated maintenance provisions (see Section 6 of this document and section
IV.B.2 of the preamble), we are retaining the current structure that allows manufacturers
to specify maintenance intervals for components that require regular adjustment,
cleaning, and/or replacement within the useful life. We are updating the minimum
maintenance intervals to reduce the frequency at which manufacturers can require this
scheduled maintenance.
• In general, scheduled maintenance specified by the manufacturer is proactive
maintenance covered by the owner, which is distinct from a manufacturer's responsibility
to cover a failed component under warranty.
• In response to BBU, DEF systems are emissions-related components and will be covered
under warranty for a larger portion of the operational life of the vehicle under this final
rule. We are not finalizing a unique extended warranty for DEF systems. While we
believe manufacturers will be able to design their aftertreatment systems to be durable
enough to last the useful life of the engine (see preamble section IV. A), they continue to
have the option to schedule replacement of those systems as long as they pay for the
catalyst bed, the most expensive part of a DEF system. See our updates to the proposed
maintenance provisions and corresponding responses to comments in Section 6 of this
document.
Miscellaneous regulatory changes
AVE and BorgWarner requested that owners should have to supply maintenance records and
show no sign of abuse or manufacturers should be allowed to deny a warranty claim.
BorgWarner expressed concern over current practices in shops that use inadequate or incomplete
diagnostic routines to identify failures. BorgWarner also suggested that having a useful life
definition for each system component would limit a manufacturer's warranty exposure.
Response:
• Our current regulations under 40 CFR 1068.115(a) specify that a manufacturer can deny
a warranty claim for "improper maintenance or use." We are making no changes to that
provision in this final rule.
• In section 5 of this document and section IV.B.3 of the preamble, we describe the
serviceability improvements we are finalizing. Some of the new serviceability
requirements are targeted at improving access to repair and servicing information that
may address some of the concerns expressed by BorgWarner.
610
-------
• In section 6 of this document and section IV.B.2 of the preamble, we describe our update
to 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2) to clarify the information we require that manufacturers
include in their owner's manual if they expect specific maintenance record be kept by
owners.
• While BorgWarner suggests a unique useful life for each emission-related component, we
note that regulatory useful life applies for the entire certified engine configuration and is
distinct from a manufacturer's requirement to warrant emission-related components. We
do not have sufficient information to set warranty periods for individual components at
this time.
In response to EPA's request for comment in the NPRM for this rule, NASTC commented in
support of EPA explicitly stating in the warranty regulations that manufacturers may not deny
warranty based on use of commonly available DEF.
Response:
• We did not propose and are not finalizing any explicit regulatory text to note the use of
commonly available DEF at this time. We may consider this in a future rule where we
expect we would propose to apply it broadly to all sectors covered under 1068.
5 Serviceability
5.1 Repair and servicing information in owner's manual
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
Regarding "serviceability," ATD specifically objects to any EPA requirement that:
1. Emissions-related service information be published in owners' manuals given that professional
technicians have ready access to such information elsewhere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-
Al, p. 7]
2. OEMs prominently "advertise" to CMV owners their right to have emissions-related repairs
performed at so-called "independent" repair facilities using third-party components of their
choosing. To the contrary, OEMs are and should be free to encourage CMV operators to use
original equipment parts and components, and to seek out franchised dealership service
departments when in need of emission-related service, thereby helping to protect air quality by
611
-------
both ensuring the proper service and repair of emissions-critical systems, and avoiding emissions
tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA has recognized that defective designs and tampering can contribute to increase in-use
emissions. Mal-maintenance can also result in increased emissions. Many commenters on U.S.
EPA's ANPRM stated that they were frustrated with the emission control system reliability,
misdiagnosis with improper repair by professional service facilities and limited access to
maintenance information that would facilitate the owner's ability to properly repair their vehicles
themselves. To help address these concerns, U.S. EPA has proposed that important maintenance
information be available in the owner's manual starting voluntarily before 2027 and be required
in 2027 and subsequent model years. U.S. EPA has asked comment about making this proposal
mandatory as soon as 2024 MY and what other information should be included in the owner's
manual. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 117]
CARB staff fully supports U.S. EPA making serviceability requirements mandatory as early as
2024 MY. Manufacturers already have this information and provide it to their authorized repair
facilities (usually for a fee). Although there will be additional printing costs to include the
information requested by U.S. EPA, this cost should be negligible. Furthermore, it can be argued
that accurate information on how an owner can properly repair and service an engine available
readily in the owner's manual would pay for itself by potential avoided warranty costs by the
manufacturer. Therefore, CARB staff believes this requirement should be made mandatory and
should not be delayed for another 3 years. Better accessibility to repair information will help
owners to address repairs as soon as possible with accurate information and help avoid having
their truck taken out of service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 118]
CARB staff supports that the manufacturer provide in the owner's manual more detailed
information on how to clean their DPF. DPF is a critical emission control component designed to
control toxic/carcinogenic diesel particulate matter. Failure to properly remove accumulated ash
at regular intervals will result in DPF cracking and/or uncontrolled thermal events that could
cause sintering or platinum group metal migration for catalyzed DPFs. CARB staff agrees that it
is important to have owner's manual information on how to remove the DPF for cleaning, the
criteria for determining if the ash was properly removed, such as using the clean or 'birth' weight
of the DPF, DPF inlet and outlet pressures are available with a generic scan tool and any other
information on how to properly maintain and prevent damage to the DPF. In addition to these
items listed in the NPRM, CARB staff has assembled an internal workgroup to provide more
specific criteria what needs to be in the owner's manual for DPF cleaning. This working group is
also intended to provide criteria for manufacturer 'swapping' programs where an owner can turn
in their DPF at an authorized repair facility for cleaning and get installed a different DPF that has
been 'cleaned'. This is to ensure that damaged DPFs are not returned into service and no used
DPFs are offered for sale. This more recent effort was based on experiences gained in
implementing CARB's diesel retrofit program. When CARB staff have developed a more
finalized version of DPF cleaning, we will share that with U.S. EPA staff for possible guidance
and/or adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 118]
612
-------
Other information that should be included in the owner's manual are inducement warnings,
inducement derate schedules, and when a vehicle will go into final inducement. Also, as
mentioned above, CARB staff believes it is important to have detailed DPF cleaning information
and the criteria for when a filter is deemed 'clean' in the owner's manual. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 118]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
In §1036.125(h)(3)-(l 1), EPA proposes to require manufacturers to include eight types of
information in their engines' owner's manuals: how the owner can use OBD information, how
the emission control systems operate, flow path diagrams, exploded-view drawings with part
numbers and assembly requirements, basic wiring diagrams for aftertreatment-related
components, where to find emission recall and repair information for free from NHTSA,
troubleshooting guide for DEF and DPF warning signals, and DPF cleaning instructions
including filter weights and inlet/outlet pressures. Much of this information is currently readily
available to owners of Cummins engines, accessible online for free after specifying their engine
serial number or engine model. For example, see https://quickserve.cummins.com/ and
https://parts.cummins.com/. Additionally, some of the same information is already required by
regulation and is made available per EPA's and CARB's service information requirements
(SIR). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 17]
Much of the additional information EPA proposes to require manufacturers to include in the
owner's manual resides in numerous sources today, such as operation and maintenance manuals,
service manuals, troubleshooting and repair manuals, wiring diagrams, parts databases,
temporary repair practices, technical service bulletins, etc. Each source is organized and tailored
according to the intended audience and type of information it needs to convey. Requiring
manufacturers to add such information to the owner's manual, which is the source intended to
describe normal operation of the engine, is redundant and could cause unnecessary confusion.
EPA should allow manufacturers to determine the best approach for communicating the
information owners need to know and should not prescribe where that information resides or
how it is delivered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 17]
EPA should not finalize the proposed additions to owner's manuals in §1036.125(h)(3)-(l 1), nor
the proposed requirement of §1036.135(c)(10) to link to that information from a QR code on the
emission control information label. (If EPA does finalize the requirement for a mandatory QR
code on the engine label, it should take effect no earlier than MY 2027.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 17.].
Cummins would like to work with EPA to explore alternatives for ensuring owners have the
information they need to keep their engines' emission control systems functioning
properly.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1325- A 1, p. 17]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
The complexity of modern emissions control systems requires expert evaluation to determine the
appropriate cause of any given failure, and the correct procedure to replace failed components.
613
-------
Such determinations and service actions should only be performed by trained professionals
operating with detailed information about the particular system at hand. Manufacturers are
already required to provide access to their service tools and information at a reasonable price,
and professional repair facilities and fleets already make use of this information. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.76]
EPA proposes to require OEMs to provide additional maintenance information in the owner's
manual. This proposal is intended 'as a way to improve factors that may contribute to mal-
maintenance, resulting in better service experiences for independent repair technicians,
specialized repair technicians, owners who repair their own equipment, and possibly vehicle
inspection and maintenance technicians.'120 The proposal is unnecessary, however, as most of
the information that EPA would require is already readily available to technicians and fleets, and
manufacturers are already required to provide access to detailed service procedures, manuals,
etc. 121 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 106]
120 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,516.
121 For example, the public is able to purchase service information for Detroit Diesel
engines readily at https://dtnacontent-
dtna.prd.freightliner.com/content/public/DDCSN/Literature/chassis-engine-service-
informationsubscription.html. Similarly, our service and diagnostic tools are available to
the public,
Detailed service information is necessary so that trained technicians can properly maintain the
engine and its emissions control systems. Daimler Truck provides detailed information intended
to keep the service technician safe and to ensure the continued proper functioning of the system.
For example, the Company provides safety-critical information including how to properly
remove and service an aftertreatment system (including to clean the DPF), or how to service the
fuel system, with safety-critical specifications for torque, identified one-time-use components,
and more information necessary to guard against the risk of fire and other safety issues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 106-107]
The operator's manual is not sufficient (in terms of length, scope, or detail) to provide this
information. EPA nonetheless proposes to require manufacturers to provide technical
information in the owner's manual about how to repair the engine, how to diagnose and
troubleshoot problems, exploded-view diagrams with part numbers and basic assembly
requirements with 'enough detail to allow a mechanic to replace any of those
components.'122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 107]
122 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,516.
Daimler Truck is extremely concerned that providing the required information in the owner's
manual could lead owners to believe that the detailed service information in the troubleshooting
and service manuals is not necessary, and could lead operators and mechanics to attempt to
diagnose, troubleshoot, repair, or maintain the system without adequate information. This, in
turn, would likely lead to improper maintenance of the emissions control system, but more
614
-------
importantly, could also lead to significant safety concerns as untrained, ill-informed technicians
may miss critical maintenance and repair operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p. 107]
123 Id.
It is not feasible, practical, or effective to include all necessary service information in the
operator's manual. For comparison, the operator's manual provided with Detroit engines is less
than 100 pages; but the service information (which Detroit makes available at a reasonable cost)
is an online resource with thousands of pases of detailed troubleshooting information, diagrams,
troubleshooting procedures, and most importantly, safety critical procedures to protect the
operator and/or technician. It also includes exploded diagrams and assembly instructions for all
components, including the most up-to-date part number information. The troubleshooting, repair,
and part number information is all updated constantly with the most recent procedures and
parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 107]
Daimler Truck is similarly concerned by EPA's proposal to require manufacturers to provide in
the operator's manual a troubleshooting guide to address DEF dosing-and DPF regeneration-
related warning signals, including a description of the fault condition, potential causes, including
a list of all codes that cause derate or inducement. 123 This information is already provided in the
existing service information that manufacturers provide at a reasonable price. For instance, the
troubleshooting manual for any given Detroit engine is roughly one thousand pages of detailed
service information and cannot be reasonably condensed into an operator's manual format.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 107]
Indeed, several printed pages of information included in an engine operator's manual are not
sufficient to enable adequate troubleshooting, diagnosis, repair, or maintenance. Further, given
the limitations of the print manual format, any information included in the engine operator's
manual will be out of date before it can be used. Including such information in the manual only
serves to encourage untrained, ill-informed service work, which is detrimental to emissions
performance and will cause a variety of safety risks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p. 107]
While EPA has received comments that many fleets would like this information, the fact remains
that this information is already available. Fleets and service facilities can access all of this
information, with significantly more detail than could be included in the operator's
manual. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 108]
Modern diesel engines are complicated equipment that must be serviced by a trained and
informed professional. The full repair and diagnostic information needed to perform this work
competently cannot be included in an operator's manual. Daimler Truck recommends that
instead of mandating enhanced service information in an operator's manual, EPA should focus
on enforcing current requirements to make service tools and information available to trained
technicians—and specifically, that the Agency focus on ensuring that the information provided
by manufacturers is sufficient, accurate, and accessible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.108]
615
-------
Daimler Truck acknowledges EPA's goals of trying to increase owner understanding of emission
control systems and improve repair experiences. However, in setting what information must be
included in the operator's manual for proper service and maintenance, the Agency makes some
assumptions about these procedures that are not borne out in reality. The most specific example,
and the most problematic, is EPA's proposal to require the inclusion of instructions for servicing
theDPF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 108]
EPA assumes that manufacturers could provide relatively simple instructions that would enable
them to easily clean their own DPFs. For Detroit engines, Daimler Truck does not currently
provide an in-shop DPF cleaning procedure in any service literature, including to our branded
dealer network, due to the complex, sensitive nature of DPF cleaning. We do not believe an in-
shop DPF cleaning procedure would stand up to the performance equivalency requirements
demanded today by EPA and CARB. Our validated and EPA-approved DPF cleaning process
requires a core exchange, where filters are cleaned in a controlled facility with specialized
equipment. Daimler Truck cannot provide simple instructions for how an operator can perform
this procedure, since it cannot be performed without special training, equipment, and
instructions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 108]
Failure to perform DPF cleaning or improperly cleaning a DPF may result in negative outcomes
that significantly affect the health of the emissions control system, including: DPF soot leakage;
DPF coating degradation; DPF overtemp, which can result in DPF cracking or SCR damage due
to PGM migration; and SCR overtemp. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 108]
EPA proposes to specify, in a new Section 1036.125(h), the information manufacturers must
provide to help an operator to determine that DPF maintenance is necessary, or that it has been
sufficient. The information required in the Proposed Rule is insufficient, and is in fact inadequate
for these purposes. OEMs should have the ability to determine the best way to notify an operator
of approaching DPF maintenance requirement. Below are examples of specific pieces of
information that EPA proposes to require in Section 1036.125(h) that would in fact be
counterproductive to the goal of ensuring optimal DPF service and cleaning: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.108]
First, system backpressure is not necessarily a primary or reliable metric for determining
DPF state. Backpressure is a function of mass flow, temperature, soot, and ash load. Displaying
DPF backpressure is not useful or meaningful unless done in a controlled way (i.e., during
a specific service routine). The sensitivity of backpressure measurements to external factors may
result in false negative/positive for indicating DPF maintenance is required. Backpressure is also
influenced by other factors in the system, for example, solidified DEF deposits, DOC face-
plugging with hydrocarbons and soot. If an operator uses backpressure as a DPF diagnostic with
other influencing variables, they may interpret a false positive or negative for DPF maintenance.
Isolating backpressure to the DPF component level requires sensors located at DPF in and DPF
out. Manufacturers may not measure pressure directly across the DPF today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.108-109]
Second, clean filter weight & preinstalled filter weight are inappropriate as 'clean filter'
criteria. Due to a stack up of production tolerances on the particulate filter, mat, and can
616
-------
weights, a generic clean filter weight band lacks the granularity required to determine weight
gain due to ash. Weights by serial number are required. Further, using pre-installed filter weight
as a metric requires the filter to be measured before installation into the assembly. This weight
must be recorded and tracked from the canning/housing supplier to the truck plant, then
manually flashed into the calibration. This tracking is a significant undertaking for a method that
has additional error and other issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 109]
Our experience with weighing DPFs has found a number of challenges for capturing an accurate
ash weight over lifetime. DPF assembly weights may fluctuate with residual gasket material
stuck to the flange, due to dirt road grime improperly cleaned from the can, and even influences
of can oxidation/rust. DPFs must be weighed hot both pre-and post-installation to eliminate the
effect of condensation due to ambient and exhaust conditions. This requires an oven for weights
at the canner and increases cost and complexity of manufacturing. A repair shop must either
purchase an oven to check DPF weights, or a technician removes the filter from the vehicle at a
controlled, high temperature. In our experience, this violates safety protocols and safe handling
DPF removal guidelines for many shops and technicians. A filter weighed at different conditions
can have different measured weights. Manufacturers carefully control for this during testing to
determine accurate filter weights, which is not feasible or controllable in a service environment.
Moisture trapped in the DPF can significantly influence the weight of DPFs, which may obscure
any information about the amount of ash or particulate matter in the DPF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p. 109]
Third, pressure drop and weight are also inappropriate as 'clean filter' criteria. EPA's
proposed wording of Section 1036.125(h)(l l)(ii) implies that 'clean filter criteria' must include
pressure drop and weight. For the reasons described above, we do not believe these criteria are
appropriate for determining whether a filter has been adequately cleaned or not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.109]
Daimler Truck invests significant research and development resources into developing its
proprietary filter cleaning process. This process requires specialized equipment for an effective
multi-step cleaning process, as well as thorough multi-step quality checks after cleaning. The
Company does not use system backpressure or filter weight in this process as a metric to indicate
a DPF has been successfully cleaned. The metrics used and validated as part of this cleaning
process cannot be measured or reported in the vehicle, and rely on off-board measurement
equipment. Furthermore, in order to gain approval for offering this process to the field, the
Company has demonstrated equivalency between a new and remanufactured cleaned DPF with
EPA and CARB. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 109]
EPA's proposal to require certain DPF cleaning information in operator manuals will encourage
less precise, less complete DPF cleanings, which could lead to premature DPF failures and
increased PM emissions. EPA should allow manufacturers significant leeway with regards to
such critical maintenance of emissions critical components. DPF cleaning is not a simple
operation, and cannot be treated as such. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 109-110]
Because of the sensitivity of the emission control system to proper DPF maintenance and the
scrutiny that regulatory oversight agencies apply to the OEM cleaning procedures, it is
617
-------
unreasonable for EPA to require an OEM to publish criteria for DPF cleaning. This would
amount to a tacit endorsement of third-party cleaning methods that have not been validated for
effectiveness or risk to the system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 110]
As an alternative approach for ensuring adequate DPF maintenance and cleaning, Daimler Truck
recommends that EPA:
• Allow OEMs flexibility in the metrics used to display DPF service life to the operator.
For example, an indicator of DPF ash full % or estimated mileage to cleaning can be
provided in J1939 or in a dash maintenance menu, rather than a specified parameter (such
as pressure drop) which may not be adequately indicative of remaining filter life.
• Allow OEMs sole discretion to determine whether and how to release DPF cleaning
methods, given the sensitivity of the component and its direct impacts to emissions, as
well as potential risks for long-term compliance and warranty obligations. Further, EPA
should not require the publication of in-shop cleaning procedures if the OEM has deemed
them insufficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 110]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We recommend that EPA remove the requirement to include extensive service information for
critical emission-related components in the owner's manual (e.g., OBD information, flow path
for intake air and exhaust gas, engine coolant flow path, emission-related part numbers, etc.).
This type of information is already available in Ford service manuals. Including this type of
information in the owner's manual will require significant quantities of new data to be added to
the owner's manual and will likely provide little benefit to customers. Ford would be willing to
support a requirement that instruction on how to access manufacturer service information
resources (web site addresses, etc.) be included in the Owner's Manual. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1300-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
2) Lubrizol supports provisions to require lubricant-related maintenance information to be
provided to owners and operators in the owner's manual. Lubrizol supports EPA's proposal to
require important maintenance information to be made available in the owner's manual.3 As
EPA knows, the owner's manual relied upon by heavy-duty vehicle owners or operators to
describe appropriate engine maintenance, applicable warranties, and any other information
related to operating or maintaining the engine or vehicle. By requiring additional maintenance
information in the owner's manual, EPA will be taking an important step towards reducing mal-
maintenance, better service experiences for independent repair technicians, specialized repair
technicians, owners who repair their own equipment, and possibly vehicle inspection and
maintenance technicians. Most important, we believe that this step will provide greater assurance
of long-term in-use emission reductions by reducing likelihood of occurrences of
tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
3 See Proposal, p. 17515.
618
-------
The owner's manual and engine label should also include an internet link that would enable
owners or operators to obtain this information online. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
We support making these changes mandatory, starting with MY 2024. Given the importance and
complexity of emission control systems and the impact to drivers for failing to maintain such
systems, Lubrizol urges EPA to require that OEMs provide this additional information in the
owner's manual as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
Nevertheless, NASTC first and foremost appreciates that, with this proposed rule, the agency has
carefully considered our sector's input from the 2020 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,
as seen from this NPRM's modernization of inducement and serviceability provisions.
Specifically, NASTC applauds separate inducement schedules for high- and low-speed vehicles
— making it easier for truckers to make repairs while on the road, using generic scan tools, and
providing more, specific information like diagnostic codes — and better warranty coverage of
emission system and parts failures so as to keep trucks that remain in service performing
emissions reduction while reducing truckers' costs of servicing the systems for the actual life of
a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 2.
Requiring that systems provide more, specific information, including diagnostic codes. Having
cab displays that name the condition that triggered the pending or active derate and a countdown
timer of the estimated time or distance before the next stage of derating (even if overridden)
would give truckers more and better information about inducements as they happen, help them
make informed decisions about trip management, repairs, etc., and make the inducement system
more tolerable. Coupled with generic scan tools and new capabilities to diagnose and repair
emission system problems, this empowers drivers with better information, better tools, and better
options. Drivers are more likely to take action when enabled in the ways and by the means
proposed. They would know not only the problem, but how to fix it, while better able to manage
trip plans and commercial obligations. Moreover, NASTC supports the proposed additional
information in owner's manuals, including how to use the OBD system to troubleshoot
problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 3] (these comments are also in 7.4)
In addition to rectifying the overly aggressive inducement and imbalanced serviceability rules
that presently affect commercial motor carriers, there are other important reasons to enact the
above and most of the other proposed regulatory reforms in these areas. As NASTC members
and other transportation industry commenters in the ANPRM made clear, the present rules,
including those relating to inducement and serviceability, cause extensive unpredictability,
uncontrollability, and unduly burdensome and economically harmful effects, such as
unreasonable costs and delays for truckers and supply chain disruptions for businesses and
consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 3]
The reason for far too many of the consequences suffered under present inducement and
serviceability rules is the underlying emissions standards and the highly complex, expensive
equipment created in response to the mandates on newer model diesel engines and heavy-duty
vehicles. As welcome as regulatory relief from the status quo is regarding these respects, the
underlying proposed NOx and GHG emissions reduction standards in this NPRM will certainly
619
-------
result in OEMs introducing even more complex, expensive diesel engines and associated
systems. The mandates on OEMs will surely result in unpredicted, adverse spillover effects on
commercial vehicle owners—including even more equipment unreliability, unpredictability,
additional uncontrollable expenses, delays keeping truckers from productive use of time and
resources, lost business, and sweeping adversity and deprivation visited upon businesses and
consumers across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
More repair and servicing information in owner's manuals such as descriptions, diagrams,
instructions, troubleshooting guides, and QR codes will make self-maintenance more
understandable and more commonplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.7]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Finally, as proposed, section 1036.125(h)(6) states that manufacturers should 'Include exploded-
view drawings to allow the owner to identify the part numbers and basic assembly requirements
for turbochargers, aftercoolers, and all components required for proper functioning of EGR and
aftertreatment devices. Include enough detail to allow a mechanic to replace any of those
components.' (emphasis added). As parts are improved and updated, part numbers will change
and be superseded. Therefore, EPA should revise its Proposed Rule to allow industry to identify
these parts by name instead of number. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp. 53-54]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
As also noted below in our specific comments on the proposed regulations, EMA does not
support EPA's proposal to include additional maintenance information in the owners' manual.
Many of the proposed service information items go beyond the scope of general
information necessary for all users, and could create significant unintended consequences. Most
of the service-related information that EPA is proposing to now provide in the owners' manual is
already available and provided by manufacturers today, but through specific service databases,
guides and other documentation, where different types of information are made available
according to specific user skill-sets, warranties, maintenance needs, etc. Further, much of the
information at issue is already provided for at a "fair and reasonable cost" (as required by the
service information regulations of 40 CFR part 86). Given that this information is already
available, we do not understand the need to provide duplicate information in the owners' manual,
especially when any such information likely will go beyond the maintenance capabilities of the
target audience for vehicle owners' manuals. The proposed inclusion of maintenance and
emission controls information along with general vehicle information would give the false
impression that more substantive repairs are similar in nature to the general use information
otherwise provided in an owners' manual. Further, including service information in the owners'
manual would greatly increase the size of the manual - it would result in a manual that is
prohibitively large, and would not fit in a typical vehicle glove box or elsewhere in the vehicle
without taking up a significant amount of space. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 97 -
98]
620
-------
In sum, it is unclear why information that is otherwise available, and tailored to the appropriate
audiences, should also be included in a general vehicle owners' manual. While we do not support
the proposal to provide such information in the owners' manual, we would not be opposed to
providing information in the owners' manual regarding where service information can be
found. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 98]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.125(h): "(h) Owners manual. Include the following information in the
owners manual to clarify maintenance instructions and the owner's responsibilities:" As noted
above, we do not support the proposed addition of the items listed in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(11) to owners' manuals. These items go beyond the scope of general information provided to all
users, and more detailed service-related information is available via other manufacturer-provided
manuals and tools. We note that manufacturers are already obliged by the service information
regulations of 40 CFR 86.010-38 to make such information available, thus manufacturers are
already providing this information publicly. While we do not support the proposal to also
provide such information in the owners' manual, we would not be opposed to providing
information in the owners' manual regarding where service information can be found. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 103 - 104]
EMA opposes the proposed requirement to describe the emissions control system and OBD
trouble codes (§§1036.125(h)(4) through (8)) in such detail as to give owners the sense that they
could apply "backyard mechanic" skills to repair complex emissions control systems, despite a
complete lack of training, and without the correct tools to make quality repairs to restore
emissions control. Just the opposite could happen, where the actions of the owner could lead to
other component issues and potentially more severe emissions exceedances. Today's technicians
connect to the emissions control system with qualified tools to perform diagnostic routes, and to
reset parameters when new sensors are installed. This level of rigor is required to take
appropriate corrective action on today's complex emissions control systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 128]
EPA should abandon the proposal to compel manufacturers to educate owners on repair
processes through the owner's manual. The proposed requirements of §§1036.125(h)(3) through
(11) should be deleted in the final rule. Current service information requirements offer qualified
repair technicians the tools, information and supporting training they need to effect quality
repairs. This should be the preferred path owners take when they are alerted to component issues
by way of the OBD MIL lamp. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 128]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received comments from users indicating the need to adopt the proposed serviceability
provisions. NASTC commented that the proposals to improve serviceability are important for
two main reasons: 1) to address existing imbalanced serviceability rules that presently affect
commercial motor carriers, 2) to prepare and assist with serviceability of more complex,
expensive diesel engines and emission systems resulting from the revised emission standards.
NASTC also commented that they support EPA's new serviceability requirements in the owner's
621
-------
manual including how to use the OBD system to troubleshoot problems and that these provisions
will make it more likely that drivers will take action. OOIDA commented that EPA must finalize
all provisions in the proposal regarding serviceability, inducements, and self-diagnostic tools that
will help drivers better assess and maintain their emissions equipment. Individual operators
reinforced the concern that current systems are very complex and cannot be serviced by
individual owners, which increases operating costs and downtime. Lubrizol, a supplier of
lubricants to the heavy-duty industry also commented in support of the serviceability provisions
in the rule and indicated that the owner's manual is heavily relied upon by owners and operators.
CARB commented that their staff fully supports EPA making serviceability requirements
mandatory as early as MY 2024. CARB noted that manufacturers already have this information
and provide it to their authorized repair facilities, and although there will be additional printing
costs to include the information requested by EPA, this cost should be negligible. Furthermore,
CARB stated it can be argued that accurate information on how an owner can properly repair and
service an engine available readily in the owner's manual would pay for itself by potential
avoided warranty costs by the manufacturer. Therefore, CARB staff stated they believe this
requirement should be made mandatory and should not be delayed for another 3 years as better
accessibility to repair information will help owners to address repairs as soon as possible with
accurate information and help avoid having their truck taken out of service.
EPA received comments from service providers that EPA should not require emission-related
service information to be published in owner's manuals, given that professional technicians have
ready access to such information elsewhere. EMA and manufacturers such as DTNA, Ford,
Cummins and PACCAR commented that this information is available elsewhere. Specifically,
Cummins said much of this information is available to their owners online for free after
specifying ESN or engine model. Daimler stated that manufacturers already provide
troubleshooting information at a reasonable price and that this information is too extensive to be
reasonably condensed into an owner's manual. Finally, EMA and manufacturers such as DTNA
and PACCAR expressed concerns that providing this information would only serve to encourage
untrained, ill-informed service work by owners who may think they can apply "backyard
mechanic" skills to perform certain repairs and that modern engines are complicated and must be
serviced by trained and informed professionals. Cummins added that the owner's manual is
intended to describe normal engine operation, and that adding this information to the owner's
manual could cause confusion because they provide the additional service information in other
ways. DTNA stated that additional information in the owner's manual could lead operators and
mechanics to perform diagnosis and repair without adequate safety information, because they
might believe the detailed information in the troubleshooting and service manuals is not
necessary.
Response:
See Section IV.B.3 of the preamble for details on the requirements we are finalizing and our
supporting rationale. It is clear from the comments EPA received that operators believe there is a
lack of information available to perform proper and prompt maintenance and avoid derates. EPA
also received comments confirming that in the real-world repairs and maintenance are not always
done by professional mechanics. See, for example, the OOIDA comments stating that their
622
-------
members have the resources and means to maintain their trucks, and prefer doing this work
themselves.21 EPA's final rule includes requirements to improve availability of serviceability
information to facilitate proper maintenance throughout the life of the vehicle. This information
is especially helpful for older vehicles to help operators maintain long-term compliance that will
improve real-world environmental outcomes. EPA agrees with commenters that there is a
particular need to improve access to serviceability information related to engine derating.
EPA agrees with CARB's comments that any additional printing costs in the owner's manual
would be negligible if there are any at all. OEMs today already provide some of this
information, for example, DTNA and PACCAR include some assembly drawings of parts in
their manuals,22 Many manufacturers also include some diagrams that can be slightly improved
to meet these new requirements (e.g., adding exhaust flow indicators or DEF flow indicators).
EPA also disagrees that owner's manuals are intended only to describe normal engine functions,
which is why today they contain information on warning lights and emergency procedures (like
emergency jump starting, etc.)
EPA appreciates the comments that operators should not see the owner's manual as a substitute
for any service or troubleshooting guides and has added a requirement that manufacturers
identify a web site for the service information we require under 40 CFR 86.010-38(j).
Manufacturers commented that this information is available elsewhere, and therefore should not
be put into the owner's manual. EPA disagrees with this rationale, as this is true for nearly all
the information already in an owner's manual. For example, information on how to check belts,
fluids, air filter components would also be expected in other technical documents, but is also in
the owner's manual because having prompt access to this information is essential for proper
maintenance. Regarding DTNA's comments expressing concern that additional information in
an owner's manual may lack safety information or sufficient detail, EPA disagrees that the final
serviceability requirements present such risk. First, we note that we have modified the final
regulations from those proposed to not take final action at this time to require certain additional
information, in particular information proposed about assembly like the requirement to include
"enough detail to allow a mechanic to replace any of those components." See preamble Section
IV.B.3 for further details. Second, we have included a requirement for manufacturers to include
information in the owner's manual on where operators can access or purchase more detailed
serviceability and safety information, like the service manual DTNA mentioned in their
comment.
EPA received comment from CARB and Lubrizol that it is both feasible and beneficial to adopt
these provisions early; however, to ensure manufacturers have enough time to implement these
changes within the context of this overall final rule, we are finalizing as proposed that the final
serviceability requirements apply starting in MY 2027. Manufacturers may optionally meet these
requirements before MY 2027.
21 Comments from the Owner Operator Independent Driver Association, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266.
22 https://dtnacontent-dtna.prd.freightliner.com/content/dam/public/dtna-
servicelit/ddc/pdfs/OperatorsManual/DDPlatform/DDC-SVC-MAN-0189_2022.pdf#page=140&zoom=100,0,529,
https://www.peterbilt.com/download/file/6031
623
-------
EPA recognizes that part numbers are updated as designs change and as manufacturers address
problems. EPA is not requiring that an owner's manual would need to be updated for a given
model year to reflect changes in part numbers. We have added language to reflect this
expectation. We have also limited the part number requirement to just SCR-related sensors and
filters. The critical information path for locating correct replacement parts is to have data to start
with and work with parts counter specialists to find updated part numbers. EPA expects that, just
like owner's would be able to identify updated replacement parts based on the part numbers of
outdated failed parts installed on their vehicle, the same is possible with outdated part numbers
on drawings.
EPA understands the concerns of some commenters regarding the potential breadth of
requirements as proposed to include a troubleshooting guide for DEF-dosing and DPF-
regeneration. EPA did not intend the proposal to result in the equivalent of service manuals being
published in the owner's manual. Today, there is little if any information available in owner's
manuals regarding vehicles that have been induced to 5 mph. For example, the word "derate"
only appears three to five times in some heavy-duty engine owner manuals (out of 100-200
pages total) and only in connection to a trouble light turning on. Derating engines because of
SCR-related issues without providing information to understand the cause of the derate is
counter-productive to the intended effect of inducing the owner/operator to quickly address the
cause of the condition, and such timely response would more likely occur with proper
information. For example, if an operator unknowingly puts in contaminated DEF which will
result in inducement, there should be information in the available through the owner's manual on
how to promptly address this issue and avoid inducement. After consideration of comments,
EPA is finalizing a more specific set of requirements in 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(8) to describe what
troubleshooting information needs to be included that will provide operators with proper
maintenance information.
EPA received comments on our proposed requirement to include DPF cleaning information in
the owner's manual, including information from CARB that CARB has an ongoing effort related
to the aim of this proposed requirement. After consideration of comments, EPA is not taking
final action at this time on this aspect of the proposal and may consider this in a future
rulemaking.
Finally, EPA agrees with CARB that we should also require inclusion of information regarding
inducement warnings and derate schedules in the owner's manual and has accordingly updated
the requirements from proposal in the final rule.
5.2 QR Code on engine label with link to owner's manual
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the standardization of sensor labeling and the QR code on the engine label.
These are common sense requirements that give truckers and repair facilities repair information
624
-------
quickly and would better assist in making correct engines repairs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 118]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA should not finalize the proposed additions to owner's manuals in §1036.125(h)(3)-(l 1), nor
the proposed requirement of §1036.135(c)(10) to link to that information from a QR code on the
emission control information label. (If EPA does finalize the requirement for a mandatory QR
code on the engine label, it should take effect no earlier than MY 2027.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 17.].
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We recommend that the engine label requirements be modified to remove the requirement that
manufacturers host the IT system that is linked to the QR Code on the engine label. We support
making engine information and owner's manuals available electronically, but we believe that it
would be appropriate for EPA to host such an IT system; as is the case with fueleconomy.gov.
Having EPA host this type of information will ensure that the data linked to the QR Codes is
presented in a consistent manner for all engine manufacturers and the data provided will link
directly to data submitted to EPA during engine certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-
Al, p. 6]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
3) Lubrizol supports requiring OEMs to provide lubricant and oil information in an engine label.
In addition to requiring manufacturers to provide more information in their owner's manuals,
Lubrizol urges EPA to require that lubricant information should also be provided on a label that
is placed at the appropriate place in the engine compartment. As EPA notes in the Proposal,4 the
agency has had similar requirements in the past, such as when EPA required vacuum hose
diagrams to be included on the emission labels. The engine label should include an internet link
that would enable owners or operators to obtain this information online. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1304-A1, p.4]
4 See Proposal, p. 17516.
4) Lubrizol supports requiring OEMs to include a OR Code to help ensure that the appropriate
engine oil or lubricant is used throughout useful life. Lubrizol supports EPA's proposal,5 in 40
CFR 1036.135(c), that manufacturers include a Quick Response Code or 'QR Code' on the
emission label that would direct repair technicians, owners, and inspection and maintenance
facilities to a website which provides critical emissions systems information at no cost. This
information should include engine-specific lubricant requirements, including the recommended
lubricant, service intervals, and other relevant information that is necessary to ensure that the
correct high-performing lubricant is used throughout the engine's useful life. Providing this
information will help ensure that the engine and emissions control systems are adequately
protected during all modes of operation throughout their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1304-Al,p.4]
625
-------
5 See Proposal, p. 17516.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA has concerns related to the proposed QR code included in the labeling requirements of
§1036.135(c)(10). EMA is generally supportive of the concept of electronic labeling, and has
been working to develop specific features of electronic labeling for some time. We do, however,
have concerns about the QR code requirements EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 128]
As an initial matter, EMA views electronic labeling as an alternative to conventional emissions
label requirements. EPA's proposal, however, is to add a QR code to the existing emissions
label. EPA should make the QR code-based label available as an alternative to the existing
physical label mounted on the engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 129]
If EPA does not finalize the rule with the option to use electronic labeling as an alternative to
conventional labeling requirements, EMA recommends that manufacturers be given the option to
add a second label featuring the QR code EPA describes, as an alternative to adding the QR code
to the existing label. A manufacturer should also be given the option to make a readable QR code
accessible by means other than labeling. For instance, the QR code could be readable as a
physical impression on a component surface accessible to users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 129]
EMA does not think it is appropriate that owner's manuals be accessible from the QR code
required. Manufacturers already have various means to make owner's manuals available to users.
To make them available via the QR code is redundant and unnecessary. This requirement should
be eliminated in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 129]
The other information proposed to be accessible through the QR code link requires clarification.
For example, it is unclear what EPA means in §1036.135(c)( 10)(i) by, "as long as the appropriate
information is available for each engine." It is unclear what "appropriate" information is
intended to be covered, and how it must be associated with the engine from which the QR code
was read. In (ii), it is unclear if EPA is requiring the same list of emissions control systems that
manufacturers are required to include on the emissions control label. If that is the case, EMA
recommends removing that redundant requirement. In (iii), EMA is uncertain what type of fuel
and lubricants requirements EPA is proposing to include. It is also a risk to exclude fuel sulfur
level requirements when providing fuel requirements; that element of the provision should be
removed in the final rule. EMA stands ready to work with the Agency to finalize §1036.135 in a
more reasonable manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 129]
EMA recommends that EPA make available an option that EPA host the QR-code accessed
information proposed under §1036.135(c)(10) on an EPA-supported website. Although
individual manufacturers could host this information, it would be preferrable for some users
accessing this information for EPA to do so. EPA could design a website, similar to
Fueleconomy.gov, which would provide data to the public in a consistent format for all engine
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 129]
626
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received comment from CARB and Lubrizol supportive of the proposed requirement to add
a QR code on the engine label with a link to an electronic version of the owner's manual for the
engine. Lubrizol added that they recognize the benefit of greater access to repair information and
instructions for proper oil and lubricants. EMA commented that they support efforts to create an
electronic label, but they objected to the proposed requirement to add a QR code as redundant
and unnecessary because owner's manuals are already available to users. EMA recommended
that EPA allow electronic labeling as an alternative to conventional labels, rather than adding
electronic labeling requirements as a supplement to the conventional label. EMA recommended
that EPA at least allow manufacturers to create a second label with a QR code, and to make QR
codes accessible separate from labeling. EMA requested clarification of various information
items described in the proposed rule, and they suggested that EPA design an EPA-supported
website to provide relevant engine information to the public (like fueleconomy.gov).
Ford recommended that we modify the proposed requirement for QR codes by instead arranging
for EPA to maintain the linked information on an EPA-supported website (like
fueleconomy.gov). Cummins recommended that EPA not finalize the proposed requirement for
QR codes, but also stated that EPA should not require QR codes before model year 2027 in any
case.
Response:
We are not taking final action at this time on the proposed requirement to include QR codes on
the emission control information label. EPA recognizes the potential for electronic labels with
QR codes or similar technology to provide useful information for operators, inspectors, and
others. Manufacturers are actively pursuing alternative electronic labeling. After reviewing
submitted comments, we think we should engage in further analysis before moving forward with
adopting electronic labeling requirements.
We note that consistent with existing regulations, which are not reopened or changed by this
rulemaking, manufacturers must continue to meet requirements for applying physical labels to
their engines. Manufacturers may also include a QR code or other electronic labeling information
that goes beyond what is required under our regulations for physical labels. We note that the
prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101 (b)(7)(iii) against applying false information labels also applies
for information that is available electronically. We recommend that manufacturers communicate
any such plans with EPA's Compliance Division, and note that such information could help
inform a potential future rulemaking in this area. Further, we are including a final requirement
that manufacturers include information on where to obtain more service information in the
owner's manual to ensure that owners are properly informed on how to find such information,
which should ensure users have information regarding where to access the same information that
was proposed to be available using the QR code.
5.3 Improved serviceability of electric vehicles
627
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff appreciates U.S. EPA's acknowledgement of the work to develop the ZEP
Certification procedures for medium and HD vehicles. In response to U.S. EPA's request for
comments on maintenance and operational information for improved serviceability of BEVs and
FCEVs, CARB staff recommends that the U.S. EPA proposal include, at minimum, all elements
in ZEP Certification related to the access to service information and diagnostics. CARB staff
agrees that with U.S. EPA's assertion 'that the maintenance and operational information
described in the NPRM could help potential BEV and FCEV purchasers to understand the
possible operational impacts of these technologies on their businesses, as well as ensure the
vehicles are supported during their use in the field.' These provisions would result in vehicles
that can be easily serviced and repaired outside of warranty periods and support secondary
markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.24]
CARB staff is providing several references50,51,52,53 to similar efforts under the Advanced
Clean Cars II rule making development proposals to require robust warranties, service
information, and recycling labels for light-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p. 25]
50 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
10/accII_october_202 l_workshop_presentation_ac.pdf
51 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20zev%20battery%201abel%201962.6%20posted.pdf
52 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20zev%20warranty%201962.8 .pdf
53 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20service%20information%201969.pdf
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
We support the EPA's proposal that battery-electric vehicle (BEV) manufacturers take
responsibility towards educating fleets on how to properly maintain their vehicles. Lion provides
detailed training for drivers and mechanics through our Customer Success Team as part of
vehicle delivery, to ensure that all parties are comfortable with and prepared to utilize their new
electric truck or bus. While a battery-electric vehicle comes with fewer parts to maintain, it is
important that owners adhere to regularly scheduled maintenance to get the most out of their
vehicle. Lion makes that transition as accessible as possible. For maintenance that requires a
Lion technician to perform, we have Experience Centers across the United States that are
equipped to address any service needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 3]
628
-------
We believe that the service and diagnostic monitoring applications as listed under Request for
Comments on Maintenance and Operational Information for Improved Serviceability for Electric
Vehicles should be included on all BEVs and that OEMs should strive to make electric vehicles
that are accessible to their customers. Adopting the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Zero-Emission Powertrain Certification (ZEPCert) program would provide nationwide direction
to OEMs and encourage manufacturer accountability. This is the best way to promote
widespread ZEV adoption and create an ecosystem of vehicles that supports fleet industries with
easy-to-use controls and data points. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 3]
We also support BEV manufacturers providing purchaser guidance and powertrain monitoring as
part of their vehicle configuration. Lion electric buses and trucks already come standard with
onboard touchscreens that provide detailed monitoring data that can be understood by a trained
technician (this is part of the training Lion offers upon delivery of our vehicles). LionBeat, our
telematics fleet management software, can provide charging power, range, energy use, and even
data on the time spent idling versus driving per trip. These metrics can help fleet owners assess
the efficiency of their routes and the health of their vehicles, minimizing downtime. In addition,
the onboard diagnostics can provide maintenance history and reminders to keep servicing on
schedule. These tools give fleet owners more control over their vehicles and operations. They
also provide a sense a security, removing uncertainty that might otherwise prevent business
growth by generating dependable, accessible data for vehicle servicing and optimal usage.
Having this type of flexibility and knowledge will allow fleets to operate confidently, facilitating
a smoother transition into zero-emission technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
• EPA's rulemaking notes the accelerated rate of adoption for HD ZEVs within the market.
RILA suggests that this shift presents a significant opportunity for EPA to provide
guidance on HD ZEV battery's 'second life', recycling, or disposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1189-A2, p.8]
• RILA requests that EPA consider new requirements for original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) to provide standard repair time (SRT) recommendations for HD ZEVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.8]
• RILA supports EPA's proposal to require manufacturers to include a Quick Response
Code or 'QR code' on HD ZEV labels linking to a website that would direct repair
technicians, owners, or inspection and maintenance facilities to a website with
information. There is considerable value in allowing users to connect quickly to safety
procedures, first responder guides, and information regarding maintenance intervals.
RILA suggests that there are other areas of information that could be included, such
towing requirements and clearly identified lift points that are specific to HD ZEVs since
such vehicles need to be towed from rear axle or have axle shafts disconnected. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.8]
629
-------
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
EPA also proposes an update to communication protocols and data access for medium- and
heavy duty BEVs that would require a standardized connector that is compatible with automotive
scan tools. 151 The agency should ensure that any such requirement is future proofed and
inclusive of new technologies that can provide service repair information in easier and more
cost-effective ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.19]
151 87 Fed. Reg. at 17518.
In BEVs OBD-CAN is archaic and it should not be the only way manufacturers can be
compliant. EPA should allow for additional connector options. CARB has taken such an
approach in its standards for new heavy-duty zero-emission powertrains.152 CARB's standards
allow manufacturers to choose how to best provide relevant diagnostic information to the vehicle
operator. This ensures the vehicle purchasers and operators will have the necessary operating
information for repairability while maintaining product design flexibility and more optimal
customer experience, which is critical to driving product innovation and adoption. 153 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 19]
152 California Air Resources Board, California Standards and Test Procedures for New
2021 And Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Powertrains (June 27, 2019) at
C.3.1. ('A manufacturer must have installed a connector meeting the requirements in
subsection (h)(2) of title 13, CCR, section 1971.1, with a vehicle controller area network
communications protocol that is capable of connection and communication with scan
tools that meet the requirements in subsection (h)(3) of title 13, CCR, section 1971.1 or
have a device permanently installed on the vehicle capable of displaying the information
required in section 3.2 without the need for additional diagnostic tools.')(emphasis
added).
153 See, Tesla Comments to CARB (Feb 15, 2019). Tesla incorporates by reference these
comments.
More specifically, EPA should provide the flexibility to utilized diagnostic over IP (DoIP)
capabilities. Allowing for DoIP communication supports future designs and will promote greater
access to diagnostic information. To that end, Tesla recommends EPA also allow other devices
to be installed in a BEV, including, but not limited to, a RJ45 connector or wireless connection
option. Allowing for DoIP supports wireless diagnosis and is a more futureproof solution to
communicate onboard diagnostic data, software updates, and vehicle data. Tesla vehicle
advances such as software updates need higher data throughput (software updates, drivers
assistance, navigation maps, large software games, etc.). Many components within a Tesla
vehicle, and increasingly other OEMs, do not necessarily communicate over CAN. Newer
technology and autonomous driving features have high data throughput needs (for example,
camera images or transferring a 4-dimensional rendering of the environment around the vehicle
during the process of troubleshooting) that are not compatible with the CAN system. Allowing
for RJ45, wireless, and other manners of connection will allow for proper and fulsome
communication of such data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp. 19-20]
630
-------
Further, as to the agency asking about which (if any) vehicle signals should be standardized and
made available for repair and service technicians, 154 Tesla suggest that EPA follow the
recommendations that CARB is proposing in the Advance Clean Car II rulemaking and align
with them where applicable. 155 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.20]
154 87 Fed. Reg. 17526-17529.
155 See, CARB, Proposed Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) Regulations
Organization: Walmart
The proposed rule requests input on several system needs that can improve the performance and
maintenance of BEVs/FCEVs. As a large fleet, these reflect valuable improvements that can
better ensure that a smooth integration of BEV/FCEVs into our operation and better meet the
distribution and logistics expectations we hold as a business. In particular: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 3]
We agree with the labelling recommendations requiring original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) to install QR codes on alternative fuel vehicles with links to the operators/service
manuals, safety procedures, first responder guides as well as maintenance intervals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p .3]
We believe OEMs should provide standard repair time (SRT) recommendations guidance for
BEV/FCEV to fleet owners and operators for expected operational life of vehicle. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 3]
We believe BEVs/FCEVs specific towing requirements and lift points need to be clearly
displayed on vehicles (for example, EVs need to be towed from rear axle or have axle shafts
disconnected). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 4]
We request that OEMs be encouraged to consider alignment of BEV/FCEV maintenance
intervals and diagnostic equipment/connectors with compression ignition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1191-A2, p. 4]
We support EPA's effort to provide future guidance on battery second life, recycling, or
disposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 4]
We recommend OEMs include in onboard diagnostics and signals like a distance to empty
(DTE) display for alternative energy powered vehicles that are commonly found in both ICE and
passenger EVs today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 4]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
631
-------
Several commenters provided perspectives on EPA's request for comment to improve
serviceability of electric vehicles. Commenters were generally supportive of the concepts that
EPA requested comment on; several commenters also suggested additional ideas to consider
(e.g., new requirements for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to provide standard repair
time (SRT)).
Response:
EPA is not taking final action at this time on this topic EPA requested comment on in the
proposal. We may consider the comments provided on improved serviceability of HD electric
vehicles in a future rulemaking relevant to HD electric vehicles.
5.4 Improved service information through education and voluntary
incentives
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA is seeking comment on whether educational programs and voluntary incentives could
lead to better maintenance and real-world emission benefits. CARB staff fully supports such
educational programs and in fact has experience with requiring manufacturers of diesel
particulate retrofit filters provide training to end users and installers on how to properly assess an
engine prior to retrofit installation, how to properly clean their retrofit DPF, what the warning
lights mean, and other important information for the successful operation of their retrofit. The
training could be provided either online or in person. This regulatory driven education
requirement helped avoid many problems with retrofits that were seen in the early years of
implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.l 19]
A similar approach can be extended to manufacturers of HDEs. Manufacturers should be
required to provide online or in-person training sessions to drivers and repair technicians to
better understand the engine's emission control system, dashboard warnings, inducements,
maintenance, etc. This will help minimize manufacturer warranty costs, unhappy operators, and
avoid unplanned downtime, thus resulting in a more successful HDE program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.l 19]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
5) Lubrizol supports providing increased education and information about the benefits of using
the appropriate high-performing lubricant throughout useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1304-A1, p.4]
Lubrizol supports providing increased education and information about the benefits of using the
appropriate high-performing lubricants and oils throughout their useful life.6 Lubrizol has
worked closely with SmartWay staff and others in the Office of Transportation and Air Quality
to ensure that vehicle owners or operators can easily access the most up-to-date information
632
-------
regarding the benefits of using the appropriate engine oils and lubricants throughout useful life.
We believe that the SmartWay program can provide a necessary complement to the information
that should be distributed in owner's manuals, engine labels, and QR Codes by providing
additional information about the cost savings, emissions reductions, maintenance benefits, and
other benefits of using the appropriate engine oils and lubricants throughout useful life.
Education should be directed to service and maintenance facilities and technicians, as well as
owners and operators of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 5]
6 See Proposal, p. 17519.
In designing its education and outreach programs, Lubrizol encourages EPA to consider
strategies to ensure that communications reach service and maintenance facilities and
technicians, as well as owners and operators of the vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-
Al, p.5]
Organization: Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA)
Technical assistance to owners/operators on maintenance of their new trucks: Battery electric
and hydrogen fuel cell technologies are complex compared to diesel engines. Drivers, fleet
operators, and the truck maintenance and repair industry on which they depend should be
provided with additional resources to maintain their engines when needed, to ensure proper
emission controls and avoid tampering. Technical assistance should be offered in numerous
languages to ensure communications are equitable across the fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1312-A1, p.3]
Organization: Repair Association/Repair, org
Another important contribution to the future repair of emission control systems will be the
education of service personnel and equipment owners about the proper software settings for the
control system on any given machine. It is insufficient to have the proper functioning of emission
control systems the sole control of the manufacturer or franchise dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1036-A1, p.6]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters provided perspectives on improved service information through education and
voluntary incentives, including the use of educational programs and voluntary incentives to
improve maintenance and real-world emissions benefits. Commenters supporting educational
programs and voluntary incentives stated that manufacturers should be required to provide online
or in-person training sessions to drivers and repair technicians to better understand the engine's
emission control system, dashboard warnings, inducements, maintenance, etc. They commented
that education programs will help minimize manufacturer warranty costs, unhappy operators, and
avoid unplanned downtime, which would result in a more successful HDE program. One
commenter stated that technical assistance should be offered in numerous languages to ensure
633
-------
communications are equitable across the fleet, while another encouraged EPA to consider
strategies to ensure that communications reach service and maintenance facilities and
technicians, as well as owners and operators. Another commenter emphasized the importance of
education for service personnel and equipment owners about the proper software settings for the
control system on any given machine. Finally, one commenter supported providing increased
education and information about the benefits of using the appropriate high-performing lubricants
and oils throughout their useful life.
Response:
EPA appreciates feedback from commenters on the potential benefits that education and
voluntary incentives can provide to improve maintenance and achieve real-world emissions
benefits. EPA is not taking any final action on this topic at this time, but intends to continue to
look for future opportunities to improve serviceability of emission control systems.
5.5 Other comments on serviceability
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Booth, Norman (OOIDA)
"The biggest problem is when it goes out the replacement cost is unaffordable that what kills the
small business." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
Organization: Compass Coach Inc.
The broken sensor I had last month placed my $550,000 vehicle out of service for 5 (FIVE)
weeks while we waited for Cummins first to look at it (that took 9 days), then to order the part
and waiting for that to arrive and then trying to figure out how we get our bus which is 300 miles
away. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2120, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Fair cloth, Josh (OOIDA)
The emissions guides you have done on diesel engines on commercial trucks is a complete
financial disaster! The expense on keeping the emissions system operating is way off the charts!
This will be my 3rd truck with emissions and 3/4's of my maintenance expense had been directly
related to the breakdown of your emissions guide line and not to mention the lost revenue I have
.incurred while in the shop for 2 to 5 days at a time! I do not know where you get your ideas for
these emissions systems but they are really flawed and way too expensive to maintain! This will
most likely be my last truck I will ever buy and hope it will last me 2 1/2 to 3 years, this will be a
stretch! In other words, your emissions guide and system "royally sucks"!! [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
634
-------
Organization: Flueger, Art (OOIDA)
Several years ago I leased 3 2015 Kenworth t660. Cummins ISX. Mileage 525,000 to 550,000.1
kept them 21 weeks and turned them back. I had to buy a protote wrecker attachment so I could
get them home. Fleet maintained and checked by Kenworth dealer. Driver turned 1 off. Went to
eat. Came back truck wouldn't start. Turbo locked up so tight it wouldn't run period. Had to hire
local wrecker to get it out from trailer so another truck could take load. I towed 1 home every
week. Parts were very expensive, especially the VGT turbos. No thanks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1266-A2, p.4]
Organization: Kenny Sites
I am opposed to more restrictive emission regulations for all truck engines and equipment. As a
former mechanic and as CDL driver the emission regulations today are causing less milage (
MPG) and efficiency of trucks and equipment. The engines have become less durable and
reliable due to the emission requirements today and any truck shop you go to has 20 30 trucks
sitting waiting on parts. This is causing delays and safety issues on the road for everyone in the
hauling and construction industries.
The engines today consume more fuel to overcome the restriction created by the emission
systems, and in return causes less usable life from the trucks and equipment. There is a fine line
between fuel economy and clean emissions. The systems today produce very clean emissions and
do need further regulation from government agencies that do not have a clue about the real issues
of supply chain and construction issues. The reality is when a piece of equipment or truck engine
shuts down to a glitch in the emissions system it has to fixed by someone with a computer to
analyze the problem and involves shutting down the construction for that day or several days
until another piece of equipment can be brought out or for trucks it may block the road until it
can be towed to a shop and then the delivery of the merchandise may be delayed for days. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1495]
Organization: Kloke, Stephen (OOIDA)
Emissions have cost me my business. I could no longer afford to fix my 2013 Peterbilt with a
Cummins diesel because it ate turbos and constantly was broke down because of the emissions
system. It bankrupted me. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.4]
Organization: Kubiak, Gene (OOIDA)
The emission technology is horrible as a one truck owner it cost me more to repair the down time
is longer and we are being beat down with all these regulations that cost a good dollar. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.5]
Organization: Midwest Bus & Motorcoach Association
Our members are concerned with the availability of parts and the ability to service a vehicle
while on the road or even when at the home base facility. Due to faulty design flaws and less
635
-------
than acceptable parts, operators experience an overwhelming amount of engine codes resulting
from emission standards. Many times, motorcoach operators find themselves scrambling to
locate a service shop with the knowledge and technology to repair the issue. Most of the
equipment companies run require OEM software to force the regeneration of a motorcoach,
which not all shops have access to. To add to this problem, there is a small chance the service
locations carry the specific part needed to service the motorcoach. Of note, if a motorcoach is
coding for a DPF issue, it will most likely be able to operate normally and perform catalyst as
intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.4]
Further issues involve parts accessibility and reliability. It is becoming all too common for our
companies to experience difficulties, if not impossibilities, to find replacement parts that will fix
the DPF system in a timely manner. Recently, several operators were informed by OEM engine
manufacturers that there is a three-month backorder on a common NOx sensor. Aside from parts
availability, additional issues arise in respect to parts performance and reliability. In a recent
industry survey, it was determined that 80% of DPF system-related issues directly resulted from
a wide-range of faulty sensors in addition to the NOx sensors and would lead to a derate or
inducement. Unlike other parts that show signs of wear over time, there is no plausible way to
determine when a faulty sensor will occur. Our members have experienced failed sensors on a
new motorcoach with less than 1,000 miles. Sometimes sensors are put in place to deter
operators from using less than standard DEF products and to make sure the operators are not
running low or empty on DEF. However, the cost of DEF is minimal, and companies are
committed to ensuring the proper use. Unfortunately, the quality and reliability of sensors need
be evaluated as a determining factor of derating a motorcoach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1158-A1, p.4]
Recommendations:
1. Allow Non-OEM and generic scanners to clear SCR codes or Tamper Codes
2. Program ECM and software to perform secondary checks in the system to monitor
SCR instead of relying on one sensor.
3. Require engine and part manufacturers to guarantee reliable parts. This can be
achieved by mandating a warranty of 5 years or 500,000 miles instead of 50,000 miles.
Until OEMs are motivated ore required to produce quality parts our industry will not see
any improvements to the less than acceptable products they have been selling. Our
members cannot be expected to efficiently and safely operate on low quality replacement
parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.4]
Organization: Motorcoach Companies
We are further concerned with the readily availability of parts and the ability to service a vehicle
while over the road or sometime even in house. Due to faulty design flaws and subpar parts, we
experience an overwhelming amount of engine codes resulting from emission standards. Many
times, motorcoach operators find themselves scrambling to locate a service shop with the
knowledge and technology to repair the issue. Most of the equipment our companies run require
636
-------
OEM software to force regen a bus, which not all shops have access to. To add to this problem,
there is a small chance these service locations even carry the specific part needed to service the
bus to get back on the road. It is important to note, although the vehicle is coding for DPF issue,
the vehicle will most likely be able to operate normally and still perform catalyst as
intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.4]
Further issues involve parts accessibility and reliability. It is becoming all too common that our
industries companies are finding it difficult if not impossible to find replacement parts to fix the
DPF system in a timely manner. Just recently, several operators were informed by OEM engine
manufacturers that there is a 3 month back-order on a common NoX sensor. Aside from part
availability, additional issues arise in respect to a parts performance and reliability. In a recent
industry survey, it was determined that 80% of DPF system related issues directly resulted from
faulty sensors. This includes a wide range of sensors, not just NoX sensors, so any sensor that
would lead to derate or inducement. Unlike other parts that wear over time, there is no way to
determine when a faulty sensor will occur. We have seen them happen on a new bus with less
than 1,000 miles on the vehicle. Some of these sensors are simply put in place to deter operators
from using subpar DEF products and to make sure the operators are not running low/empty on
DEF. However, the cost of DEF is minimal, and companies are committed to ensuring the proper
use. Unfortunately, the quality and reliability of these sensors has been subpar in themselves and
must be relooked at as a determining factor to derate a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1149-A1, p.4]
Recommendations:
1. Allow Non-OEM and generic scanners to clear SCR codes or Tamper Codes
2. Program ECM and software to perform secondary checks in the system to monitor
SCR instead of relying on one sensor.
3. Require engine and part manufacturers to guarantee more reliable parts. This can be
achieved by mandating they extend warranty to 5 years or 500,000 miles instead of
50,000 miles. Until OEMS have a motivation to produce quality parts we don't see any
improvements to the subpar products they have been selling to consumers. It seems as
though OEMs feel these part sales are revenue generating and would rather keep them
subpar to increase sales. We need better more durable/reliable products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1149-A1, p.4]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
The older vehicles will remain in operation longer than they would today. To be sure, the handful
of very large motor carriers will purchase new vehicles. But with used-truck-buyer behavior
being what we expect, based on NASTC's experience, the turnover rate of older vehicles will be
reduced, as discussed above, on account of this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
NASTC surveyed its members in 2020 (see attachment 1) about their experience with post-2010
vehicles, which are equipped with complex emissions systems under the present emissions
637
-------
standard. It is a cautionary tale. Our motor carriers identified which emission control system
components fail most frequently. The components most often named as failing were sensors,
DPF, and DEF doser, hoses, pumps, and filters. Respondents mentioned other failing
components: EGR valves, coolers, actuators, SCR catalyst, DOC, turbo, wiring, decomp tube,
cracked head, and PDF. Many respondents emphasized how expensive it is to repair these
emission systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
Respondents indicated that emissions system failures occur routinely. Some have problems with
a single component monthly or twice a month; others said they have a problem with a component
constantly. Others experience problems with multiple components, there seeming to be
something faulty all the time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
We would expect similar system and component problems to crop up with new generation and
novel systems. Also, the degree to which this emissions reduction proposal is perceived as part
of a "Green New Deal"-type government push toward zero-emission vehicles and eradication of
diesel and other fossil-fuel-burning vehicles is likely to spark resistance from the hundreds of
thousands of small motor carriers for whom the predominant diesel trucks best suit their business
models.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
4. NASTC has no objection to consumer-driven, market-based additions of alternative-
fuel vehicles entering the market that perhaps someday replace diesel vehicles, as decided
by consumers. Ours is an "all of the above" perspective, where electric, natural gas, and
other alternative fueled energies vie for market share. We do have a problem with
government fiat and manipulation of markets to drive such major shifts.
Of course, slowed turnover of older commercial trucks being retired and newer models replacing
them through the used-vehicle market, coupled with what we expect would be markedly higher
used truck purchase prices, along with increased retention of used vehicles in service will
translate into less reduction of NOx and GHG levels in the atmosphere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Following the January 2020 Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM), many truckers told EPA about problems they've experienced and how the agency
could work to address them. OOIDA commends the agency for listening to those comments and
including provisions in the proposal regarding serviceability, inducement, and self-diagnostic
tools that will help drivers better assess their emissions equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1266-A1, p.6]
Organization: Small, George (OOIDA)
I am a very small transportation company and it has been an expensive maintenance issue [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
638
-------
Organization: Starnes, Elvin (OOIDA)
"I own a 2014 Prostar and I have had numerous problems with the EGR coolers and DPF
problems at a cost of $3,700 to as much of $9,500 at least once a year. The fuel economy is
worse than my older truck that didn't have any emissions on it also I wish that I never got rid of
the older truck." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.l].
Organization: Virginia Motor coach Association
Our members are concerned with the availability of parts and the ability to service a vehicle
while on the road or even when at the home base facility. Due to faulty design flaws and less
than acceptable parts, operators experience an overwhelming amount of engine codes resulting
from emission standards. Many times, motorcoach operators find themselves scrambling to
locate a service shop with the knowledge and technology to repair the issue. Most of the
equipment that our member companies run requires OEM software to force the regeneration of a
motorcoach, which not all shops have access to. To add to this problem, there is only a small
chance that the service locations carry the specific part needed to service the motorcoach. Of
note, if a motorcoach is coding for a DPF issue, it will most likely be able to operate normally
and perform catalyst as intended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-A1, p.3],
Further issues involve parts accessibility and reliability. It is becoming all too common for our
member operator companies to experience difficulties, if not impossibilities, to find replacement
parts that will fix the DPF system in a timely manner. Recently, several operators were informed
by OEM engine manufacturers that there is a three-month backorder on a common NOx sensor.
Aside from parts availability, additional issues arise in respect to parts performance and
reliability. In a recent industry survey3, it was determined that 80% of DPF system-related issues
were direct results of a wide- range of faulty sensors in addition to the NOx sensors and would
lead to a derate or inducement. Unlike other parts that show signs of wear over time, there is no
plausible way to determine when a faulty sensor will occur. Our members have experienced
failed sensors on a new motorcoach with less than 1,000 miles. Sometimes sensors are put in
place to deter operators from using less than standard DEF products and to make sure the
operators are not running low or empty on DEF. However, the cost of DEF is minimal, and
companies are committed to ensuring the proper use. Unfortunately, the quality and reliability of
sensors need be evaluated as a determining factor of derating a motorcoach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2715-A1, p.4],
3. ABA Industry Survey, "Engine Derate," June 2021
Recommendations:
1. Allow Non-OEM and generic scanners to clear SCR codes or Tamper Codes
2. Program ECM and software to perform secondary checks in the system to monitor
SCR instead of relying on one sensor.
639
-------
3. Require engine and part manufacturers to guarantee reliable parts. This can be
achieved by mandating a warranty of 5 years or 500,000 miles instead of 50,000 miles.
Until OEMs are motivated or required to produce quality parts our industry will not see
any improvements to the less than acceptable products that have been provided. Our
members cannot be expected to operate safely and efficiently using low quality
replacement parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-A1, p.4],
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received numerous comments on the cost and downtime associated with maintenance and
repairs, and availability of emission-related components. Commenters noted spending thousands
of dollars per year on maintenance and extensive time out of service due to these repairs, and
some quoted 2-5 days in the shop at a time per repair. One commenter noted that problems with
a sensor took a bus out of service for 5 weeks and stranded the vehicle 300 miles away from
base. Others reported safety issues, delays, difficulty analyzing service-related problems, and
numerous and repeat failures. Motorcoach companies noted that availability of parts and service
is not guaranteed, they have difficulty finding replacement parts in a timely manner (including an
example of a NOx sensor being on a 3-month backorder), and they are overwhelmed with engine
codes. Motorcoach companies stated that it is difficult to find shops that can repair a bus due to
specialized parts, tools, and software. Motorcoach companies stated these issues are made worse
by repeated failures of many sensors (not just NOx sensors) which lead to derate or inducement,
including on buses with less than 1,000 miles on them. They also commented that these concerns
include sensors that evaluate whether a vehicle should be in inducement, and that such sensors
are not dependable and should not be used to evaluate whether buses should be in inducement.
Other commenters reiterated that maintenance expenses, towing expenses, and quick vehicle and
engine shutdowns result in businesses like construction and hauling not able to complete tasks as
contractually obligated. Some commenters included lists of components that they assert
commonly break, including: sensors (DPF and DEF-related), DEF dosers, hoses, pumps, filters,
EGR valves, coolers and actuators, SCR catalysts, DOC, turbos, wiring, decomposition tubes,
cylinder heads and DPFs. Motorcoach Companies included specific recommendations to
improve serviceability, including a requirement to allow a generic scantool to clear inducement
codes, to program ECM and software to perform secondary checks in the system to monitor SCR
instead of relying on one sensor, and to meet warranty requirements over a longer period. These
concerns (frequent component failures, difficulty locating parts, difficult diagnoses, extensive
downtime, and the need for improved serviceability) were echoed by other individual
operators.23
Response:
EPA is aware of the need to improve serviceability of heavy-duty highway engines and is
confident the improvements we are finalizing as a part of this rule will improve repair
experiences for owners. As an initial matter and as discussed, in RIA Chapter 3, the technologies
we expect to be used to meet the final standards build upon the technologies used in today's
23 For example, see EPA-HQ-OAR-219-0055-2022 and EPA-HQ-OAR-219-0055-2483.
640
-------
light- and heavy-duty engines, which we expect will help to address concerns related to
serviceability of heavy-duty engines. In addition, we are finalizing serviceability provisions that
we expect will help to address these concerns (see section IV.B.3. of the preamble for more
discussion). Finally, see preamble Section III and section 3 of this document for further
information and our responses to other comments related to the final standards, including
technical feasibility of the final standards.
6 Maintenance
6.1 Minimum maintenance intervals
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
In §1036.125(a)(2), EPA proposes more stringent (longer) minimum scheduled maintenance
intervals for adjustment/cleaning and replacement of various critical emission-related
components. Changes are needed for certain components to reflect the possibility that
manufacturers may need more frequent scheduled maintenance in the future due to more
stringent emission standards and useful life and warranty requirements: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 15]
• In general, EPA's minimum intervals should be no longer than those finalized in CARB's
recent HD Warranty and Omnibus rulemakings. EPA should revise any proposed
intervals that are longer than CARB's intervals to match those in the CARB regulations.
Improved alignment will allow manufacturers to better optimize their products and
customers to experience more consistency in maintenance practices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 15]
• NOx sensors are a specific example of misalignment between EPA and CARB
maintenance intervals. EPA proposes to eliminate its existing sensor category and
proposes that sensor maintenance should follow the requirements of an associated
component, presumably a catalyst in the case of a NOx sensor. For catalyst systems
(other than catalyst beds), EPA proposes a minimum replacement interval no shorter than
today's UL, while CARB retains a separate sensor category with minimum replacement
intervals less than today's UL. EPA should align the replacement intervals for sensors
with CARB's: 100,000 mi / 3,000 hrs for SI HDE and Light HDE, and 150,000 mi /
4,500 hrs for Medium HDE and Heavy HDE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.
16]
• Another example is for Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) system cleaning, where CARB
retained previous minimum cleaning intervals of 100,000 mi / 3,000 hrs of use initially
and 150,000 mi / 4,500 hr intervals thereafter for Medium HDE and Heavy HDE. EPA
should retain the initial shorter period for Medium HDE and Heavy HDE before
changing to the longer interval for subsequent maintenance events on adjustment and
cleaning of any component with those intervals today. EPA indicates it does not intend to
641
-------
change today's adjustment and cleaning intervals (87 FR 17523), but Table 2 of
§1036.125 does not include the shorter initial maintenance intervals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 16]
• DEF filter replacement may need to become more frequent due to flowing more DEF to
meet future emission standards. Cummins recommends a minimum replacement interval
of 100,000 mi / 3,000 hrs for DEF filters across Light, Medium, and Heavy HDE. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 16]
• For spark plugs, ignition wires, and coils, replacement intervals should remain at today's
values due to the increased gap and amperage of the heavy-duty system needed for
commercial applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 16]
• EPA's proposed standards are premised on the use of CDA and dual SCR systems for
diesel engines. EPA should be flexible in approving minimum scheduled maintenance
intervals for components associated with new technologies not yet in production for
heavy-duty vehicles. Whether it is an "additional" component already included in Tables
1 and 2 of §1036.125(a)(2) but not employed today, such as a second DEF doser or added
light-off catalyst, or fully "new" technology such as CDA, EPA should be open to shorter
minimum intervals than shown in the tables. Cummins requests that EPA confirm it
would not expect the same minimum intervals for new components as for components
which manufacturers already have significant experience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 16]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
In the Proposed Rule, EPA expresses its intent to 'continue to restrict replacement of catalyst
beds and particulate filter elements, requiring that manufacturers pay for the repair [...] if
needed, within regulatory useful life.'125 EPA proposes to accomplish this through two specific
new regulations in Sectionsl036.125(a)(2) and 1036.125(g). Proposed Section 1036.125(a)(2)
would read as follows:
• (2) Minimum scheduled maintenance intervals. You may not schedule replacement of
catalyst beds or particulate filters during an engine's useful life. [...] [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.lll]
As written, this provision suggests that no catalyst or DPF replacements could be scheduled
during the engine's useful life. However, proposed Section 1036.125(g) appears to qualify the
above statement in 1036.125(a)(2), stating that:
• (g) Payment for scheduled maintenance. Owners are responsible for properly maintaining
their engines, which generally includes paying for scheduled maintenance. However, you
may commit to paying for scheduled maintenance as described in paragraph (a)(l)(iv) of
this section to demonstrate that the maintenance will occur. You may also schedule
maintenance not otherwise allowed by paragraph (a)(2) of this section if you pay for
it. You must pay for scheduled maintenance on any component during the useful life if it
meets all the following conditions: [...] (emphasis added).
642
-------
Daimler Truck believes that these provisions, taken together, meet EPA's intent as expressed in
the Proposed Rule preamble, but are needlessly complicated and could accidentally be
misinterpreted in the future—specifically, by reading (a)(2) without realizing it is later modified
in (g). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.Ill]
We propose that EPA clarify its intent and prevent misinterpretation by changing 1036.125(a)(2)
as follows:
(2) Minimum scheduled maintenance intervals. You may not schedule replacement of catalyst
beds or particulate filters during an engine's useful life, unless you pay for that replacement
during useful life, per 1036.125(eY r...l [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.Ill]
With this change to 1036.125(a)(2), EPA would not need to adjust 1036.125(g), since it applies
to more than just catalysts and particulate filters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.l 11]
125 Id. at 17,525.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR recommends that EPA revise the proposed provisions governing 'minimum scheduled
maintenance intervals' within 40 C.F.R. 1036.125. As proposed, 1036.125(a)(2) provides that
'[y]ou may not schedule replacement of catalyst beds or particulate filters during an engine's
useful life.' However, PACCAR respectfully submits that EPA should follow the California Air
Resources Board's regulatory approach and allow OEMs to replace and/or repair catalyst beds
and particulate filters during an engine's useful life. See California Exhaust Emission Standards
and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles
(as amended April 18, 2019)1 (incorporated by reference at 13 CCR 1956.8(d)) (incorporating
40 C.F.R. 86.004-25 with changes, including the addition of catalytic converter beds and
particulate filters to the list of functions that manufacturers can replace during an engine's useful
life) (stating in relevant part that 'manufacturers may schedule replacement or repair of
particulate trap elements (or trap oxidizer elements), catalytic converter beds (including NOx
adsorber, diesel oxidation catalyst, and selective catalyst reduction beds). . . provided that the
manufacturer demonstrates to the Executive Officer's satisfaction that the repair or replacement
will be performed according to the schedule and the manufacturer pays for the repair or
replacement.') [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.43]
1 Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/hddtps_warranty_clean%20complete_l 0_19_accessible.pdf.
If EPA's final rule retains the general proposed catalyst beds or particulate filters prohibition -
and even though PACCAR urges EPA to promulgate reasonable, technically-feasible emissions
standards, useful life and warranty provisions that will not force the replacement of catalyst beds
to remain compliant — PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA provide an exception under
which OEMs may repair or replace catalyst beds and particulate filters if the manufacturer
demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that the repair or replacement will be performed according to
643
-------
the manufacturer-proposed maintenance schedule and the manufacturer pays for the repair or
replacement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.44]
Such an exception is particularly warranted in light of EPA's substantially extended useful life
and warranty proposals beginning in MY 2027. Moreover, revising the prohibition on replacing
or repairing catalyst beds or particulate filters would be consistent with EPA's preamble, which
provides: 'Current 40 CFR 86.004 25(i) clarifies that these components could be replaced or
repaired if manufacturers demonstrate the maintenance will occur and the manufacturer pays for
it. We propose to continue to restrict replacement of catalyst beds and particulate filter elements,
requiring that manufacturers pay for the repair or replacement of catalyst beds and particulate
filter elements, if needed, within the regulatory useful life.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17525. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.44]
PACCAR therefore respectfully submits that EPA should modify proposed 1036.125(a)(2) as
follows: 'You may not schedule replacement of catalyst beds or particulate filters during an
engine's useful life., except as allowed in paragraph (g) [Payment for scheduled maintenance].
However, manufacturers may schedule replacement or repair of particulate trap elements (or trap
oxidizer elements), catalytic converter beds (including NOx adsorber, diesel oxidation catalyst,
and selective catalyst reduction beds), provided that the manufacturer demonstrates to EPA's
satisfaction that the repair or replacement will be performed according to the schedule and the
manufacturer pays for the repair or replacement.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.44-
45]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA proposes to modify the emissions-related maintenance provisions, and to establish new
requirements related to making information about service-related maintenance available to the
vehicle owner. EPA has also updated the minimum maintenance intervals for various
components. The proposed maintenance intervals are not aligned with the intervals CARB has
finalized in its Omnibus low- NOx regulations. CARB conducted extensive analysis to
understand current industry practices and capabilities, and established the intervals accordingly.
EMA recommends that wherever EPA's requirements are more stringent (longer) than CARB's,
that they be reduced to align with the CARB requirements. This will ensure that manufacturers
have the greatest opportunity to optimize product configurations and maintenance practices
based on the latest technical data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 125 - 126]
Of particular concern is EPA's proposal to prohibit scheduled maintenance on all sensors at
intervals less than today's UL (though the NPRM mentions only NOx sensors at 87 FR p.
17523). Most sensors, and especially NOx sensors and most likely NH3 sensors (where there is
little experience), do not have the kind of durability necessary to last throughout the current UL,
let alone the new proposed extended UL of the engine. Table 1 of §1036.125 is unclear whether
sensors are allowably replaced at current UL (for example, at 435,000 miles for HHDE), as there
is no definition of "catalyst systems," and sensors are not always integrated into catalyst systems.
Notwithstanding this point, the interval provided is too short for current sensor durability.
Manufacturers may be changing their recommended maintenance practices with respect to
sensors given the myriad changes in the proposed regulations, including significantly more
644
-------
stringent standards, and longer UL and warranty requirements. EMA recommends that the
Agency specify that manufacturers may require scheduled replacement of sensors every 150,000
miles or 4,500 hours for HHDE and MHDE, and every 100,00 miles or 3,000 hours for LHDE
and SI engines, just as permitted under the CARB Omnibus regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 126]
Another example is for EGR system cleaning, where CARB retained previous minimum
cleaning intervals of 100,000 mi/3,000 hours of use initially, and specified 150,000 mi/4,500
hour intervals thereafter (MHDE and HHDE.) EPA should retain the initial shorter period for
MHDE and HHDE before changing to the longer interval for subsequent maintenance
events. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 126]
Similarly, EMA recommends that §1036.125(a)(2) be modified to read, "You may not schedule
replacement of catalyst beds or particulate filters during an engine's useful life, except as
allowed in paragraph (g)." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 127]
Organization: Volvo Group
More frequent maintenance or replacement interval flexibility is requested due to the lack of data
from applications that comply with the proposed lower emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 7]
EPA Summary and Response
The summary and response for this section includes a summary of the subtopics raised and the
responses follow each summary.
EMA and Cummins suggested that some sensors should have their own minimum maintenance
intervals; not be tied to a "system". Both organizations recommended EPA match the intervals
from CARB's HD Omnibus regulation.
Response:
• We agree that there are sensors that are not integrated into components or systems and
that those sensors should have a separate minimum interval. As noted in section IV.B.2
of the preamble, we are finalizing a separate set of minimum maintenance intervals for
"sensors, actuators, and related control modules that are not integrated into other
systems" that match the intervals specified in 40 CFR 86.004-25(b) and are consistent
with commenters' requested minimum interval values.
• We are retaining in the final rule our proposed requirement that the minimum intervals
specified for each component or system applies to any actuators, sensors, tubing, valves,
and wiring that are integrated into that component or system.
645
-------
Cummins and EMA commented that, while EPA stated it was not changing adjustment and
cleaning intervals for EGR systems, the proposed intervals were set at 150,000 miles or 4,500
hours and did not include an initial interval of 100,000 miles or 3,000 hours as currently applies.
Response:
• As noted in preamble section IV.B.2, we are correcting in the final requirements the
proposed intervals to include an initial minimum maintenance interval of 100,000 miles
or 3,000 hours for adjusting and cleaning catalyst system components, EGR system
components (other than filters or coolers), particulate filtration system components, and
turbochargers, with intervals of 150,000 miles or 4,500 hours thereafter, consistent with
existing 40 CFR 86.004-25(b). As we stated in the NPRM, we did not intend to change
these intervals.
Cummins requested EPA allow a DEF filter replacement of 100,000 miles or 3,000 hours for all
engine classes, since higher flow volumes to meet the new standards may require more frequent
filter replacements.
Response:
• The proposed minimum interval for DEF filter replacement was based on the most
frequent replacement interval manufacturers specified in their owner's manual for recent
model year engines to meet current standards. After considering comments, we are
finalizing minimum interval of 100,000 miles or 3,000 hours for DEF filter replacement.
We note that this final interval is less frequent than the minimum interval of 50,000 miles
or 1,500 hours that currently applies for CI engines.
Cummins requested that spark plugs, ignition wires, and ignition coil replacement intervals stay
at today's interval values, suggesting these components may wear under the commercial
applications of the heavy-duty engines.
Response:
• We proposed intervals of 100,000 miles or 3,000 hours for ignition wires based on
maintenance intervals specified in owner's manuals for recent model year engines. We
are revising in the final rule the proposed intervals for ignition wires to match the current
intervals in existing regulations, 50,000 miles or 1,500 hours. We are also including
ignition coils, which were inadvertently omitted in the proposal, at the same intervals.
DTNA, PACCAR, and EMA noted that the proposal disallowed scheduled replacement of
catalyst beds or particulate filters in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2) and suggested EPA add a clarifying
reference to 40 CFR 1036.125(g) where we state that such replacement would be allowed if the
manufacturer pays for it.
646
-------
Response:
• We are revising in the final rule the proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2) by adding a
reference to 1036.125(g), to clarify the proposed and finalized exception that applies to
scheduled maintenance not otherwise allowed by paragraph (a)(2).
• We note that we are also revising 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2) by replacing the statement that
"You may not schedule replacement of catalyst beds or particulate filters during an
engine's useful life" with a new line in Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(2) of § 1036.125 for
catalyst substrates and particulate filter substrates. The minimum maintenance intervals
for catalyst substrates and particulate filter substrates match the useful life miles and
hours of 1036.104(e) for each engine class.
Volvo requested flexibility for more frequent maintenance intervals than EPA proposed.
Cummins requested EPA be flexible in approving shorter intervals for new technologies (e.g.,
CD A) and requested that EPA confirm it would not expect the same minimum intervals for new
components as for components which manufacturers already have significant experience
Response:
• We are finalizing maintenance intervals with some revisions from our proposed values as
discussed in preamble section IV.B.2.
• We note that our final maintenance provisions include minimum intervals for certain
components and manufactures may request approval for critical emission-related
maintenance on other components at intervals that they specify (see 40 CFR
1036.125(a)(2)).
• In 40 CFR 1036.125(g), we are finalizing as proposed that manufacturers may schedule
maintenance not otherwise allowed by paragraph 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2) if they pay for
it. Manufacturers choosing this option for a component may request approval of
scheduled maintenance at a more frequent interval than those specified in paragraph
(a)(2).
• As noted in section IV.B.2 of the preamble, we are finalizing as proposed 40 CFR
1036.125(a)(3), which is migrated from 40 CFR 86.094 25(b)(7)(ii) and (iii), specifically
for new technology not identified in (a)(2). We cannot confirm and will not commit to
accepting more frequent intervals for components on the categorical new technology
basis commenters requested; instead, we intend to make such determinations through the
process finalized as proposed in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(3), which includes evaluating the
specific facts in the manufacturer's request regarding the data to support the need for the
maintenance at the recommended interval and a demonstration that the maintenance is
likely to occur at the recommended interval using one of the conditions specified in 40
CFR 1036.125(a)(1).
6.2 Other kinds of scheduled maintenance
647
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins appreciates EPA's proposed addition of a new type of maintenance called "special
maintenance" in §1036.125(c) to allow more frequent maintenance in case of special situations,
such as atypical engine operation. Cummins requests EPA to provide more specific examples of
situations or operation that could be considered special or atypical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 16]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Cummins supports EPA's proposed new special maintenance category in 1036.125(c) and
requests specific examples of special maintenance.
Response:
We are updating 40 CFR 1036.125(c) to include an example of biodiesel use.
6.3 Source of parts and repairs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA proposes a new paragraph 40 C.F.R. 1036.125(f) that would prohibit manufacturers from
limiting the source of components or service required for engine maintenance and would clarify
that manufacturers may not condition an emission warranty on a requirement that the engine be
serviced by a franchised dealer or any other service establishment with which the manufacturer
has a commercial relationship (unless the manufacturer provides the component or service
without charge or unless it obtains a waiver from EPA). 124 These provisions are intended to
implement CAA Section 207(c)(3) and mirror the companion prohibitions in 40 C.F.R.
1037.125(f) for heavy duty vehicle manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 110]
124 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,525.
Daimler Truck has an established track record of honoring the valid emissions and other
warranty claims of its customers, recognizing that reliable warranty coverage is an important part
of the customer experience. The Company recognizes its obligations under CAA Section
207(c)(3) to not unreasonably condition its emission warranties on the use of brand-affiliated
parts or services. Nonetheless, Daimler Truck notes that—even within the proposed 1036.125(f)
and existing legal framework under CAA Section 207—manufacturers should not incur warranty
liability for faulty or off-spec components from third party suppliers that contribute directly to an
emission system failure. In other words, denial of an emission warranty claim would be
648
-------
appropriate where a manufacturer discovers that the emission system performance or durability
issue in question was caused by a technical shortcoming in a non-OEM component or system.
Similarly, any faulty or off-spec component determined to contribute directly to increased
emissions should not create emissions compliance liability for the engine manufacturer during
in-use emissions testing or otherwise. Daimler Truck believes that current law accommodates
this interpretation but would appreciate clarification that EPA's proposed Section 1036.125(f) is
not to the contrary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.110-111]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR agrees with, and incorporates by reference, the following EMA comments: While
EPA may permit an engine manufacturer to void an in-use test (or reject a candidate vehicle) if
an aftermarket DPF or other third-party components are used, there are no such guarantees
available to manufacturers when utilizing some of the alternative compliance demonstration
methods. For example, among the DF verification procedures a manufacturer may use is one
which involves submitting NOx sensor-based emissions results from a high volume of vehicles
(50% of the family volume) in operation. Similarly, the in-use testing provisions at 1036.405(g)
permit manufacturers to use on-board NOx sensor data as a surrogate for PEMS-based testing as
a means to satisfy an in-use test order (the volume requirements are not specified, but EPA may
similarly require a high volume of vehicles to use this provision). In both of those cases, it is
impossible for the manufacturer to inspect each vehicle to confirm that there are only
manufacturer-approved components, or to review vehicle records to confirm that independent
repair facilities have not (mis)performed maintenance or repairs. In fact, there is no obvious way
for a manufacturer even to investigate those matters, as the affiliated dealers would not possess
such records. In this regard, it is impossible for a manufacturer to adequately screen to exclude
such vehicles from consideration. In the final rule, EPA should eliminate the requirement to
make the independent repair and third-party component statement as proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.31-32]
If EPA chooses not to delete the requirements of 1036.125(f), EPA has allowed the provision to
be disregarded only under one of two conditions. The first condition is that the manufacturer
commit in the purchase agreement to provide components or services free of charge. While it is
not clear whether this is with respect only to any isolated, named components or services, or to
all components or services, the requirement is nonetheless unreasonable. The second condition is
to demonstrate to the Agency that the 'engine' will work properly with the 'identified'
component or service. This would mean that the manufacturer would have to be aware of all
possible sources for the service or components, and to have explicit knowledge about all the
services or components and their potential impact to emissions, which is impossible, and
therefore unworkable. See EMA Comments at 123-25. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
p.32]
Proposed section 1036.125(f) also should be revised. The NPRM provides: 'Source of parts and
repairs. State clearly on the first page of your written maintenance instructions that a repair shop
or person of the owner's choosing may maintain, replace, or repair emission control devices and
systems. Your instructions may not require components or service identified by brand, trade, or
649
-------
corporate name. Also, do not directly or indirectly condition your warranty on a requirement that
the engine be ' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17514. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.53]
This aspect of EPA's Proposed Rule is inconsistent with the goals of EPA's UL to ensure long-
term emissions compliance. Allowing stakeholders to use unvalidated, non-branded parts to
repair emissions systems that are must meet new Low NOx extended durability and performance
requirements does not make sense. First, the proposal does not expressly require that any
stakeholder validate that the parts meet the durability and variance requirements needed to
maintain the performance of the original equipment manufacturer's emissions system throughout
full useful life. The OEM should not be legally responsible for these unbranded parts, let alone
have to include the failure in the warranty failure analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
p.53]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Other aspects of the Agency's proposed maintenance requirements are problematic as well. As
an initial matter, it is unreasonable to require manufacturers to prominently "advertise" to
vehicle-owners their right to have emissions-related repairs performed at non-affiliated
independent repair facilities using third-party components of the owners choosing.
Manufacturers have invested billions of dollars developing products that are compliant with the
Agency's ever increasingly stringent emissions standards. Putting the entirety of that effort, at
huge customer and societal expense, at risk by prominently highlighting this "right-to-repair"
appears to be at odds with ensuring the feasibility and durability of the new low-NOx controls
and systems that the Agency is seeking to mandate. On top of that, it is discouraging that EPA is
willing to compel this type of advocacy for independent repair facilities, directly in competition
with the companies who have made these significant investments, time and time again, in
response to the Agency's latest emissions standards and diagnostic requirements. While the CAA
does not permit manufacturers to require repairs at their own facilities as a condition to honor
emissions warranties, it does not require manufacturers to actively encourage owners to seek
repair elsewhere from independent repair facilities, or to use third-party components, putting
emissions compliance at risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 126]
While EPA may permit an engine manufacturer to void an in-use test (or reject a candidate
vehicle) if an aftermarket DPF or other third-party components are used, there are no such
guarantees available to manufacturers when utilizing some of the alternative compliance
demonstration methods. For example, among the DF verification procedures a manufacturer may
use is one which involves submitting NOx sensor-based emissions results from a high volume
of vehicles (50% of the family volume) in operation. Similarly, the in-use testing provisions at
§1036.405(g) permit manufacturers to use on-board NOx sensor data as a surrogate for PEMS-
based testing as a means to satisfy an in-use test order (the volume requirements are not
specified, but EPA may similarly require a high volume of vehicles to use this provision). In both
of those cases, it is impossible for the manufacturer to inspect each vehicle to confirm that there
are only manufacturer-approved components, or to review vehicle records to confirm that
independent repair facilities have not (mis)performed maintenance or repairs. In fact, there is no
obvious way for a manufacturer even to investigate those matters, as the affiliated dealers would
not possess such records. In this regard, it is impossible for a manufacturer to adequately screen
650
-------
to exclude such vehicles from consideration. In the final rule, EPA should eliminate the
requirement to make the independent repair and third-party component statements as
proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 126 - 127]
If EPA chooses not to delete the requirements of §1036.125(f), EPA has allowed the provision to
be disregarded only under one of two conditions. The first condition is that the manufacturer
commits in the purchase agreement to provide components or services free of charge. While it is
not clear whether this is with respect only to any isolated, named components or services, or to
all components or services, the requirement is nonetheless unreasonable. The second condition is
to demonstrate to the Agency that the "engine" will work properly with the "identified"
component or service. This would mean that the manufacturer would have to be aware of all
possible sources for the service or components, and to have explicit knowledge about all the
services or components and their potential impact to emissions, which is impossible, and
therefore unworkable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 127]
EPA's proposal requires that engine manufacturers "state clearly on the first page of your
maintenance instructions that a repair shop or person of the owner's choosing may maintain,
replace, or repair emissions control devices and systems." (§1036.125(f)) Repairs performed by
independent repair facilities that do not have proper training, and that are installing unapproved
third-party components to correct issues caused by the use of biodiesel, can create serious
problems. For example, an untrained service technician may install a lower efficiency fuel filter
to overcome issues with filter clogging due to operation on biodiesel blends at low temperatures.
While this action may appear to have resolved the issue, the impact to the high-pressure fuel
system may be significant and catastrophic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1], p. 142]
As discussed above, EPA's proposed requirement to allow service by independent repair
facilities using third-party emissions control components further jeopardizes the integrity of the
manufacturer's design of an integrated fuel, engine and aftertreatment management system
critical to compliance with the applicable emissions standards throughout the useful life. In
addition, the burden of proof for denying a customer claim for misfuelling, mal-maintenance or
use of unapproved biodiesel falls upon the manufacturer at the time of repair. The OEM can
accurately determine that damage has occurred, but not when, or under what circumstances (e.g.,
prolonged use of biodiesel) the damage occurred or how fuel deficiencies or deferred
maintenance contributed to the failure. Absent the ability to reliably control or know the
biodiesel blend level when refueling occurs, it is unrealistic to assume that customers or
manufacturers will be able to adequately prescribe an appropriate maintenance schedule that
prevents damage from biodiesel use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 142]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
DTNA acknowledged the "legal framework under CAA Section 207" that is the basis of source
of parts and repairs provision proposed in 40 C.F.R. 1036.125(f), but commented that
manufacturers should not be liable for non-OEM components or systems, such as "faulty or off-
spec components from third party suppliers" directly linked to an emission system failure.
PACCAR commented that allowing owners to use "unvalidated, non-branded parts" would not
651
-------
ensure long-term emissions compliance. EMA commented that it was "unreasonable" for EPA to
require manufacturers to state on their first page that owners could use non-affiliated facilities
and third-party components for repairs, noting manufacturers' investments in developing EPA
compliant products. EMA commented (and PACCAR commented in agreement with EMA) with
a wide range of concerns related to testing vehicles with third-party components. EMA (and
PACCAR) also stated concerns with the two proposed options for a manufacturer to disregard
the limitations of proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(f). EMA stated that it is unclear if the option to pay
for components or services can apply to a specific component or service or if it must apply to all.
EMA also stated that it is impossible for a manufacturer to be aware of all possible sources of
parts or services, so it is "unworkable" for manufacturers to convince EPA that an engine will
only work properly with an OEM part or service.
EMA commented with several maintenance concerns relating to the use of biodiesel fuel,
including that it is challenging for manufacturers to specify a maintenance schedule to prevent
damage from "unapproved biodiesel".
Response:
As noted in section 4 of this document, we are revising 40 CFR 1036.120(c) to clarify that
warranty covers components that are part of the certified configuration even if they are produced
by a company other than the engine manufacturer.. We also note that we proposed no changes
and are finalizing no changes to the existing 40 CFR 1068.115, which specifies when
manufacturers may or may not deny warranty claims.
See preamble Section IV.B.2 for the final provisions related to proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(f)
and supporting rationale, after consideration of comments.
We are updating 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2) as described in section 6.5, which also includes moving
and revising the proposed "source of parts and service" provision from 40 CFR 1036.125(f) to be
part of paragraph (h)(2) in the final rule in order to emphasize the connection to proper
maintenance.
We are not finalizing at this time the proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(f) requirement regarding
specific statements on the first page of written maintenance instructions; after consideration of
comments, we agree with commenters that the final regulatory text accomplishes the intent of
our proposal without the additional proposed first sentence.
We are finalizing as proposed the two options manufacturers have to disregard the limitations on
the source of parts and service. In response to EMA, we clarify in this document that the first
option allows manufacturers to isolate the payment to a specific component or service. For
example, if a manufacturer chooses to pay for only their DEF filters to be installed, we would not
require manufacturers to pay for all emission-related components. For the second option, we
agree with the commenter to the extent that they suggest that it is not easy to demonstrate that
only a manufacturer's components or services are appropriate for properly maintaining an
engine, as this exception is intended to be narrow.
652
-------
With respect to EMA's comment on biodiesel, in the section IV.B.2 of the preamble to this rule,
we describe the types of maintenance, including special maintenance. Manufacturers can specify
more frequent maintenance (e.g., replacing filters) for atypical engine operation, which could
include biodiesel use. As noted in section 6.2 of this document, we are adding an example of
biodiesel use to the description of special maintenance in 40 CFR 1036.125(c). For additional
discussion relating to biodiesel considerations, see section IV.E of the preamble to this rule,
chapter 1.3 of the final RIA, and section 11.5 of this document.
6.4 Payment for scheduled maintenance
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comment on including turbochargers as components that should have
limited replacement irrespective of the four 40 CFR 1036.125(g) criteria. CARB staff have
significant concerns regarding owner payment for scheduled maintenance of a turbocharger. The
repair cost and the emission increase of turbocharger failure were of a similar magnitude as those
of diesel oxidation catalysts, DPF, and SCR for which requiring replacement at owner's cost
during UL is already prohibited. The proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(g) states that manufacturers
would pay for scheduled maintenance, including parts and labor, only if all the following criteria
are met:
1. Each affected component was not in general use on similar engines before 1980,
2. The primary function of each affected component is to reduce emissions,
3. The cost of the scheduled maintenance is more than 2 percent of the price of the engine,
and
4. Failure to perform the maintenance would not significantly degrade the engine's
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 115-116]
According to these criteria, manufacturers would not be required to pay for scheduled
maintenance of turbochargers because a turbocharger's primary function is not to reduce
emissions and because a turbocharger's failure would degrade engine's performance (thereby
failing to meet criteria #2 and #4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 116]
CARB staff believes the criteria are too restrictive. In California's Step 1 warranty rulemaking,
CARB staff analyzed repair cost and emissions increase for HHDD components and showed that
the repair cost of a turbocharger is $5,100, and the failure of turbochargers would result in 147
percent increase in NOx emissions. 178 Therefore, CARB staff believes the fact that turbocharger
repairs are costly and have significant impact on NOx emission is enough to require
manufacturers to pay for scheduled maintenance of turbochargers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 116]
178 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, 'Public Hearing
to Consider Proposed Amendments to California Emission Control System Warranty
Regulations and Maintenance Provisions for 2022 and Subsequent Model Year on-Road
653
-------
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles and Heavy-Duty Engines with Gross Vehicle Weight
Ratings Greater Than 14,000 Pounds and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines in Such
Vehicles,' (Step 1 Warranty), May 8, 2018, page III-16,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarrantyl8/isor.pdf?_ga=2
.159591101.1089019171.1648488649-859068364.1628622434
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The provisions of §1036.125(g) allow manufacturers to pay for emissions-related maintenance
under various circumstances. The sentence reads, "You must pay for scheduled maintenance on
any component during the useful life if it meets..That statement, as written, is overly broad. It
should read, "You must pay for scheduled maintenance not otherwise allowed by this section on
any component during the useful life if it meets..
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB responded to EPA's request for comment on restricting the replacement of turbochargers
irrespective of the four criteria in 40 CFR 1036.125(g). Instead of relying on the criteria to
determine if scheduled maintenance of a turbocharger should be paid by the manufacturer,
CARB would like turbocharger replacement to always be the manufacturer's responsibility,
citing the cost of repair of the component. EMA stated that proposed 40 CFR 1036.125(g) was
"overly broad" and suggested we add the phrase "not otherwise allowed by this section" to
narrow the scope of the proposed requirement to pay for scheduled maintenance.
Response:
See section IV.B.2 of the preamble for our response to CARB's comment related to
turbochargers and the final provisions. We disagree with EMA that paragraph (g) is overly
broad. We believe that it identifies specific provisions that define requirements that are already
largely covered by 40 CFR 1036(a)(1). The four qualifying criteria serve a narrow purpose of
informing manufacturers under which conditions EPA will require manufacturer payment as the
only acceptable demonstration that scheduled maintenance is reasonably likely to occur.
6.5 Emission-Related Components
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
1) EPA Should Include Lubricants and Engine Oils on the List of Critical Emissions- Related
Components
Compared with prior generations of internal combustion engines (IC engines), today's IC
engines operate with extremely high temperatures, high pressure, high shear, and other extremely
654
-------
sensitive operating environments. In order to operate efficiently, durably, and with low
emissions, today's IC engines need to use the appropriate engine oil or lubricant at all times
throughout its useful life. Using the wrong lubricant can impact the engine's performance and
durability, as well as the performance and durability of emissions control systems. Numerous
studies have been done in the past that highlighted the relationship between lubricant
composition and emission system durability (see Appendix 2 for a summary of pertinent
research). It can be expected that lubricant compatibility will become even more important when
the next generation of emission control systems is deployed to meet the new standards. To help
ensure that vehicle owners or operators use the appropriate engine oil or lubricant, we strongly
urge EPA to include lubricants on the list of Critical Emission- Related Components.2 Doing so
will enable EPA to require regular service intervals for oil changes, as well as require that
engines are consistently using the appropriate higher-performing lubricant oil for each particular
engine - at all times throughout its useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.2]
2 See Proposal, Tables IV-11 and IV-12 and related discussion.
By including lubricants on the list of Critical Emission-Related Components, EPA would be able
to require that owners or operators use specified higher-performing lubricants, or oils, throughout
an engine's useful life. Such specified lubricants would provide the engine with the appropriate
level of performance, engine protection, and protection of emission control technology,
according to objective characteristics as determined by the OEMs. These characteristics could be
in the form of an OEM performance specification or an industry category defined by an entity
like the American Petroleum Institute (API) or the European Automobile Manufacturers'
Association (ACEA), along with a maximum viscosity level. (To be clear, Lubrizol does not
suggest that EPA should specify particular lubricant brands or servicing locations as a warranty
requirement.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
OEMs already use these higher performing lubricants in the development and certification of
their powertrain systems. They rely on them to demonstrate that their engines will meet EPA's
requirements throughout the full useful life of their engines and emissions systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
By adding lubricants to the list of Critical Emission-Related Components, EPA would be taking
an important step to ensure that the same category and maximum viscosity level that is used for
certification and initial fill is used when the vehicle is serviced to maintain vehicle powertrains,
engines, and emission control technologies throughout their useful life. Doing so will help ensure
that engines maintain their emissions durability throughout their useful life, thereby helping to
ensure that real world emissions remain at the levels EPA seeks to achieve in this
Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.3]
Lubrizol provides the following additional information to support our request that EPA adds
lubricants to the list of Critical Emission-Related Components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1304-A1, p.l 1]
There is a significant amount of research that explores the impact of engine lubricants or oils on
catalysts and filters, in addition to the core emissions benefits from keeping the engine clean and
655
-------
free from wear over the course of each lubricant's service interval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1304-A1, p.l 1]
Below, Lubrizol lists several of the most relevant papers, including some pertinent research
conducted by Lubrizol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.l 1]
CATALYST POISONING:
Sulfur and phosphorus are both known to contaminate (or, as more commonly described, poison)
catalysts. Sulfur poisoning may be reversible at high temperatures. Damage due to phosphorus
poisoning is considered to be much more permanent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 11]
Numerous papers have investigated the extent of phosphorus-related catalyst poisoning, dating
back to the 1980s. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 11]
Brett, P. S., et al. 'An Investigation into Lubricant Related Poisoning of Automotive Three- Way
Catalysts and Lambda Sensors.' SAE Transactions, vol. 98, 1989, pp. 269-80
• 55 engine tests on 24 oils of varying formulations
• 99% confidence of link between lubricant phosphorous level and catalyst performance.
• High phosphorus oils reduce oxygen sensor performance, especially at low
temperatures [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 11]
Dieselnet.com contains additional information on deactivation of diesel catalysts
• See, e.g., https://dieselnet.com/tech/cat_d_deactiv.php
• Lube oil additives, including phosphorus (P), zinc (Zn), calcium (Ca), and sulfur (S) are
recognized as poisons [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.ll]
Bardasz, E.A., Schiferl, E., Nahumck, W., Kelley, J., Williams, L., Riley, M. and Hubbard, C.P.
(2007) 'Low Volatility ZDDP Technology: Part 1 - Engines and Lubricant Performance in Field
Applications' SAE Technical Paper 2007011990 (JSAE 20077288), SAE, Warrendale, PA.
• This Lubrizol research was critical to the development of low-volatility ZDDP
technology
• Research showed that low volatility ZDDP improved light-off performance and reduced
CO and NOx by helping ensure proper catalyst performance [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1304-A1, pp.11-12]
Bardasz, E., Schiferl, E., Nahumck, W., Kelley, J. et al., 'Low Volatility ZDDP Technology: Part
2 - Exhaust Catalysts Performance in Field Applications,' SAE Technical Paper 2007- 01-4107,
2007. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-4107.
• Lubrizol field testing to confirm emission related advantages of low volatility ZDDP
• Research showed additional benefits in wear protection due to ZDDP retention within
oil [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 12]
656
-------
PARTICULATE FILTER BLOCKING:
Ash effects on particulate filters are very well known, and probably better understood than any
other effect. Dieselnet.com provides a good overview of DPF blockage with many references for
further review. See https://dieselnet.com/tech/dpf_ash.php [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1,
P-12]
In the early 2000s Lubrizol was very active in this area, both formulators and engineers from
Engine Control Systems, an aftertreatment company owned by Lubrizol at that time. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.12]
Bardasz, E., Cowling, S., Panesar, A., Durham, J. et al., 'Effects of Lubricant Derived
Chemistries on Performance of the Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters,' SAE Technical Paper
2005-01-2168, 2005. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-2168.
• Lubrizol research
• Ash collected related to oil consumption
• Research showed that different ash types have different impacts on back pressure [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p. 12]
Zhang, R., Howard, K., Kirkman, P., Browne, D. et al., 'A Study into the Impact of Engine Oil
on Gasoline Particulate Filter Performance through a Real-World Fleet Test,' SAE Technical
Paper 2019-01-0299, 2019. Accessible at https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-0299.
• Lubrizol field trial research
• 9 car / 3 oil field trial in Shanghai
• Significant difference in back pressure
• Effects on efficiency and power recorded [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, p.12]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Finally, EPA should include definitions of "particulate filtration system," "particulate filter,"
"Catalyst system," and "catalyst bed" to clarify the distinctions being made in Table 1 of
§1036.125. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 127]
EPA Summary and Response
Lubrizol requested that EPA add lubricants as a critical emission-related component, suggesting
that doing so would "enable EPA to require regular service intervals for oil changes, as well as
require that engines are consistently using the appropriate higher-performing lubricant oil."
Lubrizol provided several summaries of research related to lubricants in support of their request.
EMA requested that EPA define the particulate filtration systems, particulate filter, catalyst
systems, and catalyst beds.
Response:
657
-------
We thank Lubrizol for sharing the resources related to lubricants. As noted in preamble section
IV.B.2 of this rule, we are not including a specific list of critical emission-related components in
40 CFR 1036.125. Lubrizol's comment suggests that they would like to ensure more frequent oil
changes, but EPA's minimum maintenance intervals do not serve that purpose. Rather, we are
specifying minimum maintenance intervals to prevent the manufacturers from creating unrealistic
expectations for maintenance from users beyond what is necessary for maintenance and at
intervals that would be less likely to occur in-use. Furthermore, we also note that lubricants are a
consumable product and are not considered components.
With respect to EMA's requests for definitions, we are finalizing a new paragraph (a)(4) to
clarify which components are included in particulate filtration and catalyst systems. We note that
particulate filter and catalyst bed are terms used in current 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. We have
replaced those terms with "particulate filter substrate" and "catalyst substrate" in our migration
to 40 CFR part 1036.
6.6 Maintenance Instructions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA allows manufacturers to deny warranty claims if vehicle owners do not have proper
recordkeeping documenting that the engine and emissions control system are properly
maintained. U.S. EPA is proposing that manufacturers be required to describe in the owner's
manual the documentation they consider appropriate to demonstrate that the engine and
emissions control system are properly maintained. CARB staff will continue to not allow
manufacturers to deny warranty claims if vehicle owners do not have proper recordkeeping of
maintenance records. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.116-117]
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA consider omitting regulatory language that allows
manufacturers to deny warranty claims if vehicle owners do not have proper recordkeeping.
Warranty claims should only be denied if it can be proven that improper maintenance was the
direct cause for needing the repair or replacement of a part. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p. 117]
CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA's warranty program will be improved if CARB's
requirements are adopted because of the reasons summarized below:
U.S. EPA's warranty program allows manufacturers to deny warranty claims based on improper
recordkeeping of maintenance. This can be problematic as manufacturers may deny warranty
coverage even though all maintenance was performed on the vehicle but was improperly
documented. Additionally, it may cause vehicle owners to delay repairing their vehicles in a
timely manner due to the cost of performing a repair that should have been covered under
warranty. This may cause vehicle owners to continue to operate their vehicle with a failed
emission control component resulting in their vehicle producing excess emissions. CARB staff
allows manufacturers to deny warranty claims if it can be proven that improper maintenance is
658
-------
the direct cause of the need for a repair or replacement of a part. Manufacturers cannot deny
warranty coverage based on a lack of proper recordkeeping of maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 117]
CARB will continue to maintain its separate warranty program as it has done so in the past. The
program has proven to be effective, and CARB staff is unaware of many instances where
warranty has been denied due to improper recordkeeping of maintenance. Therefore, it is
anticipated that adopting a warranty program similar to CARB's would not be overly
burdensome to the manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 117]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR agrees with, and incorporates by reference, the following EMA comments: EPA's
maintenance-related requirements go on to require additional information to be included in the
owner's manual. Under 1036.125(h)(2), manufacturers must 'identify steps owners must take to
qualify their engines as properly maintained, consistent with the requirements of this section.'
The owner's manual must also instruct owners as to what 'documentation you [the manufacturer]
consider appropriate for making these demonstrations.' These requirements are not practical.
First, there's an implication that owners are 'on notice' as to documentation responsibilities, and
are somehow responsible to maintain emissions-related maintenance records. Second, it makes
no sense for the manufacturer, speaking through the owner's manual, to advise what should be
done to 'qualify' their engines as 'properly maintained.' Not only is it totally foreign to
customers to 'qualify' their purchased products in any way, but there would be an underlying
sentiment that overlooking other maintenance requirements might nonetheless still provide for a
vehicle that is 'properly maintained.' The whole of 1036.125(h)(2) is inappropriate and
unreasonable on its face, and should be removed from the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.32]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA's maintenance-related requirements go on to require additional information to be included
in the owner's manual. Under §1036.125(h)(2), manufacturers must "identify steps owners must
take to qualify their engines as properly maintained, consistent with the requirements of this
section." The owner's manual must also instruct owners as to what "documentation you [the
manufacturer] consider appropriate for making these demonstrations." These requirements are
not practical. First, there's an implication that owners are "on notice" as to documentation
responsibilities, and are somehow responsible to maintain emissions-related maintenance
records. Second, it makes no sense for the manufacturer, speaking through the owner's manual,
to advise what should be done to "qualify" their engines as "properly maintained." Not only is it
totally foreign to customers to "qualify" their purchased products in any way, but there would be
an underlying sentiment that overlooking other maintenance requirements might nonetheless still
provide for a vehicle that is "properly maintained." The whole of §1036.125(h)(2) is
inappropriate and unreasonable on its face, and should be removed from the final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 127]
659
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB recommended that EPA omit regulatory language allowing manufacturers to deny
warranty claims if owners do not keep records. Instead, CARB indicated that it is the
manufacturer's responsibility to prove improper maintenance directly caused the need for a
repair/replacement. CARB stated that they will maintain their separate warranty program and are
"unaware of many instances" of warranty being denied do to improper maintenance records.
EMA commented (with PACCAR commenting in agreement with EMA) that a requirement for
owners to maintain records was "not practical", "inappropriate", and "unreasonable" and 40 CFR
1036.125(h)(2) should be removed.
Response:
In section IV.B.2 of the preamble to this rule, we clarify that the proposed 40 CFR
1036.125(h)(2) was not intended as a requirement for owners to keep maintenance records;
instead, it was intended to require manufacturers to communicate what records they expect when
owners file a warranty claim. While 40 CFR 1036.120(d) allows manufacturers to deny warranty
claims for improper maintenance and use, owners have expressed concern that it is unclear what
recordkeeping is needed to document proper maintenance and use, and both the proposed and
final 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2) are intended to ensure manufacturers are communicating their
expectations to owners. For example, if there are any maintenance steps that the manufacturer
intends to expect or intends to require certain documentation for filing a warranty claim, the
owner will be well served to know that from the beginning.
In the final 40 CFR 1036.125(h)(2), to clarify the provision consistent with this intent, we
removed the proposed sentences stating that manufacturers would identify steps to "qualify the
engine as properly maintained" and identify types of "engine operation that would not qualify
their engines as being properly used". The replacement text makes a clearer connection to
warranty without the term "qualify": Identify all maintenance you consider necessary for the
engine to be considered properly maintainedfor purposes of making valid warranty claims.
6.7 Prognostics as Scheduled Maintenance
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Prognostics systems, which use proprietary data and algorithms to predict component failures on
in-use engines before they happen and notify the owner of upcoming maintenance needed, are
becoming more prevalent. They can be an important technology for eliminating unplanned
downtime. Cummins requests EPA to include a provision for manufacturers to request approval
of scheduled maintenance for a component that occurs at variable intervals, as determined by the
prognostics algorithm. In lieu of the traditional fixed intervals, the interval would be dependent
660
-------
on duty cycle which could vary on an engine-by- engine basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, pp. 16- 17]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed section 1036.125(a) Critical emission-related maintenance, states: 'Critical emission-
related maintenance includes any adjustment, cleaning, repair, or replacement of components
listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This may also include other maintenance that you
determine is critical, including maintenance on other critical emission-related components as
defined in 40 CFR part 1068, if we approve it in advance. You may perform scheduled critical
emission-related maintenance during service accumulation on your emission-data engines at the
intervals you specify.' PACCAR submits that, in the spirit of lengthening useful life to improve
long-term performance durability, EPA should allow manufacturers to implement proactive,
predictive maintenance strategies if they proactively monitor and identify potential maintenance
issues. Under this type of maintenance regime, the manufacturer can become aware, but would
not necessarily know in advance, that a particular component is in need of maintenance. This
approach would incentivize preventative maintenance, and even goes further by promoting
vehicle service before any malfunction occurs, which would lead to emission reductions. EPA
should therefore support and encourage these initiatives, including by allowing targeted
maintenance subject to EPA approval. Rather than penalizing maintenance initiatives as failures,
EPA should encourage manufacturers to take the initiative to prevent malfunctions in the first
place. The following proposed regulatory provision would accomplish this goal: 'Vehicle
connectivity and advanced analytics (machine learning, cloud computing, etc.) enable pattern
recognition and predictive analytics. The OEM shall be allowed to use advanced predictive
measures to proactively remedy potential emissions related part failures, and these actions shall
not be counted as a failure for the purpose of the emissions warranty. This strategy recognizes
the breadth of customer use conditions and the potential uneven impact on long-term engine
performance. The OEM may choose how and when to alert the driver when a proactive measure
is required. The cost of these repairs would be covered by the OEMs. EPA must approve the
OEM's proposed action before it is initiated.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.33-34]
Examples of Predictive Preventive Maintenance include:
• Component is predicted to fail within a prescribed number of days
• OEM identifies next scheduled maintenance
• OEM includes the component repair with next scheduled maintenance
• Pro-actively repaired vehicles avoid unplanned downtime
• These actions must be excluded from filtered failures for reporting [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.34]
PACCAR encourages EPA to revise the Proposed Rule to allow for more preventative
maintenance in the spirit of emissions reduction under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.35]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking: In the spirit of lengthening useful life to improve long-term
661
-------
performance durability, EPA should allow manufacturers to implement proactive, predictive
maintenance strategies if they proactively monitor and identify potential maintenance
issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.60]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Cummins and PACCAR commented to request that EPA consider "prognostic systems" and
"proactive, predictive maintenance strategies", respectively, as allowable maintenance. Cummins
specifically requested that EPA allow the prognostic system to determine variable maintenance
intervals based on the particular duty cycle of an engine. PACCAR indicated that predictive
maintenance can notify a user that a vehicle may need service "before any malfunction occurs".
PACCAR provided examples of scenarios where predictive preventative maintenance may be
used and suggested regulatory text revisions.
Response:
We recognize the value that engine prognostics can provide for ensuring emissions systems are
functioning as designed and generally support the recommendations from Cummins and
PACCAR. We agree there is an environmental benefit to providing a warning for owners to
indicate that it is time to adjust, clean, or replace emission-related components as part of general
maintenance, allowing them to delay replacement in lieu of requiring them to discard a
functional component at a specific interval. We recognize there is also a benefit to notifying
owners that an emission-related component is at risk of failing so they can replace the part before
its emission control performance deteriorates. However, we are not finalizing provisions that
would remove a manufacturer's liability for warranty, defect reporting, or recall simply for
including prognostic systems on their engines. It continues to be the manufacturer's
responsibility to design durable components, determine the components' deterioration over the
useful life, and schedule maintenance as appropriate and consistent with our regulations. For
example, if a component fails before its scheduled maintenance interval or the component did
not have a maintenance interval specified in the engine configuration's application for
certification, we would continue to treat that failed emission-related component as an emission-
related defect subject to the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 1068, subpart F.
We proposed and are finalizing an update to 40 CFR 1065.410(c) to clarify that inspections
performed during testing can include electronic monitoring of engine parameters, such as
prognostic systems. The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.410 would apply for the service
accumulation testing for certification.
We generally support and may further consider aspects of PACCAR's comment to request
allowances for predictive preventative maintenance, but we do not support extending such
allowances to malfunctions and failures where a component is defective or otherwise not
properly functioning as designed.
We did not propose and are not finalizing specific revisions to 40 CFR 1036.125 related to
predictive maintenance or prognostics systems, but we recognize that manufacturers may wish to
662
-------
apply prognostics in their durability testing and demonstration that maintenance will occur in-
use. We encourage those manufacturers to work with EPA if they wish to account for
prognostics when they request approval of maintenance intervals.
6.8 Other Maintenance-Related Comments
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
The current performance of NOx sensors continues to raise concerns with fleets trying to keep
their equipment on the road. In addition, on-going chip shortages nationwide cannot keep pace
with fleet repair needs. To help demonstrate this point, ATA conducted an independent survey of
its members on costs and frequency involving NOx sensor failures. Fleets have indicated that
sensors start going bad in as early as two years. Including parts and labor, replacing one sensor
today generally ranges in price from $500 - $700. Tack on downtime and those overall cost
estimates increase substantially - in one case up to $1,600 per sensor replacement. One large
fleet reported that they typically experience two weeks of downtime per failure (including out-
of- service time for the repair and return of the equipment). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-
Al, p. 8]
Another large fleet broke down their current monthly NOx sensor repairs at $30,000/month in
parts, $10,000/month in labor, and $45,000/month in downtime. Over a 12-month period, this
fleet's costs average $1.14 million - no small amount for NOx sensors that have now been in use
for over 10 years. Since these events do not normally align with routine fleet maintenance
schedules, equipment is frequently required to be taken out-of-service to undertake diagnostics
and repairs. Fleets with emission control systems under warranty do not typically experience
costs for parts and labor - only downtime. However, fleets consistently report that downtime
costs far exceed parts and labor costs. These costs are typically neglected when undertaking EPA
cost calculations. Given the need for highly sensitive NOx sensors under either proposed Option,
fleet maintenance shops have expressed that they are extremely concerned. Memories from the
2010 NOx emission implementation period left a permanent stain that remains to this
date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Evergreen Action
As stronger NOx regulations are promulgated it is critical that state and local air agencies have
the capacity to thoroughly enforce compliance with emissions controls. This means ensuring that
local authorities have the funding and appropriate staffing levels to provide routine inspections to
minimize efforts to tamper with pollution control devices. Regular inspections are also needed to
assure that necessary maintenance and repairs are done so that all heavy duty vehicles are in
strict compliance with new standards. The millions of Americans living in counties with unsafe
levels of air pollution rely on the EPA and local authorities to protect their health, which is why
every effort must be made to adequately enforce MHDV standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1289-A1, p.2]
663
-------
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory additional maintenance requirements and onboard diagnostics to help combat
mal-maintenance and tampering, and to ensure long-term emissions performance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.6]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA supports the implementation of robust state-led diesel inspection and
maintenance programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.33]
To ensure truck engines and aftertreatment systems are properly maintained and operating
over their full useful life especially after the warranty has expired will require periodic
inspection. This is particularly true for large class 7 and 8 tractor trailer trucks that may be on
their second or third owner. MECA supports EPA's activities that encourage states to
develop enforceable I/M programs for all vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
p.33]
MECA believes that sensors, already on vehicles, that are an essential part of the OBD
system to monitor the NOx emissions from trucks over their operating lives can be used for
the purpose of compliance monitoring in the future. MECA members provide their customers
with the full spectrum of temperature, NOx, ammonia, PM and numerous other sensors and
OBD control units to allow them to comply with CARB and EPA OBD requirements. Real
Emissions Assessment Logging (REAL) requirements, which are now in force, require
OEMs to store NOx and C02 emissions information on the vehicle and report to CARB
periodically. MECA members offer telematics capability, that in the future, could be
combined with robust sensor monitoring to provide real-time reporting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.33]
On-Board Monitoring (OBM) has been adopted by China beginning in 2023 and this will be
combined with telematics to report emissions and OBD information in real time to the
regulators. Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau has instituted a demonstration program
on 50,000 trucks operating in the city to require OBM and telematics to report OBD
information to the agency. All OBD functions are monitored in real time including NOx,
DPF back-pressure, urea quality along with the normal engine operating parameters collected
by the OBD system. A GPS installed on each truck monitors vehicle location and all data is
stored for up to a year. Currently the system is being used only for monitoring and
demonstration, however the agency will begin using it for enforcement before 2023 when it
will be mandated nationally. If an emission or OBD problem is identified, the truck owner
will be notified that they must fix the issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.33]
664
-------
Organization: Motor coach Companies
In a recent industry survey, it was determined that 80% of DPF system related issues directly
resulted from faulty sensors. This includes a wide range of sensors, not just NoX sensors, so any
sensor that would lead to derate or inducement. Unlike other parts that wear over time, there is
no way to determine when a faulty sensor will occur. We have seen them happen on a new bus
with less than 1,000 miles on the vehicle. Some of these sensors are simply put in place to deter
operators from using subpar DEF products and to make sure the operators are not running
low/empty on DEF. However, the cost of DEF is minimal, and companies are committed to
ensuring the proper use. Unfortunately, the quality and reliability of these sensors has been
subpar in themselves and must be relooked at as a determining factor to derate a vehicle. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.4]
Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Also, efforts to identify HD trucks on roadways that are in need of repair and HD trucks that
have been tampered with must continue to be supported through state Inspection and
Maintenance programs and other initiatives, including roadside inspections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1254-A2, p.4]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
ATA commented that its members have experienced performance issues with sensors and that
recent chip shortages are making it challenging to fix the components. ATA described the costs
for sensor replacements, including parts, labor, and downtime. ATA also noted its member fleets
have shared that sensors "start going bad in as early as two years". Commenters from
Motorcoach Companies also stated that faulty sensors are a problem that can happen with less
than 1000 miles on the vehicle.
Evergreen Action, MECA, and NCTCOG commented in support of national inspection and
maintenance programs to ensure owners maintain, repair, and do not tamper with emission
controls. MECA added that existing sensors and OBD systems can provide real-time reporting of
compliance.
Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and DSCC supported additional maintenance
requirements to ensure long-term emissions performance.
Response:
With respect to ATA's comment, as noted in preamble IV.B.l, we are lengthening the warranty
periods for heavy-duty engines, which will lengthen the period over which failed or defective
emission-related components (which includes any sensors used by emission control systems)
would be covered by the manufacturer under warranty.
665
-------
Manufacturers may schedule maintenance, including replacement, for emission-related
components as long as they can demonstrate the maintenance will occur in-use and the specified
maintenance interval is not more frequent than the EPA-specified minimum intervals.
Manufacturers must demonstrate that the maintenance is needed at their maintenance intervals,
and we note that maintenance is most often scheduled in mileage intervals, which may translate
to only a few years for some high-mileage vehicle applications. As noted in preamble section
IV.B.2, we are generally lengthening minimum maintenance intervals for replacing certain
emission-related components to reduce the frequency that manufacturers can specify
replacement. If a manufacturer receives approval from EPA to schedule maintenance for sensors,
the cost would likely be covered by the owner, unless the manufacturer opts to pay for it as a
demonstration that the maintenance will occur in-use. The combination of lengthened warranty
and lengthened minimum maintenance intervals in this rule should reduce the frequency of
owners paying for components to be replaced.
We regret that sensor replacement has been delayed by the recent chip shortages and that the
delay may have contributed to increased downtime. We recognize the importance of keeping
heavy-duty engines on the road. We hope that the serviceability provisions we are finalizing in
this rule (see section 5 of this document and section IV.B.3 of the preamble) will provide
additional information for owners and technicians to efficiently diagnose and repair components
to get the engines back on the road.
In terms of inspection and maintenance programs, EPA acknowledges the value that inspection
and maintenance programs can play in ensuring the proper function of emission controls in use,
but a national inspection and maintenance program is out of scope for this rulemaking. The
Clean Air Act mandates that the states operate light-duty vehicle I/M programs in certain areas
based on criteria such as air quality attainment status, population, and geographic location. The
purpose of these I/M programs is to periodically (either annually or biennially) inspect light-duty
vehicles to identify and repair high-emitting vehicles to improve air quality in these identified
areas. The Clean Air Act does not require a national I/M program that addresses heavy-duty
vehicles, but some states and areas have developed strategies to reduce emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles.
We thank Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and DSCC for their support of maintenance
requirements.
7 Onboard diagnostics (OBD)
7.1 Adopting CARB's OBD requirements
666
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EPA has proposed to align federal on-board diagnostic ("OBD") requirements with existing
CARB requirements, last updated in 2019.59 At the same time, EPA is proposing additional
OBD elements that it believes will be beneficial to federal OBD requirements, even if such
requirements are not currently part of the CARB program. As a general matter, Allison supports
the harmonization of federal and CARB OBD programs. The benefits of such alignment are
obvious: to the extent practicable, aligning federal market for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.28-29]
59 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,425.
EPA has specifically requested comment how OBD may present a barrier to the adoption of
heavy-duty hybrid systems, and any potential opportunities for EPA to address such barriers. As
discussed in the preamble of the Phase 2 rule (at XIII. A.(l)) OBD requirements generally apply
for hybrid powertrain and components only if the engine manufacturer includes the hybrid
system features or parameters as part of the certified configuration for their engines. Allison
agrees with this approach and would recommend that it is retained in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.29]
At the same time, Allison recognizes hybrid systems could become included in engine or
powertrain certification in order to reach a more aggressive NOx stringency in the future. In that
event and for purposes of this rule, Allison would urge EPA to consider that there are various
companies involved in the production of hybrid vehicles and not all are similarly situated.
Vertically-integrated hybrid manufacturers hold several advantages in terms of regulatory
compliance, not only due to their larger size but also in terms of longer-term planning of future
vehicle types. In contrast, non-vertically integrated hybrid powertrain suppliers may interact with
several OEMs and provide systems for different vehicle types on an intermittent basis. If EPA
adopts a more comprehensive approach to OBD requirements for hybrid vehicles, EPA should be
aware of these commercial differences and consider provisions similar to those that have been
utilized for smaller vehicle manufacturers to allow additional time and flexibility for
compliance.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, p.29]
Allison also supports EPA flexibilities which have traditionally been part of the OBD program.
First, Allison supports retention of the existing deficiency policy in 40 C.F.R. 86.010-18n, as
EPA has proposed.60 We believe a deficiency policy is extremely valuable to manufacturers
bringing new technologies to market. Allison has utilized CARB's deficiency program for HD
hybrid powertrains and has found that this program has allowed Allison to develop new products
and higher capability in onboard diagnostics through interactions with regulators during the
certification and deficiency resolution process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.29]
60 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,528.
667
-------
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
As EPA knows, when emissions related sensors and on-board diagnostic systems fail to operate
properly, false positive or negative readings may result, frustrating the purpose of those sensors
and systems (i.e., the proper diagnosis of potential emission failures) and/or aggravating CMV
operators and dealership service personnel alike. Therefore, EPA in conjunction with the HDE
and CMV OEMs, should carefully revisit existing CMV HDE OBD requirements in the context
of appropriately tighter NOx standards to ensure that they will perform properly in-use. ATD
also concurs with the OBD and serviceability issues raised by EMA, including harmonization
between EPA and CARB OBD mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on harmonizing U.S. EPA's HD OBD regulations with future
amendments in CARB's HD OBD regulations, specifically CARB's most recent updates
proposed in July 2021. CARB staff strongly recommends that U.S. EPA adopt the same
amendments once they have been officially adopted. CARB staff believes these amendments are
necessary to help ensure the integrity of the HD OBD systems. The NPRM also requests
comment on whether and to what extent the U.S. EPA regulations should harmonize with
CARB's next expected update to their OBD regulation or whether the proposed language in
1036.110(b) is sufficient to accommodate future divergence in both regulations. CARB staff
strongly encourages harmonization of U.S. EPA OBD with CARB OBD requirements and will
work toward that direction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.66]
The NPRM requests comment to the proposal to keep the numerical values of the NOx and PM
OBD thresholds unchanged from the current numerical thresholds to harmonize with CARB's
Omnibus rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.67]
First, the threshold in 1036.110(b)(5)(iv) (i.e., 0.60 g/bhp-hr NOx threshold) is not needed, since
there are no thresholds of 3.0 times the applicable NOx standard required in 13 CCR section
1971.1 for 2027 and subsequent model engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.67]
Second, while CARB generally agrees that harmonization between the federal and California
requirements is appropriate, in this case, CARB staff believes the OBD thresholds can be more
stringent than the proposed federal OBD thresholds. While CARB staff did not have enough time
to research and propose more stringent thresholds when developing the Omnibus OBD
thresholds, staff has since determined that more stringent thresholds are possible for vehicles
certified to lower emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.67]
Specifically, CARB staff has certified OBD systems (Appendix I) with three or fewer
deficiencies for diesel engines that were certified to a NOx FEL of 0.16 grams per brake
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), which shows that the engines were able to meet the currently
required OBD thresholds (e.g., NOx threshold of 0.32 g/bhp-hr) for all but at most 2 of the
emission threshold monitors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.67]
668
-------
Additionally, CARB staff also has certified an OBD systeml36 without deficiencies for a
gasoline engine certified to a NOx FEL of 0.12 g/bhp-hr that was certified to meet all the
currently required OBD thresholds for all emission threshold monitors. As such, CARB staff
believes that more stringent OBD thresholds than those being proposed by U.S. EPA are
feasible, and recommends that U.S. EPA adopt more stringent OBD thresholds based on existing
certifications. 137 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.67]
136
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/nvepb/executive_orders/EO%20
Files/MDE-HDE/2020/GM/gm_hdoe_a-006-2249-l date—20200616 year—
2020 mfrcarb—gm ver—orig uid—7-3860 itr—1 fam—Igmxe06.6001_6d6_0dl2-
0d01.pdf
137 For these certifications, the HD OBD thresholds can be summarized as follows:
For diesels: 2.0xNMHC FEL, 2.0xNOx FEL or NOx FEL+ 0.2 g/bhp-hr, PM at 0.03
g/bhp-hr or FEL+0.02 g/bhp-hr.
For gasoline: 1.75xNMHC FEL and NOx FEL for catalyst, and 1.5xFEL (NMHC, NOx,
PM) for all other monitors
As noted in comment 7.b above, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA harmonize the federal
HD OBD regulations with future amendments in CARB's HD OBD regulations. However,
CARB staff has concerns regarding the exceptions to CARB's 2019 OBD regulations that U.S.
EPA is proposing to adopt, specifically the 'testing and reporting requirements in 13 CCR
1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4).' First, there is confusion about U.S. EPA's description of this exception.
Specifically, U.S. EPA indicated that they have issues with the 'manufacturer self-testing
(MST)' requirements in 13 CCR 1971.l(i)(2.3) and (2.4). However, CARB's MST requirements
are contained in 13 CCR 1971.1(1)(4) and 13 CCR 1971.5(c), not 1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4), which
contain the aging requirements for durability demonstration engine (DDE) testing. Based on the
description of the requirement at issue, CARB staff believes U.S. EPA is specifically referring to
the DDE aging requirements, not the MST requirements. CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA
make clear the specific OBD requirements they are addressing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.68]
Second, CARB staff is concerned about the language in 1036.11 (b)(6), which states 'the testing
and reporting requirements in 13 CCR 1971.l(i)(2.3) and (2.4) do not apply.' Both sections
1971. l(i)(2.3) and (i)(2.4) require manufacturers to use aged engines when performing DDE
testing. So, the regulation language U.S. EPA is proposing seems vague and may be interpreted
as not requiring aged engines to be used for testing. Further, while section 1971. l(i)(2.3) requires
specific data to be collected from high mileage in-use engines to validate the manufacturer's
aging process for diesel engines, section 1971. l(i)(2.4) does not contain any specific data
collection requirements for gasoline engines. So, CARB staff is confused about why
1971.l(i)(2.4) was included in the exceptions in U.S. EPA's OBD regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.68]
The NPRM requests comment on whether there are opportunities for further reducing OBD
compliance and certification costs of the federal program through increasing the modeling or
669
-------
other calculation-based methods as part of the certification process, which could potentially
replace certain testing requirements like those for meeting the test-out criteria or calculating
adjustment factors. CARB staff has concerns about such approaches. These systems can be very
complex, and the modelling and calculations can be manipulated to generate desired results that
may not represent the true performance of the system. If U.S. EPA considers
modeling/calculation approaches, CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA adopt regulation language
indicating that the manufacturer is still liable for compliance and enforcement if U.S. EPA
conducts tests and the test results show non-compliance with the OBD requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.68-69]
The NPRM requests comment on whether or not OBD may present a barrier to adopted of HD
hybrid systems and any potential opportunities for U.S. EPA to address such barriers. From
CARB staffs experience certifying HD hybrid OBD systems, CARB staff has been
accommodating of the horizontally integrated business structure of the HD industry, and has
independently approved the hybrid system OBD systems and engine OBD systems. This dual
approval strategy has been working for CARB staff and HD manufacturers for years. Further,
CARB staffs experience certifying HD hybrid OBD systems has reinforced the importance of an
appropriate evaluation of the engine and hybrid systems together to ensure compliance with all
the OBD requirements (e.g., standardization, monitoring frequency) when the engine and hybrid
systems are integrated into a vehicle. Hybrid systems inherently change the duty cycles and
operating conditions experienced by the engines. Evaluating the systems separately and
independently will not necessarily expose the shortcomings that result when the systems are
integrated, and the consequence can be poor OBD performance or noncompliance in the
field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.70]
CARB staff supports the proposal to allow manufacturers to continue to use a CARB OBD
approval letter to demonstrate compliance with federal OBD regulations for an equivalent engine
family where manufacturers can demonstrate that CARB OBD program has met the intent of the
U.S. EPA OBD program, and the process U.S. EPA intends to apply when CARB and U.S. EPA
provisions are different (e.g., the additional parameters U.S. EPA is proposing that do not exist in
the CARB regulations). However, in the discussion on page 17534, it mentions proposing to
migrate the language from 86.010-18(a)(5) to 1036.110(a), but that language from 86.010-
18(a)(5) does not appear in the proposed 1036.110(a). Further, while the discussion mentions
1036.110(c)(4), this section does not appear in the proposed language. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.77]
The NPRM requests comment on U.S. EPA's proposal allowing manufacturers to count two
equivalent engine families as one for the purposes of determining the number of engines that are
subject to OBD demonstration testing provided the two families are identical in all aspects
material to expected emission characteristics, including whether additional restrictions should be
included. CARB staff believes it is worth counting both families when determining the number
of OBD demonstration engines if the manufacturer has elected to certify separate families
despite the equivalency between the families. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.76]
The NPRM also requests comment on allowing a similar provision for cases where equivalent
engine families differ only in terms of inducement strategies. Specifically, the NPRM requests
670
-------
comment on provisions to accommodate equivalent engine families that are identical except for
the diagnostic system adjustments needed to meet the different inducement protocols. CARB
staff needs to understand why two different engine families would be created by the
manufacturer. CARB staff believes a more straightforward approach would be to modify the
engine family rules to allow these two engines to be in the same engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.77]The NPRM requests comment on U.S. EPA retaining the existing
deficiency requirements in its entirety. CARB staff has concerns with the U.S. EPA's deficiency
provisions. The proposed language in 1036.110(d)(2) states that a deficiency will be approved 'if
you show us that full compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant factors,
such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the lead time and production cycles of
vehicle designs and programmed computing upgrade.' CARB staff is unsure if this language
allows for typical software bugs or robustness issues to be granted deficiencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.69]
Further, CARB staff has concerns with U.S. EPA's requirement in 1036.110(d)(4) that will not
approve deficiencies retroactively. CARB's HD OBD regulation allows manufacturers to certify
OBD systems with 'deficiencies' in cases where the manufacturer does not meet a requirement
but has demonstrated a good faith effort to fully comply. While manufacturers generally perform
some validation work before the start of production to ensure the OBD system is working
properly and meeting the requirements of the HD OBD regulation, it is not always possible to
find all problems with the OBD systems during this time. Therefore, CARB's HD OBD
regulation requires manufacturers to perform thorough validation testing of the OBD system on
production engines and vehicles after the start of production (and after OBD system
certification). As an incentive, a manufacturer could request that any problem discovered during
this testing be evaluated as a deficiency and take effect retroactively to the start of production of
the engine. If the other factors necessary to qualify for a deficiency are indeed satisfied, the
Executive Officer would amend the certification to retroactively assign the deficiency to the start
of production of the affected engines. In contrast, problems discovered later by CARB staff
during in-use testing would become noncompliance issues and handled in accordance with OBD-
specific enforcement regulations. Additionally, manufacturers have often found problems
through means other than this production engine/vehicle evaluation testing that require them to
apply running changes and/or field fixes to address the problems. Without the allowance for
retroactive deficiencies, CARB staff would most likely have granted a deficiency for this issue
on the affected engines in the next model year, which would mean that manufacturers would be
given an 'extra' model year to fix the issue given the 2-3 year carryover allowance for
deficiencies. Furthermore, if the manufacturer cannot get a retroactive deficiency, then the
manufacturer would be subject to the OBD enforcement regulations when the running changes
and field fixes are submitted, and CARB staff is notified of the issues. In other cases, if that
specific model year was the last model year for the engine, no deficiency would have been
applied at all to the engine. CARB staff believes that this would incentivize manufacturers to
approach CARB staff later than they should to report problems in the field and applicable
running changes/field fixes, which is not appropriate. Therefore, CARB staff recommends U.S.
EPA modify the requirements to allow for retroactive deficiencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp. 69-70]
671
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Durability Demonstration Testing (DDE)
For the new aging protocol DDE/demo requirement in the CARB 2019 OBD regs, In
§1036.110(b)(2), EPA proposes not to lower NOx and PM thresholds proportionally with the
new emissions standards, which Cummins supports. It is not clear whether engine dynamometer-
certified engines in vehicles <14k lbs GVWR are subject to OBD requirements in §1036.110(b)
or in §1036.110(a)(1), the latter of which references EPA OBD requirements in §86.1806. Since
those engines will also be required to meet EPA's new NOx and PM emission standards, EPA
should ensure the same OBD threshold relief is applied. If those engines are indeed subject to
§1036.110(a)(1), EPA should adopt similar relief provisions which includes freezing the OBD
threshold limits and updating all references to the emissions standards contained within
§86.1806-05 and §86.1806-17 (13 CCR 1968.2- equivalent). Additionally, where EPA
references section 13 CCR 1971.1, EPA should consider also referencing section 1968.2 as
appropriate (e.g., see §1036.111(a)(1)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 14]
Cummins proposes EPA to consider adding an option to utilize EPA-approved durability
protocol (DF). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 27]
For the 3 test-out requirements (2 feedgas and NMHC Catalyst), propose to remove these
requirements from CARB 2019 OBD regs entirely as they add no environmental benefit (the
requirements add no new diagnostic monitors, just additional unnecessary internal testing done
each year to document justification data that doesn't change). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-
Al, p. 27]
For failed part IRAF, propose to EPA to improve upon existing CARB OBD 2019 language to
include good engineering judgement (based on historical data) that could severely reduce the
testing costs associated with these requirements. An Improvement here, would allow more carry-
over results (for carry-over products), especially for negligible failed-part IRAF numbers/results,
which would reduce testing burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 27]
Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation Testing (PVE)
For sister families (combined CARB/EPA sister 50-state families), propose to include language
that indicates that EPA accepts CARB PVE results for sister EPA engine families. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 28]
For PVE1 CARB OBD 2019 requirements, propose modifying the requirements to testing only 3
production vehicles. Experience by engine manufacturers has shown a significantly reduced
number of production vehicles (much less than the current requirement of 10) is sufficient to
catch any issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 28]
For PVE2 CARB OBD 2019 requirements, CARB made changes to increase the scope of PVE
testing to include testing demo diagnostics for PVE. These new requirements are costly (mainly
in relation to acquiring the specific leased HD vehicles), and only proving MIL lamp activation
672
-------
(which is already done during demo with same engine rating). Propose to eliminate these DDE
demo PVE2 CARB OBD 2019 updates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 28]
For PVE2 CARB OBD 2019 requirements, propose updating test picks to one PVE2 pick per
year. The time it takes to procure vehicles (leasing/purchasing) is a lot more burdensome for
engine manufacturers than it is for vehicle manufacturers - we may need to wait for vehicles to
be built, or for a built truck to go to a body builder for additional customization work. These are
all factors that can impact the timeline and cost associated with this task, despite the fact that
diagnostics are usually tuned the same across platforms and persist across multiple model
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 28]
For PVE2 CARB OBD 2019 requirements, propose to include new language that for the PVE2
pick, an allowance to use a different rating within the family if the OBD system is the same.
Child ratings are very similar to parent ratings, and if the DDE pick's rating happens to be one of
low-volume production, it is burdensome and costly to acquire. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 28]
For PVE3 CARB OBD 2019 requirements, Cummins proposes that EPA considers removing the
specific new language introduced in Section 1 (3.2.2) - "The Executive Officer may determine
that the manufacturer is required to submit data representative of a subgroup of the monitoring
performance group. The Executive Officer shall make this determination based on information
indicating that the subgroup of vehicles differs from other vehicles in the monitoring
performance group and that a reasonable basis exists to believe that the differences may directly
impact the data submitted. " Rationale here is that the manufacturer should be working more
upfront with EPA on unique duty cycles, on a specific sub-group in order to define the plan prior
to certification. This introduced language has provided a level of uncertainty with how and when
CARB has applied compliance upon certain subgroups with manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 28]
Hybrid OBD
Hybrid vehicle IUMPR increases from 0.1 to 0.3 in MY 24 per CCR 1971.1. We propose that
EPA includes IUMPR relief for the hybrid applications and keep IUMPR at 0.1. The higher limit
of 0.3 can be a more difficult requirement to meet for hybrid applications and has the potential to
push manufacturers to need more investments in new technologies and complex software in
order to meet this requirement. That in turn would delay the implementation of hybrid
technology and the emissions reduction that would be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 30]
While not mentioned in CARB's 13 CCR 1971.1 and 1971.5 HD OBD regulations, for an engine
manufacturer not vertically integrated with the hybrid drivetrain manufacturer, CARB in practice
requires a dual Executive Order (EO) OBD certification process, where both the engine
manufacturer and the hybrid drive manufacturer independently submit certification documents
for OBD approval for a combined dual EO approval. This process proves to be a major hurdle
for non-vertically integrated manufacturers from launching into new hybrid solutions. EPA
673
-------
should retain the current conventional engine OBD certification process for obtaining a
Certificate of Conformity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 14Deficiency Provision
Cummins is in agreement with EPA on most of their deficiency provision proposal (to retain
existing EPA requirements) except with regards to CARB's concept of retroactive deficiency.
Retroactive deficiencies are key for issues found during PVE testing. It provides a mechanism
for manufacturers that find any issues/concerns during PVE Testing (an event that takes place
post-certification) to report to EPA.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
In the Proposed Rule, EPA proposes to update its outdated OBD standards by incorporating by
reference CARB's recently amended OBD requirements. EPA also proposes adding flexibility to
allow continued technical commonality between engines that are certified to CARB's OBD
standards and engines that are not. Daimler Truck supports these proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.73]
A consistent technical basis for diagnostics and repair across all domestic HDVs is important.
Allowing for common approaches reduces development and vehicle costs while providing a
consistent repair experience for OEM and third-party repair facilities alike. Daimler Truck
supports EPA's proposal to adopt the versions of 13 CCR 1968.2, 1968.5, 1971.1 and 1971.5
that CARB adopted on October 3, 2019. Such an approach ensures that EPA's OBD regulations
reflect the most important changes to state-of-the-art diagnostics since the federal regulations
were last updated in 2009. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.73]
Daimler Truck also supports EPA's proposed Section 1036.110(b), whereby the Agency may
certify an 'OBD system meeting alternative specifications if you demonstrate that it meets the
intent of this section.'99 Such an approach is critical to maintaining long-term technical
compatibility between EPA- and CARB-certified OBD systems. Without the flexibility provided
by these provisions, the EPA regulation could limit technical advances of diagnostics systems
beyond that envisioned by the current regulatory language. EPA rightly identifies
communications standards as an example where this has happened in the past; CARB regulations
have evolved with technical advances in diagnostics and communications technology, whereas
the EPA rules have stayed static. Without the flexibility to certify an OBD system that meets the
intent of the regulations, such a divergence in standards could threaten the technical
compatibility and consistent repair experience across EPA- and CARB-certified vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.74]
99 Id. at 17,665
EPA also requests comments on whether the Agency should adopt anticipated updates to CARB
OBD regulations that were proposed in July 2021.100 Daimler Truck does not believe that this is
necessary. Rulemaking efforts for the CARB's OBD regulations are nearly continuous in nature.
For example, the program was updated in the Omnibus rulemaking package in December 2021
and is currently being updated as part of the passenger car OBD biennial review. It is likely that
the HD OBD biennial review process will start soon, and further modify the relevant CARB
674
-------
regulations. Selecting a 'most appropriate' version of the CARB program for EPA to adopt is not
necessary, and the version adopted by CARB on October 3, 2019 is sufficient for these purposes.
Further, EPA's proposal in Section 1036.110(b)—where the Agency may certify an 'OBD
system meeting alternative specifications if you demonstrate that it meets the intent of this
section'— obviates any need to expressly incorporate expected future amendments to the CARB
program. If CARB adopts newer diagnostic regulations, EPA has the flexibility to certify
systems compliant with those newer regulations, as necessary and appropriate. Such flexibility
can be leveraged to enable J1979-2, for example. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.74]
100 See id. at 17,526
EPA also proposes a new Section 1036.110(b)(5) to set specific OBD emissions thresholds for
monitoring, which are equivalent to their current absolute values under the existing CARB
regulations. Daimler Truck supports this approach but does not believe that tighter OBD
monitoring thresholds are technically feasible, as there are no predicted improvements in sensor
technology that would enable thresholds tighter than the current requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.74]
EPA appears to have made an error in the proposed new Section 1036.110(b)(6). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.74]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA expresses an intent to exempt manufacturers from the expensive in-
use OBD system testing requirements under CARB's Manufacturer Self-Testing program based
upon the Agency's continued concern 'that the cost of this testing may be significant and is not
warranted for the federal program.' 101 Daimler Truck agrees with this assessment and supports
the intended exemption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.74]
101 See id. at 17,527.
However, EPA appears to have made an error in codifying this exemption in Section
1036.110(b)(6). EPA's proposed regulatory language states that 'the testing and
reporting requirements in 13 CCR 1971.l(i)(2.3) and (2.4) do not apply,' whereas we believe the
intended references are to 13 CCR 1971.1(0(3) and (0(4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
pp.74-75]
13 CCR 1971.1 subsection (i) contains CARB's regulations on certification
demonstration, and subsections (i)(2.3) and (2.4) specifically describe the 'aging and data
collection of diesel test engines' and 'aging of gasoline engines' for use during the initial
certification testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.75]
13 CCR 1971.1 subsections (0(3) and (1)(4) describe the in-use data collection programs
in the CARB regulation, which more closely aligns with the requirements outlined in the
preamble section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.75] Daimler Truck believes
EPA should exempt manufacturers from the testing 13 CCR 1971.1(1) (3) and (4)—and
additionally evaluate whether the aging provisions of (i)(2.3) and (2.4) are necessary and
add sufficient value to justify their expense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.75]
675
-------
Daimler Truck supports EPA's proposed new Section 1036.110(d) and believes it is appropriate
for EPA to review and approve deficiencies separately from CARB. However, EPA adds
additional stringencies that unnecessarily deviate from CARB's rules and add significant
challenges for manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.75]
Specifically, Section 1036.110(d)(3) is unnecessarily limited. EPA proposes only to approve
deficiencies for a maximum of two years, unless a manufacturer demonstrates the need for
additional lead time to make substantial changes to engine hardware. 102 This stands in contrast
to CARB's rules, which recognize that complex OBD function definition, software and
calibration development, validation, and release can take more than two years to implement.
Specifically, 13 CCR 1971.1 (k)(4) allows deficiencies to be carried over for a maximum of two
years - for a total of three years including the initial year of the deficiency. Accordingly, Daimler
Truck requests that EPA change Section 1036.110(d)(3) to read 'We will approve a deficiency
for more than three years only if you further demonstrate that you need the additional lead time
to make substantial changes to engine hardware.' Daimler Truck believes that EPA rightly
recognizes that substantial changes to engine hardware could take more time to remediate, and
otherwise supports the rest of this paragraph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.75]
102 See id. at 17,666.
EPA's proposed new Section 1036.110(d)(4), which would prohibit retroactive approval of
deficiencies, is also too restrictive. 103 Due to the wide variety of applications and duty cycles in
the heavy-duty sector, it is impossible for manufacturers to be certain that all diagnostics will
work without fail in all vehicles. A manufacturer may not discover until wide production
exposure that a monitor has issues with certain duty cycles, and does not work as expected. For
example, it is common for manufacturers to detect issues with In-Use Monitoring Performance
Ratio after production. These issues may arise due to unforeseen production variability, unique
vehicle applications (over which the engine manufacturer may have little control), or from
unique duty cycles. It is important for EPA to leave manufacturers with a path to correct these
unforeseen issues, including in circumstances where a retroactive deficiency might be necessary.
Otherwise, EPA could force a situation where operators are confronted by false indications of
failure, leading to increased expenses in unneeded repairs, unnecessary downtime, and
frustration. Similarly, such false failures could undermine operator's faith in the diagnostic
system, leading to actual failures going unrepaired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.75-
76]
103 See id.
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference regulations and test procedures in many cases that are
unclear, duplicative, or are not yet final. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
In "§ 1036.110 Diagnostic controls", EPA proposes that an "Engine must comply with the 2019
heavy-duty OBD requirements adopted for California...", but CARB considered many OBD
requirements in 2019 and did not finalize a proposal until 2021. EPA's proposed regulatory
676
-------
language is unclear. In this specific example, GM asks EPA to make clear what regulation the
Agency incorporates by reference. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.6]
Incorporating standards by reference that are not finalized, unclear, or duplicative adds
uncertainty to what is expected in a finalized regulation, and often increases the burden to
industry to comply with standards. GM encourages EPA to not incorporate by reference
regulations and test procedures that are unclear, potentially duplicative, or not finalized. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1246-A1, p.6]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The ICCT fully understands the importance of OBD systems as one of the most cost-effective
ways to maintain in-use emissions within certification and OBD threshold levels. Ensuring that
HDV operators and regulators have access to harmonized data would reduce the cost of
maintaining and ensuring low emission levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 24]
The ICCT supports EPA's decision to harmonize with CARB's OBD provisions for MY 2022 to
2024 and with the intention to expand those signals as listed in the NPRM (FR page
17532). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 24]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA's existing onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements, adopted in 2009, allow manufacturers
to demonstrate how the OBD system they designed to comply with California's OBD
requirements also complies with the intent of EPA's OBD requirements. (EPA maintains
separate OBD regulations but manufacturers currently seek approval from California for OBD
systems in engine families applying for 50-state certification and then use that approval to
demonstrate compliance with EPA's requirements.) In this rulemaking, EPA proposes to update
its OBD regulations by incorporating by reference the California Air Resources Board's (CARB)
2019 OBD regulations "as the starting point for our updated OBD regulations" and then "exclude
or revise certain CARB provisions that we believe are not appropriate for a federal program" and
"include additional elements to improve the usefulness of OBD systems for users." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
EPA should update its OBD requirements but should incorporate by reference CARB's current
program without omission so there is alignment between the federal and California
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 16]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: EPA's existing onboard diagnostics (OBD) requirements, adopted in
2009, allow manufacturers to demonstrate how the OBD system they designed to comply with
California's OBD requirements also complies with the intent of EPA's OBD requirements. (EPA
maintains separate OBD regulations but manufacturers currently seek approval from California
for OBD systems in engine families applying for 50-state certification and then use that approval
677
-------
to demonstrate compliance with EPA's requirements.) In this rulemaking, EPA proposes to
update its OBD regulations by incorporating by reference the California Air Resources Board's
(CARB) 2019 OBD regulations "as the starting point for our updated OBD regulations" and then
"exclude or revise certain CARB provisions that we believe are not appropriate for a federal
program" and "include additional elements to improve the usefulness of OBD systems for users."
NESCAUM urges EPA to update its OBD requirements and incorporate by reference CARB's
current program without omission so there is alignment between the federal and California
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
EPA mentioned manufacturers concerns relating to manufacturer self-testing in 13 CCR
1971. l(i)(2.3) and 1971.l(i)(2.4) (p. 381 and others), and these sections are listed as excluded in
the proposed 1036.110(b)(6). We believe this is an error, as 1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4) do not relate
to manufacturer self-testing; those sections refer to the requirements of demonstration engines
which we don't believe EPA intended to exclude. We believe the intended exclusion is to
exclude 13 CCR 1971.5(c). Roush fully supports exclusion of the MST requirements in
1971.5(c) due to the high costs and logistical difficulties, especially given that any EPA-only
OBD families would likely be specialty or low-volume applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1276-A1, p.6]
OEMs (including Roush) often utilize CARB's deficiency policy to avoid the profound financial
implication of disruptions to the vehicle production plan, and to implement new emissions
control technologies which may require some regulatory flexibility. This has been vital in
implementation of new technologies; Roush has specifically used deficiencies as part of the
implementation of new monitoring requirements associated with LPG and CNG, and for heavy-
duty gasoline ORVR system. As required by ARB, these issues were all fully reviewed and
resolved in a timely fashion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.6]
• We would fully expect manufacturers to continue to require the flexibility of OBD
deficiencies in order to implement the technologies proposed in this NPRM; eliminating
or restricting this existing flexibility would almost certainly jeopardize the feasibility
assessments included here.
• Roush believes that the current EPA regulations for pre-production deficiencies are
sufficient to provide OEM flexibility as is consistent with 13 CCR 1971. l(k). However,
Roush is concerned that without the provisions of a retroactive deficiency as declared in
40 CFR 86.010 18(n)(3), manufacturers could endure excessive costs relating to a
mandatory recall, or significant technological investments to generate remedies outside of
the normal product development cycle plan. Roush believes that the EPA could
incorporate the CARB provision for retroactive deficiencies up to six months after entry
to commerce and thereby provide much greater OEM flexibility with no concern that this
would degrade the emissions benefit of the program (since retroactive deficiencies are
fully incorporated in the ARB rule under which nearly all engines/vehicles will be
certified). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.6]
678
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA supports EPA's proposal to harmonize (as much as possible) to CARB's 2019 OBD
regulations, and further supports the overall framework to modernize the OBD requirements in
EPA's regulations. Harmonization is key to the success of OBD overall, as it provides the
certainty and clarity that manufacturers need to develop and implement more robust vehicle
OBD systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 95]
That said, EMA agrees that there are some CARB provisions that are not well-suited to a federal
OBD program. Accordingly, we support EPA's proposals for MST testing and deficiencies, with
some exceptions. More specifically, while we support the majority of EPA's proposed deficiency
provisions, we believe that EPA should more closely align with CARB with respect to certain of
those provisions. In that regard, EPA's deficiency timeline is shorter than that provided under the
CARB regulations, and would not allow for retroactive deficiencies. Retroactive deficiencies are
key for resolving issues found during Production Vehicle Evaluation (PVE) testing, which may
not be immediately apparent. Deficiency fines under CARB's OBD program are sufficiently
punitive to facilitate compliance, yet the allowance for retroactive deficiencies provides
additional necessary flexibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 95]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(d)(3) and (d)(4): EMA requests that EPA provide clarity on the
allowance for deficiency carryover and retroactive deficiencies (namely for small errors, as
manufacturers do utilize retroactive deficiencies routinely and frequently). As noted above, we
strongly recommend that EPA harmonize these specific deficiency provisions with those of
CARB. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 102]
Additionally, EMA has concerns with the proposed incorporation by reference provisions of 40
CFR 1036.810(d), as discussed further below. There are multiple versions of CARB's 2019 OBD
regulations. Thus, we request that EPA provide additional clarity as to which specific version is
being referenced. EMA also is concerned with the proposal that manufacturers provide
additional information that is not required in the California 13 CCR 1971.1 regulations, as this
will lead to a lack of both harmonization and standardization across the two regulatory
regimes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 95 - 96]
As noted above, EMA supports EPA's proposal to harmonize with CARB's determination not to
lower the OBD NOx and PM threshold levels at this time. We agree that more time is needed, as
CARB has noted, to fully evaluate the capability of HD OBD monitors to accommodate lower
NOx and PM thresholds, and to ensure adequate time for the development and prove-out of
robust systems for both EPA and CARB's OBD programs. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 96]
Consistent with CARB's regulatory updates to 13 CCR 1968.2 with respect to the Low- NOx
Omnibus rulemaking regarding engines under 14,000 lbs., EMA recommends that EPA carry
forward the standard-relief provisions (e.g., freezing the OBD threshold limits, updating all
references to the emissions standard contained within 40 CFR 86.1806-05 and 86.1806-17 (13
CCR 1968.2-equivalent), etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 96]
679
-------
We support the proposal to allow manufacturers to continue to use a CARB OBD approval letter
to demonstrate compliance with federal OBD regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
P- 97]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. Additionally, we request that EPA expressly state which 13 CCR 1971.1
provisions are being referenced in EPA's regulatory provisions. As noted below, there are
incorrect references to CARB provisions, which makes it difficult in some instances to review
the proposed regulations, since it is unclear which CARB provisions are actually being
referenced. That lack of clarity will pose challenges for regulated entities during any
implementation of the proposed program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 99]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §86.010-18(a): "(a)... Note that 40 CFR 1036.150(u) allows for an alternative
communication protocol before model year 2027..." This paragraph appears to have an incorrect
reference; in the proposed regulatory text, the OBD communication protocol-related interim
provisions are specified in paragraph (v). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 99]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(6): "(6) The testing and reporting requirements in 13 CCR
1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4) do not apply." Subsections (i)(2.3) and (2.4) cover aging requirements
for diesel and gasoline engines; we believe EPA intended this to be a reference to "the
Production Engine/Vehicle Evaluation testing and reporting requirements of 13 CCR
1971.1(1)(2.3) and (2.4)...". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 99]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(9) and (b)(10): "(9) Design compression-ignition engines to make
the following additional parameters available for reading with a generic scan tool, if so
equipped:"; "(10) Design spark-ignition engines to make the following additional parameters
available for reading with a generic scan tool, if applicable:" EMA presumes that "if so
equipped" and "if applicable" in the aforementioned paragraphs do not compel manufacturers to
add the components implied by the listed parameters as requirements. Not all of the terms listed
in proposed paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10) can be precisely matched to existing content in SAE
J1939DA. For example, the broad statement in paragraph (b)(9)(vi) "any additional parameters"
cannot be assessed independently, and the proposed air/fuel enrichment parameters requested in
paragraph (b)(10)(i) do not appear to be defined in SAE J1939DA. Further, some of the proposed
provisions, such as the requirements of paragraph (b)(9)(i), may not reside in the OBD boundary
for engine manufacturers. We request that EPA consult with the SAE Truck and Bus Control and
Communication Network Committee and the Vehicle E/E System Diagnostic Standards
Committee to ensure that each of the requested items listed in the proposed regulations has been
defined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 100]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(l l)(i): EPA is proposing that manufacturers provide additional
information that is not required in 13 CCR 1971.1, thus leading to a lack of harmonization and
standardization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 100]
680
-------
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(l l)(ii): This paragraph lacks clarity and seems to contain incorrect
references to the California regulations: 13 CCR 1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4): Manufacturers can
send the information at the time of certification; however, it is unclear if EPA intended to
reference the OBD Durability Demonstration Engine testing results. This is unclear because 13
CCR 1971. l(i)(2.3) and (2.4) cover vehicle selection, and specifically aging. We recommend
that EPA consider instead referencing "the Monitoring System Demonstration Requirements for
Certification provisions of 13 CCR 1971.1 (i)". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 100]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(l l)(ii): This paragraph lacks clarity and seems to contain incorrect
references to the California regulations: 13 CCR 1971.1(1): This provision covers post-
production engine evaluation testing, which cannot be provided at the time of certification. Such
information, however, can be provided per the deadlines set out in 13 CCR 1971.1. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 100]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(l l)(ii): This paragraph lacks clarity and seems to contain incorrect
references to the California regulations: 13 CCR 1971.5(b): This provision is specifically for
"Testing Procedures for ARBConducted Testing" - did EPA intend to reference 13 CCR
1971.5(c)? If so, we recommend that EPA specifically state "the Manufacturer Self-Test
provisions of 13 CCR 1971.5(c)" for clarity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
100]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. 1036.810(d)(l)-(2): As noted, the proposed provisions to incorporate CARB's
"2019" regulations by reference are confusing, as they lack clarity of which specific version is
being incorporated. We recommend that EPA instead specific the regulations by their specific
date of finalization, to ensure that there is not confusion about which version of the regulations
EPA is incorporating. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 104]
EMA recommends that EPA retain its current conventional engine OBD certification process for
procuring Certificates of Conformity. While not specified in the 13 CCR 1971.1 regulation, for
engine manufacturers that are not vertically integrated with the hybrid drivetrain, CARB allows
for a dual Executive Order OBD certification process, where both the engine manufacturer and
the hybrid drive manufacturer independently submit certification documents for OBD approval
for a combined dual E.O. approval. However, this process can be a significant burden for non-
vertically integrated manufacturers launching new hybrid solutions. We also recommend that
EPA include in-use monitor performance ratio (IUMPR) relief for hybrid applications to keep
the IUMPR at 0.1, instead of the higher 0.3 limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 98]
EPA Summary and Response
General Comments
EPA received comments from Allison, ATA, EMA, DTNA, ICCT, and CARB supportive of the
proposal for EPA to harmonize with CARB's most recent OBD requirements. DTNA also
681
-------
supported EPA's proposal to adopt language similar to that currently in 40 CFR 86.018-10 into
40 CFR 1036.110 allowing manufacturers to demonstrate they meet the intent of our
requirements by meeting what could be a slightly different set of requirements from CARB.
NACAA commented that EPA should adopt CARET s requirements without omission to ensure
complete harmonization. EMA and GM noted that EPA must be clear in how they incorporate by
reference these CARB regulations in 1036.810(d), as there are multiple versions of CARB's
2019 regs. EMA commented that they are not supportive of proposed requirements to provide
additional information that differs from CARB. CARB also commented that EPA should adopt
the future update to their OBD requirements to ensure we include important changes. DTNA
commented that including more recent CARB regulations than the 2019 regulations was not
necessary because CARB's OBD program is updated continuously and the 2019 version
combined with EPA's "intent" language is enough to accommodate future divergences.
• EPA agrees that updating our OBD requirements is important, see preamble Section IV for
further details on the final provisions and the rationale to support those requirements. EPA
does not agree with NACAA that all of CARB's requirements are appropriate for a Federal
program, as further explained in preamble Section IV. We have made adjustments from
proposal in our final regulations and worked with CARB to ensure we are incorporating the
appropriate version of CARB's 2019 regulations in the final 40 CFR 1036.810(d). EPA
agrees with DTNA that our OBD regulations are not updated as frequently as the CARB
regulations and we believe that it is important to include the final regulatory language to
allow manufacturers to be able to demonstrate compliance with the intent of our OBD
requirements, even though they may be meeting different CARB requirements (e.g., that may
be more stringent), to ensure we can accommodate such changes in CARB OBD
requirements as appropriate without delay. CARB's pending OBD update was not finalized
in time for us to harmonize with it in this rule. We intend to monitor their rulemaking and
may consider if we should take further action to harmonize in a future rulemaking.
EPA recognizes EMA's comments that our information requirements are different than
CARB's in certain cases. It is important to note, however, that this is because EPA is
allowing manufacturers flexibility to use good engineering judgement to show that they meet
the intent of our requirements by meeting a potentially different set of requirements from
CARB. It would not be appropriate for manufacturers to use this flexibility without
describing how their OBD system is compliant with the intent of our requirements.
Deficiencies
EPA received comments from Allison, EMA, Cummins, DTNA, Roush, supportive of our
retention of existing deficiency requirements, but not supportive of omitting an allowance for
retroactive deficiencies. DTNA commented they need retroactive deficiencies due to the wide
variety of engine applications and duty cycles in the heavy-duty industry that makes it
impossible to be certain that all diagnostics will work without fail in all vehicles. EMA
commented retroactive deficiencies are important for resolving issues that cannot be discovered
until testing that can only occur after the start of production. CARB expressed concern with
EPA's lack of a retroactive deficiency policy stating it provides time for manufacturers to
continue validation work after start of production ("SOP"), allows CARB to amend the
certification documents to assign a deficiency as if it occurred prior to SOP, and without
682
-------
retroactive deficiencies, CARB would most likely have to wait until the next model year to apply
deficiency.
EMA and DTNA commented that EPA's deficiency timeline is shorter than CARB's where EPA
proposed a deficiency for a maximum of 2 years unless a manufacturer demonstrates the need for
additional lead time to make substantial changes to engine hardware. They noted this is not
consistent with CARB's requirements in 1971.1 (k)(4) which allows deficiencies to be carried
over for a maximum of 2 years for a total of 3 years.
CARB expressed concerned that EPA's proposed language in 1036.110(d)(2) will not allow for
typical software bugs or robustness issues that may be granted deficiencies.
CARB also commented that if EPA modifies test out requirements, that we should finalize
language saying OEMs are still liable for compliance and enforcement if allowed.
• EPA agrees that the adoption of our existing deficiency program is important. See preamble
Section IV.C.l.i for discussion on the final provisions we are finalizing for deficiencies and
our response to many of these comments.
As discussed in preamble Section IV, EPA reviewed our proposed language regarding the
proposed deficiency timeframe and agrees that it is not consistent with CARB's and we
have adjusted the language from proposal in final 40 CFR 1036.110(d)(3) to reflect the
allowance of three years to make substantial engine hardware changes. Further, in
response to CARB's concern with the language used to describe acceptable deficiencies,
EPA reviewed, but did not make any adjustments to our proposed language in 40 CFR
1036.110(c)(2) which states "We will approve a deficiency only if you show us that full
compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant factors, such as the
technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the lead time and production cycles of vehicle
designs and programmed computing upgrades." We believe this language will
accommodate minor issues like software problems that may be infeasible or unreasonable
to address.
See preamble Section IV regarding test-out requirements. Existing approaches to
compliance and enforcement continue to apply for these provisions.
Thresholds
ATA expressed concerns about OBD and the final lower standards which could result in false
readings and OBD faults if OBD thresholds are too quickly and aggressively changed. ATA
noted this would frustrate operators and repair facilities. CARB commented that since they
finalized their Omnibus rule they have seen manufacturers meet lower thresholds, two CI
engines with deficiencies and one SI engine with no deficiencies. Therefore, CARB commented
that this indicated the thresholds can be lowered. DTNA supports EPA's proposal to not change
thresholds because they do not believe tighter OBD monitoring thresholds are technologically
feasible as there is no predicted improvement in sensor technology that can enable lower
thresholds. EMA supported EPA's threshold proposal and commented that sufficient time is
683
-------
needed for development and prove-out of robust systems. Cummins and EMA commented that
engines certified on an engine dynamometer installed in vehicles less than 14,000 lbs GVWR
will be required to meet new lower NOx and PM standards and need the same threshold relief,
and that it is not clear if EPA's proposal applies also to these vehicles.
• EPA appreciates the different perspectives on potential threshold changes. See preamble
Section IV.C.l.ii for further discussion on the threshold requirements EPA finalized and our
response to these comments.
Hybrid OBD
Allison commented that current OBD requirements generally apply for hybrid powertrains and
components only if the engine manufacturer includes the hybrid system features or parameters as
part of certified configuration. Allison agrees with this approach and wants it retained. CARB
commented that their path to certifying hybrid OBD systems is appropriate. Cummins
commented that CARB's program is not appropriate for engine manufacturers that are not
vertically integrated with a hybrid drivetrain manufacturer and can be a major hurdle for non-
vertically integrated OEMs launching new hybrids. Cummins said that EPA should retain the
current conventional engine OBD cert process for obtaining a certificate of conformity. Further,
Cummins commented EPA should increase the in-use monitoring performance ratio for hybrids
from 0.1 to 0.3 in MY2024 to avoid a delay in hybrid production.
• EPA appreciates the comments on changes we can consider to improve outcomes of OBD
certification for hybrid vehicles. We requested comment on this topic but are not taking any
final action at this time regarding OBD certification changes specific to hybrid vehicles. We
may continue to evaluate whether to consider changes in a future rulemaking.
Manufacturer Self Test
EPA received a number of comments on the regulations we cited in our proposal to exclude
manufacturer self test requirements from our OBD program. CARB, DTNA, Roush, and EMA
all commented on the need for EPA to clarify the cite in the proposed regulatory text for the
CARB requirements for manufacturer self test requirements, stating that the cite in the proposal
was incorrect.
EMA commented on the need for greater clarification on several aspects of the proposed
regulation, including defining requirements in 1036.110(b)(9) and (10) and ensuring that all
requirements in those section reside in the OBD boundary, and clearly stating which version of
CARBs 2019 OBD requirements we are IBRing. EMA also pointed out an incorrect cite for the
interim OBD communication protocol.
CARB commented that EPA did not need to include the 0.60 g/bhp-hr threshold in
1036.110(b)(5)(iv) since there are no threshold requirements of 3.0 times the applicable NOx
standard in 13 CCR 1971.1 for 2027 and subsequent model engines.
Cummins provided multiple proposals in their comments including adding an option to use EPA-
approved durability protocol for deterioration factor testing, remove the 3 test-out requirements
(2 feedgas one NMHC catalyst), and to include language to use good engineering judgement
based on historical data to reduce test burden for failed IRAF parts. Cummins also proposed
684
-------
changes for PVE testing including using CARB PVE results for sister EPA engine families,
reduce testing for PVE1 to 3 production vehicles as data has shown that fewer than 10 vehicles is
sufficient to catch any issues, reduce test picks for PVE2 tesing to one vehicle per year, to allow
PVE2 testing on an engine with a different rating within the same engine family if the OBD
system is the same, and to remove the language "The Executive Officer may determine that the
manufacturer is required to submit data representative of a subgroup of the monitoring
performance group. The Executive Officer shall make this determination based on information
indicating that the subgroup of vehicles differs from other vehicles in the monitoring
performance group and that a reasonable basis exists to believe that the differences may directly
impact the data submitted" from the PVE3 requirements.
CARB commented that EPA should count two equivalent OBD families separately to determine
the number of engines for demonstration testing.
CARB commented that EPA should modify their engine family rules so that two engine families
that are identical in all respects except for OBD adjustments required to accommodate differing
inducement strategies to be considered one engine family.
CARB commented that EPA did not include language from 40 CFR 86.010-18(a)(5) in 40 CFR
1036.110(a) as was proposed and that 40 CFR 1036.110(c)(4) did not appear in the proposed
language.
• We appreciate the comments correcting our cite of CARB's manufacturer self-testing and
have updated to the correct cite in the final rule, see Preamble IV.C.l for additional details.
We have updated the requirements for additional OBD parameters to be more specific and
ensured that they are appropriate, as detailed in preamble Section IV.
We have included additional details about the version of CARB's 2019 OBD requirements,
see Preamble IV.C.l, to more clearly specify the version of 2019 CARB OBD requirements
that we are incorporating by reference.
See preamble Section IV for further details on the final thresholds and EPA's response to
those comments.
We did not propose and are not finalizing any of Cummins' proposals for DF tesing, the 3
test-out requirement, IRAF parts, or PVE testing. As explained in preamble Section IV, our
final provisions aim to maintain as much commonality with CARBs regulations as is
appropriate for the Federal program. We note that we believe that the majority of engines
applying for EPA OBD certification will have already received a CARB certification and
adopting Cummins' proposals would likely not significantly reduce testing burden.
See preamble Section IV.C.l.v for details on the final provisions regarding counting engine
families for OBD demonstration requirements and our response to those comments.
As explained in preamble Section IV, we are finalizing the migration of language from 40
CFR 86.010-18(a)(5) to 40 CFR 1036.110(b), as we proposed for the final rule. We also
removed the proposed reference to 40 CFR 1036.110(c)(4), as the regulations have been
updated from those proposed for the final rule and this reference is no longer valid in the
final provisions.
7.2 Health monitors
685
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on U.S. EPA's proposed health monitors for the SCR, DPF, and
EGR systems for CI engines, including the benefits of the specific methods being proposed to
inform a vehicle operator of the general health of these systems. Further, the NPRM requests
comments on the U.S. EPA's proposal for a broad requirement that leaves identification and
implementation of the specific methods up to each manufacturer, the alternative approach which
would require a specific method to be used by all manufacturers, and any other approach that
may be more beneficial or less costly but still provide benefits to the owner and result in
environmental benefits from better performing emission control systems. CARB staff generally
supports U.S. EPA's concept for proposed health monitors. Concepts to provide system health
information could be taken from existing diagnostics and test results and made into more general
output for a larger audience. Further discussion with manufacturers is needed to decide on the
best approach to support health results and whether the output should be standardized. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.71]
CARB staff has concerns about how the health monitors may affect the warranty program.
CARB staff understands the benefits of having such a requirement and CARB staff has met with
one manufacturer to discuss a similar concept using on-board and off-board analytics with driver
notification to trigger maintenance or repair. However, in the context of in-use compliance and
warranty reporting, CARB staff is still unclear how the manufacturer would identify a systematic
component defect that would need corrective action. Also, how would these replaced
components be reported on defect or emission warranty information reporting (EWIR)? CARB
staff recommends that all components replaced due to the health monitors be reported on defect
and EWIR reports, and the manufacturer do the same root cause analysis on failed parts. This
way, systemic defects will be promptly addressed through corrective action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.71]
Additionally, the NPRM requests comments on whether additional monitors could be developed
using existing OBD requirements which can further help prevent downtime, such as additional
upstream health indicators (e.g., preventing excessive internal oil leaks) to proactively prevent
damage to expensive aftertreatment components. Manufacturers today use diagnostic and sensor
input data for purposes of engine protection. These are designed largely at the discretion of the
manufacturer and not a CARB requirement, though they are required to disclose such strategies
and get them approved by CARB staff. If such strategies were to be made mandatory, CARB
staff would need clear regulation citations to support such a proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.71]
CARB staff has concerns regarding the proposed language in 1036.110(c)(3)(v). The language
states that the proposed data for the DPF and SCR health monitors are required to be provided
'based on a default method of updating or resetting collected data.' For example, the current data
may include information from the Active 100-Hour Array or Stored 100-Hour Array. The system
must allow the operator to perform a manual reset to start collecting new data on demand.'
CARB staff believes the language 'based on a default method of updating or resetting collected
data' is not clear enough about what qualifies as an acceptable default method. CARB staff
686
-------
recommends that the language be modified to clarify this or to provide examples of acceptable
default methods of updating and resetting collected data (e.g., 'based on a default method of
updating (e.g., automatically replacing an older set of data with a newer one every 100 engine
hours) or resetting collected data (e.g., setting collected data values back to zero via a code clear
command).'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.71-72]
The NPRM requests comment on the use of CARB's lifetime counter of DPF regens to meet the
DPF health monitor proposal. CARB staff believes the DPF PID data could be an indicator of
DPF health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.72]
The NPRM also requests comment on if the proposed regen frequency indicator is important
enough to require it to be communicated when the frequency of regens reaches a particular level
that may indicate the need for inspection and possibly repair, what this level would be, and what
such warning system should look like. Considering the cost of aftertreatment, CARB staff
supports providing an indication of regeneration frequency that could be used alert operators of
potential problems and initiate inspection, maintenance and repairs as needed. However, CARB
staff does not support a second light and warning notification system at this time, since this
would require OBD resource evaluation and program planning to make sure the proper team is in
place to lead such work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.72]
Further, the NPRM requests comment on whether the DPF health monitor should provide
information like passive regens that occur during certain vehicle operation (e.g., OBD REAL Bin
14) on demand and if it should notify users of potential concerns. It is assumed the passive
regens would add to deterioration of the DPF, but CARB staffs understanding is that it is the
active regens that are primarily responsible for DPF and aftertreatment aging. Therefore, CARB
staff does not see a specific need to track passive regen activity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.72]
Lastly, CARB staff supports the point in the NPRM that 'providing operators with notification of
when active regens have been disabled by the system (even temporarily) as well as the reason it
was disabled would provide benefits to operators and repair technicians. Manufacturers generally
implement severe derates when DPF system faults occur that prevent active regens from
occurring. Providing owners with information on the cause of a DPF-related derate would reduce
frustration and may reduce downtime by allowing repairs to be made more quickly, increasing
in-use emission system performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.72-73]
The NPRM requests comment on if the SCR health monitor should provide information about
the DEF dosing being disabled and the reason (if accompanied by a derate) on demand and if it
should also notify users of potential concerns. While CARB staff expects the malfunction
indicator light (MIL) to be illuminated and an OBD fault code stored in such cases, CARB staff
supports providing information to the operator about the disablement and the reason. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.73]
The NPRM also requests comment on alternative methods to develop a health monitor for the
SCR system, such as one that would use DEF dosing trim values (i.e., DEF dosing rates at
particular operating points like within NTE operating zones or REAL bins) and compare the
687
-------
dosing rate occurring in real-time to what the dosing rate was when the vehicle was new. If U.S.
EPA is trying to get an overall indication of system health, CARB staff believes a more direct
comparison would be to compare SCR conversion efficiency rather than DEF dosing
rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.73]
The NPRM requests comment on other strategies that can help inform operators of the
functionality of the EGR system to help prevent breakdowns due to EGR system failures,
including whether or how to monitor for EGR cooler leaks or plugging, such as through the use
of pressure or temperature sensors, and whether today's engines are equipped with sensors in the
EGR system that could be used for this purpose. Regarding the monitoring of EGR cooler leaks
or plugging, EGR plugging is required to be monitored today under CARB's OBD regulations,
while EGR cooler leaks are indirectly monitored through the EGR cooler efficiency diagnostic
requirements in CARB's OBD regulations. For monitoring of major emission control
components (e.g., fuel system, boost control system, EGR system), the CARB OBD
requirements generally require malfunction detection when the component degradation or
malfunction causes significant emission impacts and emission thresholds are exceeded.
However, CARB staff understands that lesser degradation than the OBD threshold for an
upstream component may cause degradation/irreversible damage to downstream components
(e.g., an EGR cooler leak causing after treatment fouling; fuel system, EGR, or boost system
issues causing high engine out PM and filter overloading) without causing significant immediate
tailpipe impacts. CARB staff supports measures to identify, maintain and repair such upstream
components before consequent damage occurs to downstream components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.73-74]
The NPRM also requests comment on whether fault codes related to the incidents of engine
derate due to EGR-related failures should be displayed in the cab as part of the health monitor,
similar to what is being proposed for SCR and DPF-related derate issues. CARB staff believes
this may be proposed as a larger, more general question regarding a requirement to make OBD
and/or health-related information available on the instrument cluster or driver display. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.74]
CARB staff has concerns about the regulation language in 1036.110 (c)(iii) and (iv).
Specifically, these sections require manufacturers to provide 'an indication of EGR valve health,
such as by comparing commanded and actual EGR position' and 'an indicator of EGR cooler
performance, such as by displaying parameters described in 13 CCR 1971.1(e)(3.2.5).' CARB
staff believes the language is vague and does not provide clear direction of what
indicators/indication are acceptable. While U.S. EPA provides one example each of the type of
indicator/indication that would meet the requirements, there is no direction about what other
examples would be considered acceptable. CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA provide more
details about the criteria that must be met to meet these requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.74]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
System Health Monitors (While Cummins is not in support of the System Health Monitors
proposal, if EPA does finalize those provisions, changes are suggested here.)
688
-------
40 CFR 1036.110(c)(3)(i)(C)
Propose to replace the DPF proposal stated here - "The estimated mileage until the particulate
filter needs cleaning to remove accumulated ash" language with CARB's DPF language instead -
Lifetime counter of PM filter regeneration events (1971.1, Section 5.8.2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 30]
40 CFR 1036.110(c)(3)(i, ii, iii, iv)
Where appropriate (for example, EGR commanded vs. actual parameters), propose for EPA to
include the reaction time expectation of data provided on the dashboard (i.e., state whether they
expect the instantaneous or filtered versions of these parameters) as different manufacturers may
do things differently. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 30]
40 CFR 1036.110(c)(3)(i, ii)
Where appropriate, propose that EPA adds more details/clarity on defining the boundaries
between current and historical data that is being asked for. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1,
p. 30]
In response to request for comment on including an advance notice/warning to the operator in the
event of a plugged DEF line or doser, as opposed to actual tampering, Cummins proposes that
EPA consider not including this concept as it is challenging to effectively differentiate blocked
DEF line/doser due to direct tampering vs. actual urea crystallization/line plugging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 31]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Another area of concern with of the proposed off-cycle test procedures is the mismatch between
the applicable NOx emissions and the detection capabilities of state-of-the-art OBD systems.
Current generation OBD systems are designed and calibrated to detect degradation of emission
control systems before such degradation results in tailpipe NOx emission of 0.4 g/hp-hr as
measured on the cold/hot FTP, and RMC cycles. This limit was intentionally set higher than the
existing applicable emission standards to recognize the limits of detection capability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.47]
EPA does not propose any modification to the diagnostics emission limit, and in fact enshrines
the current emissions thresholds in its new OBD proposal. EPA is tacitly acknowledging that
current technology does not allow for the design of OBD systems with a higher detection
sensitivity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.47-48]
Today, manufacturers are protected from in-use liability for failed emissions control components
by their OBD systems. With the current emissions thresholds and OBD emissions limits, it is
vely likely that the OBD system will detect a failure before the system's emissions are
significantly increased. These vehicles will be identified and repaired- and would not be tested
689
-------
for compliance while an emissions failure is present. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.48]
This protection against possible high emitters due to malfunctioning emission control systems is
lost with EPA's proposed standards. With the proposed extremely low in-use limits for NOx
emissions, manufacturers will be liable for the in-use emissions of vehicles with failed emissions
control systems which the EPA acknowledges cannot be detected by OBD systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.48]
EPA's proposal for emissions system health monitoring is likely to cause increased uncertainty,
unnecessary repairs, and further operator frustration, rather than resolving these concerns. The
Agency appears to believe that its proposal will provide vehicle owners information on the
overall health of important emissions systems at a given point in time. However, the information
that EPA proposes to make available to operators is neither necessary nor sufficient to make
service decisions appropriately, and is not an adequate indicator of the overall health of the
system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.76-77]
EPA states in the Proposed Rule that existing OBD monitors and data parameters could be used
to communicate to an operator 'how close a system is to exceeding an OBD threshold,' and
enable operators to perform predictive maintenance. 104 This misunderstands how diagnostics
function, and risks the costly replacement of components which have not, and may never,
fail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.77]
104 Id. at 17,529.
It is important to understand that diagnostic monitors do not report failure degradation in a linear
manner, and there is a significant amount of statistical uncertainty that the manufacturer must
account for before identifying a part as failed. In Figure 31 below, Daimler Truck shows a
typical distribution of test results for an OBD monitor for a 'good part' which is not at risk of
failure, and a part which has already failed and should be replaced. Daimler Truck uses here as
an example an industry accepted margin of four sigma from the mean result for a good part, and
two sigma mean for the failed part, to the fault threshold. This is a standard and accepted practice
for evaluating the relative quality of an OBD monitor, and the provided example shows a typical
'target' level of robustness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.77]
Under the Proposed Rule, the operator would be presented with a diagnostic result value. EPA
expects that if operators saw a value close to exceeding the threshold, they may desire to perform
predictive maintenance. However, EPA's proposal would not communicate to the operator what
the appropriate threshold for replacement would be—and this example illustrates that
functioning systems could report results that are 'close to exceeding the threshold.'
Extrapolating, a 'partially degraded' system, which is not failed and not in need of replacement,
would be even more likely to report a result 'close to exceeding the threshold.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.77]
Manufacturers typically employ a variety of statistical methods to better identify whether parts
are failed or not, including debouncing a fault over time, averaging a number of test results,
690
-------
employing exponentially-weighted moving averages, and evaluating the system over multiple
key cycles. Similarly, the appropriate threshold at which a part should be replaced might be
different at different times, depending on operating and ambient conditions. Additionally, while
some components fail in a linear fashion, the vast majority of failures are catastrophic and cannot
be predicted by linear degradation of a test result. Operators do not, however, have access to any
of that additional information or context. Any decision made to perform predictive maintenance
risks replacing components which are not failed and do not need replacement, increasing costs
and further undermining public confidence in the diagnostics system, which threatens to further
encourage tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.78]
EPA gives the deviation of actual EGR position from commanded EGR position as an example
of information that might be used to evaluate the health of system or to inform a decision to
perform predictive maintenance. In modern engines, with smart actuators and digital position
control feedback, it is expected that deviation between a desired and actual EGR position should
be very near zero. Any deviation at all likely indicates a system that has already failed, and is at
risk of significantly damaging the system. Accordingly, it is expected that manufacturers would
have already chosen to illuminate the MIL. Our engines, for example, do not expect or tolerate
any significant amount of EGR valve position deviation before illuminating the MIL.
Additionally, many EGR system failures are not related to EGR valve position deviation but are
caused by fouling of the EGR cooler transfer tubes, leaks in the system, or catastrophic failures
of other components in the system, which cannot be measured and provided to the operator
accordingly. In that matter, EPA's proposal provides no actionable information to the operator,
and only serves to add confusion.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.78]
EPA also proposes that the frequency of passive and active regeneration be provided to the
operator, further expecting this could be used to determine system health. Regeneration
frequency is heavily dependent on duty cycle and control mechanisms and is not an indication of
health of the system or remaining life. During a recent investigation into aging phenomenon,
Daimler Truck conducted a survey of more than two thousand heavy-duty engines' electronic
data records. All engines were of the same vintage and regeneration control mechanism, and
were similar displacements. Daimler Truck found that the average frequency of regeneration
varied significantly—with a median frequency of 5,249 miles per regeneration, and a standard
deviation of more than 3000 miles per regeneration. With such a wide spread of healthy-system
regeneration frequencies, it would be impossible to determine a 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'
regeneration frequency—and to do so would risk contributing even further uncertainty to fleet
operations. Similarly, one engine manufacturer might choose to perform more-frequent, shorter-
duration regenerations than another manufacturer, which would lead to higher 'regeneration
frequency' as envisioned under this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.78]
Similarly, EPA proposes that manufacturers report on the frequency of passive regeneration
events. Passive regeneration is not a discrete event with a target duration or end conditions, and it
would be impossible to determine the 'number' of passive regenerations. Passive regeneration is
a phenomenon that can occur in some circumstances that the engine enters naturally.
Manufacturers can track when the system is in these conditions, and accordingly delay the need
for an 'active regeneration'—but these conditions do not require any interaction with system
controls and do not contribute to system aging. It would be inappropriate to use the frequency of
691
-------
passive regeneration to make any determinations about the health of the system. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.78-79]
Each of EPA's proposed emission system health monitors present similar concerns. While
Daimler Truck does not oppose providing the information necessary to diagnose and service our
vehicles, EPA must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to that information is
counterproductive and confusing. For some components, prognostics like the EPA envisions may
be possible, but manufacturers must be able to define their own thresholds to indicate such
service is appropriate. In many cases, like for many emissions system health monitors, a
prognostic is not feasible, and a pass-fail diagnostic is the best available technology. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.79]
If EPA mandates that this information is available to the operator, the Agency must also
recognize in the regulation that parts replaced using this information must not be considered as
failed for the purposes of the emissions control system warranty, or for potential defect reporting
or, ultimately, recall. Such a cursory evaluation of the system is not appropriate to determine the
presence of a warrantable or recallable failure, and EPA should acknowledge this in the final
regulations. Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for misinterpretation of generic
information that may not indicate a failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.79]
EPA's OBD proposals related to service are unworkable, unnecessary, or incomplete. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.76]
EPA proposes a variety of new requirements intended to increase the usability of the diagnostics
system for the purposes of repair and maintenance of vehicle emissions control systems. Daimler
Truck understands the diagnostics-related concerns faced by our customers and the various
stakeholders. However, we believe that EPA's proposals are unlikely to streamline or simplify
repairs and could lead to increased confusion, uncertainty, and unpredictability concerning
repairs, as well as increase cost by driving unnecessary replacement of components that have not
failed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.76]
The OBD system is intended to detect failures of emissions controls systems at a 'system' level,
rather than diagnosing the root cause and/or pointing towards a specific service action. For
example, manufacturers are required to diagnose, at a system level, that EGR flow rates do not
meet the specified flow expected, or that SCR conversion efficiency has degraded and emissions
are increased. These diagnostics do not necessarily identify the root cause of the failure, which
could result from a variety of different failure modes. Manufacturer-published troubleshooting
procedures are used to identify the specific component that needs repair. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.76]
Daimler Truck is also concerned with the requirement to present emission system health monitor
information in the cab to the operator. Such a proposal ties the certification of the OBD system,
and by extension, the engine, to display functions and components (instrument clusters, screens,
etc.), which are typically controlled by the vehicle manufacturer. While it is relatively simple to
ensure that a vehicle manufacturer will appropriately illuminates a MIL, it is more difficult to
ensure the correct transmission of a wide variety of messages. Similarly, this will add expense to
692
-------
traditionally price-sensitive vehicles, which will be required to add digital instrument clusters
capable of displaying this information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.79]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We appreciate that this element of the proposed regulation is intended to provide information to
customers about when critical emissions components are expected to fail and to provide
forewarning of vehicle inducements. However, we believe that the health warnings as proposed
are likely to cause significant confusion for customers and service providers. For example, a
customer may incorrectly infer from a health warning that a vehicle component has failed. Such
a scenario could result in unnecessary component replacements and elevated levels of warranty
claims. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 5]
Ford recommends that EPA eliminate the requirement for health monitors on critical emission
control systems. We also recommend that EPA shift their focus to existing emission-related
service information regulatory requirements found in § 86.010-38(j) as well as the Heavy Duty
OBD and Production Vehicle Evaluation testing requirements found in 13 CCR 1971 (1)(1) to
ensure that truck operators and qualified technicians have access to comprehensive diagnostic
and repair information and that required diagnostic data is properly communicated to generic
scan tools. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 5]
In addition to ensuring compliance with existing emissions related service information
requirements, we believe that truck owners and operators would also benefit from changes to
existing EPA guidance on "derate" inducements for component malfunctions that disable EGR.
Ford recommends that EPA issue formal guidance recommending that a "countdown" operator
notification strategy be implemented for such faults providing operators sufficient time to safely
seek proper service before experiencing compromised engine operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1300-A1, pp. 5-6]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
On-board diagnostic (OBD) systems monitor the performance of an emissions system. If a
malfunction is detected, a malfunction indicator light (MIL) or check engine light will illuminate
on the dashboard. In some cases where a fault is detected, the operating authority of the
powertrain may be restricted to protect system components and occupants, or to lower the
likelihood of increased emissions until the vehicle is serviced and the fault is no longer
detected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
Vehicle operators, through the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), have
provided feedback to EPA that faults associated with emissions equipment can disrupt
operations.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
9 Testimony of Lewie Pugh, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, EPA
Virtual Public Hearing (April 12, 2022), transcribed at EPA-HQ-2019-0055, p. 165-168.
Available online at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-
public-hearing-transcript-2022-04-12-dayl.pdf
693
-------
EPA proposes to address this concern by requiring manufacturers to estimate when components
will fail, based on OBD information, and to display that information to the operator. This
proposed solution is not practicable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
Detecting if a fault has occurred is a different task than projecting when a fault will or may
occur. Such a requirement would have significant implications to on board communications
protocols, data streams, and onboard processors. The volume and esoteric nature of information
that would need to be displayed to a driver could be overwhelming, confusing, and distracting.
Further complicating this matter, EPA has proposed changes in stringency and useful life over
the course of the program, which could require algorithms to be significantly redesigned after
just a few years to comply with steps in stringency in some proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1246-A1, p.5]
GM suggests a multi-party workshop, including both EPA and the California Air Resources
Board (CARB), on practical ideas to address operator concerns related to fault detection. Many
cross-functional problems would need to be solved to successfully address the underlying
operator concerns as EPA proposes, including human machine interaction, repair procedures and
replacement part specifications, operator training, service training, updates to service and owner's
manuals, and the feasibility of prognostics on systems subject to regulations, just to name a few.
GM stands ready to work with regulators to address operator concerns related to the MIL, to
protect air quality, and to create a great customer and operator experience with equipment in the
field. Proposed requirements for prognostics are premature. Prognostics and state-of-health
monitors of emissions systems should be a standalone rulemaking given the multitude of cross-
functional issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Having access to SCR, DPF and DEF operational parameters would facilitate preventive
maintenance and reduce cost to operators to ensure real world emission reductions over the
lifetime of the vehicle. For regulators, access to these parameters would ensure that the data
captured during in-use HDV emission testing with Portable Emission Measurement Systems can
be correlated with these parameters. This is critical to better understand the emissions profile of
each engine family tested as well as to identify potential deviations that may indicate the use of
defeat devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 24]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR is committed to ensuring OBD systems 'generally detect malfunctions in the emission
control system, store trouble codes corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators
appropriately.' 40 C.F.R. 1036.110 Diagnostic controls (proposed). However, PACCAR has
identified two primary issues with the proposed system health monitoring provisions that EPA
should amend. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.41]
First, for particulate filter information, EPA proposed to require an '[i]ndicator of historical and
current active and passive regeneration frequency' as section 1036.110(c)(3)(B) of the
regulations. 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17666 (March 28, 2022) (emphasis added). But it is technically
694
-------
infeasible to control or track passive regeneration frequency due to, among other things,
temperature and oxygen exhaust concentration variability. This variability would inevitably lead
to inaccurate monitoring because the indicator would not be able to record correctly each passive
regeneration event. PACCAR therefore urges EPA to remove the proposed passive regeneration
frequency indicator requirement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.41]
Second, for SCR-related information, EPA proposed to require ' [information describing any
detected flow obstruction in DEF lines or dosing valve in anticipation of triggering an
inducement.' Id. These proposed requirements are also technologically infeasible and should be
withdrawn. The plethora of variables, e.g., ambient temperature at which the DEF freezes,
whether there are thawing heaters, etc., makes it impossible to design a function that would
accurately assess obstruction information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.41-42]
In addition, PACCAR notes that the cross-referenced CARB citation in
proposed 1036.110(b)(6) needs to be corrected. The proposed provision purports to cite to
'testing and reporting requirements' but instead incorrectly cites to engine aging requirements.
Id. at 17665 (incorrectly citing to 13 CCR 1971.1(i)(2.3-2.4). EPA should revise the final rule to
include the proper citation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.42]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA's proposal to include health system monitors raises significant concerns. OBD is a
diagnostic, not prognostic, tool. Proposing to change the function of OBD without robust
consideration and prove-out utilizing input from the entire affected stakeholder community,
especially in the timeframe being considered, is not reasonable. Accordingly, we request that
EPA defer the finalization of health system monitors, and instead implement a pilot program to
provide time to fully evaluate the proposed provisions, including an evaluation of the perceived
benefits, along with an assessment of the necessary standardization, demonstration, etc. That
would be especially helpful since the proposed requirements could result in the potential for false
prognostics being broadcast to operators, leading to more confusion for drivers and service
technicians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 96]
We also have concerns with the Agency's proposal to include such health monitors in the cab -
presumably on the dashboard. Adding another display to the dash, again without adequate prove-
out (or standardization), also could contribute to operator distraction and confusion. (See Exhibit
"I") We recommend that EPA focus on existing emission-related service information regulatory
requirements found in §86.010—38(j), as well as the Heavy Duty OBD and Production Vehicle
Evaluation testing requirements found in 13 CCR 1971.1(1)(1), to ensure that truck operators and
qualified technicians have access to comprehensive diagnostic and repair information, and that
required diagnostic data is properly communicated to generic scan tools. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 96]
To date, OBD requirements have led industry to provide standardized OBD data, and key
operator displays. The ISO 2575 F.01 symbol and fault code standards are now ubiquitous across
products approved by the Agency and offered for sale to the public. In the NPRM, EPA proposes
to require manufacturers to provide health monitors that have no standardization model in SAE
695
-------
J1939 or J1979 et. al. to support their orderly development and deployment. The implementation
timeframe defined in the proposed rule would require engine manufacturers to invent
disparate, proprietary communication methods for instrument clusters and dash displays. In
many HD vehicles, instrument clusters and dash displays are controlled by the vehicle
manufacturers, who would be required to develop new instrument clusters and dash displays to
present the new health monitors to vehicle operators. An implementation requirement without
supporting communication standards as a guide will lead to multiple inconsistent efforts across
the industry, and increased costs and burdens, all while providing little if any appreciable air
quality benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 96 - 97]
Accordingly, EMA does not support health monitors as a general matter. Moreover, we strongly
disagree with the incorporation of such monitors in the absence of communication standards that
would provide the methods that can be used by all manufacturers. Without uniform supporting
communication standards, manufacturers would face unacceptable risks due to their differing
interpretations and methods for implementing the proposed requirements. We recommend that
EPA consult with industry, the SAE Truck and Bus Control and Communication Network
Committee, and the Vehicle Electrical/Electronic (E/E) System Diagnostic Standards
Committee, prior to finalizing new requirements that would require new communications from
the engine to new instrument clusters and dash displays. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
97]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii): Many of the terms used throughout these
paragraphs do not appear in the current SAE J1939DA protocol. Again, it is requested that EPA
consult with the SAE Truck and Bus Control and Communication Network Committee and the
Vehicle E/E System Diagnostic Standards Committee to insure each of the items that EPA
proposes to request are defined. Specifically: Health monitoring specific metrics are not
currently defined in SAE J1939DA. Proposed paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(B) and (c)(3)(ii)(A) refer to
"current and historical"; however, the commonly used terms in SAE J1939DA and J1979DA are
"lifetime", "trip", and "operating cycle." Furter, the timeframe for the proposed term "current" is
not clear for the data items cited (e.g., is a resettable "trip" context intended, or a "start-to-start"
operating cycle context intended?). We recommend that any items that are not currently required
in 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2) should not be utilized in EPA's regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 101]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(c)(3)(i)(B): "(B) Indicator of historical and current active and passive
regeneration frequency." Passive regeneration events are not known, and thus should not be
required by the regulations. EMA recommends deletion of "and passive" from paragraph
(B). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 101]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(c)(3)(ii)(C): "(C) Information describing any detected flow
obstruction in DEF lines or dosing valve in anticipation of triggering an inducement under
§1036.111(b)(2)." This paragraph would require tracking of DEF blockages and actual valve
output to determine degradation; however, the DEF hardware may not be able to provide such
696
-------
degradation information. EMA recommends deletion of paragraph (C). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 101]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(c)(3)(v): "(v) Provide current data under paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii)
of this section based on a default method of updating or resetting collected data. For example, the
current data may include information from the Active 100-Hour Array or Stored 100-Hour
Array. The system must allow the operator to perform a manual reset to start collecting new data
on demand." 100-hour active resets on operator demand are not recommended, as they imply
increases in non-volatile memory demand for array resets that cannot be confidently estimated.
Writes to non-volatile memory are limited by the technology employed, and multiple non-
volatile memory locations are employed to prevent memory locations from overuse. Further, on-
demand resets need not include any 100-hour stored values. 13 CCR 1971.1 (h)(5.3.5) and
(h)(5.7.3-4) require 100-hour active arrays to reset with a code clear command, and prohibit
resets for stored 100-hour and lifetime array values. Inclusion of an operator-initiated 'clear
fault' command is also not recommended, as previously noted in these comments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 101 - 102]
Organization: Walmart
We recommend OEMs include in onboard diagnostics and signals like a distance to empty
(DTE) display for alternative energy powered vehicles that are commonly found in both ICE and
passenger EVs today] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 4]
EPA Summary and Response
EPA received adverse comment from Cummins and DTNA on the concept of health monitors
with DTNA citing an increase in uncertainty of the status of the emissions system as well as an
increase in repairs due to the uncertainty.
CARB expressed general support on this concept, but CARB also stated the need to work with
manufacturers on developing this concept further. CARB was concerned about the effects of
repairs due to health monitor reporting on warranty claims and suggested that all repairs made
from health monitor results should be reported on defect and EWIR reports. CARB also
suggested that some of the current OBD monitors could be used as part of the health monitor
concept for the DPF and EGR system. CARB supported indicating to the operator when DPF
regen was disabled and the reason why as a benefit to operators and repair technicians. They also
noted that severe derates generally accompany faults that prevent the DPF system from
regenerating. CARB also noted that SCR dosing disabled is a MIL on condition and a fault code
would be stored.
Several commenters provided perspectives on EPA's request for comments to improve
serviceability of electric vehicles. Commenters were generally supportive of the concepts that
EPA requested comment on; several commenters also suggested additional ideas to consider
(e.g., new requirements for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to provide standard repair
time (SRT)).
697
-------
• See Section IV.C. 1 .iii of the preamble for the final provisions related to health monitors and
our response to these comments.
•
EPA appreciates the comments on serviceability of electric vehicles. EPA requested
comment on this topic but is not finalizing at this time serviceability provisions specific to
electric vehicles. We may consider this topic in a future rulemaking.
7.3 OBD communication protocol
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on whether U.S. EPA should finalize provisions to allow the SAE
J1979-2 protocol if CARB staff does not finalize their update before U.S. EPA completes the
final rule, and on potential challenges with this change. The NPRM also requests comment on
the interim provision in 1036.150(v) that would allow the use of J1979-2 for model years before
2027 and the provision in 1036.110(b) that would allow J1979-2 for 2027 and subsequent model
years, including whether any additional changes need to be made to the existing or proposed
OBD requirements to accommodate the use of J1979-2. CARB staff is supportive of the U.S.
EPA proposal to allow the SAE J1979-2 protocol if CARB staff does not finalize its update prior
to the U.S. EPA rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.77]
The NPRM requests comment on whether the use of J1979-2 could have negative impacts on the
existing U.S. EPA OBD program, and on the potential impacts on the U.S. EPA service
information requirements. CARB staff is supportive of the use of SAE J1979-2 and does not
anticipate negative impacts on the existing U.S. EPA program, CARB OBD program, or U.S.
EPA service information requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.77-78]
The NPRM requests comment on how tool vendors would be affected by this J1979-2 proposal,
whether they would be able to support the new services and data, and if there are any concerns
tool manufacturers have regarding access to vehicle data at a fair and reasonable cost. CARB
staff anticipates tool vendors will be able to fully support the SAE J1979-2 protocol at a fair and
reasonable price for the vehicle repair industry and consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.78]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins supports EPA providing an allowance for the J1979-2 protocol but proposes to not
include the corresponding 2022 Biennial CARB OBD rulemaking that mandates manufacturers
using this protocol to provide support for new and additional requirements like Supplementary
Monitor Activity Data (SMAD) requirements, new DataStream/freeze frame requirements, new
readiness requirements, new trackers etc. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.27]
698
-------
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
We support efforts that would communicate in natural language and not computer codes the fault
conditions that may trigger inducements. Lowering these communication barriers would reduce
the impacts of trigger inducements on vehicle down-time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 24]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA supports the proposal at 40 CFR 1036.150(v) allowing the option to use J1979-2 for
manufacturers seeking EPA OBD approval prior to MY 2027. We further support the
interpretation that proposed §1036.110(b) would provide a path for the use of J1979-2 when the
proposed program becomes effective. Additionally, EMA recommends that EPA also allow for
the use of the SAE J1939 protocol beyond MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
97]
EPA Summary and Response
EPA received comments from CARB, EMA, ICCT, and Cummins that all supported the
provisions allowing the use of SAE J1979-2 communication protocol as early as MY 2022 and to
allow the use of SAE J1979-2 after MY 2027. Cummins also commented that EPA should not
adopt the 2022 Biennial CARB OBD which mandates new and additional requirements like
Supplementary Monitor Activity Data, data stream and freeze frame parameters, readiness
requirements, and new trackers.
CARB commented that they do not expect any negative impacts from allowing SAE J1979-2
protocol on tool vendors, and that the tool vendors will be able to accommodate SAE J1979-2
requirements at a fair and reasonable price.
• See our response to these comments and the final provisions in preamble Section IV.C. 1 .vi.
7.4 Other requirements
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EPA has also requested comment with respect to provisions designed to improve diagnosis and
repair, specifically whether additional data parameters should be included in the freeze frame
data to identify the source of the malfunction more effectively. 61 Allison's preference is to
ensure that a primary controller such as the engine control module (ECM) stores its own freeze
frame and parameter data and other secondary controllers on the vehicle are not required to store
data from the primary (i.e., ECM) controller. EPA has set precedent that transmission controllers
are comprehensive component controllers that do not need to store other system data, and
Allison recommends continuing this approach because it keeps OBD systems simpler and more
streamlined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.29]
699
-------
61 Id. at 17,529.
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
In addition, one of the major issues that many of the motorcoach fleet operators face is the lack
of available diagnostic equipment. For each of the engine manufacturers, different diagnostic
licensed software is required, in addition to specialized training. Very few motorcoach fleet
operators are going to have many of the computers equipped with the requisite software readily
available, particularly with those software licenses retailing in excess of $20,000 each. With
many motorcoach fleets averaging 5-7 operational units, only the largest operators or the
manufacturers will even have equipment capable of diagnosing an emissions control system
issue, much less potentially resolving one. As a result, many motorcoach operators have to send
their vehicles to the motorcoach manufacturers or to the engine manufacturers. If the generic
scan tool is going to be as scarcely available or as costly as the currently diagnostic software,
those costs will need to be factored into this rulemaking as well as the cost of increased down
time. And any cost savings anticipated by offering the generic scan tool option to delay the
derate inducement should be reduced by a factor of the availability of that tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1308-Al,p.8]
iv. Self-Heal and Generic Scan Tools - ABA appreciates EPA's consideration but needs more
time to review this proposal with motorcoach operators. On face value, the proposal appears
meritorious, but it also raises a number of questions. Such as who is to provide the generic scan
tools and at what cost? Who is expected to use the tools? Motorcoach drivers have an enormous
responsibility in operating their vehicle safely and addressing passenger needs. They are not
expected to be vehicle technicians. In addition to a driver shortage, as well as a lack of
availability or access to the diagnostic software due to cost, there is also a severe technician
shortage in the motorcoach industry. Again, this is a distinction of motorcoach operations versus
property-carrying operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.10]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposed additional parameters for CI engines. The NPRM
requests comment on whether any additional signals should be included in this list and whether
any other signals should be included such as any signals related to maintenance derates (outside
of inducements). CARB staff believes it is worth considering expanding parameters where
needed to support maintenance and repair of derates outside of inducements. CARB staff also
notes that regulatory requirements for additional parameters require engagement with the SAE
J1979 and J1939 committees. The regulation must allow sufficient time for the parameters to be
developed and adopted into the standards before the requirement can take effect. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.74]
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposed additional parameters for SI engines. The NPRM
requests comment on whether any additional signals should be included in this list and whether
any other signals should be included such as any signals related to maintenance derates (outside
of inducements). CARB staff believes it is worth evaluating expanding parameters where not
currently required by the OBD regulations to support maintenance and repair of derates outside
700
-------
of inducements. CARB staff believes it is also worth evaluating adopting an OBD REAL
requirement for NOx emissions based on on-board NOx sensors for spark ignited engines,
including those derived from diesel engines. CARB staff also note that regulatory requirements
for additional parameters require engagement with the SAE J1979 and J1939 committees. The
regulation must allow sufficient time for the parameters to be developed and adopted into the
standards before the requirement can take effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.75]
CARB staff has concerns regarding U.S. EPA's statement about the difficulty of accessing many
of the signals CARB requires to be made public with a generic scan tool. C ARB regulations
require standardization tests (SAE J1699 and SAE J1939-84) on production vehicles to verify the
OBD communications are working properly. So, any issues should be detected during these tests
and reported to CARB as part of the reporting requirements. CARB staff would like to
understand which signals are at issue and if issues were not properly identified through the OBD
production vehicle testing and reporting requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.75]
The NPRM requests comment on U.S. EPA's proposal to require the parameters in CARB's
regulation sections 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2.1)(D), (h)(4.2.2)(H), (h)(4.2.3)(F), (h)(4.2.3)(G), and
(h)(4.2.2)(I) to be included in freeze frame, and whether additional parameters should be
included to more effectively identify the source of malfunction and increase the usefulness of
freeze frame data, especially for conditions that result in inducement. CARB staff generally
supports additional data where there is an identified benefit to owners, inspectors, or repair
technicians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.75-76]
U.S. EPA is proposing to require the DEF dosing test be made available for use with either a
generic scan tool or an alternative method (e.g., an option commanded through a vehicle system
menu). The NPRM requests comment on whether U.S. EPA should make SCR performance tests
available via generic scan tool or other on-vehicle methods, and the need to make other self-tests
accessible with generic scan tools to improve in-use emission systems maintenance and
performance (e.g., being able to command the evaporative system on spark-ignited engines be
sealed to allow for leak testing, ability to perform manual regens for DPF systems). Regarding
the DEF dosing test, service shops already have DEF injector tests available using dealer tools or
enhanced tools. While it can be difficult to standardize the test commands to support such testing
in a generic scan tool, CARB staff supports the idea where standardized tests would be
beneficial. Regarding the SCR performance test, however, the SCR system is designed to control
emissions over a broad range of speeds, loads, temperatures and NOx concentrations. The shop
service procedure for SCR performance may not be as useful as the REAL NOx tracking data
primarily due to the limited conditions in the shop environment, since the high load, high speed,
and high NOx operating points would not be experienced in the shop. An evaluation conducted
under low load, low NOx, and low temperature conditions may lead to an erroneous health
assessment or be of limited value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.76]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Infrastructure/ S cantool
701
-------
Propose to remove the Over-the-Air (OTA) software reflash requirement from the CARB OBD
2019 requirements since EPA is not planning an updated EPA HD I/M program at the moment.
Without an I/M program, the requirement introduces challenges like requiring an increase in
ECM storage space as well potential burdensome administrative tasks during subsequent
software changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.27]
In Section H (4.2.3) (G) of the 2019 CARB 1971.1 regs, propose to remove specific new
scantool reporting requirements (DataStream additions) w.r.t modelled/estimated NH3 storage
level on SCR and target NH3 storage level on SCR. There is no benefit to service environment
and not required to troubleshoot a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.27]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
To ease operator concerns, EPA includes a variety of new proposals, including emission system
health monitors, increasing the number of publicly available data parameters, increasing the
freeze frame data, and enabling certain self-testing capabilities for owners. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.76]
Daimler Truck supports providing increased information in data stream and freeze frame, but
only if such parameters are specified by the relevant SAE and ISO standards, and the
requirement is updated to reference such standards specifically. This approach has been used for
several decades to successfully implement data stream and freeze frame parameters, and EPA
should continue to use this approach to specify any expansions in their expectations. Otherwise,
EPA risks inconsistent implementation—both in terms of how the information is calculated, and
how it is made available to a generic scan tool—which undermines EPA's stated goals for
making this information available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.76]
Lastly, Daimler Truck is concerned about allowing generic control of service functions, such as
the DEF dosing quantity check. Daimler Truck is concerned about allowing external, unverified
control of any emissions control components, which might ultimately provide a path for
malicious actors to tamper with emissions controls by allowing new paths to command software
controls of emissions systems. Additionally, EPA's proposal prevents two-way verification of
control—and many service routines have built-in safety and emissions checks before they can be
executed. Forcing the system to respond to generic requests from unknown third party tools
removes the ability of the manufacturer to verify proper system operation from 'both directions,'
so to speak. EPA should also reconsider this aspect of its proposal in light of various functional
safety standards, such as ISO 26262, and cybersecurity standards. EPA's proposals create a path
of attack that could risk the safety and security of the systems. Manufacturers are already
required to provide access to their service tools and directions at a reasonable cost; there is thus
no reason to create an alternate diagnostic and control path. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.79]
In summary, manufacturers are already providing state-of-the-art diagnostics systems, and EPA's
proposal creates a secondary, less-effective, and more-problematic method of diagnosing failures
that could ultimately lead to more expensive service, greater confusion and frustration, and
increased interest in tampering. Manufacturers already have significant motivation to reduce
702
-------
downtime and improve the service experience as much as possible. EPA's proposals do not serve
to improve that experience, and will have significant unintended consequences. Daimler
Truck recommends that EPA adopt the CARB OBD regulations as proposed, without the added
provisions for prognostics and service functions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.79-
80]
Organization: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
EPA should not ease measures designed to prevent the avoidance of maintenance or repair
costs. Delaware recommends that EPA maintain a robust onboard diagnostics (OBD) program
that will ensure OBD continues to accurately detect system failures and vehicle problems can be
promptly, proficiently and cost-effectively repaired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.3]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
The undersigned support inclusion of the following requirements in the Final Regulation:
• Mandatory additional maintenance requirements and onboard diagnostics to help combat
mal-maintenance and tampering, and to ensure long-term emissions performance. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.6]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The ICCT supports EPA's decision to harmonize with CARB's OBD provisions for MY 2022 to
2024 and with the intention to expand those signals as listed in the NPRM (FR page
17532). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 24]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
Making it easier for truckers to make repairs themselves using generic scan tools while on the
road and truckers or carriers to repair vehicles in-house. Having all inducement-related
diagnostic data parameters accessible with generic scan tools, as well as scan tools being capable
of removing an inducement condition after repair, would enable truckers to repair emissions
systems themselves while on the road, respond to inducements more quickly, perform normal
operation with less disruption, and reduce repair costs and wasted time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1130-A1, p. 3]
Requiring that systems provide more, specific information, including diagnostic codes. Having
cab displays that name the condition that triggered the pending or active derate and a countdown
timer of the estimated time or distance before the next stage of derating (even if overridden)
would give truckers more and better information about inducements as they happen, help them
make informed decisions about trip management, repairs, etc., and make the inducement system
more tolerable. Coupled with generic scan tools and new capabilities to diagnose and repair
emission system problems, this empowers drivers with better information, better tools, and better
703
-------
options. Drivers are more likely to take action when enabled in the ways and by the means
proposed. They would know not only the problem, but how to fix it, while better able to manage
trip plans and commercial obligations. Moreover, NASTC supports the proposed additional
information in owner's manuals, including how to use the OBD system to troubleshoot
problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Many OOIDA members have the resources and means to maintain their trucks, and prefer doing
this work themselves. According to the 2018 Land Line Reader Survey, 73% of owner-operators
indicated that they complete minor repairs and maintenance to their truck, engine, and trailer
themselves. Most owner-operators have their trucks on a regular maintenance schedule because
they recognize the necessity of ensuring their truck is safe to operate on the roadways. The
ability to diagnose and fix equipment problems without having to a visit a dealership saves
small-business truckers both time and significant money. Unfortunately, many modern heavy-
duty vehicles have taken self-maintenance options away from drivers. Newer trucks that
incorporate more complex technology and components typically can only be serviced at
dealerships, where charges can be hundreds of dollars per hour simply to inspect the engine or
perform other routine work. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, pp.6-7]
EPA must ensure that the provisions outlined in Section IV, B (Ensuring Long-Term In-Use
Emissions Performance) and C (Onboard Diagnostics) are maintained. These provisions would
assist drivers who perform their own maintenance and repairs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-
Al, p.7]
Following the January 2020 Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM), many truckers told EPA about problems they've experienced and how the agency
could work to address them. OOIDA commends the agency for listening to those comments and
including provisions in the proposal regarding serviceability, inducement, and self-diagnostic
tools that will help drivers better assess their emissions equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1266-A1, p.6]
Further, on-board diagnostic tools and generic self-scan options will help drivers better analyze
possible problems without having to make those costly visits to repair shops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1266-A1, p.7]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports having trained technicians perform DEF dosing diagnostic testing under
proper conditions. But proposed section 1036.110(c)(2) would require that' [diagnostic testing
to measure the effectiveness of DEF dosing ... be made available for use with either a generic
scan tool or an equivalent alternative method (such as an option commanded through a vehicle
system menu), (emphasis added). This proposed provision is problematic for a number of
reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.42]
704
-------
Currently, trained technicians ensure proper conditions before conducting DEF dose diagnostic
testing. Requiring generic scan tool or equivalent testing would lead to testing that is conducted
under improper conditions, e.g., the catalyst must be at the appropriate temperature to ensure
proper dosing, and misuse. Both scenarios likely will cause engine, catalyst or other systematic
damage, which would have an adverse impact on emissions. PACCAR therefore submits that the
risks associated with the DEF dosing diagnostic testing proposal significantly outweigh any
purported benefits. EPA should revise its proposal to remove the DEF dosing diagnostic testing
requirement and leave such testing to trained technicians. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
p.42]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
We believe that the added data stream items in 1036.110(b)(10) would more appropriately
developed in conjunction with ARB and SAE for incorporation in 13 CCR 1971.1 and SAE
J1979 and J1939, which would then be incorporated in EPA regulation by reference. We do not
believe there is any benefit in including these requirements in this NPRM, or in EPA having
unique federal-only data stream requirements. If EPA does wish to pursue unique federal-only
data stream requirements, we would suggest at minimum adopting the framing language
included in ARB 1971.1(h)(5), ensuring parameters are defined and implemented consistent with
J1979 or J1939 standards, and including definition on when parameters should be tracked, when
they may or should be reset, whether they should be paused during failure conditions, etc. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.6]
Roush believes the discussion of making inducement-related information available to the vehicle
operator for the purpose of potentially resolving inducements as they occur is valuable. We have
no strong opinion on this issue as we are not principally involved in systems using inducements.
However, we do have concerns relating the continuing language regarding potentially requiring
other manufacturer-specific diagnostic functions to be available on generic scan tools or by on-
vehicle request. We believe there is already a very robust industry dialog with EPA, ARB, and
SAE, including both auto manufacturers as well as service tool providers, on defining
requirements for generic scan tools. If EPA wishes to explore adding functions to GST, there is
no need to burden the current proposed rule; simply raise the issue for discussion in the existing
forums where practical implementation requirements and timeline could be developed.
Regarding on-vehicle requests, we caution that typical off-board intrusive tests are designed
under the assumption they are only performed by qualified personnel in controlled environments
as part of a documented service procedure while physically connected to a service tool; making
these tests available to untrained users outside of the service environment would likely require
significant redesign to ensure they are performed safely, and do not potentially constitute
adjustable parameters or defeat devices which would be in violation of other areas of the
regulation. We would suggest limiting such requirements to those items which disable vehicle
function and for which the operator has a reasonable ability to perform roadside repair without
special tools or parts; otherwise it seems unclear what benefit is offered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1276-A1, p.7]
705
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
There is a similar concern regarding the diagnosis of multi-bed catalyst systems. SwRI has
suggested that partial-volume OBD monitoring strategies might be deployed for configurations
similar to the Stage 3 prototype system. However, OBD-certification staff have refused to
approve partial monitoring strategies when proposed previously by some OEMs. EPA will need
to clarify whether there has been a change of policy to account for the advent of systems such as
those used on the Stage 3 engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 95]
EMA does not support the proposal to use a generic scan tool to measure the effectiveness of
DEF dosing. Without either an established industry protocol (e.g., SAE), or a requirement that
generic scan tools meet such a common protocol, this proposal sets the stage for varied testing
among the various manufacturers, and potentially, safety concerns from using an unregulated
generic scan tool with a system that is, necessarily, sealed. Further, regarding the request for
comment on whether EPA should make SCR performance tests available via generic scan tools
(or another on-vehicle method), EMA does not support this proposal. Making SCR performance
tests available via either of those methods is not workable, as it would be extremely challenging
for the Agency to develop a robust, standardized public SCR performance test that would fit
multiple manufacturers' aftertreatment configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
97]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(c)(2): "(2) Diagnostic testing to measure the effectiveness of DEF
dosing must be made available for use with either a generic scan tool or an equivalent alternative
method (such as an option commanded through a vehicle system menu)." The proposed
provision would require an on-demand test triggered by either a generic scan tool or a vehicle
input to perform a DEF dosing test. We recommend deletion of this provision, as such a test
could potentially damage the catalysts and may take an especially long time to run until the
conditions necessary to actuate the DEF are correct. Further, making this control function
available for anyone with a generic scan tool is not recommended due to safety concerns,
negative impacts to air quality (e.g., NOx emissions, DEF spill, ammonia slip, etc.), and the
potential for errors in conducting service procedures (and associated additional service actions
and increases in repair costs). (See Exhibit "G.") [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 101]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.110(b)(8)(i): "(i) Data parameters specified in 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2) and
(4.3)." We note that 13 CCR 1971.1 (h)(4.3) provides the complete description of freeze frame
contents; the reference to subsection (h)(4.2) is not needed and should therefore be deleted.
Moreover, expanding the freeze frame to include all of the data defined in (h)(4.2) will
significantly increase the non-volatile ECU memory needed to store freeze frames. The SAE
J1979-2 specification expands the required number of freeze frames from one to ten per ECU.
For ECUs that are at or near their maximum capacity of non-volatile memory, this would drive
new ECU hardware (a costly and long-lead time change.) We believe the parameters defined in
(h)(4.3) are adequate and appropriate for servicing vehicles. If EPA believes additional
parameters are required, those specific parameters should be identified in order to minimize the
impact to limited non-volatile memory. We estimate an increase of around 500 bytes of data for
706
-------
this additional data, or a total of five kilobytes per ECU to account for the 'ten freeze frames per
ECU' requirement for J1979-2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 99 - 100]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received general support for requiring additional OBD data parameters from Great Rivers
Environmental Law Center, DSCC, DNREC, OOIDA, and NASTC, stating the proposed
requirements would reduce mal-maintenance, tampering, and ensure long-term emissions
performance due to an increase in information available to repair technicians, vehicle operators,
and fleets.
CARB also supported the proposed additional data parameters that aid diagnosing and repair of
errors that cause derates but are not also inducements, where this information is useful for repair
service. CARB suggested to adopt the OBD REAL requirements for NOx emissions based on
on-board NOx sensors for SI engines.
Cummins proposed to remove the requirement in 2019 CARB 1971.1 of modeled and actual
NH3 storage on the SCR, stating that there is no benefit in a service environment and this
information is not required for troubleshooting vehicle problems. Cummins also proposed to
remove Over-the-Air software reflash requirement from the 2019 OBD requirements stating that
EPA is not planning an updated EPA HD I/M program and stating that this requirement
introduces challenges such as an increase in ECM storage space and burdensome administrative
tasks during subsequent software changes. CARB commented that requirements in the preamble
of this rule that proposed spark ignition (SI) component temperatures that engage thermal
protection modes are made available publicly, but this requirement was not reflected in the
proposed regulations. CARB commented that they would like to work with the EPA to
understand the problems found where publicly available data parameters were not available on a
GST.
Roush, Allison, and DTNA all commented that additional data parameters are not required.
Allison specifically requested that each control module store its own freeze frame and parameter
data and there be no cross storage of system data. Roush and DTNA commented that if
additional data parameters are adopted in the final rule, the framing language in 1971.1(h)(5)
should be adopted and that the parameters should be defined and consistent with J1979 or J1939
definitions. DTNA further commented that repairs should be performed by professional
technicians.
Cummins commented that SI requirements in 1036.11 l(b)(10)(i) need to be clearly defined,
either more generically to allow other modes specified in this regulation to cover the requirement
or more specifically in the context of the three modes (throttle, engine protection, or catalyst
protection).
EPA received comment from ABA on the lack of availability of generic scan tools (GST) due to
cost and lack of choice. They commented that the lack of availability of GSTs creates a
dependence on the manufacturer developed diagnostic tools for which licensing can cost up to
707
-------
$20,000 and this is cost prohibitive, especially for fleet operators that maintain vehicles from
multiple manufacturers. ABA also commented that the cost of diagnostic tools and repair time
should be included in the rule.
EPA received comment from EMA and CARB on additional parameters for freeze frame data.
EMA commented that expanding freeze frame parameters in 1971(h)(4.3) to include
1971.1(h)(4.2) should be deleted since expanding the freeze frame parameter requirements to
include all of 1971.1(h)(4.2) would increase nonvolatile ECU memory needed and that
1971. l(h)(4.3) is adequate for service requirements. CARB supported additional freeze frame
parameters, but only where there is an identified benefit to owners, inspectors, or repair
technicians.
EMA commented on the need for clarification on if a change in policy has been made to allow
certification of OBD partial monitoring strategies for multi-bed catalyst systems as they have not
been approved to date.
EPA received negative comments from DTNA, PACCAR, Roush, and EMA for the requirement
of a DEF dosing and SCR test due to complexities in the manufacturing and operation of these
systems. OOIDA and NASTC commented and both supported the requirements for a DEF
dosing and SCR test, stating that it would aid operators and fleets in diagnosing errors in
aftertreatment systems.
CARB commented that the DEF dosing and SCR tests are available with some manufacturer
developed diagnostic tools and supported the requirement for these tests to be available on GSTs
if these tests would be beneficial to operators and fleets.
CARB commented on an incorrect reference in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.110(c)(4) that should
have referenced 40 CFR 1036.110(b)(10).
Response:
As explained in preamble Section IV, EPA is finalizing the additional parameters consistent with
the existing CARB requirements for generic scan tools according to 13 CCR 1971.1(h)(4.2). The
focus is on aftertreatment repair and derated engines; it is not clear what Allison's specific
concern or request is.
EPA did not propose adopting OBD REAL requirements for NOx emissions based on on-board
NOx sensors for SI engines and is not finalizing this requirement. We look forward to working
with CARB, potentially in a future rulemaking, on this topic.
EPA appreciates the comments from DNREC, DSCC, ICCT, OOIDA and NASTC in support of
adopting robust OBD requirements that help combat mal-maintenance to ensure long-term
emissions performance. EPA is confident our requirements meet these goals.
708
-------
EPA did not propose and is not finalizing changes to the Over-the-Air (OTA) software reflash
requirement or other changes requested in Cummins' comment. EPA may consider changes to
reduce OBD burdens as appropriate in a future rule.
EPA appreciates CARB's, Roush's, and DTNA's concerns that sufficient time is needed to adopt
parameters through SAE and has finalized these requirements for MY 2027, as further explained
in preamble Section IV. Many, if not all, of these parameters are from J1939 today. We
appreciate CARB's support of additional data parameters and freeze frame data to improve
serviceability experiences. We have finalized a reduced set of data parameter and freeze frame
requirements from those proposed after further consideration, see section IV.C.l.iii of preamble
for further discussion. Further, we appreciate Roush's concerns about adopting the framing
language included in ARB 1971.1(h)(5), ensuring parameters are defined and implemented
consistent with J1979 or J1939 standards. That was EPA's intent and we have clarified this in 40
CFR 1036.
EPA does not control GST availability or design. These requirements are designed to ensure that
manufacturers make a sufficient number of critical emission parameters available for GST
manufacturers to read and incorporate into their design if they choose to. Generic scantools for
heavy-duty products are available today in a variety of combinations and with varying levels of
capability. EPA has finalized these requirements to improve the availability of such data to GST
manufacturers, which will likely provide operators with more information to help diagnose
critical emission system failures, especially those resulting in derates. GSTs are not a substitute
for OEM tools, rather, they are a lower cost alternative and will not have the full capability of
OEM developed tools developed for specific applications. EPA has appropriately not included
the cost of these tools in the cost analysis for the final program. These tool purchases are optional
and assist an owner or operator to troubleshoot issues in the case an owner or operator chooses to
investigate issues themselves.
EPA appreciates the comments from CARB, EMA, PACCAR, Roush, DTNA, OOIDA, and
NASTC on DEF dosing and SCR tests. After consideration of comments and consideration of
the complexity of robust implementation, we are not taking final action on these requirements at
this time.
EPA appreciates EMA's comments on freeze frame data and we have revised our final
requirements from those proposed to reflect a more limited set of parameters more in-line with
our intent, see preamble Section IV.C.l.iii. for further information on these revisions.
Regarding EMA's comment on clarifying the policy of EPA on certifying partial OBD
monitoring strategies for multi-bed catalyst systems, at this time EPA is not making any policy
changes on certifying partial OBD monitoring strategies for multi-bed catalyst systems.
However, we intend to continue assessing this issue as technology advances and these systems
become more prevalent.
7.5 Other comments on OBD
709
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on whether to allow manufacturers to use onboard emission
sensors to help reduce testing burden associated with OBD certification, specifically on ways to
reduce test cell time associated with component threshold testing (e.g., ways to use NOx sensor
data instead of test cycle NOx measurements). While CARB staff does not have a proposal,
CARB staff is supportive of evaluating additional ways to use tailpipe emission sensors to reduce
engineering and testing burden associated with OBD certification and other certification
requirements while maintaining effective programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.78]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Durability Demonstration Testing (DDE)
Instead of the use of tailpipe emissions sensors to reduce cert burden, propose that EPA
introduces flexible, less prescriptive testing methodologies in the current test cell environment
and allow manufacturers to exercise engineering judgement during demo testing. This would
include running a subset of demo diagnostics using representative hardware (less aged systems)
meeting the intent of regulators, through unofficial/manufacturer-directed test procedures and
simulation analysis where appropriate, to come up with the demo results for certification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
EPA notes comments received on its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
regarding opportunities to utilize on-board NOx sensors in lieu of pre-certification test data for
OBD compliance in certain circumstances, and the Agency requests further comment on whether
and how such sensors could be used to help reduce test burden associated with OBD
certification. See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,528, 17,535. As noted above, Oshkosh
supports the use of on-board sensors for demonstrating OBD compliance. We welcome the
opportunity to work further with EPA to evaluate appropriate reporting options for this scenario,
including options to gather certain data from the trucks while in operation to provide assurance
that monitors and emission control systems are adequate for the vehicle application. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush believes the use of tailpipe emissions sensors or other robust technologies in order to
determine failure based on actual rather than inferred emissions could be promising, and could
eventually lead to reduced costs (after the initial increase in costs associated with ensuring the
change does not result in backsliding). However, we believe this is well outside the scope of
what could realistically be implemented in the required timeframe of this proposed rule and
believe EPA should not consider this change as part of this regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1276-A1, p.7]Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
710
-------
EPA requests comment on whether and how to allow manufacturers to use onboard emission
sensors to reduce test burden associated with OBD certification, and specifically with regard to a
reduction of the test cell time associated with component threshold testing. The Agency
suggested use of NOx sensor data instead of test cycle NOx measurements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 98]
Tailpipe NOx sensors are not a replacement for test cycle measurements. EMA would instead
recommend that EPA provide flexible, less prescriptive testing methodologies in the current test
cell environment, and allow manufacturers to exercise good engineering judgement during
demonstration testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 98]
EPA has requested comment on opportunities to reduce the OBD compliance and certification
costs of the federal program through the use of modeling or calculation-based methods to replace
testing requirements. That request also references test-out provisions. However, it is unclear if
EPA is seeking comment on potentially eliminating test-out provisions. More clarity is needed
regarding this request, and regarding the potential provisions to reduce compliance and
certification burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 99]
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group appreciates the following EPA Onboard Diagnostic flexibility comments. "...
whether and how to allow manufacturers to use onboard emission sensors to help reduce test
burden associated with OBD certification" (87 FR at p. 17535)"... alternative methods to use
onboard emission sensors that could be used to generate and provide real-world data that may
enable improved diagnostics, assess the function of emissions critical components and assess the
implementation of dynamic AECD inputs." (87 FR at p. 17535) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1324-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
Future optional concepts could simplify diagnostics, deterioration factor testing, and in-use
testing based on future NOx and PM sensor performance and durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1324-A1, p. 6]
EPA Summary and Response
EPA received comments from CARB, Oshkosh, Volvo that gave general support to reducing test
burden by utilizing onboard sensors and diagnostics to provide real-world emissions data of high
enough quality to reduce the amount of prescriptive testing.
Roush commented that they support the idea of reducing test burden by utilizing on-board
sensors and diagnostics, but they also proposed to not finalize these requirements as the
implementation timeline is not feasible for this rulemaking.
EMA and Cummins both proposed an alternate method of reducing test burden without using on-
board sensor or diagnostics. They proposed to use less prescriptive test methods, including the
use of systems that are less aged but meet the intent of the regulations, and
unofficial/manufacturer determined test procedures.
711
-------
• While we requested comment on this topic, we are not finalizing the provisions to reduce
test burden suggested in these comments at this time. EPA appreciates the comments on
this section and looks forward to further discussions with stakeholders on such topics.
8 Inducement
8.1 Concept of speed derates for named fault conditions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
Further, ABA does not believe EPA properly accounted for the costs associated with its flawed
inducement policy and design strategy, even with the Proposals provisions to address this issue
which in many ways seem aspirational. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.8]
Unfortunately, when ABA has raised these issues with EPA, the Agency has admitted it has not
collected sufficient data on the issue of fleet related reliability issues or equipment availability.
Still, EPA has proposed codifying several inducement provisions in the Proposal, in an effort to
address concerns raised, while still intending to "appropriately motivate or restrict certain types
of human behavior." ABA believes, in general, several of EPA's proposed principles make
sense, IF they are actually put into practice and work and are not simply aspirational. For
example, establishing a consistent inducement policy among all engine manufacturers,
fundamentally makes sense. Below, ABA provides additional feedback on specific proposed
principles/provisions:
Finally, in addition to feasibility and costs, a major concern of the motorcoach industry is engine
reliability and EPA's inducement policy. The ABA does not believe EPA sufficiently
understands the scope of the problem or adequately addresses the issue in the Proposal,
particularly when the proposed new standards and testing cycles have the potential to exacerbate
the derate issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.8]
First and foremost, EPA needs to clearly recognize that their SCR inducement policy is a
problem, and not describe it as a "mix of incentives and behaviors." (Notice, Section IV.D.) It is
a serious and costly problem for the motorcoach industry. The EPA inducement policy creates
undue safety risks for drivers, passengers and other roadway users. The comments referenced in
the Notice repeatedly note that EPA's inducement policy leads to vehicles, and thus people,
stranded or parked along a roadway. This is particularly a hardship and safety hazard for the
motorcoach industry. In addition to carrying the precious cargo of human lives, unlike the
property carrying industry, the motorcoach industry does not have the same flexibility or
accessibility to equipment to easily replace a stranded vehicle or find a service repair station.
Further, the timeframes for reacting to and/or resolving a derate situation are unreasonable. Also,
in terms of timing, as there is currently a driver shortage in the motorcoach industry, limits on
the hours a driver is able to drive coupled with time to address a derate issue, further challenges
712
-------
motorcoach operations in the face of the inducement strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-
Al, p.9]
It is also not a problem solely related to the amount or quality of diesel engine fluid or DEF.
Engine inducements or derates deriving from DEF-related triggers are problematic; however, as
the comments highlight, DEF-related issues are not the only triggers for derates. Derates can
occur from software glitches, loose wiring, faulty sensors, cold temperatures and so forth. Also,
troubling, is the lack of consistency in inducement design among engine manufacturers.
Regardless of whether it be a DEF-related inducement or other trigger outside of the operators'
control, derates are a prevalent and costly occurrence in the motorcoach industry, that raises
serious safety and economic concerns. EPA's inducement policy, ABA believes, again highlights
EPA's lack of understanding of the motorcoach industry, a key stakeholder subject to its
emissions control program. Inducements or derates lead to increased safety risks and often
unnecessary operating costs, and loss of business credibility and good will. ABA and other
motorcoach stakeholders provided survey results to the EPA, featuring the responses of a variety
of fleet operators (Dated Oct. 15, 2021) to their experiences with SCR systems and derate
conditions. A couple of highlights to note from that survey:
* 94.66% have had some kind of emissions-related repair issue.
* 92.2% have had an emissions-related issue occur mid-trip.
* 94% experienced a forced regeneration. Required with special software not available at most
shops.
* 72.6%) had to tow a bus to a facility as a result of an emissions-related breakdown.
* The cost of a tow and related repairs is estimated to average around $7500-8000 per instance.
* 75.8%o said that their emissions related breakdown was a result of a faulty sensor. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.9]
Overall, ABA would prefer to work with EPA further to ensure an adequate body of data is made
available to inform development of proposals concerning derates, and believes the Proposal is
too rushed. We do see potential value in terms of relief from derate burdens if they work as
intended. Yet would like to work with EPA to explore additional relief options such as
the voluntary application of auxiliary emission control device's (AECD) on previous model year
engine's dating back to 2008 to help mitigate existing issues with faulty derate inducements. As
to the specific questions EPA seeks comment on under the inducement strategy section, Section
IV. D., ABA will consider providing additional input through supplemental comments. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, pp. 10-11]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
Ensure pollution benefits are not reduced by credits or tampering. US EPA should work
with California to develop a national approach to ensuring meaningful operator inducements to
713
-------
correct emission control failures in a timely manner and to protect against tampering with
emission control systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.3]
Organization: American Trucking Association (ATA)
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include: Modifications to the derate schedule are justified to improve access to repair facilities
and avoid unsafe operating speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
The industry wholly understands EPA's rationale behind low-speed derates. To be perfectly
clear, neither fleets nor drivers wish to experience derate episodes which have the potential to
create both safety and delivery concerns. Yet, following more than a decade of experience,
derates are still occurring at unexpected rates. In surveying fleets, the reasons behind derates do
not involve inadequate DEF levels or quality, but rather include a variety of reasons such as:
• Sensor, parts, and wiring harness failures
• DEF quality, heaters, headers, dosers, coolers, and pump /level issues
• Bad pin connectors
• EGR coolers
• Aftertreatment Control Modules [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 17 - 18]
ATA supports EPA's efforts to modify the current derate schedule. ATA member companies, in
response to the survey included as Appendix A, have indicated this modification should ensure
adequate time for drivers to reach repair facilities while avoiding operating at unsafe speeds
and/or the need to have the vehicle towed, which can add thousands of dollars to the cost of
repair. Other considerations include providing adequate time for vehicles operating in remote
areas to reach repair facilities as well as allowing drivers to finish their deliveries should the in-
cab display appear during a shift. The proposed modification will also provide fleets with added
time to access preferred repair facilities as opposed to the limited choices they may have under
the existing 5-mph derate schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 18]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
ATD does not oppose the codification of existing guidance that SCR-equipped HDEs require
power derating when SCR is not being properly used. Power derating has proven generally to be
a reasonable and effective means to ensure that operators perform critical emissions related
scheduled maintenance on the SCR system and that HDEs be operated using quality DEF. 15 At
the same time, ATD is concerned that improperly functioning SCR derate inducements can lead
safety issues or to operator tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 7]
15. Id at 17539.
714
-------
EPA is proposing to require inducements to ensure that SCR systems are designed to be tamper-
resistant, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will be circumvented. In addition, EPA is
proposing to require monitoring of certain emissions-related components, and the triggering of
an inducement if tampering is identified. NADA generally agrees with EPA that a standard list of
tampering inducement triggers would aid owners, operators, and fleets in the repair of their
vehicles by reducing the cost and time required to diagnose the reason for inducement. At the
same time, ATD echoes the concern raised by EMA with respect to revisions to SCR inducement
strategies and to allowed minimum maintenance intervals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1,
p. 7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requested comments on the proposed SCR derate schedule. CARB staff has serious
concerns regarding the proposed inducement strategy for the SCR aftertreatment system and
believes significant changes are needed to prevent unacceptable weakening of the SCR
inducement requirements and the corresponding erosion of emissions benefits. The NPRM
rightly states that 'operating an SCR-equipped engine without DEF would cause NOx emissions
to increase to levels comparable to having no NOx controls at all.' A 2013 report by CARB staff
showed vehicle NOx emissions increasing egregiously when DEF is depleted, contaminated, or
tampered with, such that NOx emissions were six to ten times higher than baseline emissions. 150
Thus, the proper function of the SCR aftertreatment system depends on an adequate supply of
high-quality DEF and is critical to the control of NOx emissions from late model HD diesel
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.88-89]
150 California Air Resources Board, Field Evaluation of Heavy-duty Diesel NOx Control
Strategies, January 2013. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ADA scr-
field-eval_report-final.pdf
Over the last twelve years, the manufacturer's guidance document, CISD-09-04R,151 and the
joint U.S. EPA and CARB July 2010 workshop 152 provided the structure and guidance for SCR
inducement strategies to maintain an adequate supply of high-quality DEF to the SCR
aftertreatment system and discourage tampering. As with the past joint effort on SCR
inducement strategies, we request that U.S. EPA staff work together with CARB staff prior to the
Final Rule to develop a unified national approach to inducements for indicated SCR system
component malfunctions that would ensure that the SCR aftertreatment systems are functioning
properly and are not tampered with, while also addressing truck fleets' concerns regarding
misdiagnosed malfunctions that lead to improper inducement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.89]
151 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Revised Guidance for Certification
of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines Using Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) Technologies,
December 30, 2009. https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_filejsp?docid=20532&flag=l
152 California Air Resources Board, Selective Catalytic Reduction Workshop, July 20,
2010. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ADA workshop—2010-07-20—
scr-presentation.pdf
715
-------
The current strategies for SCR inducement are based on CISD-09-04R and a joint U.S. EPA and
CARB July 2010 public workshop that explained the guidance with detailed examples of
inducement strategies that could be used. Since the details of this joint July 2010 workshop are
absent from the NPRM discussion, the following summarizes the examples given at the
workshop to guide manufacturers in their design of current SCR inducement strategies. [EPA-
HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.89]
For DEF level problems, the workshop example given to manufacturers was to warn the operator
(either via audible or visible indicators, or both) of low-DEF levels before inducement so the
operator has time to refill the DEF tank prior to activating inducement. If the operator does not
proceed to address the DEF fill level, the first step of the inducement is initiated. CISD-09-04R
provides guidance for 'progressing to further degradation that could include operation of the
engine being disabled or severely restricted, implemented in a manner designed to prevent
operation without DEF'. When DEF is almost depleted, the operator is warned again before a
final inducement of 5 miles per hour maximum vehicle speed or no power to the vehicle or idle
only is initiated. This final inducement would only occur at a safe harbor condition so as not to
cause any safety concerns.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.89-90]
For DEF quality and tampering problems, the workshop provided guidance that manufacturers
needed to detect the problem within one hour and to notify the operator immediately. If after four
hours the issue is not resolved, the operator would be warned again before initiating final
inducement down to 5 miles per hour maximum vehicle speed or no power to the vehicle or idle
only, which would only occur under safe harbor condition. Again, at each step of the
inducement, the driver should be warned both audibly and visibly of the consequence of not
taking action to correct the problem. Once the problem is corrected, the workshop guidance
allowed for exiting the triggered inducement (self-healing) so that the vehicle can return to
normal function. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.90]
To give the operator warning of the inducement, CISD-09-04R and the workshop provided
guidance to the engine manufacturer to give multiple driver warnings, either via visible or
audible indicators, or both, before the initial inducement step and at each step of
inducement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.90]
Two reports prepared by CARB staff subsequent to the workshop, in 2011,153 and 2013,154
contain detailed descriptions of the actual driver warning protocol used by several engine
manufacturers. These reports showed that the vehicle operators received various visible warnings
through the electronic driver information display, flashing or illuminated dash lights, and/or
check engine light. The electronic display provided details of each step of the inducement,
including a countdown to the remaining miles for final inducement, and was often accompanied
by single and periodic audible chimes. Based on the guidance and 2010 workshop and
description of actual driver warning protocols used by manufacturers, it is clear that inducement
due to SCR is not required to and should not happen suddenly and without warning. On the
contrary, multiple visible and/or audible warnings were required and implemented to provide
24 CARB refers to "safe harbor" as a condition a vehicle is in prior to an inducement being applied, such that the
application of an inducement would not cause a safety concern. Examples include at the time of refueling, when a
vehicle is parked or at idle, or prior to a vehicle being restarted.
716
-------
adequate warning before inducement and hence to alleviate potential safety concerns for the
operator. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.90]
153 California Air Resources Board, Heavy-duty Vehicle Selective Catalytic Reduction
Technology Field Evaluation, May 2011. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
05/ADA scr-field-eval_report.pdf
154 California Air Resources Board, Field Evaluation of Heavy-duty Diesel NOx Control
Strategies, January 2013. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ADA scr-
field-eval_report-final.pdf
Over the last twelve years, as the inducement guidance has been implemented by engine
manufacturers, U.S. EPA and CARB staff have monitored the impacts of these inducement
strategies and gained experience with what worked and what did not work. We must remember
the overall goals of SCR inducement strategies: i.e., to ensure compliance with NOx emission
standards by inducing operators to use high-quality DEF and fix faulty DEF related components,
and by discouraging any tampering of the system. In achieving these goals, consideration should
be given to owners and operators, whose livelihoods depend on functional vehicles and to their
desires to reduce false inducements, reduce costly repairs, and avoid inducements causing safety
concerns. Nonetheless, we must ensure that any changes do not significantly reduce the
effectiveness of today's inducement requirements. Any changes to today's inducement
requirements must still require timely repair to SCR systems that are not functioning properly,
and prevent excess NOx emissions. Thus, U.S. EPA and CARB staff should work together to
make changes that would reduce inducement impacts on vehicle owners and drivers while still
maintaining the effectiveness of inducement strategies to minimize air quality impacts. CARB
staff believes U.S. EPA's NPRM proposal does not strike the correct balance between protecting
air quality and being sensitive to the needs and desires of vehicle owners and operators. On the
contrary, in an effort to respond to vehicle owner and operator concerns, U.S. EPA's NPRM
proposal goes too far in impermissibly weakening and dismantling today's effective inducement
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.90-91]
The NPRM notes that the majority of ANPRM comments expressed concern that in-use vehicles
are experiencing inducements for reasons outside of the operator's control despite the use of
high-quality DEF and in the absence of any tampering. The ANPRM comments stated that many
inducements (not related to tampering) were occurring due to defective SCR system components.
Such inducements, called false inducements, can be difficult to diagnose and require repeated
visits to the repair shop. Part of the false inducement issue is related to the quality and durability
of components used by engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.91]
Table 9-1 and Figure 9-1 below show the number of California heavy-duty diesel engine families
that have emissions related component warranty claims greater than 4 percent or 50 claims in the
last 5 years. Of the 308 engine families with 4 percent or 50 emissions related component
warranty claims, 299 (or 97 percent) had components that were replaced under warranty that
could result in SCR inducement. If these parts had been designed to work correctly through the
engine useful life, the total potential inducement events could have been reduced
significantly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.91]
717
-------
Manufacturers need to ensure that they utilize components that are robustly designed and
manufactured to minimize false inducement incidences. While CARB has required recalls for
SCR inducements that did not work as approved, CARB has not initiated any recalls specifically
to address false inducement. CARB's changes to the EWIR program as part of the Omnibus
adoption should improve the effectiveness of identifying and repairing malfunctioning parts, and
U.S. EPA should also consider adopting similar requirements in the CTP. EWIR changes include
requiring corrective action once the warranty threshold is met. U.S. EPA's proposed NPRM
changes to lengthen warranty will also help reduce false SCR inducements because
manufacturers will be required to make repairs for much longer periods over the vehicles' useful
life, driving manufacturers to reduce their cost liability and improve the design of
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.93]
Rather than simply proposing to significantly weaken inducement schedules to address false
inducements, U.S. EPA should put in place more effective requirements to ensure manufacturers
are addressing poor component quality and durability issues. In fact, CARB staff believes that
U.S. EPA's proposed Option 1 changes to extend manufacturer warranty requirements will
provide an effective incentive for manufacturers to make improvements to monitored SCR
system components to reduce their future cost liability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.93-94]
CARB staff has concerns with the proposed Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) anti-tamper
inducement changes in 40 CFR 1036.111. CARB recommends that U.S. EPA direct staff to work
with CARB to develop a nationally aligned SCR inducement requirement that both addresses
fleet concerns and ensures SCR emission control systems are functional, effective and tamper
resistant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.2]
CARB's Omnibus regulation that became effective in December 2021 requires more rigorous
durability testing during the certification process and longer warranty and UL requirements for
2024 and subsequent model year engines. It is anticipated that these improvements will result in
better quality and durability of emission control components. Additionally, the Omnibus
regulations also improved California's EWIR program which requires manufacturers to conduct
corrective actions such as providing extended warranties and/or recalling faulty components if
component failure rates meet or exceed established thresholds levels. Lastly, the Omnibus
regulations also established rigorous in-use compliance and recall provisions. The NPRM
proposes many of these same Omnibus regulatory provisions, and CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to
adopt provisions equivalent to those Omnibus provisions that will provide further assurance that
SCR systems will become more durable and reliable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.94]
In response to the comments submitted during ANPRM, CARB staff initiated a limited survey of
33 randomly selected California fleets to better understand their experience with inducements
(Appendix III) [Appendix III can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 146-164],
Through our normal warranty and in-use testing processes, CARB staff had not been aware of
the inducement-related concerns described in the ANPRM. The survey was conducted from
October 2021 to February 2022, either in person or by phone. The survey requested information
on fleet vehicle data, the frequency of derates, what problems caused the derate, safety concerns,
718
-------
and other issues. The fleet owner or operator was informed that derates may occur due to engine
protection or due to SCR inducement as a result of system malfunctioning or tampering, and the
survey requested their assessment of the knowledge of the two different types. Almost 80 percent
of owners had good knowledge differentiating between derates for engine protection versus
aftertreatment system performance. However, only 19 percent of the operators had a good
knowledge to differentiate the 2 types of derates. Thus, it is highly possible that the vast majority
of operators may not have adequate knowledge to take appropriate action on SCR derate
conditions and to avoid entering into severe inducement, which makes the vehicle virtually
inoperable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.94]
The survey information showed that on average, fleet owners and operators reported that 21
percent of the vehicles experienced engine protection or SCR related derates on an annual basis,
with incidents of derates occurring more often with 2013 to 2018 MY vehicles that have more
than 160,000 miles. Out of 33 fleets, 3 fleets reported no derates and gave the reason that they
maintained their vehicles regularly, including sensor replacements, and/or had vehicles that were
less than one year old. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.94]
In the survey, fleets that experienced derates were asked for the cause, and 37 percent were for
failed NOx or DEF quality sensors. This was by far the highest incident of experiencing a derate
condition. The next highest was failure of the DEF doser at 17 percent of incidences, while low-
DEF level was the cause of 9 percent of incidences. None of the fleets reported derates due to
poor quality DEF, which would be the result of poor DEF quality sold in the marketplace or DEF
fluid dilution that would be tampering. This is consistent with industry efforts to assure the high-
quality DEF supply chainl55 and CARB staffs earlier surveys of DEF availability and driver
usagel56. Other causes of derates were plugged DPF (8 percent), and other aftertreatment-
related problems such as those resulting in poor NOx conversion, bad DEF pumps, DEF heater
problems, wiring harness issues, and calibration problems (19 percent.) Other non-aftertreatment
related problems, such as turbochargers, carbon buildup in the EGR system, and engine
temperature problems, accounted for the remaining 9 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.95]
155 https://www.api.org/products-and-services/diesel-exhaust-fluid/
156 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ADA scr-field-eval_report.pdf
To address the problem and override the derates, 84 percent of the fleet owners and operators
responded that derates were able to be addressed without major disruption. However, often it
took two or more visits to the repair facility to properly diagnose and address the problem. On
average, 33 percent of the vehicles needed work done more than once in a year due to derates. Of
the vehicles brought in more than once in a year due to derates, 29 percent were a result of a
recuring problem that was not properly addressed in the first repair visit. Significantly, this
multiple trip repair impacted almost 10 percent of the total number of vehicles experiencing
derates covered by the survey. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.95]
CARB staffs fleet survey also included fleets have safety related concerns regarding
inducements. A large portion, 42 percent, of the owners and operators expressed that they would
719
-------
have safety concerns if they were to experience a derate. A significant minority of owners and
operators, 18 percent, had actually experienced some safety concerns due to a derate, such as
sudden power loss when operating at highway speeds, power loss coming down a step road
grades or power loss during uphill grades and during heavy vehicle traffic conditions. The
remaining 82 percent of owners and operators never encountered a dangerous situation with
derates or had no comments on the safety concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.95]
In conclusion, CARB staffs fleet survey shows that current inducement requirements are
effective in getting repairs done promptly, with 84 percent of the fleet owners' and operators'
responses indicating that derates were easy to address. On average, about one-fifth of these fleet
vehicles had experienced derates on an annual basis. Failed sensors, failed DEF doser, and low-
DEF levels accounted for over 60 percent of the derate causes (37 percent, 17 percent, and 9
percent, respectively), and thus, the inducements were successful in correcting the problem.
While a significant percentage of fleet owners and operators expressed some safety concerns
concerning inducements, a much smaller percentage had actually experienced a derate condition
that resulted in significant safety concerns. Within this group, it is uncertain whether the derate
where the operator experienced significant safety concern was due to an engine protection derate,
which may occur immediately to prevent damage to the engine, or whether it was an SCR
inducement, which should have provided audible and visible warnings, per the current guidance,
to the operator before a derate condition was implemented. Regardless, safety concerns are
important to address, and improving and aligning these warnings protocols amongst all
manufacturers through regulation may improve these safety concerns. NPRM's proposal to
codify in-cab display requirements should provide adequate warning to the operator, as discussed
later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.95-96]
CARB staff also recommends removing the NOx sensor as a fault condition in the proposed 40
CFR 1036.111(b) since the NOx override factor, based on the NOx sensors, can be used to
override the NOx sensor fault condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.103-104]
The NPRM requests comments on whether it was proper to use DEF fill level, quality, and
tampering to determine fault conditions that may result in SCR inducement. The current
inducement guidance defines these three parameters as critical to proper SCR function, and
CARB staff continues to agree that these parameters must be monitored. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 105]
In particular, the NPRM requests whether DEF quality continues to be an issue to monitor since
operators have an established practice of using DEF and engines may now have built-in features
to prevent diluting DEF or filling a DEF tank with water. Monitoring the use of high-quality
DEF continues to be a critical parameter to achieve low NOx emissions from the SCR-equipped
HD vehicles. Two HD vehicles tested by CARB staff in 2011/2012 showed that when the DEF
was diluted with water, NOx emissions increased eight to ten times the baseline emissions where
high-quality DEF was used. 169 Without proper monitoring, DEF quality is too easily tampered
with, which could lead to excessively high NOx emissions and multiple inducements. The
current success and established practice of the use of high-quality DEF, along with engines that
have built-in features to compensate for DEF quality, demonstrate the success of current
guidance practices that are effective in assuring high quality DEF is used. Staff disagrees with
720
-------
the NPRM statement on page 17541 that 'the cost of DEF at the pump is not that different from
the cost of distilled water.' As an example of recent DEF prices, the website price of DEF at Pilot
and Flying J truck stops averages $3.89 per gallon across stations in the United Statesl70 while
the cost of distilled water is a mere $1.08 per gallon. 171 Thus, since DEF costs more than three
times the cost of distilled water, a substantial financial motivation still exists for operators to
refill the DEF tank with fluids other than the manufacturer's recommended DEF or to tamper
with DEF by diluting the tank with water. This will become even more important as the new
more stringent CTP NOx standards will require an increased amount of DEF, increasing the
desire to tamper with DEF quality to reduce cost. Any relaxation of current monitoring
requirements may result in the increased use of poor DEF quality, causing significant increase in
excess NOx emissions from tampered HD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.105-106]
169California Air Resources Board, Field Evaluation of Heavy-duty Diesel NOx Control
Strategies, January 2013. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/ADA scr-
field-eval_report-final.pdf
170https://www.pilotflyingj.com/fuel-prices# , accessed April 13, 2022.
171 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Distilled-Water-l-Gallon/10315382
The NPRM requests comment on the proposed circuit fault condition. CARB staff recommends
that the word 'open' be eliminated from the 'open-circuit faults' in 40 CFR 1036.111(b)(4). This
would allow a more general specification of circuit faults to include other types of faults that
may occur with tampering such as short circuit faults and rationality faults, and thus provide a
more comprehensive coverage of tampering and electrical functionality. Additionally, staff
recommends adding a more general descriptor of DEF components at the end of the circuit fault
list to include components other than those listed, such as 'and any other components that affect
the performance of listed DEF components, as determined by the engine manufacturer.' [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 106]
CARB staff agrees that starting the fault condition of the low-DEF level at three hours is
appropriate rather than when DEF is depleted. In fact, it is recommended that a dash warning of
low-DEF level before three hours be given to the operator to provide additional opportunity to
take action prior to inducement. CARB staff believes warning the operator before the point of
DEF depletion is absolutely necessary from an emission abeyance perspective and to alert the
operator prior to the initial torque and speed inducement. In CARB staffs fleet survey, nine
percent of inducements were due to low-DEF levels, and thus notifying the operator of low DEF
levels well ahead of inducement allows more opportunity for correcting this condition before
inducement is initiated. This is one of the most easily correctable conditions, and advance
notification to the operator to refill the DEF tank would reduce air quality impacts as well as help
avoid vehicle downtime and costs due to severe inducement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p. 106]
CARB staff believes that current DEF freeze protection guidelines are important because DEF
may freeze under certain circumstances and will not be available to flow to the SCR system,
721
-------
causing excess emissions. Thus, staff supports the current DEF freeze protection guidance and
believes that it should be codified and described by the manufacturer to U.S. EPA through
Auxiliary emission control device (AECD) disclosure requirements. Also, fault conditions due to
tampering of freeze protection components should be included in 40 CFR 1036.111 (b). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 106]
Organization: Carreras Tours, LLC (2032)
We had an experience where our bus got a check engine light going on interstate 5 in central
California. We had students on board and the bus derate to 5 MPH. The good thing is that we
happened to be less than a mile from an exit. We feared that a truck might rear end us and injure
the passengers. It took several hours to get a rescue bus to pick up the group. All this could have
been avoided if time for us to diagnose the problem in a shop, and in a safe place where the bus
and the passengers were safe. If a sensor fails, the bus derate the bus immediately and gives us
no chance to get to a safe place. In this instance, it was a $20 sensor that failed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2032, p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA should improve the stringency of its proposed modifications to its inducement program to
better ensure that operators properly maintain emissions control equipment. As EPA notes, SCR
systems depend upon 'an adequate supply of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF).' 87 Fed. Reg. 17,536-
38. 'Inducement' systems—creating engine derates that reduce a vehicle's maximum speed when
the SCR lacks adequate DEF or the system has been tampered with—ensure that operators
sustain that supply and properly maintain their aftertreatment systems. Id. at 17,537. In response
to complaints that 'vehicles are experiencing inducements for reasons outside of the operator's
control,' which may be 'difficult to diagnose,' EPA has proposed 'progressively increasing
inducement derate schedules,' which restrict the maximum speed of vehicles with tampered
SCRs or which have failed to maintain adequate DEF supply. Id. at 17,538, 17,543. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.62]
As EPA acknowledges, lack of adequate DEF can cause NO X emissions to increase to levels
comparable to having no NOx controls at all.' Id. at 17,536. That is likely to be especially
harmful in urban areas where HDV operations are concentrated, and where vehicles are
consistently operating at speeds well below EPA's proposed derates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.63]
Organization: Champion Auto Carriers
Having been in the transportation industry for over 35 years I have witnessed what the DEF
regulations has cost my business and drivers since 2012. Down time for DEF issues account for
90% of my overall downtime and driver expense. Maybe the EPA should be looking at better
technology or systems to reduce NOx but allow for better performance and uptime. We can't
afford any extra truck costs or maintenance costs and still deliver the goods and services trucking
provides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2733, p.l]
722
-------
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
However, any derate program for buses is likely unable to ensure the level of safety needed to
protect passengers. Coach USA thus supports the ABA proposal that motorcoaches be excluded
from any derate requirements that would apply to most trucks and instead be allowed the
flexibility of being treated the same as vehicles that respond to emergencies. This can be done by
allowing engine manufacturers the flexibility to use approved Auxiliary Emission Control
Devices with motorcoach engines. This would avoid the safety risks associated with applying a
truck-centered derate system to passenger-carrying vehicles as well as the costs that our industry
cannot tolerate. Coach USA thus encourages EPA to study such alternatives to the need for any
derate inducement system for the motorcoach sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, pp.
3-4]
With the above general caveats, if any Proposed Rule is adopted that would apply to
motorcoaches, Coach USA believes that the proposed derate schedule would effectively lead bus
owners/operators to address certain detected fault conditions within the duration of the schedule
specified under the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 4]
Coach USA supports the latter proposal - that the engine be designed to warn an operator when
the DEF supply is running low and the inducement start when the DEF supply is depleted. Coach
USA closely monitors and maintains is buses, including ensuring adequate DEF supply at the
start of each trip. Refilling of DEF supply, depending on bus routes, may occur within 3 hours of
depletion. However, Coach USA believes that it, or its drivers, should not be penalized with the
inducement starting at that time, before the DEF supply has been depleted. Coach USA also
recommends that EPA require manufactures to provide more precise information to drivers to
alert them about DEF levels and how long remaining DEF volumes will last; this will allow
drivers to plan accordingly to address a fault condition, while taking into account route schedules
and stops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
Coach USA believes that no less than 6 hours of non-idle operation is reasonable for the first
stage of inducement to address low DEF, but is not a sufficient amount of time for more major
fault conditions that may require repair. Interstate bus routes extend throughout the country,
oftentimes far away from Coach USA facilities or other third-party bus repair facilities. Bus
repair is also very specialized, with limited repair locations. It is also not a certainty that bus
repair facilities will possess the required equipment/software to diagnose and repair a fault
condition. Parts, as evidenced throughout the pandemic, may also not be readily available. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
Accordingly, buses will not always have the ability to reach a bus repair facility within a 6-hour
period when a fault condition prompts repair or replacement of components. Coach USA
believes that a minimum 10-hour period for the first stage of inducement, and preferably longer,
is appropriate for all default conditions due to other than low DEF levels. This longer period will
ensure that passengers are kept safe and not potentially stranded along interstate bus routes. On
this point, EPA should aware of the difficulty/inability of bus operators to locate alternative
buses to pick-up passengers along interstate routes. Our industry is currently struggling with a
serious shortage of drivers, which has reduced operational flexibility. The industry has also
723
-------
experienced a major reduction in the number of bus operators due to COVID, as noted above.
Accordingly, Coach USA supports an approach that ensures the ability of its drivers to address a
fault condition upon completion of a route. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
The relatively short comment period allowed for the EPA's massive (475-page) and technically-
complex proposed rules was grossly insufficient to allow Coach USA to adequately analyze all
of the implications of the proposed rules on its business and its customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA has appropriately defined key principles for updating SCR inducements to ensure that
emission control function and emissions reductions occur in-use while reducing potential
impacts to operators. Cummins is supportive of less severe SCR inducements such as those in
EPA's proposed vehicle speed derate schedule in §1036.111(d). However, we recommend that
EPA consult with NHTSA on the safety related aspects of the proposal before finalizing it.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 14]
In response to request for comment on including an advance notice/warning to the operator in the
event of a plugged DEF line or doser, as opposed to actual tampering, Cummins proposes that
EPA consider not including this concept as it is challenging to effectively differentiate blocked
DEF line/doser due to direct tampering vs. actual urea crystallization/line plugging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 31]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
DOEE does not support EPA's proposed changes to the in-use strategies designed to ensure that
operators maintain their NOx emission control equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1,
p. 5]
EPA proposes changes that would significantly weaken "inducements" for maintaining Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR). Since SCR is the most effective means of reducing NOx emissions
from diesel engines, when these devices are malfunctioning, NOx emissions soar. Such
unacceptable NOx increases can occur from a combination of vehicle neglect, part failures, and
malicious tampering with diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), hardware, and software. While the longer
warranties proposed and discussed below should provide motivation to resolve design defects
and inferior parts, the issues of neglect or tampering require an intentional and diligent approach
in the inducement program to ensure adverse emission impacts are minimized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 6]
EPA states in the NPRM that it has received many complaints about inducements, and
specifically about the use of DEF, the majority of which express concerns "that despite the use of
high-quality DEF and in the absence of tampering, in-use vehicles are experiencing inducements
for reasons outside of the operator's control". It is unclear how many of the experiences leading
to these complaints are specifically related derating due to SCR inducements verses general
engine protection derating that operators can also experience. Among the cited reasons outside
724
-------
the operator's control are faulty sensors and software "glitches". Both would be warrantable
issues that should receive increased manufacturer attention under the significantly longer
warranty periods advocated here. Simply ignoring these design issues would be deeply
problematic and fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the NOx program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 6]
Finally, rather than just relaxing inducements and potentially allowing a truck with improperly
maintained SCR to continue operating with nominal constraint, EPA should put in place
measures that will hold manufacturers accountable for addressing the durability and sensor issues
about which the agency, dealerships, and manufacturers have received complaints. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
Organization: FitzGerald Brothers Bus Co.
Recently I had a group of 50 people in a bus at 2:00am 500 miles away and the bus decides to
de-rate and then shut down because of some sensor is not reading emissions correctly. Lost $10k
on that job, lost the customer, driver quit. Why- All due to a small little NOx sensor that needs to
read emission input Vs. Output on the SCR. Could the software had allowed us another 8 hours,
all this could have been avoided. Why such a quick setting for a shut down? [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1149-A1, p.l]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ICCT agrees with EPA that an update of current inducement policies is appropriate. A decade of
experience has confirmed inducements are successful in encouraging timely emission-related
repairs. Based on operator comments, updates that reduce the downtime of trucks resulting from
the inducements also need to be considered. We also agree it is time to replace nebulous
guidance documents with clear regulatory requirements that govern certification approval of
engine manufacturer inducement strategies and software. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 20]
EPA's proposal to modify SCR-related inducements includes several new approaches ICCT
supports. These include derates based on speed, a separate derate schedule for trucks that operate
mainly at lower speeds, and the use of NOx sensor data to provide an estimate of the importance
of initiating inducements. However, ICCT believes the specific provisions of EPA's proposed
changes will reduce the incentive for many truck operators to achieve emission-related repairs,
and result in higher in-use emissions that are unnecessary. This contradicts EPA's stated belief
that the proposed inducement modifications will provide a "net benefit.. .to the
environment". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 20]
EPA proposes changes to SCR inducement provisions that we expect will increase real-world
NOx emissions, undermining the important improvements the proposal makes in other areas to
address this gap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
If the problems with false readings or failure of DEF quality sensors are addressed by engine
producers developing and using more reliable sensors, it would reduce the adverse impact on
725
-------
operators. The much longer emission warranty proposed by EPA will increase the incentive for
engine manufacturers to use more reliable sensors since they will have to cover the cost of repair
for the majority of the truck's life. In addition, improved NOx sensors may also provide an
alternative means of determining DEF quality without use of a physical quality sensor, as this
approach was used by some OEMs when the inducement requirements were first
imposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 23]
We recommend adoption of EPA's proposal to add additional monitoring of disconnection of
devices. This will help prevent tampering. The EPA proposed extended warranty will provide an
incentive to engine manufacturers to address operator claims of frequent defective electrical
connections of SCR-related devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 23 - 24]
We support efforts that would communicate in natural language and not computer codes the fault
conditions that may trigger inducements. Lowering these communication barriers would reduce
the impacts of trigger inducements on vehicle down-time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 24]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• EPA should not ease measures designed to prevent the avoidance of maintenance or
repair costs. Rather than relaxing inducements and potentially allowing a truck with
improperly maintained SCR to continue operating with nominal constraints,
manufacturers should be held accountable for addressing durability and sensor
issues. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-Al,p.7]
Organization: Midwest Bus & Motor coach Association
Our primary concern involves the proposed "derate" or "inducement" schedule, which will result
in a vehicle experiencing a significant loss of power and torque. This change in power has placed
an undue burden on operators since 2008, when it was first implemented. There are numerous
repercussions directly related to derates. Motorcoaches often travel to remote areas across the
country unlike local transit or school buses that commonly transport intrastate and are home
daily. Motorcoaches will drive far distances all times of the day or night making the ability to
service a vehicle in a timely manner very difficult. Motorcoaches could be thousands of miles
from home or even from an equipped service facility that could assist with a breakdown. This
challenge for companies is far greater than what may be realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1158-A1, p.l]
When the equipment experiences an inducement, there are fewer options than other types of
vehicles fitted with SCR. Since most of the vehicles have manufacturer-specific components,
drivers are at most times limited to finding the right parts to fix a vehicle that is over the road.
Additional costs involved include towing, outside repair service, reimbursing customers for
missed events, refunding customers for long delays, contracting with other companies to move
726
-------
the passengers, and damaging the overall reputation of the company. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1158-A1, p.2]
Aside from the large expenses motorcoach operators must absorb, a more important point is the
safety risk a derate presents our passengers. It is our opinion that a regulation crippling or
limiting the speed of any vehicle is unacceptable, dangerous, and jeopardizes lives. This
industry is very unique as it transports the most valuable cargo on the road, human lives. A
large number of operators provide a significant amount of travel for school groups and young
athletes. Having a motorcoach filled with children is quite different than transporting a truckload
of consumer goods or raw materials. There is no room for error when it comes to safety practices
and maintaining a proper speed to avoid a fatal rear-end collision on a highway. It will only be a
matter of time before a distracted driver drives into the rear of a derated or stranded motorcoach
full of passengers. [Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.2]
Organization: Motorcoach Companies
Our primary concern involves the proposed "derate" or "inducement" schedule, which will result
in a vehicle experiencing a significant loss of power and torque. This has put an undue burden on
operators since 2008 when this first was implemented. The challenges these companies face are
far greater than what you may realize or be aware of. There are numerous repercussions directly
related to derates. Often times we are traveling in remote areas across the country and areas.
Unlike local transit or school buses that are often Intra-State and home the same day, our coaches
travel far distances, and at all times of the day or night. Therefore our ability to service a vehicle
in a timely manner is significantly different given that our equipment could be thousands of
miles from home or even from a equipped service facility that can help with break downs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.2]
When our equipment experiences an inducement, we have fewer options than other types of
vehicles fitted with SCR. Since most of our vehicles have manufacturer specific components, we
are at most times limited at finding the right parts to fix a vehicle that is over the road. There are
several other expenses involved as well; including: towing costs, outside repair service costs,
reimbursing customers for missed events, refunding customers for long delays, contracting other
companies to move the group of passengers, and damaging the overall reputation of the
company. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.2]
Aside from the large expenses motorcoach operators must absorb, a more important point is the
safety risk a derate presents our passengers. It is our opinion that the EPA crippling or
limiting the speed of any vehicle is unacceptable. This is a blatant overreach that is jeopardizing
lives. As we stated earlier, our industry is very much unique in that we are transporting the most
valuable cargo on the road, human lives. A large number of operators do a significant amount of
business with school groups and young athletes. Having a bus load of children is quite a bit
different than transporting freight such as toilet paper, sneakers, or other material goods. We
have no room for error when it comes to safety practices, and maintaining proper speed is of
utmost importance to avoid a fatal rear end collision on the interstate. It will only be a matter of
time before this takes place due to a distracted driver running into the rear of a derated or
stranded passenger vehicle. We want this to be on record that we have made our concerns
727
-------
widely known and that when an accident does occur, the blame will be on the EPA for any
lives lost or hurt. [Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, pp.2-3]
[Additional comment by several companies that joined this mail campaign:] With this fair
warning EPA will be held fully liable and any lawsuits resulting from such accident will be
brought against EPA." [Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1241 and 1267]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
In this proposed rule, the EPA makes several adjustments to selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
requirements. SCR systems are induced if a truck meets one of the prescribed triggers related to
the vehicle's emissions. In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA adds provisions that would reduce
the number of false inducements and implements a much more workable derate schedule. While
the current derate schedule forces trucks to slow to 5 miles per hour (mph) in just 4 hours, the
new regulations in this proposed rule would instead be implemented over 60 hours and reach
final inducement speeds of 50 or 35 mph, depending on the typical speed of the vehicle. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 5]
NACD supports these important changes to SCR regulations. The current derate system is
extremely difficult for drivers to operate under and creates hazardous roadway conditions where
heavy-duty vehicles are forced to go a speed significantly under the speed limit. Moreover, it is
important for fleet owners to have the ability to get their heavy-duty trucks to a mechanic who
knows their vehicles. These adjustments make the roadways safer and improve a fleet-owners
ability to get their trucks fixed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 5]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA does not support EPA's proposed changes to the in-use strategies designed to ensure
that operators maintain their NOx emission control equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1232-A1, p. 11]
EPA proposes changes that would significantly weaken "inducements" for maintaining Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR). Since SCR is the most effective means of reducing NOx emissions
from diesel engines, when these devices are malfunctioning NOx emissions soar. Such
unacceptable NOx increases can occur from a combination of vehicle neglect, part failures and
malicious tampering with diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), hardware and software. While the longer
warranties proposed and discussed below should provide motivation to resolve design defects
and inferior parts, the issues of passive neglect or active tampering require an intentional and
diligent approach in the inducement program to ensure adverse emissions impacts are
minimized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 12]
EPA states in the NPRM that it has received many complaints about inducements related to SCR
and the use of DEF, the majority of which express concerns "that despite the use of high-quality
DEF and in the absence of tampering, in-use vehicles are experiencing inducements for reasons
outside of the operator's control." It is unclear how many of the experiences leading to these
complaints are specifically related to SCR inducements verses general engine protection derating
728
-------
that operators can also experience. Among the cited reasons outside the operator's control are
faulty sensors and software "glitches." Both of these would be warrantable issues that should
receive increased manufacturer attention under the significantly longer warranty periods
advocated here. Simply ignoring these design issues would be deeply problematic and
fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the NOx program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1232-A1, p. 13]
Finally, rather than just relaxing inducements and potentially allowing a truck with improperly
maintained SCR to continue operating with nominal constraint, EPA should put in place
measures that will hold manufacturers accountable for addressing the durability and sensor issues
about which the agency, dealerships and manufacturers have received complaints. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 12]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
Nevertheless, NASTC first and foremost appreciates that, with this proposed rule, the agency has
carefully considered our sector's input from the 2020 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking,
as seen from this NPRM's modernization of inducement and serviceability provisions. These
updates would help address major problems motor carriers and truckers suffer under the existing
inducements regime. The proposals rightly reform current policies in light of 12 years' worth of
real-world data and real-life circumstances that regularly bedevil truckers. These proposals
would mitigate extremely costly, dangerous, counterproductive problems the current rules
create. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, pp. 1 -2.]
The proposal makes derating far more reasonable and evidence-based, as well as gives
professional drivers greater predictability and appropriate flexibility. A truck traveling at the new
derate speeds would no longer pose a serious threat to the safety of other drivers and vehicles,
commercial or personal, on high-speed roads. Enhanced by a uniform derate schedule and speeds
across manufacturers, professional drivers would be able to deal with the situation in which
inducement occurs in an appropriate, safe manner, while the driving public is protected from an
inducement-caused road hazard. Also, circumstances that may spur road rage by passing drivers
are avoided. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 3]
Further, older commercial equipment may pose safety and performance issues. For instance, a
DEF sensor that suddenly derates a truck moving at highway speed to 5 miles per hour puts
truckers and motorists at grave risk, whether the sensor reads an actual emissions issue or gives a
false positive reading.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 6]
5. The DEF sensor shortage and forcible derating also cost shippers, consumers, and stores, the
truckers who lose money with every mile they aren't driving, and the motor carriers that are
forced to sideline power units of their fleets. Jobs hang in the balance at every level, threatening
debilitating costs and losses.
Aside from DEF sensors requiring microchips amid a shortage, these sensors "derate" trucks,
forcing them to slow to 5 mph. Whether derated by malfunction or actual noncompliant DEF
levels, affected trucks cannot be used to haul freight. Also, as mentioned, the derating of an over-
729
-------
the-road commercial vehicle while under load creates an extremely unsafe situation for the
driver, the driving public that shares the road with trucks, the shipper and/or receiver, and the
Insurance provider responsible for the load. Without readily available parts, commercial motor
carriers that fill a vital role in our economy face bankruptcy in short order. A derated power unit
awaiting a new DEF sensor or other part has a tightening noose on a motor carrier's neck. A
truck that can't move freight is a truck failing to generate income, which can put the entire motor
carrier operation at risk of financial failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 7]
Organization: NW Navigator
Please exempt passenger carriers from any and all Inducements and Derate's of the vehicles from
2008 to current Why? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
1) Causes large groups of people to be stranded often in remote areas and often without cellular
service [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
2) The lives and safety of human beings, we transport People not toilet paper and paper towels
and when were stranded we need water food and heat and Air conditioning we can't just jump in
the next car that comes by to go find help!! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
3) If you have a story about being down because of one of these issues please us it but don't put
in too much detail [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
4) Our main passengers are the young and the elderly both are very susceptible to extremes so
again it is unsafe to disable these vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
5) We are often first on scene for a disaster getting people out of the way of a hurricane or
removing them when Flood waters hit or evacuating them out of a fires path and so on [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
6) We transport the military for maneuvers, deployment and anywhere there is trouble and they
are need we move them there! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2789, p.l]
Organization: NW Navigator Luxury Coaches
At first everything was great but just over a year after purchasing a brand new $500,000 MCI
motorcoach equipped with a DPF Filter things started to become unsafe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1098-A1, p. 1]
That vehicle stranded a group of kids at a closed ski resort after everyone had left because it
needed a regen after sitting and trying to heat the coach up for the passengers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 1]
What if your kids were on board? How would you feel about them being stranded and unsafe and
in the end finding out that it was a $38 sensor that failed, which told the vehicle to shut down-
730
-------
because it might let some exhaust into the air? Nothing was actually wrong the system was
working perfectly other than that $38 sensor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 1]
Not even 3 months later this same $500,000 vehicle stranded a group in high heat out in the
Columbia River Gorge after first derating the speed and the driver was forced to get off the
highway to find somewhere where he could travel at such low speeds and not be rear ended by
some inattentive driver on the highway, leaving the group stranded just off the highway with no
services or help in any direction for 50 miles or more and no cell service. We had over 50
passengers on board with an average age of 72. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
What if your Mother or Father were on that motorcoach and suffered Heat Stroke again because
a computer told it there was an issue? Again, in the end it was a failure of the system not a real
issue but a failed sensor not the Motorcoach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
These systems were absolutely not ready to be forced on the transportation industry and the
newer systems are still not ready but were forced out on us by someone putting an X on a
calendar. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
When systems fail at the enormously high rate we all are experiencing- and I know and have
heard it from other operators in trucking and bussing that they are having the same issues, it is
not fair or safe to shut down or even derate a vehicle especially with passengers on board when it
is almost always due to the fact that these systems are defective and not ready for market due to a
Policy that was pushed out too fast, untested and without regard to the consequences of
passengers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
The motorcoach industry is and always has been a very Green mode of transportation and is
currently the GREENEST mode on the planet, even cleaning the air in areas where pollution is a
major issue, however, we cannot put children, adults, the elderly our Military and people we are
evacuating during a disaster at risk for the 'checking of some box' in a policy that was rolled out
inefficiently and hastily without proper testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
Please consider and approve the request to separate out our industry into its own category and
don't derate us or shut us down on the side of the road possibly with your children or
grandparents onboard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
We also request this take effect immediately and cover all vehicles and coaches from 2008 to
Current. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
Below is what we are countering with and feel would be a more acceptable time frame:
Default maximum
speed (mi/hr)
Commercial Passenger
Vehicles Counter
Commercial Passenger
Vehicles Counter
65
60
55
40
derate exempt
derate exempt
derate exempt
derate exempt
24 hours
48 hours
72 hours
96 hours
731
-------
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1098-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA supports the proposed inducement schedules and various derate principles included in
Section IV, D. These provisions focus on conditions that are within a driver's control, implement
a multi-step derate schedule, and a backup check to override false inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
OOIDA members have experienced emission technology failures that caused their engines to
quickly derate, placing truckers and other motorists in unsafe situations. Clearly, the loss of
power resulting from a technology failure is a serious safety concern that absolutely must be
avoided in future regulations. OOIDA supports the proposed inducement schedules and various
derate principles included in Section IV, D. These provisions focus on conditions that are within
a driver's control, implement a multi-step derate schedule, and a backup check to override false
inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
Following the January 2020 Cleaner Trucks Initiative Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM), many truckers told EPA about problems they've experienced and how the agency
could work to address them. OOIDA commends the agency for listening to those comments and
including provisions in the proposal regarding serviceability, inducement, and self-diagnostic
tools that will help drivers better assess their emissions equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1266-A1, p.6]
Organization: State Trucker Associations (1)
We file these comments in support of the revised inducement provisions under EPA's proposed
low-NOx rule. The trucking industry understands EPA's rationale behind low-speed de-rates
after: (1) there are three hours of Diesel Emission Fluid (DEF) remaining in the tank; (2) DEF
quality fails to meet manufacturers' concentration specifications; or (3) when certain SCR
system tampering events have occurred. Current speed derating to five miles per hour within four
hours of detecting certain NOx fault conditions pose on-going concerns over driver safety and
presents potential hazards for all vehicles operating on roadways due to the stark speed
differentials being created. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1075-A1, p.l]25
25 One commenter who joined this mail campaign added the following information: "A situation in which a truck
was traveling on the highway at 5 miles per hour or less has been attributed to the cause of the death of a state
trooper in Connecticut within the past few years. The trooper's vehicle rear-ended a slow moving tractor trailer
truck, and the trooper passed away. The incident occurred on March 29, 2018 on Interstate 84 in Tolland, CT. A
Hartford Courant article about the investigation published on March 6, 2019, stated this about the investigation into
the incident: "The report said the truck in the right-hand lane of 1-84 at a speed of less than 5 mph "created an
emergency situation that had a high probability of causing a serious collision." https://www.courant.com/breaking-
news/hc-br-trooper-kevin-miller-crash-report-20190306-jgkphof4f5h5vboa3f6zaccgju-story.html" [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1088, p.l]
732
-------
Fleets nor drivers wish to experience derate episodes which have the potential to create both
safety and delivery concerns.26 Yet, following more than a decade of experience, derates are still
occurring at unexpected rates and do not involve inadequate DEF levels or quality, but rather a
variety of other reasons particularly faulty sensors. [Additional comment by one of the 23
organizations that joined this mail campaign] One thing that is not in the rulemaking scenario is
that any sensor that creates a de-rate situation should by law be produced domestically and be
available in adequate quantities. Just last year one of our members had a truck de-rate in North
Carolina. Peterbilt, Kenworth, Freightliner and Cummins all showed the part on national
backorder. The carrier happened onto the part at NAPA via a search on the part number. When
their driver arrived at NAPA he had less than 20 min left before the truck went into full derate.
Trucking companies that cannot deliver goods in a timely manner lose hauling contracts and
suffer financially - the last thing a fleet manager wants. This is why fleets routinely check DEF
fluid levels and purchase DEF from reputable sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1075-A1,
p.l; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1095, pi.]
The overriding assumption should be that fleets routinely check all fluid levels and avoid derates
at all costs. To do otherwise makes no business sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1075-A1,
p.l]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
In a similar way, EPA should ensure that its inducements provisions secure in practice the
emission reductions projected under Option 1. If operators are not properly incentivized to
maintain an adequate supply of high-quality diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in their aftertreatment
systems, the real-world operation of these vehicles will severely undermine the emission
reductions secured "on paper" by Option 1. The inducements schedule—i.e., the progressive
derating of engine performance when DEF supply becomes too low—thus remains an important
component of effective NOx standards for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA is rightly attentive to the
concerns raised by operators around inducements, especially the challenges of false inducements,
and the States largely agree with the seven broad principles that EPA proposes for its
inducements approach.80 However, the proposed derate schedules81 are too lenient to ensure
that operators properly maintain their vehicles' aftertreatment systems for both low-speed and
high-speed vehicles.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 19]
80. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,540.
81. Id. at 17,544.
82. See id. at 17,541.
Organization: Stephen Jackson "
As a farmer and employee at a John Deere dealership, I have seen the increased complexity and
cost associated with emissions components on equipment. If there are new changes made to
26 Note: Several of the 23 letters represented do not include the phrase "which have the potential to create both
safety and delivery concerns."
733
-------
trucks and off-road equipment for emissions, please make sure the OEMs and repair facilities are
up to the task to diagnose and repair these systems with a good supply of replacement parts. It is
important to have a long-term warranty to keep these systems functioning correctly. It is
important to have some sort of "limp home" mode to be able to move the vehicle some distance
when there is a failure of the emissions system. We recently had to have our delivery semi towed
when it experienced an emissions related failure on the road. This was complicated by the fact
we were hauling over width machinery on the trailer which makes it difficult to find a tow
company that can pull a disabled truck and trailer that is over width. Please be aware this will
come with increased costs to whoever owns and operates the vehicles and this will get passed on
to the end user as higher prices for consumer goods. I believe trucks and off-road equipment
have really become much cleaner in recent years with tier 3 and tier 4 regulations. If new
requirements push the cost of new equipment higher, I believe we will see a renewed effort by
owner operators to continue keeping older "pre-emissions" equipment in service. I see this now
with farm tractors, older pre-emission equipment sells for a premium price due to its simplicity
and the huge gap in price between used and new equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1481]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.111(b): We offer the following additional comments on the specific
proposed provisions of this paragraph: (b)(4): "(4) Open circuit faults related to the following:
DEF tank level sensor, DEF pump, DEF quality sensor, SCR wiring harness, NOx sensors, DEF
dosing valve, DEF tank heater and aftertreatment control module." NOx sensors should be
removed from the proposed open circuit faults of paragraph (b)(4), as the NOx override factor is
part of the derate engagement (specified at proposed paragraph (c)). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 102]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.111(b): We offer the following additional comments on the specific
proposed provisions of this paragraph: (b)(5): "(5) Monitor for a missing catalyst." Regarding the
proposed provision that monitoring for a missing catalyst be a trigger for inducement, EMA
recommends that EPA consider adding specific language for dual-SCR technology (specifically,
for a singular failure versus both failing). However, at the very least, we request clarity on how
dual-SCR technologies would be treated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 102]
EPA proposes to codify the SCR inducement strategies (proposed §1036. Ill) that heretofore
have been covered by guidance documents since HDOH SCR technology was first introduced in
2010. EMA supports this proposal, including the proposed new speed-based derate schedule, but
suggests EPA consult with NHTSA on the corollary safety aspects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 124]
There needs to be better harmonization between EPA's and CARB's SCR inducement
requirements for medium-duty and light-duty vehicles. If there is not better harmonization in
inducement strategies, customers may be even more confused by inducement, since there could
be a proliferation of differing strategies within a single manufacturer (e.g., Class 3 chassis-cert
trucks vs. Class 4 dyno-cert trucks). Lack of harmonization also increases the burden on
734
-------
manufacturers, as they will have to integrate multiple inducement strategies when it is much
more cost-effective to keep a common control strategy across products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 99]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
Fortunately, EPA acknowledges these shortfalls and proposes corrective measures. UMA
applauds the Agency for the time they have invested in understanding the scope of the
problem. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1311 -A1 ,p.3]
Some UMA Members have raised safety concerns regarding the prospects of a derating (5 mph)
bus or motorcoach while in traffic. Similar concerns have been raised regarding disabled buses
and motorcoaches roadside. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.3]
Currently, buses and motorcoaches equipped with emissions reduction technology lacks the level
of dependability consumers of bus and motorcoach services seek. The current inducement
renders a bus or motorcoach basically inoperative after few hours. Imagine a college athletic
team traveling overnight to a tournament and compelled to forfeit the came by not arriving.
Imagine your first school field trip to Disney World thwarted by a motorcoach derated by an
unknown code. Imagine missing a relative's wedding or graduation due to an errant code on a
scheduled service motorcoach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
Bus and motorcoach companies seek to provide dependable economical passenger transportation
to the consumer. Failure to do so will eventually lead to a cessation of business through a poor
reputation and the related financial difficulties that follows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-
Al, p.2]
If individuals and groups cannot depend on modern, low-emissions, commercial buses for
motorcoaches they will find alternative transportation less environmentally friendly, yet again
defeating the goals EPA sought. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.3]
The Agency outlines EPA's goals regarding inducement as follows:
1. A description of how the emission control systems operate.
2. Diagrams of the engine and emission-related components and expected key operating
parameters.
3. A description of how to use the OBD system to troubleshoot problems and access emission-
related diagnostic information.
4. A wiring diagram to troubleshoot aftertreatment-related components.
5. Provide instructions on where to find emission recall and technical repair information that is
available without charge.
6. QR code on engine label that links to engine information and owner's manual.
7. QR code on engine label that links to engine information and owner's manual with enlarged-
view drawings with part numbers and basic assembly requirements
8. DPF-specific information:
a. Criteria for cleaning the DPF (e.g., pressures and filter weight).
735
-------
b. Access to DPF inlet and outlet pressures with a generic scan tool
c. Access to DPF inlet and outlet pressures with a generic scan tool,
d. Instructions on how to remove DPF for cleaning.
9. Troubleshooting guide to address DEF dosing- and DPF regeneration-related warning signals
10. Codes associated with inducements and DPF engine derates would be displayed in the cab or
with a generic scan tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, pp.3-4]
EPA proposes SCR inducements would only be required based on detecting the following fault
conditions:
1. Low-DEF fill level
2. Blocked DEF lines or dosing valves
3. Poor DEF quality
4. Open circuit faults as an indication of tampering (e.g., disconnection of DEF pump or quality
sensor)
5. Missing catalyst [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.4]
EPA proposes additional SCR Inducement Proposed Provisions
1. A NOx Override to prevent false inducements.
2. A derate schedule in four stages implemented over 60 hours
3. Separate derate schedule for low-speed vehicles (defined as vehicles with 30 hours of non-idle
engine operation at <20 mph)
4. Final inducement speeds of 50 mph, or 35 mph for low-speed vehicles
5. Any OBD signals involved in inducement-related conditions must be readable with generic
scan tools. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.4]
Organization: Virginia Motor coach Association
Our primary concern involves the proposed "derate" or "inducement" schedule, which will result
in a vehicle experiencing a significant loss of power and torque. This change in power has placed
an undue burden on operators since 2008, when it was first implemented. There are numerous
repercussions directly related to derates. Motorcoaches often travel to remote areas across the
country unlike local transit or school buses that commonly transport intrastate and are home
daily. Motorcoaches will drive far distances all times of the day or night making the ability to
service a vehicle in a timely manner very difficult. Motorcoaches could be thousands of miles
from home or even from an equipped service facility that could assist with a breakdown. This
challenge for companies is far greater than what may be realized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2715-A1, p.2],
When the equipment experiences an inducement, there are fewer options than other types of
vehicles fitted with SCR. Since most of the vehicles have manufacturer-specific components,
drivers are at most times limited to finding the right parts to fix a vehicle that is over the road.
Additional costs involved include towing, outside repair service, reimbursing customers for
missed events, refunding customers for long delays, contracting with other companies to move
the passengers, and damaging the overall reputation of the company. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2715-A1, p.3].
736
-------
Aside from the large expenses motorcoach operators must absorb, an even more important point
is the safety risk a derate presents our passengers. It is our opinion that a regulation which
cripples or limits the speed of any vehicle is unacceptable, dangerous, and jeopardizes lives. The
motorcoach industry has the unique and considerable responsibility of safely transporting
the most valuable type of cargo on the road - human lives. Many operators provide a
significant amount of travel for school groups and young athletes, a cargo which is substantially
different and more vital than that of a truckload of consumer goods or raw materials. There is no
room for error when it comes to safety practices and maintaining a proper speed to avoid a fatal
rear-end collision on a highway. This condition increases the likelihood of the extreme danger of
a distracted driver driving into the rear of a derated or stranded motorcoach full of passengers.
[Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-A1, p.3],
Organization: Volvo Group
[Inducement] issues affect today the adoption of newer technology trucks in the marketplace.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
EPA's heavy-duty NOx proposal includes multiple program elements, such as extended useful
life and warranty periods, that are expected to reduce the incentive for operators to bypass, or
delay maintenance on, emission control devices. However, it also proposes to significantly relax
some current anti-tampering inducements in the hopes that making compliance easier will result
in less tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3]
Instead of finalizing the relaxed inducement schedules as proposed, EPA should take steps to
ensure the emission control systems required by this rule are resistant to operator
tampering. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3]
As this rule applies only to vehicles MY 2027 and beyond, EPA should continue to prioritize
enforcement of vehicle tampering in the current heavy-duty fleet. While EPA has taken a number
of steps in recent years to address vehicle tampering including issuing an enforcement alert to the
regulated community and resolving multiple enforcement cases concerning aftermarket defeat
devices, reports continue to indicate that the use of heavy-duty vehicle defeat devices may be
widespread. Additionally, EPA should consider evaluating the impact of a national-level
inspection and maintenance program for heavy-duty vehicles to identify tampered
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response
For the purpose of this section, each subtopic is summarized and responded to separately.
Inducements and Emission System Reliability
737
-------
ABA, Northwest Navigator Coaches, OOIDA, and NASTC commented with concerns that 2010-
era type of reliability problems will accompany new NOx standards which will once again
exacerbate inducement problems in-use. Northwest commented that the systems already fail at
too high of a rate and it is not fair to shut down an engine due to a defective system. UMA
commented that operators continue to struggle with technology lacking the level of dependability
that bus passengers and operators need. Coach USA commented that the bus industry is
experiencing a shortage of drivers, noting the recent pandemic, and they support an approach to
allow drivers to complete their route before addressing a fault condition. Volvo noted that
inducement issues currently affect the adoption of newer technology trucks in the marketplace.
Response:
As described in preamble Section IV, this rule focuses on developing a comprehensive
inducement scheme in regulation to replace the current inducement guidance developed over a
decade ago.
The inducement requirements adopted in this final rule include several features that are intended
to mitigate many of the issues operators identified as experiencing under the existing guidance.
First, EPA is adopting longer useful life requirements that should lead manufacturers to improve
component durability. Second, new serviceability requirements are intended to give operators
and independent mechanics better information to allow for timely diagnosis and repair. Third,
initial derate speeds are set to allow an initial stage of continued operation at or near prevailing
speeds. Fourth, separate derate schedules apply based on each vehicle's average operating speed,
rather than applying a universally effective speed restriction to all vehicles. Fifth, the inducement
applies gradually increasing restrictions over a schedule that is intended to accommodate drivers
returning home or completing other essential activities before the restrictions take full effect.
We are not aware of any way for engine software to discern the difference between faults caused
by operator activity (or inactivity) and faults caused by corrosion, component wear, or any kind
of defect. The final derate schedules reflects consideration of the concern that operators may not
be able to make simple adjustments to resolve issues caused by defective components.
With regard to Volvo's comment, as explained in preamble Section IV, EPA believes the
regulations included in this final rule will address many of the inducement issues identified by
commenters and thus will not discourage the adoption of new technology trucks.
EPA's Inducement Principles
ABA, CARB et al and OOIDA: Generally agree with seven principles EPA proposed.
Response:
EPA is encouraged that a broad group of stakeholders recognize the importance of balancing the
needs and impacts of the many elements of the heavy-duty in-use fleet. EPA continues to want
738
-------
to encourage proper maintenance and functioning of emissions control equipment and discourage
tampering. A minimally restrictive approach, which is not what EPA is finalizing, might result
in increased emissions because of extended operation without maintenance and circumvention of
the limit on the adjustable range (i.e., without use of sufficient high-quality DEF). In contrast, an
overly restrictive approach might impose unnecessary costs and pose a threat to operators'
businesses, as well as leading to potentially increased tampering with engines or reduced fleet
turnover rates that would lead to increased emissions. Commenters have described similar
concerns with the 5 MPH final inducement speed that exists in many manufacturers' current
inducement designs under the existing guidance. EPA developed the inducement principles to
balance these competing concerns.
Concerns with Cost of Inducements
ABA, Coach USA, FitzGerald Brothers Bus Co., NASTC, UMA: ABA, Coach USA, NASTC,
OOIDA, 23 State Trucking Associations commented that inducements raise serious economic
concerns, are too costly for operators, add unnecessary operating costs (e.g., bus operators must
refund tickets for missed travel or events) and can result in loss of customers, business
credibility, and reputation. FitzGerald Buses noted that they lost $10,000 on one job alone, and
lost the customer, and their driver quit because at 2AM their bus experienced a problem with a
NOx sensor 500 miles away from their destination. Coach USA highlighted that there are many
unintended consequences of inducements occurring because their mode of transport takes them
to remote areas, far distances, traveling day and night, finding parts and they have difficulty
finding repair facilities that can work on buses when they are thousands of miles from home
base. Coach USA added that in addition to towing costs and outside repair costs, they must
reimburse customers for missed events, refund customers for long delays, and hire other
companies to move stranded passengers. UMA noted that rendering buses inoperative after a few
hours has created consequences like athletic teams having to forfeit games, school field trips
being disrupted, and missed family events. UMA commented that failure to provide reliable,
dependable, and economical transportation leads to eventual loss of business, poor reputation and
financial difficulties. Further, UMA noted that one of the unintended consequence of
inducements on the motorcoach industry is to discourage passengers from utilizing this type of
travel, which can erode the environmental benefits if passengers instead choose a less efficient
mode of transportation. NASTC commented that the costs of repairing away from home base due
to the emergency created by the current inducement schedule escalate due to a lack of
relationship between repair facility and owner, potential difficulty in getting parts, and the need
for extended driver lodging during the duration of the delay - all while the truck is unable to earn
money while stranded. NASTC added that contracts and customers are also at risk during these
events which makes for a much costlier experience than the current inducement strategy
considers. NASTC noted that these cost impacts can be debilitating and cause layoffs. CARB's
survey noted it often took more than one visit to properly diagnose and make repairs related to
inducements and that 33% of vehicles needed work done more than one time a year due to
derates and 29% of those had to return to the shop to have the repair properly diagnosed and
repaired. State trucking organizations pointed out that the overriding assumption should be that
fleets always check all fluids and avoid derates at all costs, and that to do otherwise makes no
business sense.
739
-------
Response:
EPA received numerous comments on the cost of experiencing inducements as included in
today's engine software. This includes, for example, the cost of towing and renting replacement
trucks. EPA is aware that the inducement requirements in this final rule will substantially reduce
costs borne by operators, but EPA has not attempted to estimate these reduced costs to the fleet.
EPA notes that such costs are not costs of compliance for the manufacturer.
Several commenters described their difficult experiences with existing inducements. EPA
continues to believe that designing SCR-equipped engines with power derating is an effective
and reasonable measure to ensure that operators perform critical emission-related scheduled
maintenance on the SCR system. Inducements also demonstrate that engine manufacturers can
reasonably expect operators to regularly supply engines with quality DEF, consistent with
requirements for adjustable parameters. We have taken stakeholder feedback and concerns into
account and are finalizing inducement requirements whose objective is to ensure that emission
controls function in-use while reducing potential adverse impacts to operators through
consideration of seven key principles.
One of EPA's principles in developing the inducement is to ensure that scheduled maintenance
has a reasonable likelihood of being performed and allow manufacturers to demonstrate that they
meet adjustable parameter requirements at the time of certification, while addressing operator
frustration with false inducements and severe inducement speed restrictions that may potentially
lead to in-use tampering of the SCR system. We are concerned that engine designs under the
existing SCR guidance may have resulted in high levels of false inducement and overly
restrictive speed limitations. The resulting frustration may have increased in-use tampering. We
have received several comments following the ANPR and NPRM that real-world inducements
are not limited to taking effect in a manner that would "not create undue safety concerns," such as
only after a key-off event or at idle. We are also aware that manufacturers do not take consistent
approaches to implementing inducements. The final rule addresses both issues by requiring
manufacturers to take a consistent approach to gradually reduce vehicle speeds. Further, existing
inducements are based on a 'one size fits all' approach - whereas the final inducement
requirements set a more appropriate inducement schedule that correlates with the extent of high-
speed or low-speed driving for each vehicle. The final inducement program we are adopting
allows for more time and higher speeds between inducement steps to allow operators to return
home and to diagnose and repair systems. These changes will reduce the need for operators to
choose between making repairs at the side of the road and towing vehicles to the nearest
available repair facility. These changes will also increase the likelihood that operators will
respond appropriately to the inducement to arrange for properly maintaining their engines.
Concerns with Safety and Inducements
ABA, ATA, NASTC, OOIDA, 23 State trucking Organizations, UMA, Stephen Jackson, Volvo,
David Pedersen: Inducements raise serious safety concerns. Coach USA noted that for
transporting people or school groups, maintaining proper speed is of the utmost importance to
avoid fatal rear-end collisions. Many state trucking organizations noted that current inducements
740
-------
pose on-going concerns with driver safety and present potential hazards for all vehicles on
roadways due to stark speed differentials. The Motor Transport Association of Connecticut
highlighted this concern noting that a situation in which a truck was traveling on the highway at
a derated speed of 5 miles per hour and caused of the death of a state trooper who had a high-
speed rear-end collision with the truck. NW Navigator Coaches noted that too often inducements
strand them in remote areas with no access to cell service, and when they are stranded passengers
need access to food and water as well as environmental controls. NW Navigator also noted that
their main types of passengers are elderly and the young - both of which are susceptible to
environmental extremes (e.g., very cold or hot weather) and they have experienced being
stranded in extreme heat with elderly passengers and no cell service or nearby help due to a
failed NOx sensor.
CARB's survey showed that 42% of owners had safety concerns with inducements and 18% had
experienced a safety concern due to a derate such as sudden power loss when operating at
highway speeds, power loss when coming down a steep grade, power loss when attempting to
travel uphill, or power loss during heavy traffic. CARB notes that based on existing guidance,
SCR-related inducements should not happen suddenly and without warning. Carreras Tours,
however, commented that while on Interstate 5 in California with a bus full of students, the bus
derated immediately to 5mph after a check engine light came on raising safety concerns that they
would be rear-ended. Carreras added that it took several hours to get a rescue bus to pick up the
stranded group and noted their frustration that they are not provided adequate time to get to a
safe place where the bus and passengers would be safe.
Motorcoach Companies stated that they have no room for error in their safety practices and that
maintaining proper speed is of utmost importance to avoid a fatal rear-end collision on the
interstate. NASTC commented that the proposed schedule provides a safer atmosphere for
professional drivers to deal with the situation in which inducement occurs in an appropriate, safe
manner, while the driving public is protected from an inducement-caused road hazard while also
reducing incidents of road rage by passing drivers. David Pedersen described the proposed rule
as a flawed approach because de-rating vehicle speed creates a hazard for the operator and others
nearby. Stephen Jackson noted that inducements can create safety concerns especially in
operations that carry unique loads, such as over-width loads that require special permits and
generally must keep routes and schedules preapproved by state police.
EMA and Cummins recommended that EPA consult with NHTSA on aspects of the proposed
rule related to safety.
Response:
EPA designed the proposed and final derate schedules with the clear expectation that derating at
higher initial vehicle speeds would likely address many of the experiences that commenters have
described with current vehicles. The initial derate speeds are intended to be slightly lower than
the vehicles' typical peak speeds to prevent abrupt speed changes that could pose a traffic risk.
As described in Section 8.3, we are revising the final rule from proposal to further protect against
abrupt speed changes by specifying that engines need to gradually impose derates at a rate of 1
mph for every five minutes. In addition, the final rule allows manufacturers to design engines
741
-------
with a revised derate schedule that is intended to address the issues that apply uniquely to
motorcoaches, as described in Section 8.3.
The process for preparing the proposed and final rule includes interagency review within the
federal government. At the same time, we are not aware of any specific issues in the rulemaking
that would relate to NHTSA's role for addressing safety for heavy-duty highway vehicles.
Concerns Proposal was Rushed
ABA, Coach USA: Commenters expressed a concern that the inducement proposal might not
work as intended and existing problems won't be solved because the proposal was too rushed
and they did not have significant time to respond.
Response:
EPA received extensive, detailed comments from these and other stakeholders to describe a full
range of concerns, along with suggested alternative approaches. EPA considered these concerns
and fully responded to them in the final rule, as detailed in this section of this document and
preamble Section IV. See also our response in section 17 of this document regarding sufficiency
of the comment period for the rule.
General Support or Opposition to the Proposal
ABA, ATA, Cummins, EMA, NACD, NASTC, OOIDA, State Trucking Organizations, and
Volvo broadly support the proposal, though as noted below some of these commenters also
suggested some modifications. NASTC commented that this more reasonable and evidence-
based modernization of inducement provisions would mitigate extremely costly, dangerous,
counterproductive problems the current rules create and provide more predictability for drivers.
NASTC stated that the proposals rightly reform current policies in light of 12 years' worth of
real-world data and real-life circumstances that regularly bedevil truckers.
CARB, CATF, NACAA: Does not support proposal, believes significant changes are needed to
prevent erosion of emission benefits and provide proper incentive for operators to maintain DEF.
ALA and CARB commented that EPA should work on a national approach to inducements.
ICCT agrees that an update of the current inducement policies is appropriate. ICCT supports
several aspects of the proposal including: more time to remedy an indicated fault than is allowed
today, separate derate speeds for low-speed vehicles and aNOx override.
ICCT commented that they agree that EPA should replace nebulous guidance documents for
inducement provisions with clear regulatory requirements and stated that current guidance
successfully encourages timely emission-related repairs, but updated provisions should consider
reducing downtime to address operator concerns. ICCT supports several new approaches for
inducements in the proposed rule but believes the specific proposed changes will reduce the
incentive for many truck operators to achieve emission-related repairs, and result in
742
-------
unnecessarily increased in-use emissions, rather than the net benefit that EPA claims. ICCT
comments endorsed EPA's proposed provisions to identify disconnection of emission control
devices as an inducement fault condition, which would help to prevent tampering.
Response
As further explained in preamble Section IV, after consideration of comments, the final
inducement requirements include some modifications from the proposal. As further explained in
preamble Section IV and in this section, the final provisions ensure that scheduled maintenance
has a reasonable likelihood of being performed and allow manufacturers to demonstrate that they
meet adjustable parameter requirements at the time of certification, while minimizing operator
frustration with false inducements and severe inducement speed restrictions that may potentially
lead to in-use tampering of the SCR system and likely resulting in fewer costs for operators from
inducements. . The most common form of tampering is removal of the emission control systems
(e.g., "delete kits") which dramatically increases the emissions from in-use vehicles. Tampering
with even a small number of vehicles can substantially increase fleet-wide emissions. While
exact tampering rates are not known, tampering does indeed impact emissions in real life.
Operators tamper for reasons such as improving fuel economy, avoiding the cost to maintain
emission control systems, or avoiding operating restrictions such as inducements. Tampering is
not always easy to detect. In determining the final inducement provisions, EPA considered that
if inducements are set too stringent (in terms of time, speed, and number of deterred fault
conditions), the resulting derate conditions could lead to more tampering, such as to avoid the
financial consequences of downtime.
The final rule additionally includes several provisions designed to make appropriate maintenance
easier and potentially less costly, which is critical for maintenance to occur in-use long-term
(see, e.g., 40 CFR 1036.125(h)). The final rule also includes provisions intended to further
protect against tampering (see, e.g., Section XI of the preamble for more information on the final
adjustable parameter requirements).
We appreciate ICCT's affirmation of the initiative to adopt updated inducement provisions in the
regulation. We note that our concern with the current guidance is not that it is unclear; rather, as
described in the preamble, applying the principles to achieve an effective program while also
considering the potential impacts of an overly burdensome program leads us to a different set of
conclusions. While the current guidance is intended to ensure that operators will never choose to
run out of DEF and will make timely emission-related repairs, our assessment is that the 5 mph
final derate included in most current inducement designs is much more severe than it needs to be
to accomplish that purpose. Experience has also shown that defective components lead to many
inducements. Thus, one of the unintended consequences of current derates is that they can
increase the motivation for tampering as operators bear the burden of repeated component
malfunctions leading to inducement. Based on our assessment of the various considerations at
issue, we have determined that a 5 mph final derate is overly restrictive for an effective national
inducement strategy and includes additional burden on operators and could potentially lead to
increased tampering with engines or reduced fleet turnover rates, which may result in increased
emissions.
743
-------
We developed the proposed and final inducement provisions by asking an additional question—
What is the least restrictive means that will still ensure that operators fill DEF tanks and make
timely repairs? Consideration of several detailed comments have led us to make several
adjustments to the proposed derate schedules, as further discussed in preamble Section IV.
Inducements and Warranty
CARB, DOEE, ICCT, Maine DEP, NACAA, Wisconsin DNR suggested EPA's lengthened
warranty periods should incentivize manufacturers to improve their processes and reduce
defective parts. CARB suggested the lengthened useful life periods would also incentivize
manufacturers to improve the durability of their component designs. Further, CARB stated that
EPA should adopt a program similar to CARB's EWIR program which could help identify false
inducements that occur under warranty. DOEE and NACAA stated that EPA should put in place
measures that "will hold manufacturers accountable for addressing the durability and sensor
issues about which the agency, dealerships, and manufacturers have received complaints." The
States of California et al. commented that although they understand the frustration with false
inducements, these concerns should be solved by manufacturers and do not justify relaxing the
inducement schedule.
Response:
EPA agrees that longer useful life and warranty provisions are expected to lead to improved
durability and decreased repair costs of emission-related components. CARB's EWIR program
may also have some benefits in improving component durability. EPA did not propose to adopt a
program similar to EWIR and is not including such a program in the final rule. We note,
however, that these provisions would not fully prevent components from failing in the field (e.g.,
warranty provisions do not address the period after the warranty period ends). As a result, both
the improved durability provisions and the final inducement provisions are part of the solution to
addressing the false inducements issues raised by commenters. See preamble Section IV for
additional discussion of how the final rule includes derate schedules that are consistent with the
principles expressed in the proposed rule and includes consideration of comments.
Inducement Triggers
ABA, ATA, Coach USA, NASTC, and OOIDA noted that inducements occur too frequently for
reasons outside of the operator's control. ABA commented that existing inducement triggers are
problematic and occur for many reasons unrelated to using high-quality DEF and tampering.
Examples of such failures include: software glitches, loose wiring, faulty sensors, and cold
temperatures. ATA commented that after nearly a decade of experience, derates are still
occurring at unexpected rates for reasons unrelated to using high-quality DEF and tampering.
Examples of such failures include: sensor, parts, and wiring harness failures, bad pin connectors
or faulty modules. CARB commented that they did studies in 2011-2013 showing that
inducement warnings were sufficient and that based on these reports and existing guidance it is
clear that inducements should not happen suddenly and without warning; however, OOIDA
744
-------
noted that members have experienced emission technology failures that caused trucks to quickly
derate, placing trucks and motorists in unsafe conditions.
ABA said there is a lack of consistency among manufacturer's inducement strategies. ATA said
that they agree with EPA that a standard list of fault conditions to trigger a tampering
inducement would aid owners, operators, and fleets in repairing vehicles by reducing the cost
and time required for diagnosis. CARB commented that EPA should remove the word "open"
before "open circuit" faults to apply inducements for tampering-related inducements and that
EPA should expand the list of tampering triggers to any component that OEMs determine should
be added. ICCT also recommended that EPA include additional monitoring for disconnected
devices to prevent tampering. Finally, CARB added that freeze protection guidance should be
codified and freeze protection components should be added to the list of tampering trigger
components. ATD noted that improperly functioning inducements can lead to tampering. EMA
commented that it is critically important that sufficient notification be allowed before applying
an inducement.
CARB commented that DEF fill level, quality, and tampering must all continue to be monitored
for potential inducement. CARB agreed with EPA's proposal that low-DEF level trigger should
start 3 hours before DEF is depleted. Coach USA stated that inducements should not begin until
DEF is depleted - that they monitor and maintain buses including topping off DEF prior to each
trip and usable volume of the tank should not be subject to inducement. ABA believes bus
operators would never risk running out of DEF. Champion Auto Carriers stated that DEF issues
have resulted in significant truck downtime and extra expense for their business. CSM
commented that trucks running on DEF are unreliable and costly. OOIDA commented that DEF
issues are costly and cause significant downtime.
CARB commented specifically that EPA should not remove the DEF quality as a fault condition
for inducements because of the financial motivation to dilute DEF with water or to refill the DEF
tank with something other than DEF. CARB highlighted the financial motivation by pointing
out that DEF costs more than three times as much as distilled water and the financial motivation
for DEF substitution will increase with new standards that require greater quantities of DEF.
Some commenters noted that the lack of adequate DEF can cause NOx emissions to increase to
levels comparable to having no NOx controls at all, which is likely to be especially harmful in
urban areas where HDV operations are concentrated, and where vehicles are consistently
operating at speeds well below EPA's proposed derates.
EMA recommended that EPA clarify how to treat the failure of an SCR catalyst in a dual-SCR
configuration, ideally with specific language to describe how the regulation applies for one or
two failing catalysts.
Response:
EPA received comments from many operators who reported experiencing false inducements
from faulty hardware that were not a result of tampering. For example, one manufacturer noted
that it is difficult to effectively differentiate a blocked DEF line or doser due to direct tampering
745
-------
from a maintenance issue. In considering the comments, EPA reviewed current engine designs
regarding fault conditions triggering a tampering inducement. We are concerned that these
existing designs may be applying inducements to circumstances outside the intended scope of
inducements for SCR systems, and believe that it may be difficult for manufacturers to design
inducement strategies to be able to distinguish between tampering and faulty hardware. EPA
reviewed various manufacturer's inducement strategies in their certification documents and
compared those to our existing guidance. Some manufacturers have certified engines with nearly
200 different fault conditions causing a derate condition, including nearly 50 fault conditions for
an SCR-related inducement. Many of those fault conditions are for engine protection; we are not
adopting any regulatory provisions that would affect how manufacturers include engine
protection in their AECD designs. As detailed in preamble Section IV, we are adopting a specific
list of SCR system fault conditions to trigger inducement for meeting critical emission-related
maintenance and adjustable parameter requirements. These final provisions focus on specific
emission control components and conditions that owners can control, such as disconnecting a
DEF pump or other SCR-related emission control hardware. The finalized list includes the
tamper-resistance inducement triggers included in CISD-09-04R as well as additional
components. Regarding the example of blocked DEF lines, as further explained in preamble
Section IV, after further consideration EPA has decided not to finalize this as one of the
requirements required to trigger inducements.
EPA agrees with ATD that improperly functioning inducements can lead to tampering and
believes that standardizing a regulatory list of tampering inducement triggers will aid owners,
operators, and fleets in repairing vehicles by reducing the cost and time required for diagnosis.
EPA does not agree with CARB that this tampering list should include other fault conditions.
CARB's reports from 2011-2013 were largely focused on use of DEF in the field, DEF
availability, and the effectiveness of the inducement strategies used by manufacturers based on
CARB and EPA guidance. For example, in one test program, CARB found that 50 mph with
some torque derate was adequate to render a vehicle unacceptable for typical driving (see, e.g.,
76 FR 32886, 32889-32890 June 7, 2011). The recent survey data CARB submitted with their
comments did not include supporting information to justify treating the additional fault
conditions as tampering, or to clarify how manufacturers could reasonably differentiate between
tampering and manufacturing defects for these additional fault conditions. EPA has identified
the critical components in the list that should be monitored for disconnection. Defining a list of
required triggering fault conditions will support a standardized approach for manufacturers to
provide servicing information to operators.
EPA agrees with CARB that tampering with freeze protection components should trigger a
tampering inducement. EPA proposed to include the DEF tank heater on the list of tampering
items in §1036.Ill; after additional consideration, the final rule includes an update to the
proposed list to also include the DEF tank temperature sensor in the final list of elements to be
monitored for tampering.
EPA agrees with CARB that the low-DEF level trigger should start 3 hours prior to the DEF tank
being depleted. As reflected in the final inducement schedules, EPA believes it is important to
start the inducement for low-DEF level at this point in order to provide operators with advance
notice that the DEF tank is approaching empty with enough time for them to find a place to refill
746
-------
the tank. As explained further in preamble Section IV, the inducement program adopted in this
final rule initiates the inducement with an initial vehicle speed derate that is meaningful—not
high enough for the vehicle to continue being used for its commercial purpose, but high enough
to not completely disable it such that it would require a tow. We are including DEF quality as a
fault condition in the final rule.
With respect to commenters noting emission levels in urban areas where vehicle speeds are
slower, as further explained in preamble Section IV, the final inducement provisions include
some changes from those proposed regarding derate schedules and final derate speeds. We
believe that the final provisions will address many of the concerns raised by commenters. To the
extent that the comments presume vehicle operators will not perform maintenance to remedy a
detected fault condition until vehicles reach the final derate speed, the commenter did not
provide data to support this assertion and EPA disagrees that operators uniformly do not remedy
fault conditions until the final derate speed is reached. The proposed rule describes principles
and analysis of in-use operating characteristics to support our expectation that operators will
typically respond to the proposed derate schedule by performing needed maintenance once they
are able to return home, if not sooner. Commenters on the proposed rule representing operators
consistently affirmed this expectation. The expectation for performing timely maintenance
applies especially for maintenance as simple as adding DEF to an empty DEF tank.
Regarding the commenter stated that vehicles consistently operate well below EPA's proposed
derated speeds, we note that while it may be true, EPA disagrees that the existence of some
operation below a given speed is a proper measure to evaluate the effectiveness of inducements.
For example, refuse haulers, street sweepers, and utility trucks might operate for extended
periods at very low speeds, but they need to get to and from the areas of low-speed operation,
often on roads where prevailing speeds are well above the derated speed. If those low-speed
vehicles can't accomplish those high-speed trip segments, they will be substantially restricted by
the speed derate. The commenters offered no information to suggest why operators would be so
motivated to continue operating with a fault condition that they would prefer to continue
operating at restricted speeds rather than performing needed maintenance. All the information
available to us show that all low-speed, medium-speed, and high-speed vehicles would be
substantially impaired by the final speed derates. All the information available to us shows that
all low-speed, medium-speed, and high-speed vehicles would be substantially impaired by the
final speed derates.
With respect to EMA's request for clarification, we have revised from proposal the final
regulation to state that any failing catalyst would be a fault condition to trigger inducement. If a
second catalyst fails, that would be a separate fault to process.
Parts Shortages
Coach USA commented that parts may not be readily available, as seen during the pandemic,
which further supports allowing more time to address fault conditions. A commenter from the
State Trucker Associations (1) recommended that EPA deal with the parts shortage by requiring
747
-------
that all inducement-related sensors be produced in the United States and be available in adequate
quantities.
Response:
We expect that the final derate schedules should address Coach USA's concern while also
ensuring use of high-quality DEF in SCR systems.
Mandating where inducement-related sensors need to be produced or in what quantities is not
within the scope of this rulemaking.
Inspection and Maintenance
Wisconsin DNR suggested that EPA continue to prioritize enforcement of vehicle tampering in
the current heavy-duty fleet since reports continue to indicate that the use of heavy-duty vehicle
defeat devices may be widespread. Wisconsin DNR also suggested that EPA consider evaluating
the impact of a national inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for heavy-duty vehicles to
identify tampered vehicles.
Response:
EPA indeed intends to prioritize enforcement of vehicle tampering for heavy-duty vehicles.
The Clean Air Act mandates that the states operate light-duty vehicle I/M programs in certain
areas based on criteria such as air quality attainment status, population, and geographic location.
The purpose of these I/M programs is to periodically (either annually or biennially) inspect light-
duty vehicles to identify and repair high-emitting vehicles to improve air quality in these
identified areas. The Clean Air Act does not require a national I/M program that addresses
heavy-duty vehicles, but some states and areas have developed strategies to reduce emissions
from heavy-duty vehicles. As explained further in preamble section IV, the inducement
program finalized in this rulemaking is designed to immediately detect mal-maintained or
tampered SCR systems on heavy-duty vehicles sold and operated nationally and should result in
timely action that will better achieve expected emission reductions, and we anticipate that the
final provisions should decrease incentives to tamper that may be present under existing
inducement strategies.
Light-Duty Inducements
EMA advocated for better harmonization between EPA's and CARB's SCR inducement
requirements for medium-duty and light-duty vehicles to avoid user confusion, especially for
similar vehicles. EMA also stated that lack of harmonization increases the burden on
manufacturers, as they will have to integrate multiple inducement strategies when it is much
more cost-effective to keep a common control strategy across products.
Response:
748
-------
EPA is adopting inducement requirements in this rule for engines certified under 40 CFR part
1036. We expect these new requirements will give us important insights and may be helpful in
considering whether, when, and how to codify updated inducement requirements for light-duty
and medium-duty vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. Inducement provisions for
those vehicles are outside the scope of this rule.
8.2 Onboard Diagnostics and Overriding Inducements based on
measured NOx conversion
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
ii. Faulty Inducements - Similar to establishing consistent inducement policy among
manufacturers, ABA believes stopping inducements from occurring when a fault code is flagged
by the system, but the SCR system is still controlling NOx emissions, is a good idea. However,
motorcoach operators often experience reliability issues with NOx sensors, which would
diminish the value of this proposal. Also, if an engine manufacturer does not have control over
third party suppliers for SCR components, such as NOx sensors, ABA questions if this issue
can/will be addressed. As well, ABA needs additional time to review the NOx override feature
with motorcoach industry members. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 10]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on whether improvements could be made to OBD to monitor
inducement for false inducements conditions, and whether OBD systems should monitor the
inducement process and detect system malfunctions prior to a failure (e.g., for deterioration of
the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) delivery system). CARB staff believes the OBD system
requirements are not the place to address these issues to the extent they exist. Rather, instead of
relying on the OBD system, manufacturers should be implementing robust inducement systems
that avoid false inducements and provide adequate warning prior to final inducement. CARB
staff believes that the longer warranty periods proposed by U.S. EPA will encourage
manufacturers to develop more robust inducement systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.70]
CARB staff is also concerned that the NPRM proposed inducement could be avoided completely
by tampering with the NOx sensor signal. This single point of contact tampering could allow all
the SCR system components to be removed, disabled, and ignored. Operators could avoid the
need to refill the DEF tank and obtain a meaningful cost savings. U.S. EPA is certainly aware of
the prevalence of tampering with motor vehicle emission control devices and the excess
emissions associated with such tampering. 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 100]
CARB staff believes that the proposal would only increase the likelihood that tampering of SCR
systems would increase with U.S. EPA proposal compared to under today's inducement
requirements. Truck owners and operators would be tempted to tamper to avoid SCR repair costs
749
-------
and downtime, as well as to eliminate the cost of purchasing DEF when refueling the vehicle.
Savings from avoided repairs, downtime and DEF could be substantial, and so the economics
and the reduced complexity needed to tamper with the SCR inducement would drive more
tampering. Under the current SCR inducement protocol, tampering would be more difficult
because it would require a multifaceted approach and any one inducement condition that gets
triggered would introduce severe inducement.
A trade press publication within the last year ran six articles advocating precisely this means of
tampering with the SCR system sensor signals using widely available off the shelf components to
defeat sensors including pictures, linking how-tos, and describing active strategies to defeat
engine control unit detection of the signal tampering. 164 The ease with which heavy duty pickup
owners have obtained engine control software modifications and other electronic tampering
devices as outlined in U.S. EPA's own summary of enforcement actions illustrates just how little
effort is required for a bad actor to perform such tampering on their vehicle. 165 These types of
tampering strategies are well known 166 and commercialized with a market even described as
'flourishing'. 167 In a report by the Danish government, the police inspected nine heavy duty
vehicles in a pilot remote sensing program and found two HD vehicles that used tampering
devices and three HD vehicles with malfunctioning SCR catalysts (e.g., lack of DEF or a
defective sensor.)168 We urge U.S. EPA to carefully consider the programmatic and emissions
control hazards from such widely available tampering means and intentionally construct
inducement strategies that do not reward such illegal actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, pp.100-101]
164 https://www.rvtravel.com/def-head-problem-ruin-trip/;
https ://www. rvtravel. com/def-head-stranded-developments-workaround/;
https://www.rvtravel.com/bad-def-sensors-facts-human-toll/;
https://www.rvtravel.com/good-news-def-head-alternatives-coming/;
https://www.rvtravel.com/epa-speaks-failed-def-heads-promises-reliefbut/;
https://www.rvtravel.com/cummins-def-sensor-software-patch-rvt-1019b/
165 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
01/documents/epaaedletterreportontampereddieselpickups.pdf
166 https://www.project-ucare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Dl.3-Tampering-.pdf
167 https://www.vert-dpf.eu/j3/images/pdf/VERT_FORUM_2017/Hensel—Emission-
Control-Manipulation—VERT-forum-2017.pdf
168 https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/06/978-87-93710-42-9.pdf
14 In light of this information, U.S. EPA's failure to consider the aforementioned factors that
will likely incentivize tampering of the SCR systems, including the likelihood that the proposal
to implement a NOx sensor override may incentivize greater rates of tampering and consequently
result in increased emissions, constitutes a failure to consider an important aspect of this
rulemaking. State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. See also Genuine Parts Co. v. EPA, 890 F.3d 304, 312
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (arbitrary and capricious for an agency to ignore evidence contradicting its
750
-------
position). Indeed, the arbitrary and capricious nature of U.S. EPA's proposal is especially
apparent given that the proposed NOx override provision would only increase the risk of
tampering, the very harm U.S. EPA is seeking to address in the proposal, thereby failing to
demonstrate a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made' State Farm,
463 U.S. at 42. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 101]
The NPRM proposes to allow the NOx override described in 40 CFR 1036.111(c) to override
fault conditions that would initiate SCR inducement, because the SCR system is still controlling
NOx emissions and the override may be helpful to reduce false inducements. CARB staff agrees
that allowing leniency for fault conditions where NOx emissions are controlled is appropriate
and would address many of the ANPRM commenter concerns. However, CARB staff believes
that the use of the NOx override should only be used in a limited circumstance to determine
which of the 2 derate schedules should be used, as discussed in the previous section and shown
in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.104]
The NPRM states that ANPRM commentors 'reported that some of these cases were traceable to
incidents where the system detected a problem that did not exist and did not create emission
concerns, for example a vehicle with a full DEF tank experienced an inducement due to a faulty
DEF level sensor which reported an empty tank.' In this example, while the fix of the faulty
sensor under some circumstances may not need to occur immediately to maintain immediate
emissions control, but as the DEF is used up in the tank the faulty sensor would not be able to
inform the operator when the DEF tank is getting low or empty. While this type of fault does not
impact emissions immediately, fixing the faulty sensor in a timely manner is important before it
could impact emissions. The operator, in good faith, may continue filling the DEF tank despite
the faulty sensor; however, a functional diagnostic system is critical to ensure that DEF is
properly filled. The proposed NOx override would not result in operators fixing faulty
components if SCR NOx conversion efficiency is within 10 percent of lifetime. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.99]
Since the NOx override criterion plays an important role in determining derate schedules in
CARB staffs proposal, the margin of error threshold to determine NOx efficiency is critical to
ensure that NOx emissions are controlled and thus the vehicle not subject to a severe derate
schedule. CARB staff agrees with the NPRM margin of error of 10 percent of NOx efficiency as
a reasonable threshold to detect NOx emissions at the low NOx engine levels. Any margin of
error greater than 10 percent is not acceptable for the allowance to use CARB staffs more
lenient derate schedule. As NOx sensor technology improves, the margin of error threshold
should be adjusted to a lower level in a future rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.104]
The NPRM requests comment on whether OBD Active 100 Hour Array and the specified OBD
REAL Bins 13 and 14 are appropriate for determining the NOx override. CARB staff
recommends that OBD Active 100 Hour Array not be reset at the detection of a fault condition,
but rather a new temporary active array for Bins 13 and 14 be created and used for the remaining
time until the Active 100 Hour Array is completed, stored in the Stored 100 Hour Array, and
reset. Currently, OBD regulation restricts the Active 100 Hour Array from being reset until 100
hours of active data is completed and stored, and this Array is used to determine the functionality
751
-------
and performance of many other parameters besides SCR inducement. Such disruption of the
Active 100 Hour Array is not necessary if a temporary array is established. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 104]
In addition to the NOx override feature, CARB staff also recommends including OBD SCR
conversion capability monitoring in 13 CCR section 1971.1 (e)(6)(D.2.1)(D)(i) to
determine which derate schedule of CARB staffs proposal that the vehicle would be induced.
This regulatory subsection specifies that OBD system will detect a catalyst malfunction when the
catalyst conversion capability decreases to the point that would cause an engine's emissions to
exceed the applicable NOx standard by more than 0.2 g/bhp-hr. If OBD detects this SCR catalyst
malfunction, regardless of the value of NOx override the more severe derate schedule would be
triggered. The inclusion of this OBD SCR criterion would provide additional protection that the
SCR continues to effectively reduce NOx emissions, resolve any concerns about the
appropriateness of using OBD REAL Bins 13 and 14, and prevent attempts to tamper with the
NOx sensors to override inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.104-105]
CARB staff also recommends removing the NOx sensor as a fault condition in the proposed 40
CFR 1036.111(b) since the NOx override factor, based on the NOx sensors, can be used to
override the NOx sensor fault condition. Rather, staff suggests adding detected NOx sensor
functional problems as a separate subsection, not subject to the NOx override condition, and
requiring NOx sensor problem to be subjected to the derate schedule in Table 9-1, which is a less
severe derate schedule, to induce its repair. If a fault condition is also detected with the failed
NOx sensor, then a more severe derate schedule as shown in Table 9-2 would be necessary to
induce an immediate repair of the fault conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.103-104]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
While supportive of EPA's efforts to improve the accuracy of triggering SCR inducements and
reduce instances of false inducements, Cummins has concerns with the use of OBD REAL for
this purpose. OBD REAL was originally developed with a different purpose in mind than EPA's
proposal to calculate NOx conversion efficiency for use in activating and deactivating
inducement. Data collected and OBD REAL binned by WVU, as part of the collaborative work
between EMA, EPA, and CARB investigating B-MAW techniques, concluded that the OBD
REAL bins typically contain averages that have large Coefficients of Variance (COV). The large
COV values indicate that within-bin OBD REAL data is uncorrelated with respect to NOx
conversion efficiency, and that suggests that it would not be appropriate to apply NOx thresholds
to OBD REAL binned data for any purpose. Without considerations for NOx sensor data
collection (e.g., collecting data when SCR dosing is active, avoiding extreme ambient conditions
or AECD events, raw vs. filtered data, etc.), the NOx override factor may lead to situations that
drive false positive or false negative inducements. Cummins requests that EPA work with
CARB, industry, and SAE to revise, harmonize and standardize OBD REAL with its use in
EPA's proposed inducement re-design in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 14 -
15]
OBD REAL
752
-------
In response to this request for comment (and the regulatory language not explicitly specifying the
bins associated with low- or high-speed vehicle), Cummins proposes that EPA considers
specifying a range of Bins for both low-speed and high-speed vehicles (for example, Bins 7, 8, 9,
11, 12, 13 could be used for low-speed vehicles, and Bins 10 and 14 for high-speed vehicles), in
order to give both operating conditions a chance to properly fill the bins over 100 hrs. This
proposal needs to also go along with a significant increase in the override factor threshold of
10% in order to prove more robust. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 31]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
In an effort to mitigate the possibility of false failure indications, the EPA has overcorrected by
allowing an inducement override if NOx sensor data indicate SCR efficiency is reduced by less
than 10 percent. Not all vehicles with SCR efficiency degraded by less than 10 percent are false
failures. Many may have faults that are causing excess emissions that would be corrected due to
the proper inducement. Because the SCR efficiency required to meet the proposed NOx
standards approaches 99 percent, an in-use truck with SCR efficiency degraded to 90 percent
will emit NOx emissions in excess of the current 0.2 gram/hp-hr. standard, an order of magnitude
emission increase. With EPA's proposal, many trucks with this high level of excess NOx
emissions will have no inducement applied, and there will be no incentive for the operator to
seek repair. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
ICCT suggests the availability of NOx sensor emission data be used in a different way that
provides more balance between achieving emission reductions while reducing inconvenience for
operators once an inducement is initiated. Instead of using the NOx sensor-based SCR efficiency
loss factor to override inducements, it could be used to determine which of two derate schedules
should be required - a more gradual one where emission increases due to a fault are smaller, or a
more aggressive one where emission increases are expected to be higher.
We recommend that the EPA proposal to completely override inducements be abandoned.
Instead, an indication of SCR efficiency loss of 10 percent or less would be a prerequisite for the
more gradual EPA proposed speed derate schedule, but with a lower speed fourth step. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
• If indicated SCR efficiency loss is 10% or less, we recommend using the EPA proposed derate
schedule with the fourth step speed derate lowered;
• If indicated SCR efficiency loss is more than 10%, we recommend using an accelerated derate
schedule with the fourth step occurring at 12 hours, and addition of a final derate to 5 mph at the
first stop or refueling after 16 hours of operation from fault detection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
EPA's concept of using the NOx sensors to distinguish between SCR-related failures that are
causing very high emissions from those with less impact on emissions or false failures, has some
merit. However, EPA's specific proposal to allow no inducements under certain conditions when
SCR efficiency has dropped by 10 percent or less will result in many emission-related failures
never repaired. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
753
-------
The implication of this inducement override is that an indicated loss of less than 10 percent SCR
efficiency is not important enough to require repairs simply because it might be caused by a NOx
sensor inaccuracy. This logic is faulty for two reasons. First, not every NOx sensor reads low.
For those sensors that are not reading low due to inaccuracy, an indicated loss of SCR efficiency
of less than 10 percent is likely a valid indication of excess NOx emissions that deserves
attention. Second, a true 10 percent loss of SCR efficiency would result in NOx emissions higher
than the current 0.20 gram NOx standard, completely negating the emission reduction benefit of
any of the proposed new NOx standards for that truck. For these reasons, we recommend against
implementing the use of NOx sensor readings to override all disincentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 21] We recommend EPA use the NOx sensor-based calculation of SCR
efficiency loss to determine the appropriate derate schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 21]
For these reasons, we are recommending EPA reconsider and modify its inducement strategy, as
indicated below, to assure more vehicles with high emissions are incentivized to seek repair,
while reducing unintended inconvenience to truck and bus operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
A derate override feature, triggered when a faulty DEF sensor starts the inducement cycle while
an emission level sensor shows the system continuing to reduce NOx emissions.
We endorse the proposed override feature that would operate when a faulty DEF sensor
otherwise would prompt inducements, despite sufficient levels of and adequate quality DEF
being present and the system continues to reduce emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-
Al, p. 3]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.111(c): EMA does not support the proposed "within 10 percent" NOx
override factor of paragraph (c) and the use of only Bins 13 and 14 to calculate the override
factor. EMA recommends that a better approach is for the NOx override factor to start from +/-
15% which is the standard test-out requirement, and then include the accuracy of commercially
available NOx sensors. Emissions lab data indicates that 15% is a reasonable value for normal
testing variation. Considering commercially available NOx sensors accuracy is +/-10% to +/-
15%), +/-25% is a reasonable value for the override factor; +/-15%> accounts for normal testing
variation, and +/-10%> accounts for NOx sensor accuracy and impact to binned NOx
values. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 102]
As an initial matter, the new SCR inducement proposal depends on data recorded using the
REAL binning functions required by CARB's OBD regulations. (EPA has proposed to
incorporate the obligation to track REAL NOx emissions in §1036.110.) There are several
concerns with how the SCR inducement strategies are tied to the REAL data. First, the SCR
inducement is only triggered if a fault is confirmed by the "NOx override" function described in
754
-------
§1036.111(c). Under that provision, the inducement derate should be overridden if the NOx
conversion efficiency in the 100-Hour Array is within 10% of the NOx conversion efficiency of
the Lifetime Array for REAL Bins 13 and 14. Conversion efficiencies, both lifetime and 100
hour, are going to be calculated based on on-board NOx sensors. Those sensors, however, are
known to have significant inaccuracy, as much as +/- 10 ppm according to manufacturers'
specifications in the range of data expected to be recorded in Bins 13 and 14 (the highest engine
power level bins). Aged sensors have been known to be significantly less accurate. It is
imperative that EPA evaluate the sensitivity of these SCR inducement controls for this purpose.
Operation on a very cold day may lead to incorrect inducement determinations based on the NOx
override function. EPA should consider alternative confirmation methods, at least for some fault
types, such as loss of DEF pressure at the DEF pump in the case of an empty-DEF tank fault.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 124]
EMA is willing to work with EPA to determine other similar opportunities. For most of the
conditions being evaluated, such as empty DEF tank, blocked DEF lines, or missing catalyst,
the NOx conversion efficiency should be 0%. A threshold much closer to this value should be
applied when inducing for those reasons, in order to account for potential errors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 124 - 125]
A second issue of concern is that for certain applications, there may actually be no data in Bins
13 and 14, making the assessment impossible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 125]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received several comments supporting the concept of a NOx override. Other commenters
supported the concept, but suggested improvements. ABA expressed concerns with NOx sensor
reliability causing problems. CARB and ICCT suggested that speed derates similar to what EPA
proposed should apply for cases where the engine detected a fault condition even though NOx
measurements showed good emission reductions over the catalyst.
Some commenters agreed that the proposed threshold for the NOx override was appropriate,
while other commenters suggested recognizing a lower level of NOx control as being sufficient
for the NOx override. CARB and ICCT suggested tying the threshold for the NOx override to the
OBD threshold related to catalyst conversion efficiency.
EMA, Cummins, and CARB suggested that the NOx override algorithm should not depend on
the proposed approach of tracking operation in REAL bins. EMA also commented that some
failure modes may call for alternative confirmation methods.
CARB expressed a concern that the proposed NOx override could introduce a risk of creating a
single point of contact for tampering. CARB suggested addressing that concern by setting speed
derates based on catalyst conversion separate from any NOx override. CARB also suggested that
the NOx override should not apply if the engine detects NOx sensors as being faulty.
Response:
755
-------
We continue to believe that the NOx override has the potential to provide important diagnostic
information to allow manufacturers to avoid applying speed derates when the catalyst system is
working properly to reduce NOx emissions. However, we recognize from the comments that we
need to further develop the measurement techniques, calculation algorithms, and thresholds for
designing an effective NOx override. Given the timing of this final rule, we are not taking final
action at this time on the NOx override feature. We are adopting the final rule with inducements
in 40 CFR 1036. Ill without the NOx override feature. We intend to continue to consider these
issues regarding NOx override and may propose revised inducement provisions to include a NOx
override in a future rule.
There are at least two advantages of deferring action on the NOx override in this final rule. First,
the NOx override substantially increases the complexity of the algorithms for applying speed
derates. Increased complexity corresponds with an increased risk of computational errors that
could create unintended outcomes. Additional time to explore alternative methodologies will
help to ensure that the engine is able to provide a robust indication of catalyst activity for the full
range of possible fault conditions. Second, as noted in Section 8.1, the final rule includes
provisions to improve component durability. We may learn that manufacturers are able to
comply with new inducement requirements in a way that greatly reduces the experience of
engines going into inducement even though the catalyst is functioning normally. We may also
learn that less severe initial derates in the final inducement provisions address issues with
existing inducements raised by commenters such that the NOx override does not have the same
value that it would for engines on the road today.
8.3 Derate schedule
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
In addition to the rushed nature and time constraints for this complex rulemaking, the ABA
identified feasibility, cost and reliability concerns the motorcoach industry has with the Proposal.
In the interest of facilitating EPA's rulemaking effort, ABA also offers a proposal to alleviate
some of the cost and derate concerns identified, while accounting for the environmental benefits
provided by the motorcoach industry and promoting motorcoach travel. Akin to emergency
vehicles that rely on heavy-duty engines, manufacturers providing heavy-duty engines to the
motorcoach industry should be afforded similar regulatory flexibility with regard to inducement
strategy. In line with EPA's 2012 relief measures, EPA could expand the application of the
AECD as part of the certification process for engines to be used in motorcoach vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 11]
Providing engine manufacturers producing engines for use in motorcoach vehicles with the same
flexibility afforded to engines used in emergency situations, would address a number of
concerns. First, and foremost, EPA's inducement policy creates a serious risk to life within
motorcoach operations. By eliminating the threat of reduced engine performance or derating,
particularly for motorcoach drivers who are focused on driving safely and the comfort and care
756
-------
of their passengers, EPA address one of the motorcoach industry's greatest concerns not only
with the Proposal but also current emission control requirements. This action would significantly
reduce the risk of stranding vehicles and passengers on the road and the stranded vehicle
becoming a roadside safety obstacle for other vehicles. Motorcoach operations are heavily
dependent on passenger designed and driven schedules. Unlike property, transport of passengers
requires providing certain necessities to meet human needs. Along with those motorcoach
vehicles serving in an emergency response capacity who are performing work directly related to
reducing risk to human life from natural disasters or other emergency situations, motorcoaches
should not be subject to artificial inducements that prevent the vehicles from performing as
necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 11]
Additionally, by providing engine manufacturers with flexibility to apply the approved AECD to
motorcoach engines, it would eliminate a substantial amount of cost for motorcoach operators.
Motorcoach operators would avoid repair costs associated with faulty triggers or components
that result in unnecessary derates. Further, it could also reduce the costs under the Proposal
associated with extending the useful life of the engine and warranty, and the durability
requirements for components. Indirectly, such action would also eliminate the indirect costs
outlined in the comments to the ANPRM, related to towing, reimbursements owed due to not
meeting schedules, and cost to reputation. The flexibility would also reduce the number of
dashboard distractions for drivers, allowing them to remain focused on safely driving the heavy-
duty vehicle. By reducing costs and improving safety, by this proposed action, EPA
would clearly make a statement on the importance of transport by motorcoach and recognize the
benefits motorcoach travel brings by taking cars off the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-
Al,pp.l 1-12]
The loss of a key transportation option for underserved and price-sensitive communities is also a
key concern. The EPA devotes significant attention in the Notice to environmental justice
concerns and the need to ensure all communities benefit from air quality improvements.
However, the EPA makes no mention of the key role motorcoach services play in meeting the
transportation needs of all communities, in particular economically disadvantaged and rural
communities. As mentioned, for many of these constituencies, the motorcoach industry is the
primary and sometimes the only mode of transportation available. Motorcoach services connect
these communities to jobs, education, necessary medical services, and other intermodal
transportation services across the country. In FY 2021, the Department of Defense made
extensive use of the motorcoach industry, contracting for the motorcoach movements of nearly
28,000,000 military personnel through their military bus program
(https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bus.cfm). According to key emergency transportation
coordinator Transportation Management Services, they organized over 500 bus movements as
part of emergency transportation and evacuation movements during the 2020 hurricane season
getting thousands of people out of harm's way. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.5]
Different Inducement Schedules and Speeds - ABA believes there is merit in this approach, but
has questions as to determining the appropriate category and how it would work in application
for motorcoach operations. For example, where would a motorcoach fall, in terms of high-speed
and low-speed vehicles? If the vehicle profile changes or fluctuates, does the inducement
schedule assessment change for the vehicle? ABA also believes adjusting the derate schedule
757
-------
into a 4-steps along with setting more appropriate maximum and final inducement speeds over
the inducement interval has merit; however, ABA has not had sufficient time to review this
proposal with motorcoach operators for specific feedback. ABA plans to hold further discussions
with motorcoach operators on both the step interval approach and maximum speeds. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, pp.9-10]
Conversely, the risk of motorcoach operators not maintaining necessary quantities or quality
DEF in their tanks to ensure the RSC is properly working, is low. Motorcoach equipment is
expensive to purchase and maintain; motorcoach operators do not want to risk damage to their
engine or loss of warranty coverages by not properly maintaining their equipment. Because
operators are solely dependent on the availability of their equipment to operate and generate
revenue, there is little incentive for operators to circumvent the engine emissions control
system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-Al,p .12]
However, returning to the inducement schedule, there needs to sufficient time for the motorcoach
to reach a safe location. It is not unusual for motorcoach routes to traverse remote stretches of the
country. Also, there are not as many service locations available to a motorcoach, as opposed to a
truck. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 10]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
EPA's proposed high speed inducement speed settings will impact typically operations while
avoiding operating vehicles at a speed that impedes the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic. According to 2020 data collected by ATRI, among reported trucks with speed limiters, 76
percent of them had a speed setting between 65 to 68 mph.16 Thus, while the initial six hours of
derate should have minimal operational impacts and allow time for the vehicle to access a repair
facility, the second six hours and beyond, where speeds range from 60 to 50 mph, should present
an adequate deterrent to prompt a repair response in the event the initial notification and speed
restriction did not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 18]
16. Williams, Nathan and Murray, Dan. An Analysis of the Operational Costs of
Trucking: 2020 Update, American Transportation Research Institute (November 2020).
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
As discussed in the previous section, the NOx emission reductions associated with reduced
emission standards will only be achieved with a properly functioning SCR aftertreatment system,
by ensuring adequate dosing of high-quality DEF, by timely repair of faulty DEF related
components, and by effective diagnosis of SCR system tampering. This becomes even more
important as the proposed CTP NOx emission standard is reduced further by up to 90 percent.
Every one of these elements for proper SCR function must be accounted for when establishing
SCR inducement. The derate schedule proposed in the NPRM does not achieve this objective for
the reasons presented below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.96]
Because SCR systems that are operated without DEF will not achieve any reductions of
NOx,159 as discussed in Section IV.D of the NPRM, U.S. EPA has promulgated
758
-------
proposed policy guidance that is designed to ensure that vehicle owners supply sufficient
quantities of high-quality DEF needed to ensure SCR equipped vehicles will in fact comply with
applicable NOx emission standards as such vehicles are operated on highways. That guidance
includes, in pertinent part, an 'inducement mechanism' that reduces an engine's output and
consequently reduces the maximum speed of the vehicle to a degree that is unacceptable for
typical driving. 160 U.S. EPA is also aware that affected vehicle owners may attempt to override
the adverse driving effects by tampering or disabling the inducement mechanism, and is
therefore also proposing provisions intended to deter such tampering. 161 However, the proposed
provisions present legal and technical concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.96-97]
159 NPRM at p. 17536.
160 NPRM at p. 17536.
161 NPRM at 17540-17544.
As explained below, U.S. EPA failed to consider important aspects of the inducement proposal
that are directly relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed inducement speeds to compel
corrective actions by vehicle owners, and the corresponding emissions impacts. The failure to
consider those factors constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action, and contravenes U.S.
EPA's statutory duty to ensure heavy-duty engines and vehicles comply with applicable
emissions standards over their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.97]
First, the proposed initial inducement speed of 65 mph for high-speed vehicles and 50 mph for
low-speed vehicles is insufficiently stringent to compel a vehicle operator to seek timely repairs
of SCR systems. The vehicle speed distribution from two real-world driving datasets consisting
of 109 trucks with over 20,000 hours of driving shows that these proposed initial maximum
speeds would have very limited, if any, impact to induce an operator to fix the inducible fault
(see Appendix IV [Appendix IV can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 165-
174] for further analysis of real world on-road heavy-duty activity data analyzed with respect to
U.S. EPA's proposed SCR inducements). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.97]
Furthermore, for high-speed vehicles, the maximum speed limit for line-haul trucks in many
states is 65 mph; in fact in California, it is only 55 mph. Eleven other states have 55 mph speed
limits for urban freeways. 162 Setting the initial inducement at the maximum highway speed limit
in many states (and in California and eleven other states, 10 miles above the maximum speed
limit) would not compel the operator to make timely repair of SCR components when there is a
significant NOx emission impact. While the NPRM noted that the U.S. EPA 'data show that
combination long-haul vehicles spend nearly almost 40 percent of their driving time over 65
mph,' this high-speed operation is not evenly distributed nationally, particularly for states with a
maximum speed limit of 65 mph or less where this initial inducement speed will not effectively
induce the operator to act promptly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.97-98]
162 https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-limit-laws
759
-------
In addition, it does not make sense for California to set an initial inducement speed that is 10
mph higher than California's highway maximum speed limit for most trucks. Likewise for low-
speed vehicles, whose average speed is at or below 20 mph, these regional or urban vehicles
spend most of their time on city streets and are likely able to choose delivery routes that would
not be restricted by a 50 mph inducement. Thus, the proposed initial inducement schedule for
many trucks would allow long-term delays of needed repairs because of the limited disruption
that could be easily dealt with by the operator. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.98]
U.S. EPA's failure to consider the maximum speed limits in each of the states, the distribution of
high speed operations of heavy-duty vehicles throughout the nation, and the possibility that
regional or urban vehicles would likely travel on delivery routes not restricted by the proposed
50 mph initial inducement speed constitutes a failure to consider an important aspect of the
problem, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, because those omissions affect U.S. EPA's analysis and
conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the proposed inducements to trigger corrective action.
U.S. EPA also failed to propose a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made,' State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, because the proposed initial inducement speeds are unlikely
to compel corrective vehicle owners to take corrective actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.98]
Second, the final inducement step of 50 mph for high-speed vehicles and 35 mph for low-speed
vehicles is still not severe enough to induce an operator to immediately make repairs (see
Appendix IV) [Appendix IV can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.165-174],
especially if this problem has been ignored for the first 60 hours of inducement using operator
work-around strategies. This proposed final derate step would be significantly less effective to
the operator than the current inducement guidance of driving vehicle speed down to 5 mph at
safe harbor conditions. As shown in CARB staffs recent field survey, a severe final inducement
is effective at getting timely repairs and minimizing air quality impacts. The NPRM's final
inducement step does not cause 'degradation that includes operation of the engine being disabled
or severely restricted' as noted in CISD-09-04R, and hence departs significantly from the current
effective guidance. This major proposed relaxation of the current guidance would be ineffective
to induce the operator to make expeditious repair of the SCR system because the proposed final
inducement speeds would allow a vehicle to be driven for unlimited miles at lower speeds
without ever fixing the fault condition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.98]
U.S. EPA's failure to consider the effectiveness of the proposed final inducement speeds to
compel corrective actions, and the potential excess emissions resulting if final inducement
speeds do not ultimately result in corrective repairs constitutes a failure to consider an important
aspect of the problem, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, and a failure to propose a 'rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made,' State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, because the proposed
final inducement speeds are unlikely to compel corrective vehicle owners to take corrective
actions and will therefore increase the risk that defective and/or tampered SCR systems will
result in excessive emissions. The extent of such excess emissions may be substantial, in light of
the facts that heavy-duty vehicles with defective or tampered SCR systems exhibited NOx
emissions that were 6 to 10 times higher than baseline NOx emissions levels, and given CARB
staffs concern that the proposed final inducement speeds would allow heavy-duty vehicles with
760
-------
defective or tampered SCR system to operate indefinitely. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.98-99]
Moreover, U.S. EPA has not, and cannot demonstrate that the proposed inducement strategy 'is
permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to
be better...'FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.99]
The emissions standards prescribed under the CAA section 202(a)(1) and 202(a)(3) apply to
motor vehicles and motor vehicles throughout their useful lives, i.e., as such vehicles and engines
are actually operated on highways, for prescribed periods of time. As discussed in Section 5, the
overriding directive of the CAA section 202(a) is the protection of the public's health and
welfare, and the nation's air quality. U.S. EPA's proposed inducement strategy, unlike the
preexisting inducement strategy, is inconsistent with those statutory mandates because it would,
as demonstrated by CARB staffs comments, allow vehicles to operate for potentially unlimited
periods of time, even if those vehicles are emitting pollutants well in excess of applicable
emissions standards, in direct conflict with those unambiguous statutory provisions. Chevron,
467 U.S. at 842-843. CARB staffs comments also make it clear that U.S. EPA has not
established that the proposed inducement strategy is more effective than the preexisting
inducement strategy in achieving its stated goal of ensuring the reduction of excess emissions
from defective SCR systems and of deterring tampering of SCR systems to override inducement
systems, and it is accordingly clear that the proposal is arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.99]
163 See footnotes 504 and 505, NPRM at p. 17512.
Table 1 of 40 CFR 1037.510 - Weighting Factors for Duty Cycles provides the weighing factors
for three different emission test cycles (transient, 55 mph cruise, and 65 mph cruise) for tractors
and for urban, multi-purpose, and regional vocational vehicles in determining GHG emission
compliance. While the weighing factor for tractors is over two-thirds for the 65 mph cycle, the
weighing factors for multi-purpose vehicles are only less than one-quarter for the 65 mph cycle
and about one-quarter for the 55 mph cycle, with the remaining half for the lower-speed transient
cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.107]
Furthermore, the vehicle speed distribution from two real-world driving datasets consisting of
109 trucks with over 20,000 hours of driving shows that the low 20 mph low-speed vehicle
threshold would prevent many urban vehicles that rarely drive at highway speeds from being
classified as low-speed vehicles. The 20 mph low-speed threshold would instead make these
vehicles subject to the ineffective proposed initial and high inducement maximum speeds of 65
mph and 50 mph, respectively (see Appendix IV) [Appendix IV can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 165-174]
The NPRM requests comments on the definition of low-speed vehicles. The low-speed vehicle
definition having an average speed of 20 mph or less over the preceding 30 hours of operation
may only capture urban vehicles, and multi-purpose vehicles that have a mix of city and highway
driving may be considered high-speed vehicles. Because NPRM's high-speed vehicle
761
-------
inducement schedule is based on line-haul vehicle operation, the derate speeds for high-speed
vehicles would not be as meaningful to multi-purpose vehicles. As stated above, the initial
NPRM inducement step is at 65 mph and last inducement step is at 50 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 107]
CARB staff recommends that NPRM's average speed threshold for low-speed vehicles be
increased to 30 mph to capture vehicle operation for multi-purpose and urban vehicles so that
these vehicles are subjected to the low-speed vehicle derate schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 107]
To address fleet owners' concerns about inducements while still adequately protecting air
quality, CARB staff proposes two different derate schedules. The first would be a less severe
derate schedule when a fault condition is detected, and the SCR NOx override factor as
calculated in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.111(c) is at or less than 0.10. In this situation, NOx
emissions would not yet be impacted despite the fault condition, and immediate action would not
be necessary to avert excess NOx emissions. Thus, a less severe inducement schedule would be
preferable, similar to what the NPRM proposes in 40 CFR 1036.111(d). This schedule would
allow the operator to continue to drive the vehicle to complete its present task and return to home
base or a repair shop to get repairs done that is less disruptive to fleets and operators. The
inducement schedule would provide reduced engine performance that encourages the operator to
make plans for repairs but still allow the operator to complete the task at hand when inducement
is triggered. This change to allow the operator more time to get faulty SCR components repaired,
along with new lengthened warranty requirements that will drive improved component designs
by manufacturers, should almost completely eliminate unnecessary severe inducements that
could affect operators and interrupt fleet operations. CARB staff proposes the following
inducement schedule in Table 9-1 for this type of scenario, assuming that NOx sensors are
working properly, there is no tampering of components, and it is expected that the SCR system is
functioning properly:
• 0 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 25% max torque derate
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
¦ 25% max torque derate
• 24 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 25% and 55 mph (from governed top speed lower speed 1 mph every 5
min until 55 mph is achieved)
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
25% and 40 mph (from governed top speed lower speed 1 mph every 5
min until 40 mph is achieved)
• 48 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 25% and 45 mph (from 45 lower speed 1 mph every 5 min until 45 mph is
achieved)
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
762
-------
¦ 25% and 30 mph (from 30 lower speed 1 mph every 5 min until 30 mph is
achieved)
• 72 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 40% and 35 mph (from 45 lower speed 1 mph every 5 min until 35 mph is
achieved)
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
¦ 40% and 20 mph (from 20 and lowered speed 1 mph every 5 min until 20
mph is achieved) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.101-102]
As noted earlier, the NPRM's proposed initial inducement speed is higher than twelve (including
California) states' maximum urban highway speed limits. Instead of NPRM's initial inducement
of 65 mph, CARB staff recommends a derate of the maximum torque of 25 percent be applied
for both high-speed and low-speed vehicles with no vehicle speed inducements. After 24 hours,
if the operator does not repair the fault condition, a vehicle speed derate to 55 mph would occur
in addition to the 25 percent maximum torque derate (or 40 mph for a low-speed vehicle). After
another 24 hours, for a total of 48 hours after fault detection, the speed derate would decrease to
45 miles per hour (or 30 mph for low-speed vehicles.) Finally, if after a total of 72 hours the fault
condition is still not fixed, then the final inducement step reduces the maximum torque by 40
percent and the maximum vehicle speed to 35 mph (or 20 mph for a low-speed vehicle). CARB
staff is also proposing a more gradual speed inducement within each step of 1 mile per hour
reduction for every 5 minutes until the step inducement speed is reached. This change would
alleviate operator safety concerns during speed derates at highway speeds by inducing speed
reductions of 1 mph at a time until the speed inducement is met. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp.102-103]
For fault conditions when NOx emission control efficiency falls by more than 10 percent, a more
severe inducement schedule is warranted and should be maintained, similar to what is currently
required. In this situation, the SCR is not functioning at a sufficient NOx conversion efficiency,
resulting in significant excess NOx emissions. Repair of the vehicle in a very short and timely
manner is extremely important. Thus, CARB staff proposes the following derate schedule in
Table 9-2 for this scenario.
• 0 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
30%) max torque derate
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
30%) max torque derate
• 3 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
30%o and 55 mph (from governed top speed lower speed 1 mph every 5
min until 55 mph is achieved)
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
30%o and 35 mph (from governed top speed lowered speed 1 mph every 5
min until 35 mph is achieved)
• 8 non-idle hours of engine operation
763
-------
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 30% and 45 mph (from 55 lower speed 1 mph every 5 min until 45 mph is
achieved)
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
¦ 30% and 25 mph (from 35 lowered speed 1 mph every 5 min until 25 mph
is achieved)
• 10 non-idle hours of engine operation
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for high-speed vehicles
¦ 40% and 35 mph (from 45 lower speed 1 mph every 5 min until 35 mph is
achieved) and 5 mph at safe harbor
o Maximum torque derate/max. speed for low-speed vehicles
¦ 40% and 20 mph (from 20 and lowered speed 1 mph every 5 min until 20
mph is achieved) and 5 mph at safe harbor [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.103]
In this schedule, the time for each step of inducement is significantly shortened compared to the
previous schedule in Table 9-1, with the final inducement occurring at 10 hours of non-idle
operation. If the vehicle was operating at the top speed of each inducement step, this could still
equate to hundreds of miles of vehicle operation before the final inducement takes effect, which
still would allow vehicle operation at a maximum speed of 35 mph for high-speed vehicles and
20 mph for low-speed vehicles. Once the vehicle is at safe harbor, the final inducement would
reduce the vehicle's maximum speed to 5 mph. This derate schedule still would provide
opportunity for the operator to make needed repairs and reduce safety concerns and significantly
reduce the frequency of towing vehicle to a repair shop when operators are proactively
attempting to address the inducement. As mentioned above, this inducement schedule also
incorporates gradual speed derates to significantly reduce safety concerns at highway
speeds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 103]
Organization: Carreras Tours, LLC (2032)
I think this issue of having a bus derate when an issue arises with the engine needs to be
extended to a longer period in order to be able fix the issue when the vehicle gets to a safe place.
We had an experience where our bus got a check engine light going on interstate 5 in central
California. We had students on board and the bus derate to 5 MPH. The good thing is that we
happened to be less than a mile from an exit. We feared that a truck might rear end us and injure
the passengers. It took several hours to get a rescue bus to pick up the group. All this could have
been avoided if time for us to diagnose the problem in a shop, and in a safe place where the bus
and the passengers were safe. If a sensor fails, the bus derate the bus immediately and gives us
no chance to get to a safe place. In this instance, it was a $20 sensor that failed. We would like to
request to have the time extended or miles extended before defraying the bus. Our goal is to keep
all of our passengers safe. Please consider this request. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2032, p.l]
764
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA's proposed inducement schedule offers insufficient incentives to ensure maintenance of
SCRs. The Proposal indicates an initial derate that would allow most vehicles to continue to
operate at up to 65 mph—close to the speed limit—decreasing after 60 hours of use to 50 mph.
Vehicles with a recent history of low-speed operation—an average below 20 mph, for the
previous 30 hours of engine operation—are initially restricted to 50 mph, decreasing to 35 mph
after 60 hours of operation (the 'LSI' limit). Id. at 17,543-44. The former limits—to numbers
at or near the speed limit—are unlikely to induce prompt corrective action.243 The LSI limit
provides virtually no assurance of prompt corrective action. A vehicle that routinely operates at
an average speed of 20 mph cannot be expected to respond to a derate that restricts its speed to
50 mph. In many cases (such as drayage and similar uses) such vehicles are unlikely to promptly
respond even to the final derate, limiting speeds to 35 mph.244 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.62-63]
243 See FHWA, Freight Management and Operations, Freight Facts and Figures 2010
(2010),
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/10factsfigures/tab
le3_8.htm (reporting maximum interstate average speeds below 60 mph).
244 See Andrew Papson & Michael Ippoliti, Key Performance Parameters for Drayage
Trucks Operating at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 6, CALSTART (Nov. 15,
2013), https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/1-710-Project_Key-Performance-
Parameters-for-Drayage-Trucks.pdf (noting maximum speeds for near-dock operations of
only 40 mph, and average speeds under 7 mph).
And even for those vehicles whose owners might respond to the derates—which EPA suggests
are limited to those that must travel substantial distances to reach a job site, 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,543—the Proposal's 60 hours of non-compliant use would still produce massive quantities of
excess pollution. As EPA acknowledges, lack of adequate DEF can 'cause NOx emissions to
increase to levels comparable to having no NOx controls at all.' Id. at 17,536. Commenters urge
EPA to adopt a more stringent inducement regime than proposed, such as a dual schedule
providing less severe derates when the detected fault is unlikely to lead to excess NOx emissions,
but imposing more severe derates where NOx emissions are substantially affected so as to
demand prompt repair. See Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055 on May 16, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.63]
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
Coach USA is generally concerned that the selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") inducement
proposal made applicable to motorcoaches does not adequately take the unique concerns of
passenger transportation safety into account. Under no circumstances, can buses full of
passengers be left stranded on the side of a roadway or a bus be unable to travel at a safe
highway speed that does not present a potential obstacle to safety. Thus, any derate inducement
schedule that might be applied to high speed motorcoach vehicles needs to be fashioned in
765
-------
coordination with highway safety foremost in mind. Unless and until that happens, motorcoaches
should be excluded from any derate requirements under the EPA emissions rules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 3]
Coach USA supports the proposed 65 MPH limitation at section 1036.111(d) for the initial speed
restriction at least 10 hours after a fault condition is identified, although Coach USA would also
support a longer inducement period. Coach USA believes that its drivers will be induced by the
vehicle's emissions warning lights to take corrective action relative to the fault condition such
that a lower speed restriction (such as 55 MPH) is not necessary. Nor would a lower speed
restriction be as safe as a 65 mph limit given that the buses frequently operate on high speed
highways where a restriction of less than 65 mph can present a safety problem where the bus
would be unable to keep up with the flow of traffic. To the extent that substantial repairs are
required to address a fault condition, the subsequent inducements - amounting to up to 60 hours
- provide the minimum adequate time. Coach USA trains its drivers to pay close attention to
fault condition alerts and requires them to take appropriate action at the next available
opportunity, all the while taking into consideration passenger safety. In this regard, EPA should
bear in mind the safety considerations that are unique to passenger transportation versus truck
transportation, as well as the fact that passengers are often depending on bus transportation to
meet connecting buses, flights, trains, job responsibilities and other schedule-dependent
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 4]
Interstate bus operations conducted by Coach USA are designed to maintain reliable schedules
for its passengers. A speed of 50 MPH, which is generally below interstate/highway speeds and
potentially a safety risk, will prompt drivers to take action to address a fault condition, although
even such a restriction is not generally going to be required given the sufficiency of the
inducement created by the driver's attention to warning lights. Any lower restriction would
compromise passenger and driver safety on congested roadways without better ensuring
inducement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
Accordingly, buses will not always have the ability to reach a bus repair facility within a 6-hour
period when a fault condition prompts repair or replacement of components. Coach USA
believes that a minimum 10-hour period for the first stage of inducement, and preferably longer,
is appropriate for all default conditions due to other than low DEF levels. This longer period will
ensure that passengers are kept safe and not potentially stranded along interstate bus routes. On
this point, EPA should aware of the difficulty/inability of bus operators to locate alternative
buses to pick-up passengers along interstate routes. Our industry is currently struggling with a
serious shortage of drivers, which has reduced operational flexibility. The industry has also
experienced a major reduction in the number of bus operators due to COVID, as noted above.
Accordingly, Coach USA supports an approach that ensures the ability of its drivers to address a
fault condition upon completion of a route. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
In light of the comment above, Coach USA supports a longer schedule involving more time
between stages. This will ensure the ability of drivers to reach repair facilities to address fault
conditions, while also ensuring that passengers are safely transported to their destinations
without interim stops or delays. Drivers are typically on a 10-hour route schedule. Fault
conditions will be addressed, absent repair or part replacement issues, at the end of the period,
766
-------
preventing long-term operation of the bus with a fault condition. A shorter period is not
necessary to address a fault condition and will not help to better ensure inducement on the part of
the bus industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 6]
Should any derate inducement rules be adopted for motorcoahes, Coach USA supports the
proposed 80 hours of operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 6]
Coach USA believes that the proposed schedule is both reasonable and effective to induce
drivers to correct a fault condition if any rules are adopted. Shortening the proposed schedule
would adversely affect interstate bus operations and also comprise passenger/driver safety. The
65 and 50 MPH inducement stages applicable to interstate buses will ensure that SCR systems
will be maintained appropriately, although as noted Coach is concerned with any derate schedule
applicable to motorcoaches and with a derate speed of less than 65 mph. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1307-A1, p. 6]
Coach USA does not believe that a high-speed vehicle should ever be treated like a low speed
vehicle for purposes of inducement. While no inducement schedule should be applied to
motorcoaches for the above reasons, a restriction of 50 MPH will induce interstate bus drivers to
take corrective action to address a fault condition. An interstate bus cannot be maintained at a
speed of less than 50 MPH while ensuring passenger safety and that schedules are
maintained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Compass Coach Inc.
I want to comment on EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. As an owner of a PASSENGER carrier for the
past 23 years I 100% believe these EPA regulations are hurting our industry and placing
passengers at risk. The Government is so keen to passing rules and regulations that make travel
safer. How can this be safe when we are given 4 hours or less once a Regen light comes on to
find a safe place to park with our passengers. Attempt to get another vehicle to pickup our
current passengers. It's not possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2120, p.l]
Don't even go down the road that says 4 hours is enough time to find a place to get it checked
out. I literally just had a 2019 Temsa 45' coach sitting in a Cummins yard 300 miles away
because we were waiting for a SENSOR. A SENSOR. The system are running fine. It's the
sensors that normally go bad. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2120, p.l]
If the Government is dead set on getting more emmissions into these vehicles (which I am all for
cleaning the air.... 100% support this idea), they need to separate passenger vehiles from OTR
trucks. There needs to be more time to allow passenger vehicles to get back to their own shop to
get looked at. Give us a 72 hour countdown. With 72 hours, any operator should be able to get
another bus out to replace the broken one and also get our bus back to our garage so our local
dealership can look at the unit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2120, p.l]
767
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA should also allow for transitions between the vehicle speed levels rather than step
changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 14]
EPA has appropriately defined key principles for updating SCR inducements to ensure that
emission control function and emissions reductions occur in-use while reducing potential
impacts to operators. Derate Schedule
In response to request for comment on dynamically switching the derate restriction of a high-
speed vehicle during inducement to a low-speed vehicle derate restriction, Cummins proposes
that EPA consider not to utilize this method. This is not only due to the software complexity for
the manufacturer in handling such derate switching behaviors when applying the correct derate
restrictions/schedule, but also due to the potential of further confusing the end-user during an
active inducement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 31]
Organization: David Pedersen
Regarding the proposed de-rating requirements, I believe that the Agency's approach is flawed.
In-use de-rating poses a clear danger to the vehicle/machinery operator as well as others nearby,
particularly for on-road vehicles, and should be abandoned. Instead, the Agency should require a
"soft" mechanism similar to the one employed for light-duty vehicles, which is that the engine
will refuse to start if compliance-imperiling faults are detected in any of the emissions controls
and/or their components. This would also increase compliance as it would require operators to
redress the faults prior to being able to operate the vehicle again. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1059]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
EPA suggests that relaxing SCR inducements would more effectively result in truck operators
properly maintaining SCR devices and proposes that for high-speed vehicles the initial
inducement would be 65 miles per hour (mph) and the final inducement no lower than 50 mph
(up from the current final inducement of 5 mph). For low-speed vehicles, the proposed initial
inducement is 50 mph and the final inducement no lower than 35 mph. Such SCR inducements
are too lax to encourage a truck operator to act in a timely fashion to fix a problem. Furthermore,
the proposed derate schedules would allow up to 60 hours of operation before the final
inducement takes effect. Because modern engines rely almost exclusively on SCR to control
NOx, that would mean 60 hours of driving, without emission controls, possibly through
vulnerable communities, past schools and recreational areas, and near homes and small-business
and community hubs. EPA has proposed alternatives to the inducement schedules in the Notice
which drop the initial inducements to the following:
• Low speed vehicles have an initial derated speed of 40 mph and a final derated speed of 25
mph;
• High speed vehicles have an initial derated speed of 55 mph and a final derated speed of 40
mph; and
768
-------
• The time for all vehicles from when inducement begins to the final derated speed would drop to
40 hours. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 6]
DOEE is concerned that the proposed derating schedule does not do enough to sufficiently
compel operators to properly maintain their equipment, and will cause excess pollution in areas
that are already the most overburdened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 6]
If EPA believes changes to the inducement strategies are technologically necessary, DOEE
offers the following recommendations. First, EPA's proposed inducements, which would
dramatically increase maximum speeds allowed under the derate schedules, should be
revised considerably downward, at least to the alternative speeds that EPA has already proposed.
Second, EPA should amend the definition of a low-speed vehicle from a 20-mph threshold to a
30-mph threshold so that these vehicles would be subject to a more appropriate low-speed
vehicle derate schedules. Third, EPA should finalize derate schedules with less time between
stages to reduce the total allowed hours of operation before the final inducement occurs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA strengthen proposed SCR inducement provisions
to include a final speed derate inducement of 20 mph or less for low-speed trucks, 35 mph or less
for other trucks with a possible exception for line-haul trucks, abandon proposed override
disincentives, continue to monitor diesel exhaust fluid quality, and adopt the proposal to add
additional monitoring of disconnection devices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
We recommend that EPA continue to require monitoring of DEF quality with more time allowed
to remedy an indicated fault. If there is indication that the SCR is functioning with less than 10
percent loss of efficiency, a final derate would not occur for up to 60 hours, providing adequate
time to obtain a repair. If SCR efficiency loss is greater than 10 percent, indicating very high
NOx emissions, the operator would have a shorter period of time, up to 16 hours of operation to
obtain repairs before a 5 mph derate is imposed. The extension of time to seek repair should help
address operator concerns that the current 4-hour period before a 5 mph derate occurs is too short
and can cause the vehicle to be stranded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 23]
We recommend the EPA proposed speed derate schedules, with the fourth step derate speed
lowered as discussed above, be followed only if the NOx sensors also indicate a SCR efficiency
loss of 10 percent or less due to the indicated fault. This revised provision provides a more
gradual set of speed derate over 60 hours (about 4 or more days) of operation, with no disabling
5 mph final derate, based on the probability that the NOx impact of the faulty component or
failure to properly maintain the DEF system is relatively low. The greater time before the final
speed derate occurs will give the operator more opportunity to resolve the indicated fault with
less inconvenience. More vehicles with faults that increase emissions will be repaired. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 22]
For vehicles with indicated SCR efficiency loss of greater than 10 percent, we recommend
adopting a new schedule of speed derates with a shorter period between steps. In addition, a fifth
769
-------
step would be added warning that after 4 more hours of operation speed will be limited to 5 mph
after the next refueling or engine stop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 23]
If the sensor indicates more than a 10 percent loss in SCR efficiency, the threat of extremely high
emissions grows dramatically, with a hundred-fold increase in NOx possible in the event of a
complete SCR failure. In this case, we recommend the vehicle be subject to a new, much quicker
speed derate schedule so that repairs are made sooner. ICCT suggests the fourth step of speed
derate occur within 12 hours of fault indication, rather than at 60 hours as EPA has proposed. In
the event this final inducement does not cause the operator to seek repairs, we recommend the
operator be warned that after another 4 hours of operation speed will be limited to 5 mph
following the next refueling or engine shutdown. This extra step is needed to assure the highest
emitting trucks do not continue to operate for long periods without repair. Note this final 5 mph
speed derate is not new and has been part of the HD emission control program for a decade.
Limiting the 5 mph derate to the highest emitting trucks with an indicated SCR efficiency
decline of more than 10 percent as indicated by the NOx sensors will preserve important
emission reductions. Providing a total of 16 hours from the initial fault notification before the 5
mph derate occurs will help address concerns of operators that the short period of time in the
current guidance before the speed derate of 5 mph occurs (as little as 4 hours from fault
indication) can create significant cost and inconvenience to operators and, in the case of non-
transit buses, their passengers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 23]
We recommend a final speed derate inducement of 20 mph or less for low-speed trucks. This
will provide a meaningful incentive to seek repairs, thereby reducing excess emission
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 21]
EPA proposes a final derate speed of 35 mph for low-speed vehicles. These urban trucks could
avoid repairs even with the final EPA proposed speed derate by operating only on local streets
and arterials and avoiding urban freeways that require higher speed. This is possible for many
small businesses such as lawn care and home repair that do not travel long distances between
jobsites. The ability to continue operating without repair in urban areas could have a
disproportionate impact on disadvantaged communities, an unacceptable outcome. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
We recommend a final speed derate inducement of 35 mph or less for trucks other than low-
speed trucks, with the possible exception of line haul trucks. The unlikelihood of being able to
operate on urban and regional highways at this maximum speed will provide a meaningful
incentive to seek repair of indicated faults. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 22]
EPA's proposed final speed inducement of 50 mph will be meaningless for many urban-based
trucks capable of freeway speeds. The objective of speed derates is to keep trucks with failed
components and high emissions from operating at highway speeds, thus providing an incentive
for repair. While a 50 mph final speed derate may be a strong enough disincentive for line haul
trucks, it will not provide a strong incentive to obtain repairs for many regional and urban-based
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 22]
770
-------
The truck speed limit in many urban areas is 55 mph, so a 50 mph derate limit will not prevent
trucks from operating on the highways. For example, a 50 mile trip at 50 mph takes only 6
minutes longer than if the truck travelled at 55 mph, a relatively minor inconvenience compared
to taking the truck out of service for repair. Many urban areas have considerable urban
congestion during which speeds are less than the speed limit. The 50 mph final speed derate
would have little or no impact on trucks during these frequent congested conditions. Another
consideration is many regional and urban-based trucks regularly travel though or near residential
neighborhoods surrounded by warehouses, ports and industrial sites, where air pollution is
already higher than other urban areas. High truck emissions due to repair avoidance will
disproportionately impact residents of these areas, who are often low-income persons of color,
and who would benefit from more, rather than less protection from truck emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 22]
If EPA believes a lesser speed derate is appropriate for line haul trucks, ICCT suggests allowing
a higher final speed derate if the truck exceeds an average speed based on typical line haul
operation. A 50 mph speed derate would provide an incentive for line haul trucks to seek repair
since speed limits on interstate highways are often higher than 55 mph and it is common practice
for trucks to operate at higher speeds. When these trucks age and become urban-based, such as
moving shipping containers, their average speed may decline below the interstate speed average
and the final 35 mph derate would be applied. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 22]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• EPA's proposed speed derates (Table IV-13 of the NPRM) do not provide sufficient
inducement for many low-speed vehicles to repair (or replace DEF) in a timely manner
since locally operated vehicles could operate at the lowest speed of 35 miles per hour
without a significant performance penalty in a congested traffic area. 17 Even when
engine derating is an incentive for operators to perform required maintenance, the new
schedule allows for up to 60 hours of operation before the final inducement goes into
effect. This could amount to 60 hours of driving on local streets, near schools, small
businesses, and residences without emissions control. The Department strongly urges
EPA to reconsider the low-speed vehicle inducement schedule and make the derated
vehicle speeds significantly lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.7]
17 Many roads in urban areas already have speed limits of 25 mph or lower
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• SCR inducements. The limitations imposed on vehicle operation that occur when a
vehicle runs out of diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), has poor quality DEF, or when tampering
occurs to the SCR should be revised for low-speed vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1288-Al,p.7]
771
-------
Organization: Midwest Bus & Motor coach Association
Motorcoaches play an important role when a natural disaster occurs and people need to be
evacuated. Each year this industry is asked to transport citizens out of an area that has
experienced an environmental hazard such as a hurricane or wildfire. The industry is actively
engaged in moving our nation's military in time-sensitive situations, such as national guard
deployments. It is important to note that there is a current exemption of inducements applied to
emergency vehicles. Because of safety concerns and risk to supporting human health, in 2012,
EPA issued a DFR for all emergency vehicles such as ambulances and firetrucks, preventing
them from losing speed or power. This ruling provided OEMs the ability to offer new engine
software calibrations that eliminated the chance of inducements that would cause delays to life
saving measures. With the multi-use purposes motorcoaches provide, including life saving
measures, it would fall in line to include this industry in the derating exemption. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.3]
This proposed rule change is not safe or sensible for our industry's vehicles. Rather than further
restricting the industry and causing additional undue burdens, we need flexibility and reasonable
timeframes that allow operators to transport their passengers back to the point of origin to
receive proper maintenance. The motorcoach industry transports people and should be separated
from the freight transporters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.3]
Organization: Motorcoach Companies
It is also important for us to mention the role we play in natural disaster and other evacuations.
Every year our industry is called upon to offer relief when there are environmental hazards such
as hurricane or wildfires to transport citizens out of harm's way. Our industry is also actively
engaged in moving our nation's Military across country in time sensitive situations, such as the
national guard being deployed. We would also like to point to the current exemption that
emergency vehicles have for inducements. Because of safety concerns and risk to supporting
human health, in 2012 the EPA issued a DFR for all emergency vehicles such as ambulances and
firetrucks, preventing them from losing speed or power. This ruling then granted OEMs to offer
new engine software calibrations that eliminated the chance of inducements causing delays to
life saving measures. It makes perfect sense for the EPA to offer this flexibility and exemption to
any vehicle that would be subject to derating in a life-saving situation. We feel that our industry
should fall under this category of emergency vehicles. This alone should be reason enough to
grant our industry an exemption as we are helping save lives in these emergency
situations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.3]
What the EPA has proposed is not suitable for our industries vehicles. We are in need of
increased flexibility and a more reasonable time frame to allow operators to transport their
passengers back to the point of origin, allowing a vehicle to return to the operator's facility to
receive proper maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.3]
Given the nature of our business and the fact we are transporting large groups of people not
freight, we feel our industry should be separated into its own category. If the EPA is not willing
to grant us a derate exemption as they had all other emergency vehicles; we present the below
772
-------
counter option for your consideration and feel our counter offer would be a more acceptable time
frame. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.3]
Default maximum
speed (mi/hr)
Commercial Passenger
Vehicles Counter 1
Commercial Passenger
Vehicles Counter 2
65
derate exempt
24
hours
60
derate exempt
48
hours
55
derate exempt
72
hours
40
derate exempt
96
hours
[Additional comment by several companies that joined this mail campaign:] Four companies that
joined this mail campaign recommend 50 mi/hr instead of 40 mi/hr; see EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1198, 1199, 1241, 1267]
[Additional comment by several companies that joined this mail campaign:] There may be some
opinions that this schedule offers too much flexibility and operators would be content to run at
these speeds. We can assure you that would not be the case for our industry. With any speed
limitations our ability to complete a trip without having a second relief driver would be much
less likely. Our drivers have a 10-hour drive time for hours of service. Reducing them 5 mph
over a course of 10 hours would take roughly 50 miles for each driver. This in turn would
complicate our operations and prevent us from completing trips. With the national driver
shortage, we are already having issues and stretch drivers to the maximum distance of 600 miles.
In order to complete a 600-mile trip we would then need to add a second driver, decreasing the
overall trips we could cover, ultimately reducing our full utilization and revenue. This alone
would be reason enough for us to not be complacent and continue to operate a slowed vehicle.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1241 and 1267]
Aside from this point, is the customer dissatisfaction that would arise from a slower running
vehicle. Most of our customers are on a strict time frame and plan far in advance of arrival times
based on calculated ETA from mapping and routing software. If a group is traveling at a reduced
speed there will be a lot of complaints and frustrated passengers contacting us. There could be
missed flights, sporting events, shows, etc. .. all of these loses are a concern for operators
because we pay for reimbursements and will lose a customer's trust. We cannot afford to keep a
derated vehicle on the road and would do whatever is necessary to repair that vehicle so that it is
capable of operating at posted speed. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1241 and 1267]
Again, there is the safety aspect of vehicles traveling at reduced speed and keeping up with other
traffic. Anytime a vehicle is traveling at a slower speed than what is posted it is in a position of
being rear-ended on the interstate from a distracted driver who had their vehicle set on cruise
control, following the local speed laws. It is obvious that these factors were not considered and
773
-------
must be brought to attention. We will not be ok with running a vehicle at derated speeds and will
fix any issue, in a reasonable time frame. Our problem is we currently do not have enough time
to get that vehicle to our shop or other service facility, but what we have now is astonishing that
it was ever even put in place. To cripple a vehicle is extremely foolish and needs to be corrected
immediately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1241 and 1267]
[Additional comment by one company that joined this mail campaign:] Differing from freight
carriers, passenger carriers are many times much further away from homebase as well as much
more limited access to repair facilities. Many times under current rules the vehicles end up
parked for days or have to be towed to closer facilities just for a simple repair, that given a longer
derate schedule or exemption would not happen. This problem is even more exacerbated when
we have a group of passengers on board and now we have to find alternate transportation to get
them to their destination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1199]
Each motorcoach you see on the road takes roughly 50 vehicles off the road. There are currently
3500 Motorcoach companies in the United State comprised of roughly 36,000 passenger buses.
If the goal of the EPA is to reduce overall emissions, they should be lifting our industry up and
encouraging group travel as opposed to other modes of transportation. The bottom line is simple
Motorcoaches reduce pollution [Emphasis in original. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1199]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA reasons that relaxing inducements would more effectively result in truck operators properly
maintaining SCR and proposes that for high-speed vehicles the initial inducement would be 65
miles per hour (mph) and the final inducement no lower than 50 mph (up from the current final
inducement of 5 mph). For low-speed vehicles, the proposed initial inducement is 50 mph and
the final inducement no lower than 35 mph. Such inducements are too lax to encourage a truck
operator to act in a timely fashion to fix a problem and should not be finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 12]
Further, the proposed derate schedules would allow up to 60 hours of operation before the final
inducement takes effect. That would be 60 hours of driving, without emission controls, through
vulnerable communities, past schools and recreational areas and near homes and small-business
and community hubs. This should not be finalized either. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1,
p. 12]
If EPA believes changes to the inducement strategies are technologically necessary, NACAA
offers the following recommendations. First, EPA's proposed inducements, which would
dramatically increase maximum speeds allowed under the derate schedules, should be revised
considerably downward. Second, EPA should amend the definition of a low-speed vehicle from
a 20-mph threshold to a 30-mph threshold so that these vehicles would be subject to a more
appropriate low-speed vehicle derate schedule. Third, EPA should finalize derate schedules with
less time between stages to reduce the total allowed hours of operation before the final
inducement occurs. Finally, rather than just relaxing inducements and potentially allowing a
truck with improperly maintained SCR to continue operating with nominal constraint, EPA
should put in place measures that will hold manufacturers accountable for addressing the
774
-------
durability and sensor issues about which the agency, dealerships and manufacturers have
received complaints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 12]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
A derate schedule for high-speed trucking of four stages, each having varying lengths that should
allow long-haulers to return to their home base or a trusted repair shop.
This proposed approach to inducement would allow many vehicle owners to more efficiently
address conditions that trigger inducements and save on costs. For long-haul carriers, the 12 and
60 mile hours allotted for the latter derating stages are certainly an improvement. NASTC
believes that having 20 and 120 hours, respectively, for the later stages would enable many more
carriers to reach home, and we urge adopting the longer time allotments, at least for long-haul
trucking. The ability to return to a motor carrier's garage or a known and trusted local repair
facility to attend to emission system problems is very important and desirable. Safety and
security issues are heightened when one must attend to repairs and parts replacements on
sophisticated systems and attempts self-repair. There are also heightened risks when one entrusts
repairs to an unknown shop—there are some unscrupulous actors who take advantage of
stranded truckers. The costs of repairs away from home escalate, due to the potential for delayed
acquisition of new parts and the need of extended lodging for the duration of the delay.
Meanwhile, when a truck is not moving, it isn't earning money. Contracts and customers become
at stake of finding another carrier, making a much costlier experience that the current
inducement regime imposes. Therefore, having sufficient time to avoid such conditions and risks
would be a tremendous improvement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 2]
These changes are crucial. Long-haul truckers must minimize down-time. A truck that is stuck in
the shop, poking along the interstate at 5 miles per hour, being towed, or repeatedly having the
same emissions system problems costs truckers and motor carriers. And that costs all of us. That
is because trucks haul more than 80 percent of America's freight. Trucks bring the goods that
stock store shelves and online vendors' warehouses. Trucking is vital to our nation's and our
personal well-being, health, quality of life, our communities' viability, and our prosperity. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 2.]
Derate speeds for high-speed vehicles from 65 mph to 50 mph in four stages, each derating in 5
mph increments.
Specifically, NASTC applauds separate inducement schedules for high- and low-speed vehicles
— making it easier for truckers to make repairs while on the road, using generic scan tools, and
providing more, specific information like diagnostic codes — and better warranty coverage of
emission system and parts failures so as to keep trucks that remain in service performing
emissions reduction while reducing truckers' costs of servicing the systems for the actual life of
a vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 2. ]
Separate inducement schedules for high- and low-speed commercial vehicles. Longer derate time
periods and faster speeds for high-speed trucking, and shorter times and slower speeds for low-
speed vehicles, are a much superior approach to inducements. The proposed schedules are much
775
-------
better suited to significantly different types of trucking. The requisite speed differentials for fast-
and slow-moving vehicles experiencing inducement (legitimately or from false positives) take a
common-sense approach of designing different schedules for vehicles engaged in very different
operational models in very different settings. While we can only speak to the high-speed
schedule particulars, we support this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: The maximum speeds for low-speed vehicles given in Proposed
Inducement Schedules, Table IV-13 as 50, 45, 40, and 35 miles per hour (mph) should be
revised. NESCAUM recommends that the maximum speeds given for all four proposed engine
hours of operation for low-speed vehicles be reduced. Owners of low-speed vehicles, which are
often locally driven delivery vehicles, will not be induced to repair their vehicles quickly with
the proposed maximum speeds given in Table IV-13. A locally driven delivery vehicle could
operate at the lowest speed of 35 mph without much of a performance penalty in a congested
traffic area. Many roads in urban areas have speed limits of 25 mph or lower. In addition, many
of the problems cited by commentators that arise when an engine is derated would not greatly
affect low-speed, locally driven vehicles, such as large towing expenses and stranding vehicles
and drivers far from home. Therefore, it is not appropriate or necessary to allow locally driven
low-speed vehicles to drive as fast as allowed in the proposed Inducement Schedule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
Even for vehicles where the engine derating is an incentive to perform required maintenance, the
new schedule allows for up to 60 hours of operation before the final inducement goes into effect.
This could amount to 60 hours of driving on local streets, near schools, small businesses, and
residences, without emissions control. We strongly urge EPA to reconsider the low-speed vehicle
inducement schedule and make the derated vehicle speeds significantly lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
OOIDA supports the proposed inducement schedules and various derate principles included in
Section IV, D. These provisions focus on conditions that are within a driver's control, implement
a multi-step derate schedule, and a backup check to override false inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Even for those vehicles where the engine derating is an incentive to perform required
maintenance, the new schedule allows for up to 60 hours of operation before the final
inducement goes into effect. This could amount to 60 hours of driving on local streets, near
schools, small businesses, and residences without emissions control. We strongly urge EPA to
reconsider the low-speed vehicle inducement schedule and make the derated vehicle speeds
significantly lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 15]
776
-------
The maximum speeds for low-speed vehicles given in Proposed Inducement Schedules, Table
IV-13 as 50, 45, 40, and 35 miles per hour (mph) should be revised. OTC and MANE-VU
recommend that the maximum speeds given for all four proposed engine hours of operation for
low-speed vehicles should be reduced. Owners of low-speed vehicles, which are often locally
driven delivery vehicles, will not be induced to repair their vehicles in a timely manner with the
proposed maximum speeds given in Table IV-13. A locally driven delivery vehicle could operate
at the lowest speed of 35 mph without much of a performance penalty in a congested traffic area.
Many roads in urban areas have speed limits of 25 mph or lower. In addition, many of the
problems cited by commentators that arise when an engine is derated, such as towing expense
and time lost when drivers and their vehicles are stranded far from home, would not greatly
affect low-speed, locally driven vehicles. Therefore, it is not appropriate or necessary to allow
locally driven low-speed vehicles to drive as fast as allowed in the proposed Inducement
Schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.15]
Organization: Scruggs Company
The Truck engines that out in the industry today have become cleaner from engineering a
aftertreatment system, with that being said we ourselves have experienced several close calls on
the roadway, letting these truck engine go further and of course derate the engines until they can
get to a local shop without using towing companies or be put in an unsafe situation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2800, p.l]
Organization: Six Point Transport Incorporated
65mph very good [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2591, p.l]
Organization: State Trucker Associations (1)
The proposed changes for the freight sector reduce truck speeds in 5 mph increments beginning
at 65 mph and ending at 50 mph at 60 hours of engine operation. Our member fleets have
indicated this modification should ensure adequate time for drivers to reach repair facilities while
avoiding operating at unsafe speeds or the need to have their vehicles towed which can cost
thousands of dollars. Other considerations include providing adequate time for vehicles operating
in remote areas to reach repair facilities as well as allowing drivers to finish their deliveries
should the in-cab display appear during a shift. EPA's proposed modification will also allow
fleets added time to access preferred repair facilities as opposed to the limited choices they may
have under the existing derate schedules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1075-A1, p.l]
[Additional comment by one of the 23 organizations that joined this mail campaign, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-055-1185, P.2] Comments from Kennesaw Trans, people that deal with the Derate
issues:
"All for that here in the shop. We constantly have trucks going down on the NOx sensor
codes. Luckily we keep them in stock, but out on the road that doesn't help. I cannot
think of one instance where we had a truck have a fault code for a NOx sensor and it be
anything more than the sensor malfunctioning. Right now with parts being hard to find, a
777
-------
4 hour time frame before de-rate isn't sufficient time to have the repairs done on the road.
This proposal would allow our trucks to seek repair facilities without long wait times or
even make it back to our home terminal for repairs. This is all a win-win situation for us
as it save us money on outside repairs, breakdowns, and deliveries wouldn't need to be
repowered or rescheduled." Brandon Shuping - Shop Foreman
"I have always felt this was a huge safety concern that has been over looked for 10 years
now. They did help somewhat recently with a countdown timer - allowing drivers to
safety get to a dealership. If they propose changes as stated below, this would help
tremendously. Not only safety of our drivers but everyone else out on the roads these
days, -not to mention the savings to each commercial hauler in towing expense!" David
H Rose Jr. - Maintenance Department
"I think this is a great idea. Cutting the speed to 5 mph is a big safety issue. This new plan will
greatly increase the safety of our drivers and everyone else around them. Everyone seems to be a
hurry these days. As for the money side, it will let us get our drivers and equipment to our
preferred shops. Small local shops don't always have the programming or parts to repair our
truck, which usually means towing to a dealership. It will save a lot of money on parts &
towing. " Evelyn Balsters - Former Driver
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
Notably, the proposed final derate speed restrictions—50 mph for high-speed vehicles and 35
mph for low-speed vehicles—equal or come just under the speed limits for roadways on which
many of these vehicles will operate. For example, a heavy-duty tractor on certain urban
interstates and major state highways in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island are subject to a 55 mph speed limit.83 EPA's statement that
"final restricted speed of 50 mph prevents the vehicle from travel on most interstate highways
with state laws regarding impeding traffic" is not true in most States, which, if they have
minimum speeds at all, typically set those speeds at 40-45 mph. 84 Low-speed vehicles such as a
refuse hauler, street sweeper, or similar utility vehicle operating in residential neighborhoods
and city streets will face typical speed limits of 25-35 mph.85 There is very limited incentive (or
none at all) for these vehicles to replenish DEF levels even after 60 hours of inadequate
maintenance under the proposed derate schedules. The States therefore disagree with EPA's
statement that "the proposed derate schedules would be no less effective than the current
approach,"86 and urge EPA to adopt a stricter schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1,
pp. 19-20]
83. Cal. Vehicle Code § 22406; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-219(a); Del. Code, tit. 21, §
4169(a)(5); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 17; N.J. Stat. § 39:4-98(c) (50 mph limit); Or.
Rev. Stat. § 811.105(2)(e); R.I. Gen. Laws § § 31-14-2(a)(2).
84. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-220(a) (40 mph); Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles,
"Rules of the Road," ch. 4 (40 mph minimum speed on Massachusetts Turnpike),
available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-rules-of-the-road-0/download; N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 20-141(c) (40-45 mph minimum speeds).
778
-------
85. Cal. Vehicle Code § 22352(b)(1) (setting default 25 mph limit in residential zones);
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-1101(2)(c) (30 mph in residential zones); Del. Code, tit. 21, §
4169(a)(2) (25 mph in residential zones); D.C. Mun. Regs., tit. 18, § 2206.2 (20 mph in
residential zones); Honolulu Traffic Code, § 15-7.2(b) (25 mph default limit); 625 111.
Comp. Stat. 5/1 l-601(c) (30 mph in urban district); Md. Transp. Code § 21 -801-1 (b)(2)-
(3) (30-35 mph in residential districts); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, §§ 17, 17C (25-30 mph
limits in "thickly settled" or business districts); Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. (2) (20-35
mph speed limits for urban and residential zones); N.J. Stat. § 39:4-98(b) (25-35 mph
speed limits for business and residential zones); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-141(b) (35 mph
inside city limits); Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.105(2)(b), (d) (20-25 mph speed limits in business
and residential zones); R.I. Gen. Laws § § 31-14-2(a)(l) (25 mph in business and
residential districts); Wash. Rev. Code 46.61.400(2)(a) (25 mph on city and town streets);
Wis. Stat. § 346.57(4)(e)-(g) (25-35 mph speed limits in cities and outlying areas).
86. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,543.
The States support efforts to prevent false inducements, which are understandably frustrating for
operators and undermine public buy-in for emission controls.87 But the false inducement
problem calls for a technological fix from manufacturers; it does not justify relaxing the derate
schedule. The States likewise are sympathetic to the safety concerns around a final derate speed
restriction of 5 mph in certain high-speed conditions.88 However, these concerns can be
addressed with a derate schedule that is still far stricter than that proposed. For example, final
derate speed restrictions of 35 mph for high-speed vehicles and 20 mph for low-speed vehicles,
especially in combination with a gradual schedule of progressive derates, would still allow all
vehicles to safely exit freeways, finish routes, and find repair facilities if needed, while providing
sufficient incentive to proactively maintain aftertreatment systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1255-A1, p. 20]
87. See id. at 17,538.
88. See id. at 17,539.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA should also allow for transitions between the vehicle speed levels rather than step
changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 124]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
UMA applauds these proposals; however, while the passenger carrier industry would prefer no
inducements, similar to the emergency vehicle exemption, the schedule below reflects a widely
supported schedule that helps meet the requirements of the consumer while working the
inducement problem or making alternative arrangements.
779
-------
Default maximum speed (MPH)
Commercial Passenger Vehicles
65
24 hours
60
48 hours
55
72 hours
50
96 hours|
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311 -A1, p.4]
Organization: Dennis Streif, Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.
I would hope that this regulation can be changed to allow more time (20 - 40 hours) for a vehicle
to get to a safe operating spot and repair facility. This regulation is a burden and put operators
and passengers in an unsafe predicament. We do want a clean air environment in this country
and worldwide, however it would be a spirit of corporation for the EPA to provide some relief on
the derate shut-down. Please give this another consideration [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2811,
p.l]
Organization: Virginia Motor coach Association
It is important to note that there is a current exemption of inducements applied to emergency
vehicles. Because of safety concerns and risk to supporting human health, in 2012, EPA issued a
DFR for all emergency vehicles such as ambulances and firetrucks, preventing them from losing
speed or power. This ruling provided OEMs the ability to offer new engine software calibrations
that eliminated the chance of inducements that would cause delays to life saving measures.
Motorcoaches also play an important role when a natural disaster occurs and people need to be
evacuated. Each year this industry is asked to transport citizens out of an area that has
experienced an environmental hazard such as a hurricane or wildfire. The industry is actively
engaged in moving our nation's military in time-sensitive situations, such as national guard
deployments. With the multi-use purposes motorcoaches provide, including life saving measures,
it would fall in line to include this industry in the derating exemption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2715-A1, p.3].
This proposed rule change is not safe or sensible for our industry's vehicles. Rather than further
restricting the industry and causing additional undue burdens, we need flexibility and reasonable
timeframes that allow operators to transport their passengers back to the point of origin to
receive proper maintenance. The motorcoach industry transports people and should be separated
from the freight transporters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-A1, p.3].
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group supports the need to improve SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction)
inducements as noted by the following comment. In addition to replacing the 5mi/hr with a 50 or
35 mi/hr derate, we support introducing a bus exclusion to avoid potential safety issues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1324-A1, p. 5]
780
-------
Volvo Group recommends this change in inducement derate as well as an exclusion for buses to
be implemented as soon as possible as these issues affect today the potential safety of
buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
EPA's proposed inducement schedules are not stringent enough to incentivize operators to
address problems with malfunctioning SCRs in a reasonable timeframe. Robust engine emission
standards lose significant effectiveness if control devices are bypassed in practice. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response
For the purpose of this section, each subtopic is summarized and responded to separately.
Comments on Exempting Motorcoaches
Motorcoach operators and trade groups commented that today's inducement approach has long
created serious risk to life in their operations. Volvo commented that they supported exempting
buses in this type of service as soon as possible because these issues affect potential safety of
operations and uptake of advanced technology. ABA, Coach USA, Compass Coach Inc., and
other motorcoach carriers requested that EPA allow motorcoaches to operate with the same
exemption from inducements as emergency vehicles for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) The transport of passengers requires different considerations that hauling conventional freight
(e.g., need for food, water, and relief from climate extremes) and should not be stranded
intentionally for hours while awaiting a rescue bus. (2) Motorcoach operators are already
sufficiently compelled to perform proper maintenance and use DEF because they must reduce
risk of breakdowns or damage to expensive engines - they depend on these engines for revenue.
(3) Drivers are sufficiently motivated by warning lights to take action, and reducing the stress of
a 5mph shutdown would allow them focus more on passenger safety. (4) Motorcoaches often
serve in an emergency response capacity and should not be subject to artificial inducements that
prevent performing this work. ABA noted that in FY2021, buses moved nearly 28,000,000
military personnel and in 2020 were critical to hurricane evacuation efforts. (5) Passenger
motorcoach companies are driven to perform proper maintenance because operations are heavily
dependent on passenger-driven schedules, any delay risks expensive reimbursements owed to
passengers for missed events (e.g., airline tickets, theater tickets) and cost to reputation. For
example, Motorcoach Companies, noted that even a 5mph speed decrease can cost an hour of
time in a shift which can require a new driver be located for the bus (due to hours-of-service
requirements that limit hours per day drivers can legally drive) and can disrupt schedules causing
passengers to miss scheduled events. (6) Consistent with EPA's stated attention to environmental
justice, an exemption would reduce risk of losing a key transportation option for underserved and
price-sensitive communities which is sometimes the only mode of transportation available to
connect to jobs, education, medical services, and other modes of transportation.
(7) There needs to sufficient time for the motorcoach to reach a safe location. It is not unusual
for motorcoach routes to traverse remote stretches of the country. Also, there are not as many
service locations available to a motorcoach, as opposed to those trucks.
781
-------
Carerra Tours supports a schedule that enables them to safely deliver passengers and get to a safe
place to repair a vehicle. Coach USA supports the proposed schedule but would support more
time and is concerned the proposal doesn't take the unique concerns of motorcoach operations
into account, noting that any speed below 65mph is unsafe on the highway. Compass Coach Inc.
commented that they need time to find a safe place, get a vehicle looked at by a repair facility,
acquire parts to fix a vehicle (noting most of the time it is a sensor failure that causes
inducement) and that 72hours would be more appropriate.
Some motorcoach operators suggested an alternate derate schedule if the final rule did not
include an outright exemption from inducements for motorcoaches. The alternate schedule
started with derating to 65 mph, followed by further derates in 5 mph increments after every 24
hours of operation. The final derate condition would be 40 or 50 mph after 96 hours.
Response:
In a previous rule, EPA modified the definition of "Defeat device" at 40 CFR 86.004-2 to allow
heavy-duty engine manufacturers to design their engines with auxiliary emission control devices
to override SCR-related inducements for engines installed in ambulances or fire trucks (77 FR
34130, June 8, 2012). EPA adopted that rule to enable these dedicated emergency vehicles with
diesel engines to perform mission-critical life- and property-saving work without risk of losing
power, speed, or torque due to abnormal conditions of the emission control systems (79 FR
46356, August 8, 2014).
We recognize that motorcoach fleets operate with the grave responsibility of ensuring the safety
of their passengers, and that they are also called into duty periodically for military support and
various emergency response needs. All these functions depend on reliable engine performance to
keep buses moving over long distances at typical highway speeds. This type of operation is not
the same as that of the purpose-built function, mission, and typical operation of ambulances and
fire trucks. Completely exempting motorcoaches from inducement provisions would leave many
buses operating for most of their lifetimes lacking the assurances from inducements that
maintenance of an adequate supply of DEF is reasonable likely to occur and that engine designs
will deter SCR-related tampering.
In response to the suggested alternate derate schedule for motorcoaches, we have prioritized
designing an inducement approach that allows for motorcoaches to have sufficient time and
ability to reach a safe location, while maintaining inducement provisions to provide the
assurance that SCR systems will continue to work properly. The inducements approach in this
final rule involves modest speed derates to provide that assurance. We understand the comments
explaining that motorcoach operators have various responsibilities to ensure that engines will
serve reliably to complete their routes safely and on time. With this responsibility, it is clear that
motorcoach operators will be highly motivated to perform any amount of maintenance that
would be needed to avoid the risk of disrupting schedules or jeopardizing the well-being of their
passengers. As a result, we believe an initial derate speed of 65 mph is appropriate because it
should be effective in compelling motorcoach operators to address derates under normal
circumstances. The final derate speed of 25 mph after 180 hours is intended to reflect the
782
-------
extreme emergency that would cause a motorcoach operator to continue operating without
performing the maintenance necessary to resolve a fault condition causing the inducement.
We have provided a regulatory definition of motorcoach in 40 CFR 1036.810 to clarify that the
alternate schedule applies for buses designed to travel long distances with row seating for at least
30 passengers. This is intended to include charter services available to the general public.
For the reasons described above, we do not expect that the inducement provisions adopted in this
final rule will prevent motorcoaches from continuing to provide transportation for underserved
and price-sensitive communities.
General Comments on EPA's Proposed Inducement Schedule
ABA commented that they believe adjusting the derate schedule with a more appropriate final
inducement speed has merit but need additional time to review the merits with operators. ATA
is supportive of the derate schedule and believes it is justified to improve access to repair
facilities and avoid unsafe operating speeds. NASTC commented that the proposed schedule is
an improvement over the existing schedule, but more time (120 hours) is needed to allow trucks
to return to home base or a trusted repair shop which is extremely important. NASTC added that
safety and security issues are heightened during breakdowns and add risk when one has to trust
repairs to unknown facilities on an emergency basis where there can be unscrupulous actors who
can take advantage of stranded truckers. The Scruggs Company commented that they have
experienced several safety "close calls" on the roadway and trucks need more time and higher
final inducement speeds to avoid an unnecessary tow or being put in an unsafe condition to get to
a repair facility. Six Point Transport submitted comments in support of the proposal. Twenty-
three individual State Trucking Associations submitted support for the proposal stating that the
proposed schedule should allow drivers to reach preferred repair facilities while avoiding unsafe
conditions and needless towing that can cost thousands of dollars.
CARB and ICCT proposed to apply speed derates to vehicles if the system detects a fault
condition where the NOx override determines that the SCR catalyst is working properly. The
recommended approach was to require a final derated speed of 35mph with a 40% torque derate
for high-speed vehicles.
CARB suggested an alternative to EPA's proposed derate schedule that would result in a final
speed of 5mph in 10 hours where the NOx override determines that the SCR catalyst is not
working properly. CATF+ supported CARB's suggested derate schedule. CATF+ commented
further that allowing 60 hours of operation before the final derate speeds would produce massive
quantities of excess pollution; they also commented specifically that the proposed derate speeds
are too high for low-speed vehicles. DOEE, NACAA, and the Wisconsin DNR stated they are
concerned that the proposed schedule would not sufficiently compel operators to properly
maintain vehicles. ICCT commented that similar to CARB's comments two schedules should be
finalized, one that reduces speeds further after 60 hours if SCR efficiency loss is 10% or less,
and 5mph after 12 hours (or 16 hours if safe harbor not implemented). The States of California et
al. commented that although they are sympathetic to safety concerns with existing inducements,
they have concerns that can be addressed with lower speeds than proposed.
783
-------
Coach USA recommended increasing the time between the first and second stage of derated
vehicle speeds, for faults other than low DEF, from six hours to at least 10 hours to allow for
reaching a repair facility.
CARB, EMA, and Cummins suggested that we include a gradual transition to start each new
derate speed to avoid abrupt changes in vehicle speeds while driving. CARB suggested that the
derate should occur at a rate not to exceed 1 mph for every five minutes.
David Pedersen recommended an alternative approach, based on what applies for light-duty
vehicles, of allowing vehicles to shut down, and then disallow engine starting if any component
or system caused the engine to be noncompliant.
CARB commented that they do not support EPA's proposed derate schedule, that EPA has not
and cannot demonstrate that the proposed schedule is permissible under the Clean Air Act
("CAA") because it could allow vehicles to operate for potentially unlimited periods of time
even if those vehicles are emitting pollutants in excess of the standards, and that EPA has not
established that the proposed schedule is more effective than the existing one to compel proper
maintenance and deter tampering and is clearly arbitrary and capricious.
Response:
EPA has carefully reviewed all comments, and further reviewed and analyzed available data to
finalize an adjusted schedule from that proposed that EPA expects will address many of the
identified concerns (see Section IV of the preamble for further information on and the basis for
the final schedule). The final speeds have been adjusted from the proposed rule in two ways.
First, we have added a new category for medium-speed vehicles (see Section IV of the preamble
for further discussion). Second, we have modified the low-speed category after consideration of
concerns expressed in the comments (see our summary and responses in this section related to
comments on low- and high-speed vehicle schedules). Further, EPA modified the time portion
of the schedule for each of these speed categories, such that lower-speed vehicles have less time
prior to final inducement due to different operating profiles and needs (see our summary and
responses in this section related to comments on inducement schedule hours).
Inducements are a unique solution developed to ensure that SCR systems have adequate high-
quality DEF and operators do not tamper with specific components that would render the SCR
system inoperable. The revised schedule considers over a decade of experience with SCR
systems and full market availability of DEF. The revised schedule also reduces the risk that
owners will tamper due to an overly restrictive approach, for example, by allowing owners to
spend money on repairs instead of unnecessary towing. It reduces that risk by creating more
finely tuned derate schedules to prevent commercial operation of noncompliant vehicles, but
without the additional burdens that may occur under a more restrictive approach.
Some commenters stated that the schedule was not sufficient for ensuring proper and timely
maintenance. These commenters did not provide discussion or data of how EPA's balanced
approach would result in more or less tampering and more or less compliance in the real-world.
EPA recognizes that there is concern that trucks will operate for longer periods of time in need of
784
-------
repair, however commenters did not provide and we are not aware of data supporting that any
potential emission increases from this would be more or less than the potential increase in
emissions from tampering due to an overly restrictive inducement approach. Allowing trucks to
return to their preferred repair shops can also result in more effective repairs, which can also
serve to reduce emissions. Further, EPA has finalized a lower final speed after an additional
period of time which will further encourage prompt and proper repairs, and should further
decrease the already unlikely indefinite use of the vehicle without the operator addressing the
cause of the inducement. Finally, as noted earlier in this response, EPA adjusted the schedules by
developing a medium-speed category that results in a final inducement speed of 25mph faster
than a high-speed vehicle and reduced the final inducement speed and schedule for low-speed
vehicles as well. EPA's approach relies on the principle of selecting a derate schedule that
accomplishes the intended effect using the least restrictive means. The proposed rule described
how operators would be compelled to perform SCR-related maintenance with a derate schedule
that avoided concerns raised by commenters about potential safety and cost problems associated
with abruptly decreasing maximum vehicle speed to 5 mph. Commenters did not engage with the
question of how a derate schedule could accomplish maintenance objectives using the least
restrictive means. Rather, commenters focused simply on certainty of outcomes and potential
consequences of any delay in performing maintenance. We note that even such an inducement
approach provides no certainty in guaranteed emission reductions however, as it is possible for a
fleet to substitute a derated vehicle (e.g., a school bus) with an older vehicle until the derated
vehicle is repaired and returned to duty.
As further discussed in preamble Section IV, EPA has carefully analyzed NREL data to
understand and categorize what effective final inducement speeds should be applied to a vehicle
based on its recent vehicle operating profile. It would not be possible for vehicles operating
primarily on the highway to continue to operate profitably if they can no longer operate on the
highway. Commenters also provided no rationale to counter our assessment that a derate
schedule allowing operators time to complete a job and return to a preferred repair facility
without requiring a tow or rescue vehicle should reduce in-use real-world tampering rates. EPA
believes the initial derate speeds we are adopting will be effective in leading operators to make
timely repairs. Any increased emissions resulting from a delay in that maintenance would be
dramatically offset by even a very small number of cases where operators installed SCR-delete
kits to resolve their frustration with a more restrictive approach to inducements. NREL data
show that even vehicles with lower average speeds will frequently travel at high speeds to
accomplish their work. Removing the capability of achieving these high speeds will prevent
operators from being able to complete necessary work and therefore provide proper incentives,
while minimizing potential motivations for tampering that can result from over-restricted speeds
and forcing the expense of repeated tows. See also our responses to similar comments related to
operating hours in section.
EPA believes that the final derate schedule should allow operators to return to a preferred repair
facility, which should help ensure that mechanics understand how to perform the necessary
maintenance.
EPA agrees that inducements are an important part of the compliance program. EPA has
considered that an overly restrictive inducement policy could increase operator frustration and
785
-------
lead to in-use tampering and that a lax inducement policy may not sufficiently compel owners
and operators to maintain SCR systems with an adequate supply of high quality DEF. The
inducement program in the final rule is expected to remove any reasonable possibility for
operators to continue in commercial service without addressing detected fault conditions. The
inducement program in the final rule recognizes the diversity of the fleet and appropriately
applies speed reductions based on an individual vehicle's operating profile. Improved
serviceability and more appropriate inducement schedules will reduce operator frustration that
can create an incentive for tampering with emission control systems.
We agree that speed derates should include a gradual transition. We have modified the final rule
to include CARB's suggested approach of specifying that derates occur at a rate of 1 mph for
every five minutes. Manufacturers may apply this in steps or they may design the engine to apply
derates as a continuous decrease in vehicle speed at the specified rate until the vehicle reaches
the targeted speed.
Coach USA's comments on the time between first and second derate speeds are described in the
context of motorcoach operations. See Section 8.3.1 for a discussion of this and other issues for
motorcoaches. The response here addresses their concern as it applies for other types of vehicles.
Years of in-use operating experiences has shown that many malfunctions present as a fault
indicating low DEF level even though the DEF tank has good-quality DEF available. It would
therefore be inappropriate to create a separate derate schedule for DEF fill level separate from
other fault conditions. We selected six hours as the initial interval to allow for refilling DEF or
taking other readily available actions to restore the engine to proper functioning. We also
selected derate speeds in 5 mph increments to allow for continued operation while operators
arrange for repair or take other actions to address the possible causes of the detected fault
condition. This gradual escalation in the derate schedule is intended to achieve a balance
between increasing the motivation to correct the fault condition with an understanding that
operators may need more time to arrange for maintenance or repair that is best accomplished
after returning to a home base.
CARB and ICCT proposed adopting a separate inducement schedule based on the NOx override
determination that the SCR catalyst is working properly. The final rule does not include the
requirement to include a NOx override as an input into inducement algorithms, so we are unable
to consider whether to apply a separate derate schedule as CARB and ICCT suggested. Further,
our proposal was based on the concept of applying inducements where fault conditions cause an
increase in emissions. We proposed that the NOx override would only be used to prevent
inducements from being applied when the SCR catalyst is working properly.
Other issues related to the number of operating hours specified in the derate schedule are
addressed later in this section (see Section 8.3.6 of this document).
The comment from David Pedersen raises two separate issues. First is the recommendation to
disallow engine starting in response to a detected fault condition instead of applying speed
derates. Many operators of heavy-duty vehicles would keep their engines running indefinitely
with a detected fault condition if that is what they need to do to continue operating. Letting
engines run for long periods between trips would be an easy way to defeat the inducement; this
786
-------
would allow the combined adverse environmental of high emissions while operating and the
additional impact of emissions during extended idle. Second is the recommendation to apply
inducements for any malfunction leading the engine to exceed emission standards. Any
inducements for components other than those SCR system components included in the proposal
are outside the scope of this final rule; see preamble Section IV for our discussion on the final
SCR system components covered by the final inducement provisions and the basis for those
provisions.
For the reasons discussed directly below, EPA disagrees with CARET s comments that (1) we
failed to consider important aspects of the inducement proposal intended to compel corrective
actions by vehicle owners, and the corresponding emissions impacts, and (2) this failure
constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action, and contravenes U.S. EPA's statutory duty to
ensure heavy-duty engines and vehicles comply with applicable emissions standards over their
useful lives. Further, EPA disagrees with CARET s comments that EPA has not, and cannot,
demonstrate that the proposed inducement strategy is permissible under the statute, that there are
good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better. EPA does not agree that the final
inducement provisions violate the statute by allowing vehicles with emision system problems to
continue operating. See preamble Section IV for a detailed discussion of the authority and basis
for our final inducement provisions, which includes consideration of public comments on the
proposed rulemaking and rationale for any changes from existing guidance in our final
provisions. See also our response to inducement-related comments in section 8 of this document
for further explanation, including why the final inducement schedules will not result in indefinite
use of vehicles that are in inducement.
EPA has performed rigorous analysis, outreach, and request for comment in both the ANPR and
NPRM, as well as fully considering the information provided in public comments, to develop
this final rule. As discussed in those documents referenced above, EPA has carefully evaluated
and finalized a final set of inducement requirements that EPA determined, through an assessment
that balanced multiple considerations, will best ensure compliance without being so restrictive as
to encourage tampering that may result in long-term noncompliance. While inducement
strategies utilized over the past decade have relied on a final inducement speed set at 5mph, EPA
believes, for the reasons explained in Section 8 of this document and Section IV of the preamble,
that the different approach finalized in this rule will be as effective, if not more effective, in real-
world compliance with emission standards and requirements overall and reduce tampering that
can result in large emission increases long-term (including after vehicles have passed their
regulatory useful life but remain in service). We believe a change in approach is also appropriate
given that the prior guidance was developed (1) based on a different set of market conditions,
such as the unknown availability of DEF, and (2) without giving as much weight as we now
believe is appropriate, with the advantage of over a decade of experience to analyze, to the
consideration of what is the least restrictive set of requirements necessary for manufacturers to
be able to reasonably ensure use of adequate high quality DEF. Additionally, as we noted
elsewhere in this section 8, in a 2010 evaluation of in-use vehicle inducement strategies
performed by CARB, CARB concluded that "driving a truck with a 25 percent engine torque
derate and a 55 mph speed limitation was neither acceptable nor tolerable, especially when trying
787
-------
to accelerate or driving up-hill, and would likely cause a driver to refill with DEF or correct the
SCR problem as needed."27
Comments on the concept of a two speed (high- and low-) vehicle inducement proposal
ABA commented that there is merit to the proposed approach, but they were unsure how it
would work in application for motorcoach operations and whether the inducement schedule
would change if a vehicle's profile changed or fluctuated. Coach USA commented that they do
not believe a high-speed vehicle should ever be treated like a low-speed vehicle for the purposes
of inducement while ensuring passenger safety. Cummins supported the proposed development
of a multi-speed inducement concept, but recommended EPA not finalize the dynamic switching
from high- to low-speed vehicle inducement schedules because of software complexity and
potential confusion for operators. EMA supported the concept of two different inducement
schedules based on vehicle average speed. NASTC supported separate inducement schedules for
high- and low-speed vehicles. NASTC added that longer derate time periods and faster speeds
for high-speed trucking and shorter times and slower speeds for low-speed vehicles are a
common-sense and superior approach to inducements and are better suited to significantly
different types of trucking operations. OOIDA and Volvo supported the concept of two different
final inducement speeds. ICCT suggested allowing a higher final speed derate if the truck
exceeds an average speed based on typical line haul operation.
Response:
EPA has added a third category, medium-speed vehicles, to the final inducement schedules to
provide a more appropriate way of considering the operation of the real-world diverse fleet; see
Section IV of the preamble for more discussion on the final inducement schedules and why we
think it is appropriate for the schedules to progress from higher speeds to lower speeds.
ICCT's suggested approach for a different derate schedule for line-haul trucks is a different way
of describing why we are adopting a separate derate schedule for high-speed vehicles. Adding
the medium-speed category allows for more carefully defining high-speed vehicles to include
vehicles with substantial operation at highway speeds.
As proposed, the derate provisions in the final rule require that engines identify a vehicle's
appropriate speed category based on average speed over the previous 30 hours of operation. As
described in Section IV of the preamble, an individual vehicle is identified by speed category at
the onset of an inducement. As suggested by commenters, the speed category for a given
vehicles does not change after the system detects a fault condition. Instead, the derate schedule
for each speed category accounts for the changing vehicle speeds as the vehicles progresses
through the full derate schedule.
Comments on the Proposed High-Speed Vehicle Schedule
27 See 76 FR 32889-32890 (June 7, 2011) for EPA's description of CARB's evaluation in a notice requesting
comment on draft guidance for inducements.
788
-------
ATA commented that the proposed high-speed schedule will impact operations and prompt a
repair response prior to reaching the final inducement speed. CARB commented that EPA failed
to propose an inducement schedule for high-speed vehicles that is unacceptable for typical
driving, that the initial step of the high-speed inducement is insufficiently stringent based on
CARB's vehicle speed data and would have a very limited impact on inducing operators to fix
the problem. CARB commented that some states including CA have urban highway speeds of
55mph, and the final inducement speed for high-speed vehicles is not severe enough to induce
the operator to make repairs and would not be as effective as the current 5mph guidance. CARB
also objected to EPA's statement that minimum required highway speeds would prevent derated
vehicles from operating on limited-access highways. DOEE commented that final derate speeds
should be revised considerable downward. Coach USA commented that the proposed schedule is
reasonable and effective to induce drivers to correct fault conditions and ensure proper
maintenance but is concerned with any derate applied to motorcoaches with a speed of less than
65mph. ICCT recommend EPA adopt 35mph or less as a final inducement speed with a possible
exception for line-haul trucks. NASTC commented that high-speed vehicles should have more
time between stages of inducement and the first step should be 20 hours (not 12), and the final
step should be at 120 hours, not 60 hours, to allow carriers sufficient time to reach home for
long-haul trucking. States of California et al. commented that for high-speed vehicles the final
inducement speed should be 35mph. UMA, Motorcoach Companies, and other motorcoach
operators commented that while the motorcoach industry would prefer an emergency exemption,
an alternative schedule that would help meet passenger requirements while operators work to
resolve inducement-related problems or make alternative arrangements would have 24 hours
between the four stages of the proposed high-speed inducement schedule resulting in a speed of
50mph after 96 hours. CARB, DOEE, NACAA, CATF+, and the States of California et al.,
commented that EPA should amend the definition of low- and high-speed vehicles by setting the
average speed cutoff for low-speed vehicles at 30mph instead of the proposed 20mph, where
high-speed vehicles would comprise the rest.
Response:
After consideration of comments and further assessment, EPA has determined that the proposed
derate schedule for high-speed vehicles is appropriate for long-haul vehicles that are most often
operating at highway speeds. At the same time, we recognize that defining high-speed vehicles to
include all those with an average speed above 20 mph would include some vehicles that have a
more even mix of highway and intra-city operation. Rather than changing the derate schedule for
all high-speed vehicles, our additional analysis supports a conclusion that the best approach is to
increase the average speed to qualify as a high-speed vehicle, and at the same time create a
medium-speed vehicle category with derate speeds that fall between what we proposed for high-
speed and low-speed vehicles. See preamble Section IV for further details.
CARB commented that speeds on urban highways are 55 mph for trucks, and EPA should take
this into account. We recognize that it is common for highways near cities to have speed limits of
55 mph for trucks. We note, however, that high-speed vehicle operation will not be limited to
urban areas. Rather, high-speed vehicle operation will include extensive driving between cities.
All states except California, Washington, and Hawaii have rural speed limits on interstate
789
-------
highways that are at or above 65 mph.28 For 47 states then, an initial derate speed of 65 mph will
be meaningful and effective to prompt maintenance. Even though the initial derate speed in some
of those cases matches the speed limit, it is clear that operators will be substantially motivated to
avoid derates that prevent them from, for example, passing a truck that is operating slightly
below the speed limit. Considering all these factors, we do not think that it would be appropriate
in setting provisions at the national level to base the initial speed in the high-speed derate
schedule on the speed limits that apply in only three states.
We understand that minimum specified highway speeds would sometimes not prevent vehicles
from driving on limited-access highways or other specific roadways. Whether that would be
limiting in certain cases or not, we believe the more important point is that the primary impact of
any speed derates would simply be the practical effect on the driver's ability to maintain desired
operating speeds.
CARB commented that speeds on urban highways are 55 mph for trucks, and EPA should take
this into account. We recognize that it is common for highways near cities to have speed limits of
55 mph for trucks. We note, however, that high-speed vehicle operation will not be limited to
urban areas. Rather, high-speed vehicle operation will include extensive driving between cities.
All states except California, Washington, and Hawaii have rural speed limits on interstate
highways that are at or above 65 mph.29 For 47 states then, an initial derate speed of 65 mph will
be meaningful and effective to prompt maintenance. Even though the initial derate speed in some
of those cases matches the speed limit, it is clear that operators will be substantially motivated to
avoid derates that prevent them from, for example, passing a truck that is operating slightly
below the speed limit. Considering all these factors, we think it would not be appropriate here in
setting provisions at the national level to base the initial speed in the high-speed derate schedule
on the speed limits that apply in only three states.
Some commenters requested additional speed or time (up to 120 hours) for high-speed vehicles
to return home. EPA developed the high-speed inducement schedule with the intent to provide
operators of high-speed vehicles nearly three days to return home and bring the vehicle to a local
repair facility. This would be tempered by allowable hours-of-service requirements that
generally restrict driving to 10 hours per day. As explained elsewhere in this section 8 and
preamble Section IV, EPA believes the initial stage of derate will be adequate to compel
maintenance in almost all cases.
It would not be possible for vehicles operating primarily on the highway to continue to operate
profitably if they can no longer operate on the highway. Commenters did not provide any data or
rationale as to why removing the ability to travel on the highway would be ineffective as an
inducement.
Comments on the Proposed Low-Speed Vehicle Inducement
28 https://ww2.motorists.org/issues/speed-limits/state-chart/, accessed November 4, 2022.
29 https://ww2.motorists.org/issues/speed-limits/state-chart/, accessed November 4, 2022.
790
-------
CARB commented that the initial proposed inducement speed of 50mph for low-speed vehicles
is insufficiently stringent to compel action and is concerned regional or urban vehicles may
deviate routes to focus on traveling below the inducement speed limit. CARB also commented
that the final inducement speed of 35mph is not severe enough and 5mph is more effective.
CARB proposed a final speed of 20mph with a 40% torque derate for low-speed vehicles if the
NOx override indicated that there was no emissions increase associated with the inducement-
related fault. CARB also noted that they performed a survey which shows that severe derates are
effective. Coach USA commented that for low-speed vehicles 50mp is below interstate/highway
speeds and is potentially a safety risk. They added that the speed will prompt drivers to take
action to address fault conditions, although this restriction is not necessary given driver's
attention to warning lights, and any lower restriction would compromise safety without
increasing compliance with inducements. Coach USA recommends an 80-hour window. ICCT
recommends a final inducement speed of 20mph or less for low-speed vehicles and expressed
concern that urban trucks may not be affected by the proposed low-speed inducement schedule.
Maine DEP and NESCAUM commented that EPA's proposal does not provide sufficient
inducement for low-speed vehicles, since locally operated vehicles could still potentially operate
at 35mph in congested traffic to avoid remedying the problem. OTC commented that EPA
should reconsider the low-speed inducement proposal and make speeds lower. DOEE
commented that final derate speeds should be revised considerable downward, with the specific
suggestion to set a final derate speed of 25mph for low-speed vehicles in 40 hours.
Response:
The proposal included a single low-speed derate schedule for all vehicles with average speeds
below 20 mph. This would include a wide range of vehicles, including some mixed-use vehicles
with some substantial operation at highway speeds and some vehicles that would rarely or never
operate at highway speeds. Some vehicles with low average speeds might need to consistently
operate at highway speeds, but others may operate at more consistent speeds in urban areas or in
a confined space (such as a shuttle bus at an airport). As described above in the response to
comment for high-speed vehicles, after further consideration, we determined that it was best to
keep the low-speed vehicle category, but to add a medium-speed vehicle category with its own
derate schedule for vehicles that have a mix of highway and urban driving. We agree that the
proposed schedule of derating speed from 50 mph to 35 mph may not be as effective for ensuring
an adequate supply of quality DEF for low-speed vehicles. We therefore determined instead that
a better approach is to limit the low-speed vehicle category to vehicles with lower average
speeds and set an appropriate final inducement speed lower than we proposed for this speed
category. See Section IV of the preamble for more information on the final program.
There is no question that a derate speed of 5 mph will compel operators to perform necessary
maintenance to keep SCR systems working properly; however, there are additional
considerations that EPA believes are appropriate to balance in assessing true real-world
compliance impacts, as discussed elsewhere in Section 8 of this document. As we described in
the proposed rule, we developed the inducement provisions following several principles, which
accounted for operator burden, cost, safety, the risk of frustration-induced tampering in addition
to requiring that manufacturers design inducements to ensure an adequate supply of high-quality
DEF is maintained in-use. CARB's comments on the proposed rule included a recommended
791
-------
alternative derate schedule that is similar to what engine manufacturers are doing today. As
summarized and responded to earlier in this section 8, CARB's comments also included other,
mostly conclusory statements claiming that EPA's proposed derate schedule would be
insufficient to ensure maintenance of the SCR system. CARB's survey did not include a question
on whether or not higher final inducement speeds would be equally effective for operators, and if
so, what speeds should be considered. We have made several modifications to the proposed rule
after consideration of comments, all in keeping with the principles described in the proposed rule
which we maintain are the appropriate factors to balance. The resulting final rule represents our
best effort to design an inducement program that ensures timely maintenance while taking into
consideration real-world constraints associated with different types of commercial operation.
Comments on the Operating Hours Specified in the Derate Schedules
The sections above reference comments related to the timing aspect of the derate schedule—the
number of hours the engine operates at each stage before the derate escalates to the next level.
Commenters suggested that the derate schedule should allow more time, or less time before
reaching greater levels of speed restrictions. These comments largely focused on outcomes,
shifting the balance between minimizing adverse environmental outcomes and accommodating
safety, technology, and business considerations. NESCAUM added a specific comment
suggesting that the low-speed, locally driven vehicles are much less affected by problematic
derates, which would support an accelerated derate schedule.
Response:
As described above, including a medium-speed vehicle category in addition to low-speed and
high-speed vehicle categories in the final requirements resulted in a final time schedule for high-
speed vehicles that is properly aligned with the human and logistical constraints associated with
long-distance routes. We are finalizing as proposed the provision allowing high-speed vehicles to
travel for up to 60 hours with derate speeds at or above 55 mph. This is enough to allow a truck
driver to return home (and thus also allows operators to arrange for repairs after returning home).
We continue to believe that this time schedule is necessary and appropriate for ensuring
maintenance, but also accommodating the need for drivers of high-speed vehicles to be able to
return home safely. Commenters did not provide specific rationale for why more time was
needed. At the same time, we are aware that the long-distance driving considerations that led us
to the proposed time schedule for all vehicles are very different for medium-speed and low-speed
vehicles. Medium-speed and low-speed vehicles are much less likely to venture far from a home
base. As a result, their derate time schedules should be shorter than the schedule for high-speed
vehicles because there should be no need to account for several hours of driving to return home.
We have compressed the final time schedule for medium-speed vehicles, and we further
compressed the final time schedule for low-speed vehicles. See Preamble Section IV for
additional information on the derate times and speeds for the final rule.
8.4 Logic for multiple faults, in-cab display, and deactivating
derates and recurring faults
792
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
iii. Display Requirements - ABA is supportive of the proposed requirement that engine
manufacturers display the triggering condition leading to an inducement and a countdown timer
to estimate the time or distance till the next inducement stage. This information could be very
useful to avoid the stranding of vehicles and passengers. The current display of numeric codes
and not necessarily a dash icon light is extremely confusing and not easily discernable to many
drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 10]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Adequate warning to the operator of impending inducement and at each step of the inducement is
critical for providing adequate warning of the consequences of inaction to fix the fault before
inducements occur. CARB staff supports the proposed in-cab display requirements and suggests
the following additional specifications. In addition to indicating 'inducement pending,' the fault
condition must be displayed such as 'low DEF' or 'poor DEF', so the operator is informed as to
how to fix the problem. In addition, the inducement display at each step should identify at
minimum what the derate in torque and/or maximum speed will be, so the driver is aware of the
limitations of the vehicle. Finally, CARB staff recommends requiring progressively greater
audible and visible warnings at each escalating inducement step to induce the operator to act
more urgently to fix the fault. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 107-108]
The NPRM requests comments on the deactivating derate provisions. Once an inducement in
activated, the means to deactivate the derate is important when the fault condition is fixed. Self-
healing from an inducement is appropriate when the fault condition is fixed, and CARB staff
concurs with the self-healing protocol of confirming the fault condition no longer exists and that
the NOx efficiency override is within 10 percent of normal. However, staff has concerns with the
use of a generic scan tool to clear codes and to deactivate derates. The generic scan tool was
explicitly prohibited in the 2010 U.S. EPA and CARB July 2010 public workshop presentation.
Abuse of using a generic scan tool to override the derate without fixing the fault condition is a
high possibility because of the ease of obtaining generic scan tools. Using the generic scan tool
over and over again to deactivate derates may become a strategy to tamper with the DEF system,
resulting in excessive hours of vehicle operation where a fault condition has not been fixed and
emissions are not compliant. It is reasonable, however, to allow the generic scan tool to be used
to clear codes when repairs are done. CARB staff recommends a limit of up to two times to
deactivate derates with a generic scan tool when reoccurring fault condition appears but only if
the vehicle is not already at the final inducement step. For detecting a fault condition that may
recur, CARB staff supports monitoring for 80 hours of engine operation for the same triggered
condition, and if found, the vehicle would restart the derate at the same point that the system last
deactivated the derate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 108]
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
EPA require manufactures to provide more precise information to drivers to alert them about
DEF levels and how long remaining DEF volumes will last; this will allow drivers to plan
793
-------
accordingly to address a fault condition, while taking into account route schedules and
stops. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
Coach USA also recommends that EPA require manufactures to provide more precise
information to drivers to alert them about DEF levels and how long remaining DEF volumes will
last; this will allow drivers to plan accordingly to address a fault condition, while taking into
account route schedules and stops. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 5]
Coach USA supports EPA obtaining information from engine manufacturers (mainly Cummins
and Volvo for interstate buses) to understand options for easily notifying drivers of fault
conditions. Coach USA supports a simple, informative alert for drivers to avoid inundating
drivers with information that may compromise the driver's attention or passenger safety. While
Coach USA opposes any inducement rule for the reasons noted above, it supports the proposed
requirement at section 1036.111(f) that engine manufacturers display the triggering condition
leading to an inducement and a countdown timer to estimate the time or distance until any next
inducement stage is reached. Such a timer will promote safety to the extent it lowers the risk of a
bus being stranded with passengers in a potentially dangerous highway setting. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.111(b): With regard to the proposed fault conditions of paragraph (b), we
note that it is critically important that sufficient notification be allowed before applying
inducements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 102]
• §1036.111(g)(1): "(1) Evaluate whether the detected fault condition continues to apply
and reset the Active 100 Hour Array in the OBD system when the fault condition no
longer exists. Deactivate derates if the engine confirms that the fault condition is resolved
and the override factor for NOx conversion efficiency is at or below 0.10 for a full
inducement drive schedule." EPA's proposed reset differs from CARB's requirement at
13 CCR 1971.1 (h)(5.3.6) to pause and resume data collection, while (for (h)(5.3.6))
employing the MIL-on bin (bin 17). We note that the proposal directly conflicts with the
13 CCR 1971.1 requirement that was incorporated by reference. Further, EMA
recommends that EPA not make the proposed changes. However, in the future, if EPA
wishes to make such changes: (i) it is imperative that the Agency coordinate with both
CARB and the SAE standards committees to ensure standardization; and (ii) paragraph
(g)(1) should be amended to state "Deactivate derates if the engine confirms that the fault
condition is resolved and or the override factor for NOx conversion efficiency is at or
below 0.10 for a full inducement drive schedule". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
pp. 102 - 103]
• §1036.111(g)(2): "(2) Allow a generic scan tool to tentatively deactivate inducement
related fault codes while the vehicle is not in motion. Reactivate the derate at the same
point in the derate schedule if the engine detects the same fault condition during a full
inducement drive schedule." EMA understands that this proposed capability may be
implemented at the manufacturer's discretion. At issue is the fact that whether within the
794
-------
four hours proposed in paragraph (g)(2), or the 80 hours proposed in paragraph (g)(3),
there is no warning buffer if a similar fault code is detected within those warning periods,
and the language indicates that you go back to wherever you were on the derate schedule
(i.e., an operator believes that all is well, yet derate begins with little to no warning). This
poses both a significant safety concern and contributes to customer dissatisfaction, as
noted in previous comments cited throughout the preamble. EMA recommends that EPA
consider a warning "buffer" or a specific hour requirement before activating
derates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 103]
• §1036.111(g)(3): "(3) Treat any fault condition that recurs within 80 hours of engine
operation as the same triggering condition, which would restart the derate at the same
point that the system last deactivated the derate." 80 hours represents up to 4,000 miles of
travel; dual 125-gallon fuel tanks may be refilled up to four times in this same time
period, and the accelerated derate may be faced by a different operator. This proposed
provision would add additional complexity and would likely increase owner and operator
dissatisfaction with the impact of the regulation on operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 103]
In addition, EPA proposes that the 100-Hour Array be reset upon confirming that corrective
action has been taken (§1036.111(g)). Resetting the Active 100-Hour Array may be in conflict
with CARB requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 125]
There are additional concerns related to the proposed provisions for deactivating the inducement
derates. Under §1036.111(g), the manufacturer must wait for the fault condition to no longer be
detected, then reset the 100-Hour Array, and then wait for Bins 13 and 14 to populate with data
to confirm NOx conversion efficiency is restored. That is a long chain of events for the system to
be restored, especially for events that may not be related to failure to refill or tampering, such as
blocked DEF lines. With respect to empty DEF tank inducements, EPA should allow for the
derates to be deactivated as soon as the DEF level sensor indicates a level of refill. If the NOx
override factor does not show adequate conversion (value greater than 10%), the derates could be
quickly reactivated at the point where they were deactivated on suspicion of tampering. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 125]
In a related matter, EPA has proposed that engines must be compliant with any level of DEF
concentration that does not trigger inducement (§1036.115(f)). That would not only mean that
the DEF quality sensor ("DQS") must have a detection capability to support this outcome, linked
to manufacturers' calibrations and compensation routines, but also that the NOx override
function that CARB requires to confirm the "poor quality" DEF condition prior to triggering
inducement must be supportive of the requirement. The role of the NOx override function is, of
course, to confirm compromised emissions before triggering inducement. This means that
§1036.115(f) and §1036.111(c) are in conflict with one another. As proposed, manufacturers
would have to ensure compliance at the same level of emissions that they are confirming to be
compromised emissions performance. That is obviously not workable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 125]
Notwithstanding this clear conflict in the proposed requirements, manufacturers have too little
experience with the complex future emissions control systems required to meet the proposed
795
-------
very stringent standards to know if compliance can be assured at the urea concentration limits
detectable by DQS systems. EPA has made no such demonstration of that capability. The simple
fact is that both the industry and EPA are uncertain whether the requirement can be met. EPA
should regulate on the basis of data-based evidence, but no such evidence exists regarding this
issue. EPA should not include §1036.115(f) in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 125]
EPA Summary and Response
For the purpose of this section, each subtopic is summarized and responded to separately.
In-Cab display
ABA, CARB, and Coach USA expressed general support of EPA's proposal in §1036.111(f) to
require an in-cab display showing the triggering condition that leads to an inducement and a
countdown of time/distance until the next inducement stage. ABA commented that current
notification systems are confusing to drivers. CARB notes that adequate warning of impending
inducement is critical for operators to take appropriate action. CARB also included the following
recommendations for an in-cab display: in addition to indicating "inducement pending" add the
fault condition, inducement stage (i.e., include speed/time/torque limitations), and add
"progressively greater audible and visible warnings" at each stage of derate to make the
inducement more effective. Coach USA suggests a "simple, informative alert" (that avoids
excessive information) will allow drivers to plan, avoid driver distraction, and lower the risk that
a bus will be stranded. Coach USA also recommended EPA require manufacturers to provide
more precise information to alert drivers to DEF levels and time remaining before DEF volumes
fall to a level where inducement will occur. EMA commented that it is critical that sufficient
driver notification be provided before inducements are applied.
Response:
EPA proposed in this rulemaking at §1036.111(f) that the in-cab display would include: the
triggering condition (for active and pending inducements), the current stage of derating, and the
time and distance until the next inducement stage. We are finalizing those provisions as proposed
in the final §1036.110(c). For SCR-related inducements, we are requiring manufacturers identify
the type of fault condition that is causing the inducement, specifically if it is related to DEF
quantity, DEF quality, or tampering. These categories are enabled by our targeted list of triggers
in 40 CFR 1036.111(b). We are also requiring manufacturers to display the fault code for the
detected problem and a description of the fault code. This additional information will provide
information to help the operator diagnose and correct the fault condition. The final rule also
includes a requirement for manufacturers to provide troubleshooting information in the owners
manual describing how to address potential inducement fault conditions (see final 40 CFR
1036.125). We are finalizing a similar set of requirements for other SCR- or DPF-related engine
derates (see section IV.C. of the preamble for additional information). EPA is confident
manufacturers will be able to make this information available in a way that it will not increase
driver confusion while in operation.
796
-------
The regulation at 40 CFR 1036.115(i) directs manufacturers to make DEF tanks big enough to
correspond with typical refueling practices. This arrangement is intended to facilitate DEF refills
in conjunction with refueling. If operators routinely refill DEF tanks when refueling the vehicle,
there is no need for a separate DEF fill level indicator. At the same time, the regulation does not
prevent manufacturers from providing this additional information in response to consumer
demand. EMA's comment on the importance of notifying drivers in advance of applying
inducements supports the expectation that manufacturers will include appropriate warning
signals.
Deactivating derates and recurring faults
EMA recommends that EPA not adopt the provisions in proposed §1036.111(g)(1) that rely on
the Active 100 Hour Array in OBD to deactivate a derate, citing a conflict with CARB's 13 CCR
1971.1 (h)(5.3.6). EMA suggests instead EPA state "Deactivate derates if the engine confirms
that the fault condition is resolved and or the override factor for NOx conversion efficiency is at
or below 0.10 for a full inducement drive schedule". In other words, EMA recommended
deactivation if the engine confirms that the fault condition is resolved, independent of NOx
emission rates; or if the engine detects successful NOx conversion even if the fault condition is
not resolved. EMA notes that EPA's proposal to deactivate derates in §1036.111(g) involves a
"long chain of events" that requires waiting for the fault condition to no longer be detected, and
waiting for OBD REAL Bins to repopulate after being reset to confirm NOx conversion
efficiency is restored. EMA states that this process may not be appropriate for all cases
especially for issues that may not be related to tampering or lack of use of DEF (e.g., blocked
DEF lines). EMA suggests that for DEF level faults derates should be deactivated as soon as the
DEF level sensor indicates a level of refill; deactivation could resume if the system detects that
NOx conversion efficiency is below 10% on suspicion of tampering.
CARB noted that allowing a generic scan tool to deactivate derates is currently prohibited;
CARB is concerned that allowing the use of a generic scan tool to clear codes and to derate
inducements could result in abuse. CARB is concerned use of a generic scan tool over and over
again to deactivate inducements could become a strategy to tamper. However, CARB
commented that it is, however, reasonable to allow a generic scan tool to be used when repairs
are done and recommends limiting the use of the tool to deactivate derates to two times when a
recurring fault condition appears but only if the vehicle is not in a final inducement step.
EMA commented that it is their understanding that the provisions of proposed 40 CFR
§1036.111(g)(2) to allow inducements to be reset with a generic scan tool are at the
manufacturer's discretion. EMA also warns that the four-hour period in the proposed
§1036.111(g)(2) or the 80-hour period in §1036.111(g)(3) may restart inducements without
warning. EMA suggests that EPA consider a warning "buffer" or a specific hour requirement
before activating derates to avoid allowing a similar fault code triggered within the warning
periods to avoid creating problems for safety or customer satisfaction.
797
-------
EMA suggested that EPA's proposed 80-hour window to monitor for a fault condition would add
complexity and likely increase operator dissatisfaction, noting that 80 hours could represent
4,000 miles of travel, several fuel tank refills, and potentially a switch to a new operator.
CARB supports monitoring for recurring fault conditions and restarting a derate at the same
point that the derate was last deactivated if the same fault condition was triggered in the next 80
hours of engine operation.
EMA commented that they believe the proposed requirements in §§1036.111(c) and 1036.115(f)
are in conflict. They state that EPA proposed that engines must be compliant with any DEF
concentration that does not trigger an inducement, however they note that EPA also proposed to
require that the NOx override must confirm "poor quality" DEF prior to triggering an
inducement (via monitoring for higher emissions). EMA states this is a conflict because they
would have to ensure compliance while simultaneously confirming emissions are compromised.
EMA commented further that manufacturers do not have sufficient experience with the new
technology that will be needed to meet existing guidance that states compliance can be assured at
urea concentration limits detectable by DEF quality sensors. EMA commented that EPA has
made no such demonstration of that capability, and given this uncertainty EPA should not
include §1036.115(f) in the final rule.
Response:
As explained in preamble Section IV and section 8.2 of this document, EPA is not finalizing the
proposed NOx override at this time.
EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the provision allowing operators to deactivate derates with a
generic scan tool. We are not including any limitation on the number of resets. The fault
conditions contemplated in the final 40 CFR 1036. Ill are all detectable immediately. The final
rule specifies, as proposed, that resets with a generic scan tool must occur while the vehicle is
not in motion. The final rule also specifies that any fault condition that recurs during the 40 hours
of operation following a reset or resolved fault condition would automatically resume engine
derating at the same point. These provisions together make it completely impractical for an
operator to operate for extended periods with an active fault condition by using a generic scan
tool to repeatedly reset the system.
In particular, the operator would need to stop the vehicle, reset the system with the generic scan
tool, and then resume driving. The system would detect within a very short time that fault
condition was not resolved and resume derating. The operator could repeat that indefinitely but
would likely not ever be able to exceed the currently applicable derate speed before the engine
would reapply the derate and thus would achieve no net gain from such actions.
We note, consistent with the EMA comment, that provisions related to deactivating derates are
much simpler without the proposed NOx override. Because the NOx override is not included in
the final rule, there is no need to address the logic of allowing time for driving to determine
whether the SCR system is controlling emissions appropriately.
798
-------
EMA incorrectly read the proposed rule to allow them discretion on designing engines to reset
fault conditions with a generic scan tool. EPA intended that the ability to reset inducements with
a generic scan tool was a requirement for all vehicles. We are finalizing that requirement as
proposed. EPA agrees with EMA that a warning buffer should be added prior to any
inducement. The same requirement limiting each stage of derate to a maximum change of 1 mph
over five minutes applies equally for recurring fault conditions.
EPA agrees with EMA's observation that 80 hours of operation, or about 4,000 miles, is too long
for an operator to be subject to a new fault being treated as a recurring fault condition. EPA is
therefore revising from proposal the final number of hours during which a recurring fault would
occur, from 80 hours to 40 hours. This is also consistent with hours EPA has considered under
existing guidance.
EMA's comments about a potential conflict between 1036.115(f) and 1036.115(c) are not at
issue in the final rule because we are not adopting the NOx override provisions at this time.
Fundamental to certification is the requirement for manufacturers to comply with emission
standards throughout the practically adjustable range of adjustable parameters. We consider DEF
quantity and DEF quality to be adjustable parameters based on the operators need to take steps to
maintain an adequate supply and quality of DEF. This requirement has always applied under
current regulations. The proposed rule in 40 CFR 1036.115 inadvertently required manufacturers
to base the adjustable range for DEF quality on the range of values used to trigger inducements
under proposed 40 CFR 1036.111. We are removing that proposed language from the final
provision and will be instead continuing to rely on current guidance regarding physically
adjustable range for DEF quality.
EPA is not finalizing the proposed provision that an inducement schedule is applied and tracked
independently for each fault if multiple fault conditions are detected. Consistent with EMA's
comments, at this time we have concerns about potential risks resulting from complexity in the
software needed to apply and track multiple derate schedules and the final provision still ensures
that the SCR system will receive an adequate supply of high quality DEF. Under the final
provision, if a second fault condition starts while the engine already has an active inducement,
the software would need to continue progressing through the derate schedule as specified. Once
that fault condition is resolved, the engine would start at the beginning of the derate schedule for
the new fault condition.
8.5 Retrofitting in-use engines and vehicles with software updates to
incorporate new inducement regulation
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comments on field fixes for in-use vehicles. As described in detail in a
previous section, CARB staff does not support the SCR inducement strategy proposed by U.S.
EPA and does not support allowing field fixes for in-use vehicles or to amend the certification
application of current model year engines for the NPRM inducement strategy. The proposed
799
-------
inducement strategy is too weak compared to that recommended in the current inducement
guidance to cause the operator to fix the fault condition and preserve low, controlled NOx
emissions. However, CARB staff would support allowing field fixes for in-use vehicles or
amending current certification applications only if an inducement strategy identical or similar to
the one proposed by CARB staff is adopted in the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, pp. 108-109]
Organization: Midwest Bus & Motor coach Association
We are requesting all current commercial passenger motor vehicles, 2008 and newer, that have
an aftertreatment system, be recalibrated with an ECM update to eliminate any derate or
inducement that would limit the power or speed of the motorcoach. This proposal must include
all models 2008 and newer that would be subject to any condition leading to a derate. We cannot
stress enough the importance of this stipulation in the proposed language so that it will require
engine manufacturers to develop and implement a new adopted schedule for all currently
operated vehicles to be eligible for the update. Without this adoption there will be no relief in the
foreseeable future and the concerns we have addressed will be disregarded by the engine
manufacturers. The current proposal indicates models 2027 and newer. We are requesting that
wording be changed to 2008 and newer. [Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-
Al, p.5]
Recommendation:
Require OEM's to develop updated derate schedules for existing vehicles. Other
aspects of the proposal do not apply such as retrofitting for secondary system checks. By
changing the schedule in current equipment, it would provide the industry's needs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1158-A1, p.5]
Organization: Motorcoach Companies
We are requesting that ALL current passenger transport CMVs (post 2008 and newer) that is
fitted with an aftertreatment system be recalibrated with and ECM update to eliminate any sort of
derate or inducement that would limit power or speed of a vehicle. This proposal must include
ALL models 2008 and newer that would be subject any condition leading to a derate. We cannot
stress enough the importance of this stipulation being directly spelled out in the proposal
language, which will require engine manufacturers to develop and implement this new
adopted schedule for all currently operated vehicles will be eligible for this update. Without this
adoption we will not have any relief for the foreseeable future and the concerns we have
addressed will be ignored by the engine manufacturers. This is a critical component to our
comment and cannot be overlooked. As of now the proposal indicates models 2027 and newer, it
must be reworded to include anything 2008 and up! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, pp.4-
5]
Recommendation:
1. EPA should direct or require OEM's to develop updated derate schedule for these
existing vehicles only, all other aspect of proposal do not need to apply such as
800
-------
retrofitting for secondary system checks. Simply changing the schedule in these vehicles
would suffice for our needs. This would be relatively easy in recoding the software
program to allow more time [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1149-A1, p.5]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
Upon adoption of a final rule, UMA implores the EPA to require engine manufactures and/or
original equipment manufacturers, at a minimum, to reprogram the existing fleet to the revised
inducement standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.5]
Reprogramming to the revised inducement standards will begin to restore the confidence in
existing buses and motorcoaches, stimulate sales of new equipment, and reduce barriers to
adopting new equipment that further reduces NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-
Al, p.5]
The bus and motorcoach community takes considerable pride in their contribution to improving
air quality by removing multiple cars from the road and adoption of market-ready equipment that
further reduces emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.5]
We need dependable equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.5]
Organization: Virginia Motorcoach Association
We are requesting all current commercial passenger motor vehicles, 2008 and newer, that have
an aftertreatment system, be recalibrated with an ECM update to eliminate any derate or
inducement that would limit the power or speed of the motorcoach. This proposal must include
all models 2008 and newer that would be subject to any condition leading to a derate. We cannot
stress enough the importance of this stipulation in the proposed language so that it will require
engine manufacturers to develop and implement a new adopted schedule for all currently
operated vehicles to be eligible for the update. Without this adoption there will be no relief in the
foreseeable future and the concerns we have addressed will be disregarded by the engine
manufacturers. The current proposal indicates models 2027 and newer. We are requesting that
wording be changed to 2008 and newer. [Emphasis in original; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-
Al, p.4],
Recommendation:
Require OEMs to develop updated derate schedules for existing vehicles. Other
aspects of the proposal, such as retrofitting for secondary system checks, do not apply.
By changing the schedule in current equipment, it would provide the industry's needs.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2715-A1, p.5].
Organization: Volvo Group
Consideration should be made to make these [inducement] changes an option retroactive to 2010
CMY vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 5]
801
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB would support allowing field fixes for in-use vehicles or amending certification
applications for the current model year only if the modification involves an inducement strategy
similar to the approach CARB recommends in comments on the proposed rule. CARB believes
that any other approach would be too weak for preserving control of NOx emissions compared to
what currently applies.
Motorcoach Companies want engine manufacturers to retrofit all model year 2008 and newer
vehicles to eliminate any sort of derate or inducement that limits vehicle speed or power.
Specifically, Motorcoach Companies recommend that EPA direct or require OEM's to develop
updated derate schedule for model year 2008 and newer vehicles. They state that failing to
address these retrofit needs would leave them without relief for the foreseeable future.
UMA implores EPA to require engine manufactures and/or vehicle manufacturers to reprogram
the existing fleet to the revised inducement standards.
Volvo recommends that EPA consider making it an option to retrofit model year 2010 and newer
engines to incorporate designs that conform to the newly adopted inducement specifications.
Response:
See Section IV.D.6 in the final rule preamble.
9 This section is Blank
10 Durability testing
10.1 Updating existing DF provisions for carry-across and engine
dyno aging
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• CARB recommends that U.S. EPA work with CARB staff to enhance the proposal in 40
CFR 1036.245 - Deterioration factors for exhaust emission standards. The current NPRM
proposal does not consider the impacts of engine emission control component
802
-------
deterioration. CARB staff believes that a more comprehensive approach similar to what
was adopted in the Omnibus regulation would enhance the durability demonstration
process while establishing a level playing-field for all engine manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, pp.2-3]
CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the proposed methodology for demonstrating
engine and aftertreatment system (EAS) durability and calculating the deterioration factors (DF)
for HD diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.25]
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed options for
DF determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.25]
CARB staff opposes the option to use fuel-based accelerated aging as proposed in 1036.245
(b)(1). Recently published documents54,55 clearly indicate that fuel-based accelerated aging
procedures do not yield deteriorated emissions results that are representative of real-life, in-use
HD diesel engine operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.25]
54 EPA. "Guidance on Deterioration Factor Validation Methods for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Highway Engines and Nonroad Diesel Engines equipped with SCR." CD-2020-19 (HD
Highway and Nonroad). November 17, 2020.
https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_filej sp?docid=51377&flag=l
55 PUBLIC WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS METHODS OF HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL
AND OFF-ROAD DIESEL ENGINE DETERIORATION FACTOR VALIDATION.
Mail-out #ECC-2020-03 [REVISED],
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/ecc202003/ecc202003_ada.pdf
Given the poor track record of fuel-based accelerated aging procedures, CARB staff opposes this
option and recommends the elimination of this methodology. Instead, CARB staff recommends a
comprehensive method that combines dynamometer aging (with no fuel-based acceleration
factors) combined with aftertreatment bench aging. A complete description of this
comprehensive durability demonstration process
56 is described in the Omnibus regulation diesel test procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp.25-26]
56 California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent
Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles. Pages 53-68.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/frob-l.pdf
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA is proposing new test procedures to determine deterioration factors ("DF") for certification
purposes. The most onerous of those new requirements is a manufacturer's obligation to conduct
DF testing for the Full Useful Life ("FUL") of the engine's primary intended service class, rather
than using extrapolation as is permitted today. The limitations caused by FUL testing are
significant, resulting in increased development costs, but more importantly such extended testing
803
-------
requirements present multiple challenges to OEMs' product development, verification and
certification timelines. EPA's new requirements would be tempered somewhat by the flexibility
manufacturers are given in defining aging cycles, and OEMs' option to bench-age aftertreatment
systems, which would allow a much more favorable timeline for DF determination. Still, EMA
recommends several improvements to these new provisions to make them workable. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 110]
The DF test is one of the many tests in a multi-year process to design, build and test for
certification demonstrations. The prototype hardware and software included on the DF engine
must be of sufficient design and manufacturing process maturity to establish that the test will
"represent the deterioration expected from in-use engines over the useful life." (§1036.245) Once
the test begins, the hardware and software revisions are frozen for the duration of the test, which
has traditionally taken approximately 25-36 weeks for a typical MHDD or HHDD engine, when
aged to 35% ofFUL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 110]
One undesirable outcome ofFUL DF testing is that it requires that the DF test be started earlier
on the project timeline, limiting the manufacturer's ability to iteratively introduce newer
technologies that could provide additional GHG or emission benefits. EMA recommends that the
Agency continue to allow manufacturers to run DF tests to 35 to 50% ofFUL, and extrapolate
results as is permitted today. Those extrapolated results could be used for certification purposes.
A manufacturer could then be required to conduct DAAAC aging on the DF engine's
aftertreatment system to FUL, submitting the subsequent FUL emissions data with the next
model year's application, which would apply the new FUL DF results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 110]
As mentioned, extending the DF testing requirement to 100% ofFUL without extrapolation
forces manufacturers to finalize hardware and software designs earlier in the development
process. Currently, there is no regulatory flexibility to make hardware or software changes once
the DF test is initiated. Because some of the components are necessarily fabricated from pre-
production processes, they may, despite being representative of production intent, be prone to
premature or even catastrophic failure. If severe, this can force manufacturers to restart the DF
test, putting even more stress on an already challenging production launch schedule. EMA
recommends that EPA provide greater flexibility to allow manufacturers to make hardware or
software adjustments on the DF engine to facilitate timely test completion, while preserving the
integrity of the test. This consideration should also extend to address replacement service parts,
which may include sensors, catalysts or EGR components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 110]
For example, downpipes and bellows can easily fatigue with extended dyno testing. Those
components are not emissions-critical but cannot be replaced without EPA approval. NOx, PM
and NH3 sensors currently are not robust enough to survive for 435,000 miles, let alone 800,000
miles. In the event of an engine failure that causes the aftertreatment system to be damaged, it
would be desirable if the aftertreatment components could be rapidly aged to the last interim
emissions measurement point. The bottom line is that EPA should offer more options and
flexibilities to recover from those kinds of issues during the course of a DF test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 110 - 111]
804
-------
EPA has traditionally approved accelerated DF aging cycles based on fuel-burned or work
completed equivalent metrics. When defining those aging cycles, manufacturers must balance
the severity of the cycle against the design limitations of the individual components to replicate
representative in-use wear without causing premature failure. EMA supports that EPA has
proposed to allow the use of accelerated aging cycles to manage the total cost and duration of the
DF test. EMA also supports that the Agency has not included requirements to stop and restart the
engine at intervals during the service accumulation, as this has little or no bearing on the DF
results. However, §1036.245(b)(l)(i) requires that the service accumulation "must also include
light-load operation (or alternating light-load and high-load operation) representing in-use
behavior that may contribute to aging of aftertreatment devices or systems." Light-load operation
is not considered to be a contributor to engine component wear or aftertreatment degradation.
We recommend that the Agency eliminate the obligation to include light-load operation. For
example, the provision could be modified to state, "However, if you anticipate that including
light-load operation may contribute to aging of aftertreatment devices or systems, you must also
include light-load operation (or alternating light-load and high-load operation)." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. Ill]
An important issue that the Agency has failed to address in its proposal is how a manufacturer
must conduct deterioration factor testing, either through dyno-aging or bench-aging processes,
particularly in the case where the manufacturer will include major emissions-related maintenance
actions to comply with the extremely stringent emissions standards and extended useful life
requirements. For example, if a manufacturer recommends aftertreatment system replacement at
300,000 miles (before the 435,000 mile intermediate useful life interval for which results are
required by the proposal), the manufacturer should be able to propose an alternative DF test plan,
including a test at 300,000 miles, but eliminating the 435,000 mile test interval. Data-fitting
processes also need to be reviewed. EMA is willing to work with the Agency to develop
appropriate alternative procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. Ill - 112]
In sum, EMA supports the flexibility offered by the various options EPA proposes in the
determination of deterioration factors and the DF verification procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 115]
Perhaps even more concerning are the necessary data-generation projects that are completely
unplanned at this time. More specifically, EPA intends to complete this rulemaking without
having access to the following: Durability testing to determine whether cylinder deactivation
(CDA) is a viable technology suitable for the rigorous demands of heavy-heavy-duty engines, or
to determine whether it should be expected that NVH concerns can be managed over the broad
and diverse range of products and applications unique to the commercial truck industry, or to
assess if CDA is capable of lasting 800,000 miles without a major service intervention. CDA is a
cornerstone technology for EPA's technical feasibility demonstration, critical to meeting the
low-load NOx emission requirements that are a focus for this rulemaking. Yet no data regarding
the feasibility of CDA in this context will be in the rulemaking record. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 172]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
805
-------
The above comments address several aspects of the proposed revisions to the existing
deterioration factor provisions, including for carry-across and engine dynamometer aging.
With regard to aging in general, CARB commented that they oppose using fuel-based
accelerated aging as the emission results are not representative of real-life, in-use HD diesel
engine operations. Instead, CARB recommend adopting the comprehensive methods set out in
their Omnibus regulation that combines dynamometer aging (with no fuel-based acceleration
factors with bench aging).
With regard to specific aspects of Full Useful Life (FUL) deterioration factor testing, EMA
indicated their support for several aspects of the proposal such as the use of accelerated aging
cycles to manage the total cost and duration of the DF test, and not including requirements to
stop and restart the engine during service accumulation. However, EMA raised concerns about
several other aspects and suggested certain revisions to the proposed program.
EMA noted that FUL DF testing would require testing to begin earlier and limit manufacturers to
iteratively introduce technologies that may provide additional emission and GHG benefits. EMA
noted that this concern could be addressed by allowing a manufacturer to run DF tests to 35-50%
of FUL and extrapolate the results. EMA noted that the manufacturer could be required to
conduct DAAAC aging on the DF engine's aftertreatment system to FUL and report that with the
next model year's certification application, which would apply the new FUL DF results.
EMA also noted that FUL DF testing would require testing using hardware and software
fabricated from pre-production processes, which may be prone to failure and could require
restarting the DF testing. EMA noted that this concern could be addressed by allowing
manufacturers to make hardware or software adjustment on the DF engine to facilitate timely
completion while preserving the integrity of the test. EMA also suggested that consideration
should also extend to address replacement service parts, which may include sensors, catalysts or
EGR components.
EMA stated they do not support including light-load operation during service accumulation.
EMA asserted that light-load operation does not contribute to engine component wear or
aftertreatment degradation. However, EMA noted that light-load could be included if a
manufacturer anticipates light-load operation may contribute to aging of aftertreatment devices
or systems.
While EMA supports bench-aging of aftertreatment systems, they stated there is no need to
define a minimum number of engine hours of dynamometer aging beyond what is needed to
stabilize the engine and aftertreatment. EMA also said that EPA failed to define how a
manufacturer is to conduct DF testing, either through dyno-aging or bench-aging, particularly in
the case where the manufacturer will include major emissions-related maintenance actions to
comply with the extremely stringent emissions standards and extended useful life requirements
and that they are willing to work with the Agency to develop alternative procedures.
806
-------
Finally, EMA noted their concern that EPA intends to finalize the rule without having access to
certain important information on durability of CDA and NVH.
Response:
See preamble Section IV.F for our responses to many of these comments on the proposed options
for determining the DF and our rationale for the final provisions for determining DF.
EPA thanks EMA for their support of the use of accelerated aging cycles to manage the total cost
and duration of the DF test, and not including requirements to stop and restart the engine during
service accumulation.
EPA agrees with EMA that FUL DF engine testing would require testing to begin earlier. This is
why EPA proposed an option to use accelerated reactor bench aging of the emission control
system, requiring as little as 400 hours of testing on an engine dynamometer. This option allows
the DF determination to be completed within 90 days. EPA opposes EMA's request to allow an
engine-based DF determination out to 35-50% of UL with extrapolation to UL, as this
methodology has been shown historically to be inaccurate at determining deterioration.30'31 See
preamble Section IV.F for further discussion on this. EPA also disagrees with EMA's request to
allow the manufacturer to determine DF using an engine-based test out to 35-50% of UL and
following up that testing with DAAAC aging on the engine's aftertreatment system to UL with
reporting of the DAAAC aging results with the next model year's certification application.
Given our concerns with the accuracy of an engine-based tests out to 35-50% of UL, EPA thinks
it is appropriate to require DF determination out to the service accumulation hours based on full
useful life as determined in 40 CFR 1036.245(c) and that this be complete prior to application for
certification for every model year; all final options to meet the DF determination requirements
include that requirement.
EPA does not agree with EMA's suggestion that we should allow manufacturers to make
hardware or software adjustment on the DF engine to facilitate timely completion, as this may
affect the rate of deterioration compared to the initial configuration. EMA would also like this
extended to service parts, which may include sensors, catalysts or EGR components. See section
6 of this document for the final maintenance provisions, including revisions to minimum
maintenance intervals that generally match intervals manufacturers are specifying for
components today. We expect manufacturers will continue to schedule replacement of
components as needed to meet the DF testing requirements and to accurately represent the
maintenance needs of engine in the field. Manufacturers can work with EPA if a component
(pre-production or otherwise) unexpectedly fails during service accumulation. The final 40 CFR
1036.425(c) allows for critical emission-related scheduled maintenance, described in 40 CFR
1036.125(a), during service accumulation. As noted in Sections III and IV. A of the preamble to
this final rule, we set final standards and useful life periods that will not require manufacturers to
plan for scheduled replacement of catalysts. If manufacturers opt to replace their catalysts as part
30 U.S. EPA. "Guidance on Deterioration Factor Validation Methods for Heavy-Duty Diesel Highway Engines and
Nonroad Diesel Engines equipped with SCR." CD-2020-19 (HD Highway and Nonroad). November 17, 2020.
31 Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. "EMA DF Test Program." August I, 2017.
807
-------
of scheduled maintenance, at the expense of the manufacturer, manufacturers could request
approval of an alternate DF test plan using existing provisions.
EPA disagrees with EMA regarding not including light-load operation during service
accumulation for the reasons given in the discussion above and in preamble Section IV.F
regarding required aging duty-cycles for determining deterioration.
EPA disagrees with EMA's comment that there is no need to define a minimum number of
engine hours of dynamometer aging beyond what is needed to stabilize the engine and
aftertreatment when the aftertreatment is bench aged. In this final rule, we are requiring a
minimum number of testing hours on an engine dynamometer, with the allowance for the
manufacturer to add additional hours of engine dynamometer-aging at their discretion. The
minimum required hours, beyond what is needed to initially stabilize the engine and
aftertreatment, are by primary intended service class and as follows: 300 hours for Spark-ignition
HDE, 1,250 hours for Light HDE, and 1,500 hours for Medium HDE and Heavy HDE. EPA
disagrees that we failed to define how a manufacturer is to conduct DF testing, either through
dynamometer-aging or bench-aging, particularly in the case where the manufacturer will include
major emissions-related maintenance actions to comply with the final rule emissions standards
and final rule useful life requirements. We are finalizing critical emission-related scheduled
maintenance as described in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2) and 1036.245(c) in this final rule. Under
this final rule, manufacturers may make requests to EPA for approval for additional emission-
related maintenance actions beyond what is listed in 40 CFR 1036.125(a)(2), as described in 40
CFR 1036.125(a)(1) and as allowed during deterioration testing under 40 CFR 1036.245(c).
10.2 DF procedures based on bench aging of aftertreatment devices
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed options for
DF determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.26]
The proposed aftertreatment bench aging procedures offer reduced durability testing time upfront
with the requirement to prove compliance using in-field testing after certification. While this
reduces the length of the product development cycle, any hardware or software component
issues, especially on the engine, will be missed and require an overreliance on warranty or On-
board Diagnostics (OBD) to detect those issues later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.26]
Common examples of durability issues that would not be demonstrated using 100 percent bench
aged aftertreatment are fuel injector drift or premature failure of turbocharger components such
as oil seals. Additionally, interactions between the engine (upstream) and the aftertreatment
system (downstream) have been demonstrated to reduce the overall efficiency of the NOx
aftertreatment system over time. In fact, such an interaction occurred during CARB's Stage 3
low NOx demonstration program57 where a faulty exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve caused
808
-------
damaged to the downstream zone-catalyzed soot filter. Although this failure could have been the
result of component defect, it could have also been the result of poor engineering design that
caused the component to fail prematurely. By limiting the durability demonstration program to
focus strictly on aftertreatment bench aging, U.S. EPA's proposal would arbitrarily and
capriciously fail to account for upstream/downstream interactions on the deterioration of
aftertreatment systems, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, and would therefore not provide a reliable
and accurate method of assessing durability of aftertreatment components and systems in real-
life operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.26]
57 Low NOx Demonstration Program - Stage 3. Pg. 117. https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-
attach/79-hdomnibus2020-Uj4AaQB2Aj 8FbAhw.pdf
CARB staff therefore opposes the allowance to demonstrate full UL durability that is dependent
on only aftertreatment bench aging process as described in 1036.245 (b)(2). CARB staff
recognizes the importance of allowing aftertreatment bench aging as part of the UL durability
demonstration when the UL is significantly increased in 2027 and subsequent model years.
California's Omnibus regulation allows for a combination of EAS engine dynamometer aging
and further aftertreatment bench aging (comprehensive durability demonstration program) to
demonstrate overall comprehensive EAS durability demonstration to full UL. This
comprehensive methodology provides a level of assurance that all emission related components,
including components that are not part of the aftertreatment system, demonstrate an acceptable
level of durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.26-27]
If the durability of these components is not demonstrated at the time of certification, it is likely
that some products with systemic design problems will be introduced into commerce, resulting in
excess emissions and increasing fleet downtime to complete repairs. Under U.S. EPA's proposal,
the lag time between the vehicles reaching the field and the verification of the deterioration of
these products proposed in 1036.246 would be at a minimum 3 years. In that time, unchecked
systemic failure of emission-related components could have significant impacts to air quality and
public health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.27]
U.S. EPA's failure to analyze the scope and extent of the increased emissions resulting from this
proposal, and their impacts on the public's health and welfare constitutes a failure to consider an
important aspect of this proposal, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, and an impermissible abdication of
U.S. EPA's duty under CAA section 202(a) to ensure affected HDEs and vehicles comply with
applicable emissions standards throughout their useful lives. CAA sections 202(a)(1), 202(a)(3),
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-843. (See CARB comments in section 5.a, infra). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.27]
It should also be noted that currently light-duty diesel vehicles do not rely solely on
aftertreatment bench aging to demonstrate durability. Instead, aging on a chassis dynamometer is
used to verify component durability and establish the deterioration factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.27]
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed options for
DF determination. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.27]
809
-------
CARB staff strongly recommends that U.S. EPA work with CARB staff and adopt a
comprehensive durability demonstration program similar or identical to what is described in the
Omnibus regulation. Such a comprehensive process should include a reasonable period of EAS
aging on an engine dynamometer (without any fuel-based acceleration factors) to verify engine
side emission-related component durability and to account for possible upstream/downstream
interactions between the EAS as described earlier. A significant portion of the aging process
could then utilize aftertreatment bench aging, provided that the accelerated aftertreatment aging
method has been verified through correlation studies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.27-28]
It should also be noted that the current version of the proposed CTP regulatory language does not
provide a pathway for manufacturers to use a combination of EAS and accelerated aftertreatment
aging, such as allowed in California's Omnibus. Thus, the only way for a manufacturer to meet
the durability demonstration for both CARB and U.S. EPA would be to fully age the EAS on an
engine dynamometer, which would be challenging for engines certified to future UL standards of
up to 800,000 miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.28]
CARB staff believes that the Omnibus comprehensive durability demonstration program is
representative of in-use aging, cost-effective, and does not adversely impact the manufacturer's
product development cycle. In terms of costs, the overall cost of the comprehensive durability
demonstration program was estimated to make-up only 1.4 percent of the total cost of the
Omnibus regulation.58 Therefore, additional durability demonstration costs are not going to have
a major impact on the implementation of the proposed rule. The detailed methodology for
calculating the incremental costs for the Omnibus durability program is provided in the
Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment document.59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.28]
58 Responses to DOF's comments on SRIA. Pg. 6.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/noticeatta
ch.pdf
59 Omnibus - Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment. Pg. 80-88.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/appcl.pdf
With regards to scheduling and product development, the required hours of aging for the
Omnibus durability demonstration program ranges anywhere from 2,870 hours (LHDD) to 5,210
hours (HHDD) for 2031 and later MYs. CARB staff does not believe this would have an adverse
impact on the product development plans. Although this could be a change for some certified on-
road engines, many off-road compression-ignition (CI) engine manufacturers have used a 50
percent of UL (4,000 hour) durability demonstration program since the 2012 model year without
reporting any product development issues. CARB staff estimates that running an additional 1,210
hours (5210-4000) would translate into an additional two months of aging. As such, there should
not be any significant concerns regarding the length of the durability demonstration
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.28]
810
-------
At a minimum, CARB staff strongly urges U.S. EPA to provide a pathway in the CTP
regulations to allow CARB's comprehensive durability demonstration program as a substitute for
satisfying U.S. EPA certification requirements. Without this, manufacturers may be required to
expend substantial time and testing resources to comply with both California and Federal
durability requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.28]
On page 17550 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed Diesel
Aftertreatment Rapid-Aging Protocol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.30]
CARB staff supports the codification of the protocols for rapid aging of the HD diesel
aftertreatment system. By incorporating the methodology and procedures for aging the
aftertreatment system, all manufactures would follow a well-defined and prescriptive process for
rapid aftertreatment aging. A portion of the aging process in the Omnibus regulation relies on
rapid aging of the aftertreatment, so codifying these procedures would be an important step in
setting up a standardized process for all manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
P-30]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
The Proposal's durability demonstration is substantially weaker than the Omnibus requirements,
and it undermines the standards' effectiveness. 87 Fed. Reg. 17,547-48. In particular, EPA's
demonstration allows for bench-aging of aftertreatment systems but does not require full testing
of engines to ensure their emissions performance over their useful life. Given the centrality of
engine design to emissions performance, that failure is likely to produce significant oversights in
durability testing. Commenters ask EPA to adopt the comprehensive durability testing used in
the Omnibus, combining dynamometer aging (with no fuel-based acceleration factors) with
aftertreatment bench aging.242 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.62]
242 See CARB, California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004
and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles (Aug. 27, 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/frob-
l.pdf.
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Currently, determining emissions deterioration factors through testing requires long-hour engine
dynamometer tests to age the entire engine + aftertreatment system. Even with accelerated test
cycles and extrapolation to full useful life, engine dynamometer-based DF aging is time
consuming, costly, and burdensome. A recent test program undertaken by engine manufacturers
showed consistent engine out emissions over the full useful life, demonstrating little benefit to
continuing long-hour aging of the base engine. EPA's proposed new provisions for determining
DFs in §1036.245 include a new testing option using bench-aged aftertreatment, together with a
stabilized emission-data engine. Manufacturers would be allowed to use an EPA-approved bench
aging procedure to account for thermal and chemical degradation of aftertreatment or propose an
equivalent bench aging procedure. Cummins supports inclusion of the aftertreatment bench aging
811
-------
option as a more efficient and accurate method for determining DFs for on-highway engines.
Cummins also supports including the option in §1036.245(a) to request approval for DFs using
engineering analysis from similar on-highway or nonroad engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We support the regulatory provisions that allow the use of bench aging-based emission
deterioration factors for both spark- and compression-ignition engines. Allowing bench aging of
aftertreatment systems will be critical to achieving development cycles which are executed with
production-representative engine hardware and software. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1,
p. 4]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA does not support the proposed new option for durability demonstration. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 12]
EPA proposes a new option for determining a deterioration factor (DF) that would significantly
weaken vehicle durability testing requirements. Under this new DF demonstration option, "to
limit the burden of generating a DF over the proposed lengthened useful life periods," EPA
would allow manufacturers to conduct dynamometer testing of an engine and aftertreatment
system to a mileage less than regulatory useful life. Manufacturers would then bench age only
the aftertreatment system to regulatory useful life, put it back on an engine representing the
engine family, run the combined engine and bench-aged aftertreatment system for at least 100
hours and then collect emissions data to determine the DF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1,
p. 13]
EPA should discard this proposed option, which does not adequately simulate engine aging and,
because the focus is on aftertreatment bench aging without consideration of engine-related
component durability, could allow the certification of engines that do not meet the engine
standards. EPA should continue to include both significant engine operation and accelerated
aftertreatment aging in the DF determination, as is required by the Omnibus, and work with
California to align the programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Deterioration factor demonstration: EPA has proposed to establish a new deterioration factor
determination option, where manufacturers would be able to perform dynamometer testing of an
engine and aftertreatment system to a mileage that is less than regulatory useful life.
Manufacturers would then bench age the aftertreatment system to regulatory useful life and
combine the aftertreatment system with an engine that represents the engine family.
Manufacturers would run the combined engine and bench-aged aftertreatment for at least 100
hours before collecting emission data for determination of the deterioration factor. OTC
encourages EPA to continue to include the engine in the deterioration factor determination.
812
-------
While it may be possible to move to the proposed new bench-aged aftertreatment option with
more data, we do not believe there are sufficient data to ensure this method accurately evaluates
the durability of the emission-related components in a certified configuration. We
encourage EPA to align with CARB on the procedure for the deterioration factor determination.
We believe both significant engine operation and accelerated aftertreatment are needed, and not
accelerated aftertreatment aging alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp. 16-17]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports that the Proposed Rule currently contemplates two ways in which OEMs may
determine deterioration factors: either '[ojperate the emission-data engine in the certified
configuration on an engine dynamometer to represent the useful life' or '[djetermine
deterioration factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment.' 1036.245(b)(l)-(2). PACCAR
respectfully requests that EPA promulgate a third option that is essentially a combination of the
two described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.46-47]
EPA appears to have contemplated including this third option - a combination of engine
dynamometer aging and accelerated bench-aged aftertreatment aging. The preamble states: 'In
addition, under our proposed new DF determination option, manufacturers would be able to
perform dynamometer testing of an engine and aftertreatment system to a mileage that is less
than regulatory useful life. Manufacturers would then bench age the aftertreatment system to
regulatory useful life and combine the aftertreatment system with an engine that represents the
engine family. Manufacturers would run the combined engine and bench-aged aftertreatment for
at least 100 hours before collecting emission data for determination of the deterioration factor.'
87 Fed. Reg. at 17548. PACCAR therefore recommends that EPA promulgate this third option,
which also would be consistent with CARB's regulatory approach. See FINAL California
Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2004 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines and Vehicles at B 1.1.1.4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.47]
In addition, the proposed bench-aged aftertreatment option would require that the OEM '[cjreate
a linear curve fit if testing includes intermediate points.' 40 C.F.R. 1036.245(2)(iv) (proposed).
But EPA should amend this provision to allow for a nonlinear curve fit if there is sufficient
supporting data. The common curve degrades quickly initially and then has a more gradual slope
over the majority of the useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.47]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA has proposed to allow bench-aging of aftertreatment systems as an alternative to traditional
dyno-based aging processes. EMA fully supports this approach for HDOH engines. Expanding
the utilization of bench-aging would significantly improve the product development cycle,
reducing the costs and risks associated with traditional DF demonstrations (especially when
extended FUL testing is required), while also improving the opportunity to deploy the latest
technologies into the manufacturer's engine and aftertreatment designs. The SwRI-developed
DAAAC protocol is an excellent example of a method that can be utilized to support bench-
aging. EMA also supports EPA's proposal that alternatives to "EPA-approved" bench-aging
procedures may also be approved. In that regard, EMA does not see the need for EPA to define a
813
-------
minimum number of engine hours of dynamometer aging beyond what is required to stabilize the
engine and aftertreatment if a manufacturer were to utilize that bench-aging approach. Allowing
for bench-aging of the aftertreatment system (after stabilization), without any prescribed
minimums of dynamometer aging, would be the most time-efficient method of determining
deterioration factors, and would be consistent with the findings of the "Industry DF" program.
Such a provision would optimize the opportunities for engine manufacturers to include the latest
technologies into their products, and would reduce testing costs and burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. Ill]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The state and environmental organizations (CARB, CATF, NACAA, and OTC) that commented
on this aspect of the proposal did not support the proposed aftertreatment bench aging provision.
While these commenters recognized certain benefits of the proposal, including reduced durability
testing time upfront and improved product cycle timelines, they stated that the risks of hardware
or software issues being missed means that this is not a reliable and accurate method of assessing
durability of aftertreatment components. All of these commenters preferred the Omnibus
approach. CARB recommended that EPA provide a way for manufacturers to use a combination
of EAS and accelerated aftertreatment aging, and at minimum allow the Omnibus method as a
substitute method. OTC also noted that there is not sufficient data to support using the bench-
aged approach.
The engine manufacturers (Cummins, Ford, PACCAR, and EM A) that commented on this aspect
of the proposal supported the proposed aftertreatment bench aging provision with some
qualifications. Cummins noted that a recent engine manufacturer study shows there is little
benefit to continuing long-hour aging of the base engine to determine deterioration. PACCAR
recommended a 3rd option combining the two proposed options (dynamometer and bench-aged
aftertreatment), and noted that EPA described consideration of this option in the proposed rule
preamble, and that it is consistent with the Omnibus approach. PACCAR also recommended that
EPA allow a nonlinear curve fit if testing includes intermediate points, if there is sufficient data
to support that approach. EMA noted that the SwRI DAAAC protocol is a method that can be
used to support bench-aging, and supported allowing alternatives to EPA-approved benching-
aging procedures. EMA also noted that there is no need to define a minimum number of engine
hours of dynamometer aging beyond what is needed to stabilize the engine and aftertreatment.
Response:
See preamble Section IV.F for our responses to many of these comments on the proposed options
for determining the DF and our rationale for the final provisions for determining DF. While the
purpose of EPA's DF determination procedure is to determine emission performance degradation
over the useful life of the engine, we acknowledge that there is value in performing some engine
dynamometer aging. We are finalizing requiring a minimum number of testing hours on an
engine dynamometer, with the allowance for the manufacturer to add additional hours of engine
dynamometer-aging at their discretion. The minimum required hours, beyond what is needed to
initially stabilize the engine and aftertreatment, are by primary intended service class and as
814
-------
follows: 300 hours for SI, 1,250 hours for Light HDE, and 1,500 hours for Medium HDE and
Heavy HDE. These changes also allow manufacturers to include additional engine dynamometer
testing above the minimum requirements, thus allowing the Omnibus method under the final
requirements' options if manufacturers perform engine dynamometer testing to meet the
Omnibus requirements and test over either of the Omnibus service accumulation cycles. Prior
approval will not be needed for testing over the Omnibus cycles because the EPA required duty
cycles include the engine shutdown and extended idle operation that the Omnibus cycles include.
EPA disagrees with OTC that there is not sufficient data to support using the bench-aged
approach. EPA has been evaluating accelerated aging methods under contract at SwRI and has
provided data in the record for the final rule showing that the methods we have added to 40 CFR
part 1036 will determine deterioration results that are comparable to those determined by testing
out to useful life on an engine dynamometer and achieve a significant time and cost reduction for
DF determination.
EMA noted that the SwRI DAAAC protocol is a method that can be used to support bench-aging
and supported allowing alternatives to EPA-approved benching-aging procedures. EPA is
finalizing as part of this rule in 40 CFR 1065.1131 through 40 CFR 1065.1145 a variation of the
SwRI DAAAC accelerated aging protocol that was used in the accelerated aging test program
that SwRI carried out for EPA under contract. The final requirements also include the option for
manufacturers to use their own accelerated aging method with prior EPA approval.
10.3 Verifying deterioration factors
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the minimum number of
hours required to stabilize the emissions from engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.29]
CARB staff supports the provision to update the definition of'low-hour' in 1036.801 to include
300 hours of operation for engines with NOx aftertreatment to be considered stabilized. This
methodology harmonizes the emission stabilization requirements with the Omnibus
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.29]
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed number of
engines tested under the proposed DF verification procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.30]
CARB staff agrees that any DF created using a bench aged aftertreatment needs to be verified in-
use. The Omnibus comprehensive durability demonstration program requires any engine family
using a DF generated from a bench aged system to submit in-use emission data reports for more
than 20 percent of the engines in the field for three consecutive years. The U.S. EPA proposal,
based on the interim DF Validation program undertaken by U.S. EPA and CARB beginning in
815
-------
2021, would test only a small sample (2 to 7) of in-field engines with up to 85 percent of UL
miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.30]
While the goal of these programs is the same, the requirements of the programs are not
equivalent and could potentially require manufacturers to submit different data to each agency to
satisfy the requirements. CARB staff believes the Omnibus approach is robust because the
mandatory dynamometer aging requirements would address many durability concerns at the time
of certification and would have a large dataset to identify unforeseen compliance issues in the
field. The U.S. EPA approach would remain blind to durability concerns at time of certification
with no dynamometer aging requirement and a relatively small sample size of test engines for
DF validation that may not be statistically representative of the in-use population. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.30]
Furthermore, U.S. EPA's proposed DF validation program was never intended to become
regulation; only to serve as an interim stop gap measure because of non-compliance issues
revealed by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association durability study and because
California was in the process of developing a comprehensive durability program as part of
Omnibus beginning with 2024 MY engines. So even if such a DF verification approach were to
be considered, further work needs to be performed to better assess the representativeness of the
DF process to field engines prior to implementation. Again, CARB staff recommends that U.S.
EPA evaluate the Omnibus durability program and work with CARB staff to address any
concerns in the hope to establish a unified national durability demonstration program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.30-31]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
In §1036.246, EPA is proposing to require one of three methods for verification of DF values by
manufacturers using aftertreatment bench aging: engine dynamometer testing, PEMS testing, or
onboard NOx sensor measurements, for several years each on successively higher mileage
engines in production. The engine dynamometer testing verification option requires testing at
least two engines annually, and the PEMS testing verification option requires testing at least five
engines annually, for multiple years. However, the onboard NOx measurement verification
option requires collecting 1 Hz data over a shift day of driving for at least 50% of engines
produced annually for multiple years. Aside from the question of whether NOx sensors can even
meet the verification, startup, and continuous operation requirements proposed by EPA in
§1036.246(d)(3)(i), the 50% minimum is extremely high compared to the other verification
options and to the existing EPA guidance CD-2020-19, upon which the proposed verification
option is based. That guidance calls for testing a minimum of seven engines annually.
Additionally, the telematics systems which EPA envisions manufacturers using do not collect 1
Hz data. EPA should work with manufacturers to determine a more reasonable, statistically valid
requirement for DF verification using onboard NOx measurement for the final rule. Also, as it is
unlikely that systems will exceed emissions standards early in their useful life, manufacturers
should be permitted to propose alternate DF verification schedules for any of the three methods,
such as testing smaller sample sizes prior to the 85% of useful life final verification point. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 11]
816
-------
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
For spark-ignition engines which utilize the bench aging option, we recommend that the
requirement to perform in-use verification testing of the emission Deterioration Factors be
eliminated. Spark-ignition engine bench aging has followed a similar process to spark-ignition
light-duty vehicle bench aging for many years and the deterioration levels of bench aging are
well-aligned with aftertreatment deterioration observed from on-road vehicles. Further,
eliminating in-use verification does not present risks of excess air pollution because vehicle on-
board diagnostic systems will identify premature deterioration of the emissions control
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: EPA has proposed to establish a new deterioration factor determination
option, where manufacturers would be able to perform dynamometer testing of an engine and
aftertreatment system to a mileage that is less than regulatory useful life. Manufacturers would
then bench age the aftertreatment system to regulatory useful life and combine the aftertreatment
system with an engine that represents the engine family. Manufacturers would run the combined
engine and bench-aged aftertreatment for at least 100 hours before collecting emission data for
determination of the deterioration factor. NESCAUM encourages EPA to continue to include the
engine in the deterioration factor determination. While it may be possible to move to the
proposed new bench-aged aftertreatment option with more data, we do not believe there is
sufficient data to ensure this method accurately evaluates the durability of the emission-related
components in a certified configuration. We encourage EPA to align with CARB on the
procedure for the deterioration factor determination. We believe both significant engine
operation and accelerated aftertreatment are needed, and not accelerated aftertreatment aging
alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 15]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Corresponding changes would need to be made as well, including to the deterioration factor
verification provisions. Specifically, 1036.246(c)(4) should be amended to allow using engines
that undergo replacement or repair per the revised provisions above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p. 45]
Certain aspects of the proposed deterioration factor verification provisions should be revised.
First, PACCAR requests that EPA revise its proposal to make clear that DF verification testing is
not required on model years that use carry-over DF data from previous model years. EPA should
add clarifying regulatory language to proposed 1036.246, such as: 'Carry-over of Deterioration
Factors is allowed if there are no major hardware changes (e.g., a change in catalyst technology)
that affect the deterioration of emissions; as such a single verification of deterioration factors on
the first model year using the specific DFs should suffice to verify the validity of the
DFs.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.48]
817
-------
In addition, PACCAR submits that proposed 40 C.F.R. 1036.246(d)(l)(i) requires clarification.
Currently, the proposed section provides: 'Test at least two engines using the procedures
specified in subpart F of this part and 40 CFR part 1065. Install the aftertreatment system from
the selected in-use vehicle, including all associated wiring, sensors, and related hardware and
software, on one of the following partially complete engines.' PACCAR respectfully requests
that EPA clarify that this proposed provision would require testing two aftertreatment systems
and that the testing can be done on a single engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.48]
Proposed section 1036.246(d)(3) also needs to be revised. EPA proposes to require data from
50% of the engines produced for Option 3, as opposed to only 2 engines for Option 1, and 5
engines for Option 2. The option proposed by EPA requires 1Hz data, meaning that physical
recorders must be installed in the vehicles to measure the required data. PACCAR proposes to
reduce the demonstration requirements for Option 3 to five engines as in Option 2. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.49]
PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA remove the proposed requirement that measured
emission results must be adjusted for IRAF. See proposed 1036.246(d)(2)-(3) (requiring IRAF be
added to the measured emission results). Although infrequent regeneration adjustment factors are
determined during FTP, RMC and LLC test cycles, no IRAF values exist for in-use testing. In
fact, the EPA proposed in-use test requirements in 1036.515 specifically exclude emissions
during regeneration, i.e., no IRAF adjustment is required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
p.49]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Regarding the DF verification procedures of proposed section §1036.246, EMA recommends a
modification that will streamline those processes without impacting the integrity of the program.
Regardless of the verification procedure selected, it is unlikely that systems will exceed
emissions standards early in their useful life. EPA acknowledges this point by not requiring
testing for the first two model years of production. EMA recommends extending this principle to
the first years of validation testing by reducing sample size requirements in, for example, years 3
through 6. The number of tests required in years 7 and 8 could also be reduced if the results in
years 3 through 6 demonstrate sufficiently compliant results. Indeed, it is unclear how relevant
slightly elevated levels at early intervals might be. Accordingly, it may be reasonable to provide
that a manufacturer has the option to perform these verifications only in the last stage of UL (the
85% of UL stage) if that manufacturer chooses to take the risk of failing results and potential
recalls. EMA is willing to work with the Agency to establish appropriate streamlined parameters
that will provide the Agency with the same level of assurance the DF verification process was
intended to provide, but with reduced overall burdens for manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 112]
It is noteworthy that the DF verification procedures were originally developed in guidance to
confirm the validity of DF's developed through extrapolation of test results based on
demonstrations conducted over less than FUL. The application of bench-aging would enable
FUL DF determinations. As proposed, the extensive and burdensome DF verification testing
requirements do not sunset. Manufacturers would be required to fulfill the DF verification
818
-------
requirements long after bench-aging has been confirmed as a reliable method of determining
DFs. EMA recommends that the DF verification requirements sunset no later than 2035. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 112]
It is unclear why a manufacturer should be required to include non-emissions deteriorating
components (wiring harnesses, DEF tanks and related sensors) when obtaining engine and/or
aftertreatment systems for the engine dynamometer DF verification option. EMA recommends
that the manufacturer be given more flexibility to propose a reduced list of necessary
components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 112]
There are additional DF verification provisions that require clarification. For example, the
pass/fail criteria in section §1036.246(d) for all three verification options should clearly state
that a manufacturer fails the verification test if "fewer than 70%" of the test samples pass.
Additionally, sections §§1036.246(d)(l)(ii), (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3) instruct the manufacturer to
"apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as specified in §1036.522." EMA recommends
clarifying this language to say "apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as included in
your application for certification" to avoid any confusion that new adjustment factors should be
generated or confirmed. EMA also recommends that EPA include flexibility allowing a
manufacturer to propose alternative plans in the event that engines meeting the minimum
mileage (or hours, for non-road or other applications for which hours are appropriate)
requirements cannot be located or otherwise made available for testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, pp. 112 - 113]
The DF verification requirements from 40 CFR 1036.246 are triggered by the initial model year
that relied on the DF determined per 40 CFR 1036.245. In the context of a new emissions
rulemaking causing multiple engine families to start production in the same model year, the DF
verification requirements would prove very burdensome for the manufacturer with no option to
delay or stage each of the various stages of the DF verification program. We recommend adding
a provision to limit the total number of DF verification test programs a manufacturer would be
required to perform during a single year to no more than three (3). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 113]
Regarding the option to perform DF verification by utilizing on-board NOx sensors, EMA
recommends some revisions for the final rule. The first item of concern is the requirement to
include at least 50% of the manufacturer's production volume in this assessment. That could
amount to a tremendous number of evaluations, all to be post-processed according to the
complex 3B-MAW in-use test protocol. The reporting requirements of section §1036.246(f)
include numerous details from each test, including VIN and serial numbers, and statements that
"tested engines have been properly maintained and used and describe any noteworthy aspects of
each vehicle's maintenance history," as well as explanations why data was "invalidated." Such
detail cannot be automated for reporting processes. Providing 1Hz data on each test would
require voluminous datafile submittals. All of these factors render the "50% of production
volume" sample requirement completely unworkable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
114]
819
-------
EMA recommends that the number of engines to be included under the NOx sensor-based DF
verification provisions be significantly reduced. Reducing the sample size to 20% or even 5%
may still be unnecessarily onerous. EMA suggests that EPA use the same quantity of units as
mentioned in the DF validation guidance (7 or more per year) if utilizing this DF verification
option, or any number of sampling methods available to complete a statistically rigorous
assessment in a less burdensome, more cost-effective way. EMA is willing to work with the
Agency to propose a statistically sound basis for defining the number of engines to be included.
If EPA finalizes the rule with a direct percentage, it should be a direct percentage of the parent
engines produced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 114]
With regard to §1036.520, which specifies the test procedures to submit NOx sensor-based data,
including collection of 1Hz data and post-processing results according to the 3B-MAW protocol,
EMA is again supportive of this forward-looking approach. There are, however, limitations as to
the type of data that can be made available. For example, current telematic systems cannot
transmit 1Hz data. CARB intends to modify REAL requirements in future OBD amendments,
requiring that REAL include the capability to determine and store bin emissions according to the
3B-MAW requirements included in the Omnibus Regulations (and proposed in the NPRM). But
that capability will not be in place until perhaps 2031. In the meantime, it could be possible for
EPA to utilize the current REAL capabilities for the purpose of supporting DF verification
requirements. Once 3B-MAW results are available, the process could incorporate those results
for DF verification and in-use testing purposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 114]
There are other concerns with the proposed NOx sensor-based data acquisition requirements. For
example, the requirement that on-board measurement capability must be verified as described in
§1065.920(b) is unworkable. The replicates test option of §1065.920(b)(6)(ii) would not be
available with the 6 to 9 hour road cycle, because that process does not include replicates in the
same way that the current NTE-based requirements do when applied to §1065.920. The
requirement that the NOx sensor be active within the first 100s of operation and remain active
throughout the day is unworkable. Modern NOx sensors are not sufficiently robust to withstand
all operating conditions, and must be turned off to avoid failure when dew point conditions are
experienced in the exhaust stream. The ECU is switched off at key-off, so the NOx sensors are
down under key-off conditions as well. Additionally, there is much to work out concerning C02
emissions estimation from fuel delivery, calculation of C02-specific results, and many other
details. EMA stands ready to work with the agency to develop the appropriate processes to
enable NOx sensor-based data acquisition capabilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
114]
EMA supports EPA's proposal to allow a manufacturer to reverse a fail determination under the
PEMS-based or NOx sensor-based verification procedures by applying the engine dynamometer-
based procedures. This provision provides a reasonable method for addressing the potential
shortcomings of the other methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 115]
EMA also requests that consideration be given to coordinating and streamlining manufacturer
activities related to DF verification and the HDIUT program. The EPA/CARB in use test orders
could be scheduled to coincide with DF verification obligations. EMA recommends that the
Agency consider this opportunity to reduce manufacturer burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
820
-------
1203-A1, p. 115] However, for spark-ignition engines which utilize the bench-aging option,
EMA recommends that the requirement to perform in-use verification testing of the emission
Deterioration Factors be eliminated. Spark-ignition engine bench-aging has followed a similar
process to spark-ignition light-duty vehicle bench-aging for many years, and the deterioration
levels produce by bench-aging are well-aligned with aftertreatment deterioration observed from
on-road vehicles. EMA stands ready to work with EPA to develop improvements to streamline
those processes in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 115]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The above comments provide both general and specific comments on several aspects of the
proposed procedures to verify deterioration factors.
NESCAUM stated they do not support the bench-aged aftertreatment option because of the lack
of data to accurately evaluate the durability of emission-related components. NESCAUM stated
that instead both significant engine operation and accelerated aftertreatment aging are necessary,
and NESCAUM recommends EPA align with CARB on this.
EMA commented that the DF verification requirements should sunset no later than 2035,
because bench-aging will be confirmed as a reliable method to determine deterioration factors
before then.
With respect to bench-aged aftertreatment, CARB agreed that any deterioration factors created
using this method must be verified in use, but stated that the number of engines tested in EPA's
approach (would test only a small sample (2 to 7) of in-field engines with up to 85 percent of UL
miles) is different from the Omnibus approach (data submitted from in-use engines for more than
20% of the engines in field for 3 consecutive years) and is less robust. CARB stated that, as a
result, EPA's approach does not reflect durability concerns at the time of certification and may
not be statistically representative of the in-use population, and it would also require
manufacturers to develop two sets of data, one for CARB and one for Federal DF compliance.
Finally, CARB commented that the EPA verification program that was originally in guidance
and proposed in this this rulemaking was originally intended as an interim measure, and to date,
enough data hasn't been collected to assess the representativeness of the DF verification process
to field engines.
With regard to the requirements, there were many suggestions from multiple commenters to
revise the proposal, including: limiting the number of DF verification tests per year to no more
than three; reduced sample size requirements after the third year, and even in the 7th and 8th years
if the results in earlier years are compliant, and allow an option to perform verification in only
the 85% of useful life stage. To support these suggestions, these commenters stated that they
were reasonable because systems are unlikely to fail early in useful life. Some commenters
stated that manufacturers should also be allowed to propose alternate DF verification schedules
for any of the three methods, such as testing smaller sample sized prior to the 85% useful life
final verification point. One commenter suggested reducing the number of engines required to be
tested in Option 3 to less than five, like Option 2. The commenter also suggested giving
821
-------
manufacturers more flexibility to propose a reduced list of necessary components, since some of
those currently on the list are not emission-deteriorating (e.g., wiring harnesses, DEF tanks and
related sensors), and suggested allowing manufacturers to propose alternative plans if engines
meeting the minimum operation requirements (miles or hours) cannot be located or made
available for testing. Finally, one commenter asked EPA to remove the requirement for
measured emissions to be adjusted for IRAF, since no IRAF values exist for in-use testing. The
comment also stated that the proposed in-use test requirements exclude regeneration emissions,
so no IRAF adjustment is required. EMA recommended clarifying the IRAF language to say
"apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as included in your application for
certification" to avoid any confusion that new adjustment factors should be generated or
confirmed for the verification.
There were several comments about the onboard NOx sensors approach for deterioration factor
verification, and several manufacturers noted they are willing to continue to work with EPA to
develop a reasonable, statistically reliable onboard NOx measurement method. With regard to
the number of engines tested using this option, commenters said a requirement to test 50% of
production volume is too high, compared to the other methods, and instead the number in EPA's
current DF validation guidance should be used (7 or more per year). Several commenters noted
that current telematic systems cannot transmit 1 Hz data, and EPA should allow using REAL
capabilities until 3B-MAQ results are available. Also, some commenters stated that there is
more work needed to develop NOx sensor-based data acquisition capabilities. Some
commenters stated that the requirements that on-board measurement capability must be verified
and that the requirements that the NOx sensor be active within the first 100s of engine start up
and remain active throughout the day are unworkable. Some commenters stated that they
supported the EPA approach to allow manufacturers to reverse a fail determination under a
PEMS-based or NOx sensor-based verification procedure by applying engine dynamometer-
based procedures. Finally, there was a request to coordinate DF verification and the HDIUT
program to reduce manufacturer burdens.
EMA commented that §1036.246(d) should clearly state that a manufacturer fails the verification
test if "fewer than 70%" of the test samples pass, for all 3 verification options.
EMA commented that §§1036.246(d)(l)(ii), (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3) should say "apply infrequent
regeneration adjustment factors as included in your application for certification" to avoid any
confusion that new adjustment factors should be generated or confirmed.
PACCAR commented that §1036.246(d)(l)(i) should be clarified that it would require testing
two aftertreatment systems and that the testing can be done on a single engine.
PACCAR commented that §1036.246(c)(4) should be amended to allow using engines that
undergo replacement or repair.
Response:
Regarding NESCAUM's statement that they do not support the bench-aged aftertreatment option
because of the lack of data to accurately evaluate the durability of emission-related components,
822
-------
the accelerated bench aging method that we are finalizing has been shown to properly assess
emission control system durability. See also preamble Section IV.F for our responses to
comments on the proposed options for determining the DF and our rationale for the final
provisions for determining DF.
As discussed further in the final rule preamble section IV.F.2, the final DF determination
requirements do not include a requirement to verify the DF unless EPA specifically requests such
verification, see final 40 CFR part 1036.246. EPA disagrees with EMA's request that the DF
verification requirements sunset no later than 2035. EPA intends to request verification of DF if
it suspects there is an issue with the DF generated by the manufacturer and thus does not think
that a sunset date would be appropriate for the final DF verification requirement. EPA
anticipates that a verification request may be appropriate due to consideration of, for example,
data submitted to EPA from the manufacturer run in-use test program, or publications from test
programs that indicate an engine family's deteriorated emissions are higher than the standard.
EPA disagrees with Ford's comment that in-use verification of DF is not needed due to the OBD
system detecting premature deterioration. We are finalizing OBD thresholds that are many times
higher than the final NOx standards, so the emissions will have to deteriorate to emission levels
many times the standard before the OBD system will detect it. We maintain that the option for
EPA to require in-use verification of DF is appropriate.
In general, commentors provided many suggestions to revise the proposal regarding the specifics
of a required verification program. See preamble Section IV.F.2 for what changes from proposal
EPA is making in the final verification requirements, including our discussion of why we are not
including the option for on board NOx sensor-based verification at this time. Other than not
including that option, for the reasons explained below and preamble Section IV.F.2, EPA is not
finalizing any of the commenters' suggested changes. We are clarifying in the final provision
that EPA will discuss with the manufacturer the number of verifications required in the event
EPA requires verification, as described in section IV.F.2 of the preamble.
EPA disagrees with PACCAR who asked EPA to remove the requirement for measured
emissions to be adjusted for IRAF. IRAF emissions are included in the DF determination, under
the final requirement. EMA provided comments on 40 CFR 1036.246(d)(l)(ii), (d)(2)(ii) and
(d)(3) (redesignated 40 CFR 1036.246(b)(l)(ii), (2)(ii), and (3)) and EPA agrees that those
sections should say "apply infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as included in your
application for certification" to avoid any confusion that new adjustment factors should be
generated or confirmed. EPA is, however, retaining the option to request that manufacturers
perform a new determination of IRAF emissions for engines tested using the engine
dynamometer testing option in 40 CFR 1036.246(d)(1) (redesignated 40 CFR 1036.246(b)(1)), in
the event that EPA has concerns regarding the effect of the higher-than-expected deterioration on
IRAF emissions. Thus, where verification is requested by EPA, manufacturers must either 1)
use the IRAF developed at the time of certification, or 2) develop new IRAFs during verification
if EPA requests, to adjust the emission results during verification testing. EPA has updated this
section for the final rule.
823
-------
EPA also notes that the proposal included an option to reverse a fail determination under a
PEMS-based or NOx sensor-based verification procedure by applying engine dynamometer-
based procedures. As explained in preamble Section IV.F, we are finalizing this for PEMS-
based testing where EPA requests DF verification.
EMA provided comments on proposed §1036.246(d) (redesignated 40 CFR 1036.246(b)) and
EPA agrees that as proposed the requirement was not clear on whether the threshold was at or
below 70% and it should clearly state, as originally intended, that a manufacturer fails the
verification test "if fewer than 70% of the tested engines" pass, for both of the verification
options. EPA has updated this section for the final rule.
EMA provided comments on §§1036.246(d)(l)(ii), (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3) (redesignated 40 CFR
1036.246(b)(l)(ii), (2)(ii), and (3)) and EPA agrees that those sections should say "apply
infrequent regeneration adjustment factors as included in your application for certification" to
avoid any confusion that new adjustment factors should be generated or confirmed. EPA has
updated this section for the final rule.
PACCAR provided comments on §1036.246(d)(l)(i) (redesignated 40 CFR 1036.246(b)(l)(i))
and EPA agrees that it should clearly state that it requires testing two aftertreatment systems and
that the testing can be done on a single engine, as the engine is just being used as an emission
source to test the aftertreatment performance against. EPA has updated this section for the final
rule.
PACCAR stated that § 1036.246(c)(4) (redesignated 40 CFR 1036.246(a)(4)) should be amended
to allow using engines that undergo replacement or repair. 40 CFR 1036.246(c)(4) already
allows the use of an engine that has undergone repair as long as it still has its original critical
emission-related components. If the engine does not have its original emission critical
components, this creates a disconnect between the age of the engine emission control
components and the aftertreatment. EPA disagrees that we should allow testing of engines that
have been replaced, because this will result in a mismatch of the age of any engine critical
emission-related components and the aftertreatment system.
10.4 Certification decisions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17548 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the use of standardized
aging cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.29]
CARB staff strongly recommends the adoption of the standardized aging cycles based on
certification test cycles, known as cycle-1 and cycle-2 as described in the Omnibus durability
demonstration program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.29]
824
-------
Historically, manufacturers have proposed and used customized duty cycles for aging the EAS.
CARB staff believes that such an approach is problematic for two reasons:
• First, using customized aging cycles means that there is no level playing-field between
different manufacturers when it comes to durability demonstration. It is not
recommended to have different aging duty cycles for durability demonstration, as
currently implemented.
• Second, certified HDEs are used in a wide variety of vehicle applications, so derivation
of a customized cycle intended to represent the majority of vehicle operations is
misleading. Typically, an engine family is certified to be used in both vocational and
tractor applications with a wide range of power ratings. It is unclear how each
manufacturer can design a single customized aging cycle which could represent such a
large spectrum of vehicle applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.29]
Omnibus cycle-1 and cycle-2 include the standard engine and chassis certification test cycles and
have been derived by examining the operations of HD vehicles in a holistic fashion. They
represent stop-and-go city operations, highway operations and also include large segments of
idling, so CARB staff firmly believes that these cycles are appropriate for demonstrating
durability and establish a level playing-field for manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.29]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: In addition, we are interested in stakeholder input on our proposed
approaches for the durability demonstration that manufacturers are required to include their
application for certification (see Section IV.F for details). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1,
p.9]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: Same comments as above for the Eaton key components
designed for the life of the truck. Our designs will be durability tested as part of our normal
design practices and durability represents the value we bring to the system integrators. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.9]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA also requested stakeholder input on their proposed approaches for the durability
demonstration that manufacturers are required to include in their application for certification.
Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) does not provide good data on the frequency of a
failure's occurrence. Longer warranty terms may lead to higher costs and EPA data may
significantly underestimate the cost impacts due to limited or extrapolated data. We do not have
enough data to support this and even if a vehicle passed durability testing, certain in-use duty
cycles may have additional failures. OEMs may have the required information, but typically not
part and system suppliers. We are not the best group to comment on this, but we are
concerned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
825
-------
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Finally, EPA should revise proposed 1036.246(h)(3). As proposed in the NPRM, this provisions
essentially provides that a new deterioration factor must be established after one additional
model year if verification testing indicates that the emissions do not meet legal requirements.
However, OEMs must have sufficient time to perform a new DF procedure, and, for proposed
MY 2027 regulations, this may take nine to twelve months. To illustrate this challenge, if an
OEM were to determine in December 2028 that its MY 2027 DF verification test failed, it would
likely take until early 2030 for the OEM to complete a new DF program, notwithstanding that
the certification application for the MY 2030 program will need to be submitted by mid-2029.
Because OEMs would reasonably need more than one model year to comply with the proposed
requirements in (h)(3), PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA allow OEMs to carry-over the
existing DF for two additional model years, rather than the proposed 'one additional model
year.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.49]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The above comments address different aspects of the certification-related provisions of the
proposed durability testing requirements. With regard to the duty cycles themselves, CARB
recommends EPA adopt Omnibus cycle-1 and cycle-2 aging cycles. CARB states that allowing
customized duty cycles will not provide a level playing field between manufacturers. CARB
also raises concerns about how customized aging cycles would be designed, since they state that
it would be difficult to represent the range of vehicle applications in a single customized aging
cycle. PACCAR recommends that a manufacturer be allowed to carry over the duty cycle for
two years instead of just one year after a verification test shows emissions exceeds the standards.
PACCAR stated that two-year carry-over is necessary because one year is not enough time to
perform a new DF program. MEMA commented that it is concerned about the ability of Highly
Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) to provide good data on failure frequency. MEMA stated that,
when combined with longer warranty terms, the result may be higher cost impacts. Finally,
Eaton commented that their designs will be durability tested.
Response:
See preamble Section IV.F for our responses to comments on the proposed options for
determining the DF and our rationale for the final provisions for determining DF.
As EPA explained in section IV.F.2 of the preamble, the final DF requirements only require
verification upon request from EPA. Regarding PACCAR's comment, see further discussion in
Section IV.F.2 of the preamble regarding how EPA will address verification results where the
DF is shown to be deficient. We note that we generally disagree that a manufacturer should be
allowed to carry over the duty cycle for two years after a verification test shows emissions
exceed the standards.
While Eaton's comment on durability testing indicated that their products will be durable, they
did not comment specifically on the DF test procedure that engine manufacturers would use for
certification. MEMA's comment suggested that Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) does
826
-------
not represent in-use failure rates and costs of longer warranty periods. We clarify that we are
finalizing an option for accelerated aging to assure manufacturers can certify their engines to our
longer final useful life periods. Our DF test procedures are intended to demonstrate durability at
time of certification, which manufacturers and suppliers would build into their products in their
pre-certification development programs. We agree that the accelerated aging procedure does not
represent the cost of longer warranty periods. We estimate the final warranty periods as
impacting indirect costs for manufacturers and operating costs for owners. See section IV.B.l of
the preamble to this rule for more discussion of our final warranty periods and chapter 7 of the
RIA for a discussion of the updated costs.
11 Off-cycle standards and Test Procedures
11.1 Windowing, Binning, and Test Procedures (Preamble III.C.2.i)
11.1.1 Three-bin MAW Structure (windowing and binning)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA's characterization of the current not-to-exceed (NTE) method
used in the HD in-use testing (HDIUT) program as deficient. CARB staff identified similar
shortcomings of the current program in the staff report for the Low NOx Omnibus
rulemaking. 126 CARB staff analysis showed a significant percentage of tests without any valid
NTE operation, and also indicated that valid events represent an extremely small fraction of total
test time operation. A majority of engine operations and NOx emissions were also outside of the
valid NTE region with the current method. In fact, even with a modified NTE analysis where
data exclusion and limits were relaxed to include more valid operation, the method remained
deficient. CARB staff agrees with the conclusion that European heavy duty-engine products
performing better in-use than their U.S. counterparts is related to the moving average window
method used in the Euro VI regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.57]
126
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/isor.pdf
U.S. EPA requested comments to elements of the off-cycle standards and test procedures. CARB
staff supports the replacement of the NTE procedures with off-cycle test procedures for 2027 and
later model year engines. The off-cycle test procedures are mostly in alignment with the adopted
3B-MAW procedures in CARB's Omnibus program. 127 CARB staff believes the proposed off-
cycle test procedures would overcome the shortcomings of the current NTE method by providing
more valid test data and by including low load operation. The C02 binned approach would allow
emission evaluation with similar certification cycle emission rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.57]
827
-------
127 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mlemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
CARB staff supports the windows size, binning structure based on the normalized average C02
rate, 3 bins (idle, low load, and high/medium load), minimum window requirements of 2,400 for
each bin, equation for emissions rate proposed in 40 CFR 1036.515, limited data exclusion
criteria, and additional requirements for PEMS to limit environmental conditions influence on
the accuracy and precision of PEMS. [This comment is also in 11.6.3] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.57]
CARB staff has concerns with the language in 1036.420(c) stating: 'You may idle the engine
anytime during the shift day to increase the number of windows in the idle bin. Increasing idle
operation in the middle of a shift day would contradict trying to capture real world operation by
the fleet operators. CARB staff suggests adding language adopted in the Omnibus regulation to
allow for idle operation if necessary at the end of the shift day for a minimum of forty minutes
and a maximum of 60 minutes if less than 2,400 windows are in the idle bin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.64]
U.S. EPA requested comment on elements of the proposed off-cycle testing section elements.
CARB staff supports the changes to 1036.515 test procedures for off-cycle testing with a few
concerns. The procedures for field testing provide important guidelines such as the emissions
measurement procedures, engine start temperature requirements, test interval or window size,
handling of key-off in the middle of testing, window creation procedures, excluded operation,
valid operation, calculation of window emissions, binning of windows, calculating bin emission
values needed for manufacturer-run in-use testing and administrator run in-use testing
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.65]
CARB staff supports the inclusion of a cold start requirements, exclusion criteria, 300 second
windowing definition, the creation of windows, valid operation, calculation of window
emissions, binning of windows, and calculating bin emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.65]
135 LowNOx Demonstration Program - Stage 3. Pg. 131.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/79-hdomnibus2020-Uj4AaQB2Aj8FbAhw.pdf
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
As part of Option 1, EPA proposes several changes to its laboratory-based duty cycle tests, in-
use (sometimes called 'off-cycle') testing procedures, and verification testing. The current
regulations must be revised to better regulate low load emissions and protect public health in
communities overburdened by vehicle pollution. Commenters generally support making changes
to close gaps in the current duty cycle and in-use testing procedures to reduce the amount of
dangerous air pollution breathed by individuals living, working, and attending school in near-
road communities. But Commenters oppose EPA's proposed 'flexibilities' that would weaken
verification testing. [Comment also included in Chapter 3.4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-
Al, p.54]
828
-------
EPA also proposes changes to its in-use testing program to consider data across a wider range of
operational conditions. Each 300-second moving average window of data would be sorted into
one of three bins—idle, low load, and medium/high load, each of which would be subject to a
different numerical emissions standard—based on the average power of the engine over that 300-
second period, with measurement of the C02 emissions rate being used as a surrogate for engine
power. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,473. A complete in-use test would require at least 2,400 moving
average windows per bin. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,473. EPA still proposes to exclude certain data
from consideration, specifically data that captures engine operation during times when: the
engine is off, ambient temperatures are below a certain level, the engine is operating at more than
5,500 feet above sea level, an auxiliary emission control device is active, or periodic PEMS zero
and span drift checks or calibrations are occurring. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,474. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.56]
Commenters support adopting in-use testing procedures that capture the higher emissions that
occur when engines are at low load or idling so that the test captures the full range of real-world
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.56]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes to implement a new protocol, the Three-Bin Moving Average Window (SB-
MAW) approach, for assessing in-use emissions against new off-cycle standards and to revise
existing manufacturer-run in-use testing (IUT) provisions for MY 2027 and later CI engines. See
§1036.104(a)(4), §1036 Subpart E, and §1036.515. 3B-MAW would replace the current Not-to-
Exceed (NTE)-based approach for assessing emissions during in-use tests with Portable
Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 12]
Cummins is supportive of efforts to improve real-world emissions and to expand coverage of in-
use testing over a broader range of operation. However, many concerns and questions remain
related to the accuracy and suitability of the 3B-MAW approach and associated in-use testing
revisions. Cummins has been involved in an EMA study conducted by West Virginia University
(WVU) to collect extensive in use NOx data from 100 vehicles. WVU and EMA analyzed the
collected data using numerous variations of 3B-MAW approaches. The comprehensive analyses
highlight many concerns such as the need to balance collecting enough data vs. test time, issues
caused by return-to-service events after idle or restarts unacceptably influencing Bin 3 emissions,
and issues with use of the C02-normalized metric. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 12
-13]
EMA's comments and associated reports describe those issues and many others in detail,
pointing to the need for continued work by both EPA and industry to evaluate improvements that
should be implemented for the final rule, not just in the test and analysis protocols, but also with
respect to compliance measures and stringency. As stated before, Option 1 is not feasible,
including the proposed Option 1 off-cycle standards. For Option 2, a higher interim in-use
conformity factor should be considered while manufacturers gain experience with new
technologies and new 3B-MAW protocol. Also mentioned before, if EPA does finalize increases
to today's useful life periods, it will need to account for additional uncertainty and variability in
829
-------
the deterioration of engines operated in the field by prescribing additional in-use margins to the
off-cycle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck endorses EMA's comments detailing a number of over-arching concerns related
to the proposed 3-B MAW protocol. These concerns are detailed in the '3-BAW and In use
Testing' section of the EMA comments, the highlights of which are as follows:
• The proposed NOx-binning approach will result in individual seconds of data appearing
multiple times in each of the 3 bins;
• The proposed methodology will result in a sorting, in effect a 'smearing,' of the same
emission data points across all of the proposed bins;
• The 3-bin approach will disproportionally weight certain emission results over others
(i.e., some data points will be included up to 300 times, while other points will not);
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.44]
Daimler Truck endorses EMA's comments detailing a number of over-arching concerns related
to the proposed 3-B MAW protocol. These concerns are detailed in the '3-BAW and In use
Testing' section of the EMA comments, the highlights of which are as follows:
• There is no discernible correlation among the data points that end up being binned
together —the data variability and spread do not yield any consistent trends or significant
differences among the 3 bins of data;
• The proposed binning method can result in randomly-binned data; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.44]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The proposed rule sunsets the NTE program and replaces it with a moving-average-windows
(MAW) type of emissions analysis based on similar methodology to the in-service conformity
(ISC) requirements used in Europe. ICCT has shown that in Europe, where a MAW analysis has
been required during ISC testing since 2013, the same type of aftertreatment systems used on
Euro VI compliant trucks achieve much lower emissions than U.S. 2010 technology trucks at the
low speeds often experienced in the real world [23], CARB's in-use testing has confirmed the
limitations of the current compliance program based on the Not to Exceed (NTE) requirements
for trucks that currently certify to the FTP standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. Over real duty-cycles and the
many exclusions allowed by the NTE program the trucks must meet a 0.3 g/bhp-hr on the road.
CARB has shown and the ICCT has confirmed (in the report above) that only about 5% of the
tests meet the conditions of a valid NTE. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 19]
[23] F. Posada, H. Badshah and F. Rodriguez, 'In-use NOx emissions and compliance
evaluation for modern heavy-duty vehicles in Europe and the United States,' 2020.
When the NTE was first adopted as part of the U.S. compliance program, there were no
aftertreatment systems on trucks and the program was effective at ensuring that engine
830
-------
calibrations were not being modified at highway speeds. However, after 2010 when SCR
systems were installed, CARB and EPA began to observe that because the SCR catalyst operates
at reduced efficiency below exhaust temperatures of about 200a,,/, in-use trucks are emitting
multiple times higher NOx emissions than the FTP certification limit, resulting in high NOx
emissions in urban areas, communities and ports where truck speed is low. The proposed three
bin approach with 30 second windows is a better methodology than a power-based
window approach or C02 equivalent based approach since it more evenly weights different
engine operating modes, including extended idle and low power periods of operation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp. 19-20]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
EPA has appropriately proposed to revamp its in-use compliance program entirely. The "not-to-
exceed" (NTE) test protocol have proven woefully inadequate for modern diesel engines—recent
data shows that just 9.7 percent engine operation time is covered under the current NTE
protocol.119 While the small number of NTE events averaged 0.18 g NOx/bhp-hr,120 total route
emissions were more than double that, at 0.42 g/bhp-hr. Importantly, these ignored events are not
random—low-speed operation is almost entirely excluded, even though it represents roughly half
of the operational time for many vehicles, particularly in urban settings. Worse, it is exactly these
low-speed operating conditions where modern diesel emissions controls are most likely to
fail. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 28]
119. Badshah, H., F. Posada, and R. Muncrief. 2019. Current state of NOx emissions
from in-use heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the United States. White paper from the
International Council on Clean Transportation, November 26, 2019. Online at
https://theicct.org/publication/current-state-of-nox-emissions-from-in-use-heavy-duty-
di esel - vehi cl es-in-the-united- state s/
120. Where possible, mg/bhp-hr are used, to directly compare with EPA's proposed
standards. However, in research papers, such accuracy is not always reported. In response
to EPA's request for comment on the use of SI standard units (87 FR 17472), we
generally support the use of mg/bhp-hr and think it more accurately reflects the precision
and accuracy of the standards and tools to enforce those standards.
We support EPA's proposal to move forward with the moving-average-window (MAW)
approach, which will better capture all real-world behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al, p. 29]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In particular, we support: A workable HDIUT protocol and standard that is robust and supports
the lower NOx level [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Often the entry and exit conditions dictate which bin an otherwise identical point may be in the
represented bin. That is, the identical point can fall into either bin. This becomes more
problematic due to the wide range of duty cycles represented in heavy-duty. We believe it would
831
-------
be more representative to combine bins 2 and 3 into a single bin to account for the variability
seen in the heavy-duty context. In this, we further point EPA to the analysis in the EMA
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: EPA has not
sufficiently validated the new proposed in-use low-NOx standards and '3B-MAW' testing
protocols, particularly those associated with 'Bin 3.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.2]
The proposed revisions to the HDIUT program include two major features that change the
regulatory landscape. First, the Proposed Rule imposes a new Three Bin Moving Average
Windowing ('3B-MAW') protocol that attempts to assign periods of engine operation to bins
that represent three different ranges of load. Second, the Proposed Rule sets forth a new
paradigm in which off-cycle standards are set at levels [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp. 19-20]
PACCAR opposes the new 3B-MAW requirements because this protocol is ineffective. The 3B-
MAW method seeks to distribute overlapping five minute periods of operation among three bins
based on load. The idea is to classify similar operation together so that different standards can be
applied to each bin to ensure the maximum appropriate level of control is applied to each type of
operation. This protocol does not work well in practice due to varied operating conditions and
lack of load correlation. PACCAR incorporates by reference the rationale set forth in EMA's
comments, and submits the additional information below. See EMA Comments at 45. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.20]
One practical issue with the 3B-MAW requirement is that MAW windows capture a variety of
operating conditions that are not in character with the bin description to which they are assigned
due to transient load changes that can occur within a window. Furthermore, emissions commonly
do not correlate to load, especially for new technology engines that will employ better SCR
heating strategies. These SCR heating strategies will result in operation at higher SCR
temperatures, which in effect leads to very good emissions control at low loads. The test results
from the SwRI demonstration engine confirm as much by demonstrating little NOx difference
between bins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.20]
In the following example, a truck with a research engine is fitted with a PEMS and undergoes a
cold start followed by operation on a test track in a linehaul driving mode. The entire cold start
was captured in Bin 3, which elevated the Bin 3 BSNOx window result by 2.4 times after 2,400
windows relative to the rate observed under stabilized linehaul driving conditions observed
between 6,000 and 12,000 seconds. Expanding the number of windows to 10,000 reduced the
BSNOx in bin 3 but it was still 1.5 times the steady emissions rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, pp.20-21]
In this example, 3B-MAW was not successful at characterizing the steady emission rate under
linehaul conditions during a test designed to be exclusively linehaul driving. NOx breakthroughs
can be more frequent under other driving conditions, as demonstrated in the following figure
832
-------
during the grocery delivery cycle. In this example, the Stage 3 engine was tested at SwRI and
showed that it is even more unlikely that operating conditions imagined for Bin 3 can actually be
captured in Bin 3 without also capturing data uncharacteristic of Bin 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, pp.21-22]
Similar periods with transient emissions spikes are possible after engine braking, coasting,
idling, and post regeneration which we can call return-to-service ('RTS') events. RTS events can
be captured in any bin and have lasting impact on the final bin results. Even a hot start begins
with a period where emissions controls need to stabilize and reestablish various models such as
for ammonia storage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.22]
A successful in-use compliance strategy will need to target the lowest possible NOx emissions
level at all times to pay for unavoidable NOx breakthroughs. Test results for Bin 2 and Bin 3
may be very similar in terms of level; however, because of the different standards, Bin 2
complies with excess margin, while Bin 3 fails to demonstrate compliance with adequate
margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.22]
Another 3B-MAW shortcoming is that bins can be left underpopulated when a drive cycle is
either heavily loaded or lightly loaded causing the assignment of the vast majority of the
windows to one bin or the other. Lightly populated bins do not have enough data to characterize
the typical operation for the engine in that bin. The EMA comments discuss this topic in depth
and support the conclusion that 10,000 windows is the minimum number needed to have an
acceptable convergence level. EMA Comments at 77. The most effective way to collect 10,000
windows and still complete testing in one shift day is to combine Bins 2 and 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.23]
Second, proposed 1036.420(c) contemplates 2,400 as the minimum number of windows in each
bin. However, 2,400 windows is insufficient for a stabilized test result and is also too many
windows to reliably finish a test in a shift day. Because there are no practical number of windows
that could support the proposed binning scheme, Bins 2 and 3 should be combined into a single
bin and EPA should establish 10,000 as the minimum number of windows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.56]
PACCAR further encourages the EPA adopt: The 3B-MAW in-use compliance protocol should
be modified as follows:
• Bins 2 and 3 should be combined
• There should be a 10,000 window minimum in the combined bin [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.31]
The 3B-MAW in-use compliance protocol should be modified as follows:
• Bins 2 and 3 should be combined
• There should be a 10,000 window minimum in the combined bin[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.60]
833
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to highlight from the outset that while there are various details of EPA's
rulemaking proposal (particularly with respect to Option 1) that EMA and its members
fundamentally disagree with, there are multiple major points of substantial agreement. In that
regard, EMA agrees with EPA that:
(ii) The current NTE-based in-use testing protocols to assess the in-use emissions
performance from HDOH engines and vehicles should be revised to cover all in-use
operations and should, at least in part, incorporate a moving average window ("MAW")-
based "binning" scheme for assessing those in-use emissions; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 5]
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner: The proposed 3B-MAW in-use compliance protocol should
be revised to ensure that a sufficient quantity of data is acquired for a robust compliance
assessment without the need for multiple test-days. Later in these comments, EMA proposes an
alternative to achieve this goal, while also guarding against additional potential infeasibility
issues, especially those associated with the proposed medium/high load "Bin-3"
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 7]
EMA has additional over-arching concerns related to the 3B-MAW protocol, including as
follows: (i) the proposed NOx-binning approach will result in individual seconds of data
appearing multiple times in each of the 3 bins; (ii) the proposed methodology will result in a
sorting, in effect a "smearing," of the same emission data points across all of the proposed bins;
(iii) the 3-bin approach will disproportionally weight certain emission results over others (i.e.,
some data points will be included up to 300 times, while other points will not); (iv) the proposal
for "concatenating" data across key-off/key-on cycles will result in an unrepresentative binning
of dissimilar data, which will yield wide spreads in the binned results; (v) there is no discernable
correlation among the data points that end up being binned together - the data variability and
spread do not yield any consistent trends or significant differences among the 3 bins of data; (vi)
the proposed binning method can result in randomly-binned data; and (vii) despite EMA's best
efforts to find a workable NOx-binning protocol, it is clear that using normalized C02-rate
parameters alone is not sufficient to yield a protocol for binning reasonably correlated in-use
NOx data in three separate bins with three separate standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 49]
EMA was an initial proponent of moving to a new in-use-based emissions assessment paradigm,
where each vehicle would become, in effect, its own mobile emissions lab. Such a new in-use
paradigm, ultimately coupled with telematics, could allow for significant regulatory streamlining
and greater assurance of real-world emissions control. EMA remains highly motivated to find a
new in-use emissions-assessment protocol that can provide the framework for this new in-use
regulatory paradigm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 49]
834
-------
In the interim, EMA and its members have devoted significant amounts of time and expense to
exploring the strengths and weaknesses of MAW-based emissions binning tools and other
potential in-use protocols. To that end, as noted above, EMA contracted with WVU to equip 100
HDOH vehicles with measurement technology capable of tracking emissions in real-world
heavy-duty applications over extended periods. EMA has used that vast accumulation of fleet
emissions data to evaluate numerous iterations of "binning" and other in-use emissions
assessment approaches. Those iterations have included windowing techniques of various
durations, exponentially-weighted moving windows, non-overlapping windows (or "tip-to-tail"
windows), 1Hz-based approaches without windowed averages, and methods to better
differentiate windowed emissions data on the basis of the engine's short-term operational
history. EMA's research has included compliance evaluations not only on the basis of binning
techniques, but also on the basis of the vehicle's shift-day "sum-over-sum" emissions. EMA's
work also has included evaluation of adaptations to the Euro Vl-based in-use testing protocol.
Idle-bin boundaries based on vehicle and engine speed were studied, as were higher power level
boundaries based on afterteatement thermal state to promote thermal management strategies, as
well as brake-specific, C02-specific, time-specific, and distance-specific metrics. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 49]
Unfortunately, notwithstanding EMA's and WVU's extensive efforts (which are detailed in
WVU's Report, see Exhibit "A"), EMA has not been able to identify a suitably robust bin-based
in-use emissions-data assessment protocol. While EMA is continuing its investigations, one
thing has become abundantly clear: EPA's proposed 3B-MAW protocol - which the Agency has
copied from CARB - is not a well-reasoned regulatory framework for assessing in-use emissions
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 49 - 50]
Consistent with the spirit and purpose of those comments, EMA has specific recommendations
for how to revise the B-MAW approach so that it can serve as the basis for a new more-
comprehensive in-use testing program. EPA requested comments on whether the 3BMAW
process should be modified, and more specifically whether combining bins might be a valid
improvement over the protocol as proposed. As detailed later in these comments, EMA is
recommending a modified two-bin approach. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 50]
The proposed 3B-MAW in-use testing method and standards do not sufficiently distinguish
between modes of in-use engine operation, and so cannot adequately separate in-use emissions
into separate bins of idle, low-load, and medium-to-high load operations. As demonstrated by the
extensive analyses performed by WVU, the proposed 3B-MAW method can spread (or "smear")
and comingle in-use emissions data across and among all of the three proposed bins. As WVU's
work reveals, the binned data under the 3B-MAW method have no adequate correlation, trend
lines, consistency, repeatability or reliability of results to support the establishment of separate
regulatory standards for the three proposed bins. Moreover, EPA has not supported the proposed
NOx-binning method with any actual in-use testing data derived from compliant test articles or a
low-NOx HDOH prototype vehicle in-use. It is significant that the Agency originally committed
to undertake real-world in-use testing of the proposed 3B-MAW protocol utilizing a Stage 3
prototype engine installed in a vehicle, but then reneged on that commitment, claiming that the
Agency has run out of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 50 This comment is also in
section 11.3.1]
835
-------
WVU has prepared a comprehensive report of its findings and conclusions regarding the SB-
MAW in-use protocol. As noted, a copy of the WVU Report is appended hereto as Exhibit "A."
The WVU report is based on emissions data acquired from WVU's testing of 100 vehicles of
multiple vocations operating primarily in Southern California. The chart below shows the wide
range of vehicle categories that WVU tested, and the number of tested vehicles in each
category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 50]
Each tested vehicle was equipped with NOx-measurement instrumentation for a period of
approximately one month, accumulating 20 to 30 test-days per vehicle. The second-by-second
emissions and supporting engine and vehicle data were recorded and stored, and subsequently
post-processed by the WVU Center for Advanced Fuels, Engines and Emissions ("CAFEE"). Of
particular relevance, WVU has post-processed the large in-use emission data set using the
proposed 3B-MAW protocol, and several variations thereof. WVU's results highlight the
multiple problems inherent with the proposed 3B-MAW in-use protocol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 51]
As an initial matter, the three proposed MAW-based "bins" do not actually represent idle, low-
load, and medium-to-high load operations. Instead, they amount to a varying amalgam of all
three bins when the binning methodology is applied. Moreover, in the end, the 3B-MAW
protocol, with three separate in-use standards for each "separate" bin, in effect amounts to three
potentially random chances to fail the 3B-MAW-based program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 51]
By moving the proposed 300-second windows forward on a second-by-second basis, each
measured one-second data point is included in up to 300 windows. Those windows are then
sorted into one of the three bins. That means that single one-second data points end up being
sorted typically 300 times into some varying combination of the three bins. For example, when
second-by-second emissions data were recorded on a vehicle tested over CARB's "Southern
Route," 25% of the datapoints fell into two bins, and 7% fell into all three B-MAW bins,
rendering the "data segregation" among the three bins a metaphorical mixed bag. Consequently,
under the proposed approach, much of the in-use data ends up being sorted and, in effect,
"smeared" across two or even all three of the proposed bins. One consequence of that smearing
of results is that the binned data will have limited correlation to any emissions standard that
might be applied to the "separate" bins, which undermines the rationale for applying separate
regulatory standards to the "separately"-binned emissions data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 51]
WVU's analysis demonstrates the degree to which the 3B-MAW approach can randomly assign
data to the 3 "operational" bins. In the graph below from their report, WVU shows how often
single data points fall into two or even three bins over the course of a test day, as assessed for the
various vehicle categories included in WVU's 100-vehicle test program. 11 The percentage
ranges shown for datapoints in one or more "bins" for a given vehicle category represent the
range of individual test-day outcomes for all vehicles in the category. The chart that accompanies
WVU's graph shows that, in the aggregate, more than 26% of the measured datapoints end up in
two bins at the end of the accumulated test-days. That level of cross-binning of data
demonstrates that the 3B-MAW protocol does not effectively sort emissions data according to
836
-------
the targeted binned engine-operating normalized-power characteristics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 51]
11 WVU's nomenclature often refers to the three bins this way: "Bin 1" is the idle bin,
"Bin 2" is the low-load bin, and "Bin 3" is the medium/high-load bin.
Another very important consequence of the overlapping window approach is that while some
measured datapoints will be included in the data set of a particular bin up to 300 times, other
points will be included only once, and other data points anywhere in between. That has the effect
of variably weighting individual datapoints in the dataset as a whole, and especially within a
given bin. The fact that some datapoints can have up to 300 times greater influence on the
averaged bin emissions - most acutely at the start of a vehicle's work day when the emissions
system may not be fully warmed up - is not consistent with with a fair compliance assessment
protocol. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 52]
WVU depicts this variable weighting phenomena in the figure below, which indicates the
number of times individual data points are used in each of the 3 bins after a shift-day of line-haul
vehicle operation. (To understand how to interpret the graph, consider Bin 2: approximately 40%
of the datapoints are used 100 or fewer times, 85.4% are used less than 300 times, and 14.6% are
used 300 times.) Again, this does not seem to be a fair way to weigh in-use emissions
data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 52]
EPA acknowledges the importance of variable datapoint weighting in the draft RIA. In section
2.2.3.2, EPA writes: In what we believe to be an improvement to a work-based window, we are
proposing a moving average window (MAW) approach consisting of time-based windows.
Instead of basing window size on an amount of work, the proposed MAW includes a window
size of 300 seconds. The time-based windows are intended to equally weight each data point
collected, [emphasis added] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 53]
Later in section 2.2.3.4 of the RIA, EPA considers data point weighting as justification for their
proposal regarding concatenating data over excluded data segments. Here, EPA writes: Except
for the data points as the beginning and end of the test and those around long data exclusions,
this methodology equally weights emissions at each data point during the in-use testing. We
believe this is appropriate, as the under-weighted data points consist of a small percentage of the
HDIUT data, which contain a minimum of 10,800 1- Hz data points, [emphasis added] [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 53]
EPA underscores the importance of equal data point weighting in both of those instances, but
fails to consider arguments regarding unequal data point weighting in the instance where it
matters most - in the accumulated 1Hz data within any bin where compliance judgments are
made. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 53]
WVU has broken down the bin placement of data over an almost 4-hour segment of the CARB
NTE Southern Route. The second graph in the figure below depicts the bin placement overlap
(where bins overlap, and data is being distributed with unequal weighting in the bins), and the
fourth graph tracks how many times individual data points are being used in each of the 3 bins.
837
-------
With every transition from one bin to the next, there is a slow walk of uneven data point
weighting. In this data segment of less than 4 hours, there are no less than 13 bin transitions,
where a transition culminates into finally achieving equal datapoint weighting in a bin (300 times
per data point). It is important to point out that these 13 transition observations are without
regard to all of the "partial" transitions where the 300x equal data point weighting goal is not
even reached before the transition reverses due to a change in engine load. These data clearly
shows a major departure from the equal data point weighting objective. Thus, EPA's emphasis
on the value of equal data point weighting falls apart under this analysis, revealing overlapping
windows as one of the more serious flaws of the 3B-MAW protocol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, pp. 53 - 54]
The additional graphs below from WVU's report represent approximately 6 hours of data from a
line-haul truck (EMFAC category la). The upper graph depicts the number of times individual
data points (any point along the X-axis) are placed into Bins 1, 2, and/or 3. Based on those data,
WVU concludes that it is "obvious from [the figures] that transitioning between different bins
results in un-equal weighting of an individual data point in a given bin," which could undermine
the objective to regulate in-use emissions in a reasonable and representative manner. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 54]
The fundamental problem with this highly variable data point weighting system is that within a
bin, when assessing emissions against a bin standard, some data segments (e.g, 20 seconds of
data) will be given 10, 20, even 30 times more weighting in the compliance assessment for that
bin than other 20 second stretches of data. While EMA has shared this concern with EPA
multiple times, the Agency has not even tried to address the issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 55]
WVU also highlights (in the yellow shaded area in the figure above) a period of 55 to 60 mph
sustained highway speed over a period of about 17 minutes. Illogically, the 3B-MAW protocol
places the majority of this operation in the idle bin (demarked by the green line). As WVU states,
"It is clearly evident from the vehicle speed trace that this type of operation is definitely not
typical idle operation that should be compared to the idle emissions standard." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 55]
Another example of illogical data placement is presented in the data WVU has captured on a line
haul vehicle below. Two segments of data are worthy of note in this test. The first is a 3.3 minute
stretch of 55 to 60 mph crusing data, for which all datapoints are included in windows that are
placed solely in Bin 1, the "idle" bin. Some 15 minutes later in the same test trace is a 2.3 minute
data segment of curb idle operation, for which all data points are included in windows that are
placed only into Bins 2 and 3, the "low power" and "medium/high power" bins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 55]
In another assessment of whether the proposed 3B-MAW approach effectively segregates
emissions data according to engine-operation characteristics, WVU analyzed the medium/high
bin (Bin 3) windows from multiple days of testing of a single line-haul vehicle, and separated
those data into three ranges of vehicle speed: urban (<31 mph), rural (>31 and i,£ 46.6 mph), and
highway (> 46.6 mph). WVU's graph below shows the variability in day-to-day emissions
838
-------
results from the three speed ranges within Bin 3, the supposed medium/high bin. Clearly the
lower speed ranges of the urban cycle produce overall higher emissions results than the higher
speed ranges, and show much greater variability from one day to the next. Thus, there are factors
in play that have a more significant effect on the level and variability of in-use emissions than
the normalized-power-based bin boundaries that EPA has borrowed from CARB. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 56]
Significantly, none of the WVU analyses concerning the problems with the proposed 3BMAW
approach, with the exception of the vehicle speed breakdown in the medium/high load bin,
has anything to do with specific tailpipe emissions levels or low-NOx technologies. Those results
(and problems) would bear out, and the resultant concerns hold true, regardless of whether the
analyses involved assessments using today's emisions control systems, enhanced emissions
control technologies, or even EPA's Stage 3 RW prototype. Thus, the concerns with the 3B-
MAW approach will be present no matter which low-NOx technologies are envisioned. 12 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 56 - 57]
12 WVU's Report, Exhibit "A" hereto, contains a more detailed explanation and
demonstration of each of the multiple flaws inherent with CARB's unverified and
untested 3B-MAW protocol.
Perhaps the most compelling analysis in the WVU Report is a series of figures showing the real-
time percentage of operation at normalized C02-rate data points compared to how the 3BMAW
method distributes those same data into the three bins. The figures below break that information
down for each of the vehicle-types that WVU tested. As depicted below, the 3B-MAW process
distorts the vehicles' true operating characteristics, capturing and redistributing the data in a way
that simply does not match the reality of the vehicles' actual operations on the road. The actual
real-time second-by-second operation of a category lb short-haul vehicle, for example, exhibits
predominantly idle and very light load operation with a relatively flat distribution of data at low
levels of frequency across the rest of the normalized C02 rage. Compare that true 1Hz operation
(in red), however, with the 300-second 3B-MAW windowing process distribution in blue, which
shows the same vehicle as having a strong peak of operation at the boundary separating the low
and medium/high load bins, an operating profile that clearly and markedly differs from
reality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 57]
Similarly, comparing real-time and 3B-MAW distributions of data for a more vocational vehicle
application, such as a category 6b food/beverage delivery vehicle, results in a distortion of data
that is even more apparent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 57]
Another concerning aspect of the binning process that WVU has analyzed is presented in the
following graphics. The basis for the analysis is represented in the two graphs below, which
depict the bin placement of the first second of each valid 3B-MAW window when deployed over
the FTP cycle. Each data point in the graph is the first data point of a 300 second 3B-MAW
window. The horizontal dashed lines represent the bin boundaries (6% and 20%), and the y-axis
position of each data point reports the average normalized C02 level for the window that starts
with that 1Hz data point. As shown, the first approximately 300 seconds of the FTP cycle is
initiating windows that fall into Bin 2 (between 6 and 20% normalized C02). Window
839
-------
placement then transitions into Bin 3 where the line turns blue (though the transition takes 5
minutes in total before all data points in those Bin 3 windows have normalized C02 levels
greater than 20%). The windows eventually fall back into Bin 2 over the last portion of the
cycle. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 58]
13 The FTP cycle is 20 minutes, or 1200 seconds long. The graphic stops at 900 seconds,
because it reports data on the basis of the first datapoint of each window. After 900
seconds, no new 300 second windows are completed (are valid). The last valid window is
the one which has its first second of 1Hz data at 900 seconds.
The graph to the right is specific to data that falls into Bin 1 when the FTP cycle is processed
through the 3B-MAW protocol. Recalling that any window can be comprised of individual data
points with widely varying average normalized C02 levels (or, practically speaking, average
power levels), we can see in the graph at right, for Bin 1, the percentage of the 1Hz data points
that were at <6% normalized C02 (that is, were representative of what EPA calls Bin 1
operation). The percentage of data points in each window that were at Bin 2 and Bin 3
normalized C02 level can be similarly reported. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 58]
With that explanation of the analysis technique, the next graphic indicates the compositional
breakdown of three 3B-MAW windows recorded during the FTP cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 59]
The first window selected for consideration (where the first 1Hz data point is circled in black in
each of the graphs above), is a window that, by the 3B-MAW process, was placed into Bin 2 (as
can be seen in the upper graph). That window is comprised of 300 data points, 80% of which are
<6% normalized C02 (and so representative of Bin 1 operation), 7% of which are between 6 and
20% normalized C02 (representative of Bin 2 operation), and 13% of which are greater than
20% normalized C02 (represntative of Bin 3 operation). Remarkably, this window, which was
placed into Bin 2 (and judged against the Bin 2 standard), has a mere 7% of its 1 Hz data points
coming from operation that EPA has determined to be "Bin 2" operation. The other two data
points isolated for consideration (circled in blue and red in the graphic above) demonstrate
similar gross imbalances in operational representation relative to bin placement when 3B-MAW
is applied to the FTP cycle. A similar analysis of the LLC cycle evaluated by the 3B-MAW
technique reveals similarly counter-intuitive outcomes (the window initiated at 3400 seconds
falls into Bin 2, despite that fact that only 9% of the 1Hz data points are recorded at normalized
C02 levels within the 6% and 20% Bin 2 boundaries.) Clearly, this analysis shows that 3B-
MAW is not a logical, reliable system for binning emissions, and, therefore, not a legitimate,
representaitve system for setting and enforcing in-use standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 59 - 60]
When considering the results of the above analysis, it is important to point out that the FTP is not
a "one-off' cycle rarely represented in real world operation. Indeed, the FTP has been the
cornerstone of emissions demonstration cycles for more than four decades. Moreover, this
imbalance in bin composition will play out in every real world duty cycle. It is also very telling
that the FTP cycle, 41% of which, on a time bais, is comprised of idle operation, produces not a
single idle bin window when evaluated using the 3B-MAW protocol. That simple fact alone
840
-------
raises serious concern about the validity of the protocol, which has not been validated by even a
single minute of real-world chassis testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 60]
Based on the foregoing, WVU has concluded that the "proposed bin boundaries are misaligned
with actual in-use vehicle operations." EMA fully agrees with WVU's assessment. Accordingly,
significant revisions to EPA's proposed 3B-MAW protocol are required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 60]
If EPA maintains the 3B-MAW approach in the final rule, which EMA opposes, EMA
recommends that the 20% normalized C02 boundary between Bins 2 and 3 be increased to 25%.
EMA bases this recommendation on the emissions characteristics of the 100-vehicle testing
conducted by WVU in Southern California. Examining the sum-over-sum emissions
characteristics of the fleet is informative. The graph below shows the average sum-over-sum
emissions of the fleet as a function of the average normalized-C02 level for each recorded shift
day. The red line indicates the average NOx emissions of all vehicle test-days where the average
normalized C02 level was less than the x-axis value. The blue line indicates the average NOx
emissions of all vehicle test-days where the average normalized C02 level was more than the x
axis value. An inflection point in the low average normalized C02 level data (the red line) is
clearly evident at 25% normalized C02. Accordingly, EMA recommends that the 3B-MAW
boundary between the low-power bin and the medium/high power bin be established at 25%
normalized C02 in lieu of the proposed 20% level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 60]
All of the analyses above raise the fundamental question of why EPA is proposing to process
data in overlapping windowed segments. Both EPA and CARB have argued that capturing data
in windowed segments permits data to be evaluated, at least in part, on the basis of a segment of
operating "history." That argument appears to be reasonable, because the efficiency of the most
effective NOx reduction tool, SCR, is dependent upon the catalyst temperature, and therefore the
"recent history" of the exhaust temperature profile. The problem with that argument, however, is
that the 3B-MAW protocol actually makes no distinction whatsoever regarding the
characteristics of engine-operating history within any given window. A window's bin placement,
and therefore its linkage to any relevant in-use standard, is based solely on the average
normalized C02 level (effectively the average power) of that window, without any consideration
of the "history" that purportedly compelled EPA to "window" emissions data in the first place.
Two windows can end up having mirror-image time traces (engine speed, torque, etc.), one with
rising SCR temperature, the other with falling SCR temperature, which can certainly yield very
different emissions results. An example of this phenomenon, represented with actual data
recorded by WVU, is captured here: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 61]
Notwithstanding the clearly different emission results, the 3B-MAW protocol would bin those
two differing windows identically, and hold them to the same in-use emissions standards.
Consequently, while EPA's rationale is that engine operating history is important, the 3B-MAW
protocol does nothing to account for the particular details of that operating history, and therefore
completely undermines the "operating history" rationale for the Agency's proposal. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 62]
841
-------
The fact that windowing data serves no useful purpose could perhaps be tolerated if the new in-
use protocol also did not raise the other concerns at issue, including imbalanced data point and
data segment weighting, and illogical bin placement that is disconnected from any vehicle's
actual duty-cycle. Yet despite EMA's repeated demonstrations of the need for revisions to the
3B-MAW protocol - again, a protocol that EPA simply copied from CARB - EPA has simply
refused to engage on those important issues. In particular, EPA staff have rejected out-of-hand
EMA's proposal to adopt a much more straightforward, more representative view of emissions
impacts through a "sum-over-sum" approach to assessing a day's emissions performance.
Therefore, later in these comments, EMA will make specific recommendations for revising and
improving upon the proposed 3B-MAW protocols. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 62]
Other problems with the proposed binning proposal become evident when the new Low Load
Cycle (LLC) certification test is processed according to the 3B-MAW in-use protocol. A
significant number of windows, especially those including long periods of idle followed by a
high load "return to service" period of operation, end-up in the medium/high-load bin.
Consequently, the portions of the LLC most vulnerable to NOx "breakthroughs" would have to
comply with the in-use standard linked to the more stringent FTP/RMC standards, not the higher
LLC standard. More specifically, those LLC windows which would fall into the medium/high
load bin would have to meet an Option 1 standard of 0.030 g/bhp-hr, established on the basis of
the FTP/RMC standard multiplied by the conformity factor (1.5). If a vehicle is in a generally
low-load application, a long idle period followed by a high-load return to power could be the
only, or otherwise dominant, operating condition where data is placed into Bin 3, putting the in-
use test at high risk for a non-compliance determination. The high (and potentially unfair) risk of
noncompliance would stem from the fact that the limited amount of Bin 3 data would be the
exact type of data that most likely would not meet the Bin 3 standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, pp. 62 -63]
EPA envisions that the 3B-MAW protocol will assess emissions performance for all or almost all
of a HD engine's operation over its entire shift-day. Indeed, that expectation is one of EPA's
primary objectives in implementing a new in-use protocol, given the relatively limited coverage
of in-use operations provided by the current NTE method. EMA agrees with that objective. The
NTE protocol was often problematic for manufacturers as well, because if there were only a
handful of NTE events recorded over a vehicle's in-use test day, just one NOx breakthrough
event could mean failing to meet the minimum NTE-based "pass" ratio. Despite EPA's intent,
however, a similar risk exists still with the 3B-MAW protocol. A day's testing may very well
capture 99% of the vehicle's operating time, yet, depending on the duty cycle, any single "bin"
still may have a minimal amount of in-use emissions data stored for assessment. Consequently,
EMA supports including a minimum data requirement for each bin, expressed as a number of
windows, or total operating time, or a similar metric. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
68]
EPA's proposal is to require a minimum of 2,400 windows in each of the 3 bins. When
conducting an in-use test, if a day's testing does not accumulate at least 2,400 windows in each
bin, the manufacturer must test for as many additional days as necessary to accumulate at least
2,400 windows in each bin. As stated above, EPA supports including a minimum window count
requirement because it is important that the HDIUT requirements not create a situation where an
842
-------
engine's emissions compliance is judged on the basis of a small sample of data. However, EMA
is concerned about the specific proposal for minimum window counts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 68]
As an initial matter, we are concerned that 2,400 windows, as proposed, could be insufficient to
make a robust determination of compliance. EMA understands that this figure, which could
represent as little as 40 minutes of data (though in most cases it will include more "real-time"
data) is based upon the duration of typical test cell certification cycles. However, test cell
certification cycles are not a good reference for this purpose, because there is much more
randomness to the duty cycles, ambient conditions, engine operating conditions and other factors
that can influence emissions during an actual in-use test compared to the strictly controlled cycle
and conditions of a certification test in an emissions laboratory. Data convergence to a
reasonably representative level has to occur during the test-day. For this reason, we believe that
much longer time periods (i.e., much longer than 40 minutes) are necessary for a fair and
reasonable assessment in-use. EPA should demonstrate with representative data how many
windows are sufficient to reasonably represent a vehicle's emissions performance in any bin
during an in-use test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 68]
To analyze the practical consequences of the proposed 2,400 window threshold, we can turn
again to real-world data as recorded by WVU on the 100-vehicle fleet in Southern California.
Presented in the table below are the percentage of test-days where <2,400 windows were
recorded for the day. The table includes the view for the entire fleet, and for two of the worst-
case categories for bin window-count. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 68]
It is clear from this data that manufacturers will very frequently encounter test-days that fail to
accumulate the proposed requisite number of 2,400 windows in each bin. The data presented
here from the 100 vehicle test fleet indicates a higher percentage of vehicles requiring more than
one test day than the data EPA presents in Figure 2-24 of the RIA. That data is based on 168
shift days of testing, from which it is estimated that about 8% of test days would fail to meet the
2,400 window minimum in the Idle Bin, about 3% in the Low-load Bin, and less than 2% in the
Medium/high load Bin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 69]
WVU's analysis presented in the table above, however, is based on a much more robust and
statistically significant 2077 days of testing, and therefore provides a more reliable projection of
the probability of the need for additional test days. WVU's analysis also includes assessments of
particular vehicle types. To the extent that EPA may select an engine family that is dedicated to
light load applications, such as food and beverage or drayage, we can plainly see the very high
probability of multiple test-day requirements. Based on more than 400 test-days' experience,
drayage applications would require a second day of testing about 34% of the time. Food and
beverage distribution would require a second day of testing roughly 70% of the time, based on
more than 300 days' worth of testing. That in-use testing burden is not practical or
sustainable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 69]
Examination of the likelihood of the idle bin not accumulating 2,400 windows in a test day is
especially concerning. EMA therefore supports EPA's proposal to permit the manufacturer to
intercede "anytime during the shift day to increase the number of windows in the idle-bin." Due
843
-------
to the "hands-off' nature of the in-use test program, the only real option for manufacturers to
make any kind of effort to idle the vehicle for the sake of accumulating windows is at the end of
the shift day. EMA nonetheless considers this a reasonable approach and supports the
manufacturers' opportunity to fulfill idle bin requirements in that way. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 69]
Unfortunately, if a vehicle is equipped with an automated 5-minute shutdown timer, as required
under various state and local regulations, it will not idle for the required time of the proposed
amendment without shutting down. The same would be true if the fleet from which vehicle is
being tested has programmed the vehicle for automated shutdown after a period of time. The
Agency should allow the manufacturer to override the automated shutdown feature where
possible, or to "blip" the throttle periodically as needed to reset the automated shutdown
timer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 69]
While the option to accumulate additional windows in the idle bin by idling the engine for a
period of time is a workable solution to meet the idle bin minimum window count requirements
for most vehicles, there are no convenient options to address the minimum window count
requirements of Bins 2 and 3 - requirements that will, according to WVU's analysis, all too
frequently require additional test-days. EMA recognizes that there is a tension between
having enough data to make a responsible judgment about bin compliance on a test article, while
also needing to limit the data requirements to avoid an excessive number of test-days to fulfill
the minimum data needs. In the next section, EMA will present additional WVU analyses that
demonstrate the need for window count requirements much greater than 2,400 windows to
ensure that an accurate and robust assessment is made based on data that has reasonably
converged on the average emissions performance of the test article in each bin. The greatly
increased number of additional test-days that would be required to accumulate that elevated
minimum window count requirement will also be assessed. Additionally, EMA will propose a
modification to the 3BMAW process that is responsive to EPA's request for comments regarding
the possibility of combining 3B-MAW bins, and that should largely overcome both the data
convergence issue and the multiple test-days issue that undermine the feasibility of the current
3B-MAW proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 69 - 70]
As discussed above, EPA has proposed a minimum window-count requirement for each bin to
ensure that sufficient data has been acquired on a test vehicle to accurately judge its emissions
control performance in-use. EMA recognizes the importance of that goal, as it is the only fair
way to conduct an in-use compliance assessment. We have expressed concern earlier in these
comments, however, that EPA's proposal for establishing a minimum window count of 2,400
lacks a sufficient technical basis. While not discussed in the preamble or the RIA, it is
understood from earlier discussions with EPA staff that 2,400 windows was selected as a
minimum window count requirement for each bin because the equivalent duration of time
represented by 2,400 windows, 40 minutes (actually 45 minutes considering the 5-minute
window length), is the time required to complete the RMC steady-state emissions dyno
test. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 70]
EMA requested that WVU conduct a deeper investigation of data convergence tendencies during
in-use testing under 3B-MAW requirements using the 1Hz data recorded from the more than
844
-------
2200 days of testing of the 100-vehicle Southern California fleet. The results of that analysis are
presented in the graphics that follow (the complete summary analysis is included in Exhibit
"H"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 70]
By way of explanation, consider the graphs below, which report bin emissions results over one
day of emissions testing of a line-haul vehicle. Each graph tracks the bin's sum-over-sum
emissions results as they develop, window by window, from the very first window to the very
last window acquired in the test day. For each bin, the red line is reporting individual window
results as they come in (and is thereby highly variable). The blue line is reporting the bin's
cumulative emissions results from all accumulated windows up to any window count point (on
the horizontal axis). For example, the first window in Bin 1 had a NOx level of about 14 g/hr. At
the time the 2000th window was captured, that 2000th window had a NOx level of
approximately 2 g/hr, whereas the cumulative Bin 1 results by that time (representing essentially
the average emissions from all 2000 windows per the 3B-MAW process) calculates to just over
14 g/hr. By the end of the test day, some 3,600 to 3,700 windows had accumulated in Bin 1, with
the day's Bin 1 results at approximately 19 g/hr. It is interesting to observe how the more
extreme instantaneous results "pull" the average up or down. The Bin 2 and Bin 3 results are
presented in a similar manner, but using the appropriate metric of g/bhp-hr as required by the
3B-MAW process. By this analysis technique, one can see how individual window results vary
widely depending on operating speeds and loads and other varying conditions throughout the
day, but, with the accumulation of sufficient windows, the data "settles in" to the reported
average day's emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 70 - 71]
If we focus on the "blue line" cumulative bin results, and graph multiple days from a single test
vehicle in the same plot (again, for each bin), we can see below how the data convergence trends
develop with each test day. The horizontal dashed line represents the average NOx emissions
from all of the test days combined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 71]
To support the data-convergence assessment desired from this analysis, it is helpful to normalize
individual-day data traces relative to the average emissions results from all test days. This allows
us to see the convergence trends more clearly, reducing the effects that the day-to-day variation
of bin emissions results can have on clouding the picture of when sufficient convergence is
achieved. This is especially helpful when reporting the results from multiple test days with
multiple vehicles, and so helps to avoid the disproportionate impacts from the unique emissions
characteristics of individual trucks. The results from the normalized data highlight the
convergence we are trying to identify, as depicted below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 71]
Also shown in this set of graphs above are the 90th and 10th percentile results (the red lines)
from the multiple vehicle, multiple test-day results for these line-haul vehicles. As should be
expected, these 90th and 10th percentile levels are very high or very low (respectively) during
the earliest portions of each test day, until the windows accumulate, and the data begins
converging toward each vehicle's representative emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 72]
845
-------
The most important thing to observe in these graphs is that by the 2,400th accumulated window
in each bin, the data (it is best to consider the 90th and 10th percentile trends) appears to have
not yet adequately converged to a "settled" level of emissions. This is especially evident in Bin
3, where sufficient convergence does not occur until perhaps 15,000 windows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 72]
These analyses point to the need for significantly more than 2,400 windows in a test day to
accurately and fairly assess a vehicle's "nominal" emissions results in each of the proposed
3BMAW bins. The complication that finding presents, however, is a potential need for multiple
test days to accumulate the requisite number of windows. For this reason, WVU pulled the test-
days' correlation into this data convergence analysis. The process for estimating test-day
requirements for various assumed window count requirements was again based on analysis of the
20 to 30 test days conducted on each of the 100 vehicles tested in Southern California. By
capturing the number of windows accumulated in each bin from each test day, WVU strung
together multiple combinations of test days to generate essentially random effects of combined
test day window counts. The technique is explained here: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 72]
Probabilities to test multiple days were developed for each vehicle category (line-haul, short-
haul, drayage, and so on). Some of the vehicle categories' results are presented in the following
pages, along with tables that report the probability of having to test one, two, three or even more
days depending upon various minimum window count assumptions. The tables also report the
benefits of including the end-of-day idle option to accumulate windows in Bin 1 if necessary (the
assumption is that Bin 1 will never compel a second test day on its own). To illustrate, by way of
example, a line haul vehicle will have an 81.5% chance of requiring more than 1 day of testing if
a minimum window count of 10,000 windows per bin were applied, a 36.3% chance of requiring
more than 2 days of testing, and a 15.8% chance of requiring more than 3 test-days, even while
utilizing the end-of-day idle test option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 73]
For the Short-haul category: In this case, WVU is also showing the benefits of using vehicles in
applications where the engine's activity included a minimum of 3 hours of non-idle
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 74]
For the entire fleet (all categories combined): In this case, only the 90th and 10th percentiles are
plotted by category for clarity (see the table near the introduction of this section to understand
the category references in the legend). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 76]
In each of the vehicle-category examples presented above, it is clear that the 2,400 minimum
window count requirement that EPA has proposed is not adequate to ensure a fair and accurate
assessment of a vehicles' emissions performance. It is also clear from the test-day requirement
tables that increasing the minimum window-count requirements to more appropriate levels,
perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 windows, to ensure a reasonable probability of data convergence, will
very frequently lead to two, three, and occasionally even four days of testing as a matter of
regular practice. Obviously, that is an untenable situation, as it will present undue burden for
manufacturers, and undermine customers' willingness to support the HDIUT program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 77]
846
-------
There is a question regarding the relevance of the results and conclusions of the foregoing
analysis because it is based on test results from engines compliant to US10 emissions standards,
rather than engines designed and calibrated to the protocols and the range of emissions standards
that EPA is proposing in this rulemaking. In response, EMA first points out that the analyses that
relate number of required test-days to minimum window count provisions are completely
independent of the emissions levels in question. The consequences are strictly related to
operational activity, which is not expected to be altered by the proposed regulations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 77]
Regarding the data convergence tendencies, it is correct that the data that served as the basis for
these analyses were recorded on US10 vehicles. However, the relevant data variability will
increase, not decrease, relative to the proposed low-NOx emissions standards. That additional
variability can be attributed to several of the issues raised in these comments, including (1) the
inability to control tailpipe emissions with greater precision than today, without any significant
improvements in sensor accuracy or actuator precision, (2) the inaccuracies of PEMS equipment
relative to the anticipated standards, (3) other sources of production variability expected to lead
to similar absolute levels of tailpipe uncertainty, yet with lower absolute tailpipe emissions
levels, and (4) the impacts of system degradation, including SCR efficiency loss, on a control
system that depends even more heavily on high catalyst conversion efficiencies than today's
US10 systems. Accordingly, it is unlikely that data convergence will occur over fewer windows
with future technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 77]
If EPA staff believes that this is an invalid assessment, they should produce the data necessary to
demonstrate that 2,400 windows are adequate to make an accurate and fair assessment of any
vehicle's emissions in any bin. Unfortunately, the Agency's testing of "future technology" is
limited to test cell demonstrations, with at most 3 protype test articles, primarily run over dyno
based certification cycles, with only a handful of road cycle simulations, also run on an engine
dyno. Without creating the robust data to make a better case than EMA has made on these
important issues, EPA should use the best available data. The best available data is the 100
vehicle SoCal study conducted by WVU, which is the basis for EMA's analysis. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 78]
In the preamble to the NPRM, EPA requests comments on ways to improve the 3B-MAW in-use
protocol, including, specifically, combining certain of the bins. The bin combination that EPA
discusses briefly in the NPRM is combining Bin 1 and Bin 2. EMA does not find that type of
combination to be practical or justified. First, the emissions characteristics of Bins 1 and 2 are
very different and less consistent, especially when compared to the greater similarities in the Bin
2 and Bin 3 results. More specifically, the SwRI 800,000-mile results show average brake-
specific Bin 1 emissions as calculated by the 3B-MAW process (but in g/bhp-hr to enable
comparison of results) across the five road cycles tested to be 0.081 g/bhp-hr, whereas the Bin 2
average is 0.042 g/bhp-hr, and the Bin 3 average is 0.030 g/bhp-hr. The spread in those results
(delta from lowest to highest) is significantly more consistent between Bins 2 and 3 than Bins 1
and 2 (Bin 1 spread = 0.113 g/bhp-hr. Bin 2 = 0.015, Bin 3 = 0.024). Secondly, there is interest
to have an independent evaluation of the idle condition that EPA proposes to control with the
optional low-NOx idle standards. EMA supports that EPA is not proposing a stand-alone
vehicle-level idle test such as that CARB proposed in its Omnibus regulations, and instead has
847
-------
proposed to assess idle or near-idle emissions within the 3B-MAW protocol. For these reasons,
EMA does not recommend combining Bins 1 and 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 78]
Instead, EMA and WVU have considered a modification to the proposed 3B-MAW protocol that
would overcome the identified data-convergence and multiple test-days issues. One promising
modification in that regard is to combine the Low Power (Bin 2) and Medium/High Power (Bin
3) windows into a single bin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 78]
As noted above, EMA finds that the end-of-test idle option is a reasonable approach to meeting
the 2,400 minimum window-count requirement in Bin 1. No such convenient method exists,
however, to ensure adequate window-count, and thereby adequate data convergence, in Bins 2 or
3 after a day of testing. To remedy that, EMA proposes to combine Bins 2 and 3 into a single bin
when determining bin emissions levels. Adding the Bin 2 and Bin 3 windows will greatly
improve the chances to avoid multiple test-days when window-count requirements are set to
levels that reasonably assess - and converge around - a vehicle's nominal emissions
characteristics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 78]
The Bin 2 and Bin 3 definitions with respect to normalized C02 cut-points can be maintained as
a means to ensure that vehicle activity is reasonably distributed across the operating spectrums
represented by those bins. By combining those two bins before calculating a combined Bin 2+3
emissions level, to be evaluated for compliance against an appropriate combined Bin
2+3 emissions standard, data convergence can be achieved without the onerous need for multiple
test-days to achieve reasonable convergence in the combined Bins 2 and 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 78 - 79]
Combining Bins 2 and 3 not only resolves the data convergence and test-day requirements of 3B-
MAW as proposed, it is also supported by the Stage 3 RW engine data as reported by SwRI.
When this future technology configuration was tested over the five road cycles discussed earlier,
the NOx emissions levels of Bins 2 and 3 were largely the same. The enhanced thermal
management routines and LO-SCR improvements to control Bin 2 emissions result in Bin 2 NOx
levels on par with those in Bin 3, as seen from the Stage 3 RW results (at 435,000 miles
equivalent) below. 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 79]
16 As mentioned earlier, these results do not consistently comply with the 2031 NOx
standards EPA has proposed.
As mentioned, the Agency's proposed Bin 2 and Bin 3 definitions could still play an important
role to ensure that manufacturers are demonstrating emissions compliance over a broad range of
operational modes. For example, EPA could require that among the total windows accumulated
in the combined Bin 2+3, at least some minimum percentage of those windows would need to be
Bin 2 windows, and a similar minimum percentage would need to be Bin 3 windows. Such a
fleet-level operational activity requirement in the in-use test program would ensure that
manufacturers' compliance demonstrations include emissions generated from multiple types of
operations consistent with EPA's 3B-MAW definitions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
80]
848
-------
Consistent with the foregoing discussion, EMA proposes the following adjustments to the SB-
MAW protocol as proposed: Minimum data requirements: Minimum 3 hours of non-idle
operation; Minimum 3 hours of non-idle operation should also be an acceptable vehicle
screening criteria.; Minimum engine coolant temperature of 20°C. Idle bin (Bin 1) minimum data
requirement should be 2,400 windows as proposed: End of test-day idling option should be
adopted. Bin 2 + Bin 3 minimum window count requirement: 10,000 windows. Test additional
days if not met [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 80]
Consistent with the foregoing discussion, EMA proposes the following adjustments to the 3B-
MAW protocol as proposed: Emissions calculations: Bin 1: As proposed by EPA. Bin 2 + Bin 3:
Calculate emissions from all combined Bin 2 and Bin 3 windows as if a single bin. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 80]
In the proposal outlined above, the 3 hour non-idle operation requirement is consistent with
acquiring adequate data to make a fair and accurate assessment of a vehicle's compliance. With
the recommended requirements on fleet-level minimum Bin 2 and Bin 3 activity, manufacturers
can modify their vehicle recruitment path as they progress in the test program to meet these
targets (with EPA approval as necessary). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 81]
Regarding the minimum Bin 2+3 window-count requirement for any test-day, EMA is proposing
10,000 windows. We believe this is the appropriate window-count requirement that balances
data-convergence concerns and risks to test multiple days. There is considerable uncertainty with
respect to the in-use emissions performance that should be anticipated from the types of
emissions control packages that EPA has investigated as the basis for this rulemaking.
Considering the infinite number of road cycles that will be encountered in-use, the barely
evaluated impacts of NOx breakthroughs (especially those involving cold-start emissions, or
resulting from return-to-service events that can be numerous under some untested duty cycles),
the range of ambient conditions, the known SCR-degrading impacts of "any commercially
available" fuels, the untested durability of cylinder deactivation technology, and all of the other
factors that EMA has outlined regarding compliance margin requirements, the need to ensure
robust data convergence in this matter is paramount. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
81]
In setting the standard for the combined Bin 2+3, EPA must take all of this uncertainty into
account, as well as the simple fact that EPA has so far demonstrated that the Stage 3RW package
is incapable of meeting the proposed standards, both dyno certificaton standards and in-use
standards, despite its having been operated solely in the carefully-controlled laboratory setting.
In that regard, EPA cannot simply establish emissions standards on the basis of "wishful
thinking." Accordingly, EMA proposes that the Bin 2+3 emissions standard be set at the average
of Option 2-like LLC and FTP/RMC standards, adjusted upward by the appropriate in-use
conformity factor, which should be 2.0 for at least seven model years before dropping down to
1.5. [Also included in section 11.3.1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 81]
SwRI also highlighted what WVU's analyses have revealed: the MAW-based method does not
yield any clear trends in emissions behavior, and can disproportionally weight brief spikes in
849
-------
NOx emissions (i.e., NOx "breakthrough events"). SwRI's specific observations on those issues
is discussed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 83]
First, SwRI observed that the MAW-based approach "indicates no clear trend [in emissions]
other than a high frequency of very low numbers, but the rest of the distribution is scattered
somewhat randomly between 0.05 and 0.35 g/bhp-hr." (SwRI Report, CARB ISOR Reference
191, p.77.) (Emphasis added.) SwRI also noted that the MAW-based approach "provides little
information about where emissions are coming from in terms of engine operating modes." (SwRI
Report, CARB ISOR Reference 191, p. 79.) SwRI depicted that overall variability in the MAW-
based emissions data as follows: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 83]
Second, SwRI, like WVU noted, that the MAW-based approach tends to overweight "return to
service events after a long low-load period," which "could result in an overemphasis of those
relatively brief spikes in a Low NOx environment," with "a large number of windows being
driven by a small number of breakthroughs." (SwRI Report, CARB ISOR Reference 191, pp. 66,
69 and 74.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 83]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
There is broad agreement among commenters that the previous in-use not-to-exceed (NTE)
testing methodology was insufficient and improvements in the methodology are appropriate.
CARB and MFN comment that the NTE method used in the HDIUT program is deficient.
Likewise, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club support HDUIT procedures that capture more of the
full range of in-use emissions. Cummins supports a HDIUT testing that includes a broader range
of operation, and Navistar supports a workable HDIUT protocol that supports a lower NOx level.
Additionally, EMA comments that the current NTE-based testing process should be revised to
incorporate a moving average window (MAW)-based "binning" scheme.
CARB comments that they support a three-bin MAW structure with 300-second windows and
2400 minimum windows per bin. CARB also support the cold start requirements and exclusion
criteria in the proposal. Likewise, MFN supports the adoption of the proposed MAW approach.
MECA comments that the three-bin MAW approach is better than the current NTE method.
EMA and Daimler comment that the windowing approach proposed by EPA will result in
individual seconds of data appearing in multiple bins, effectively "smearing" the data across bins
and disproportionately weighting some data points within bins. EMA and Daimler also state that,
within a bin, some individual 1 Hz data points are weighted disproportionately, and in particular
that brief spikes in NOx emissions (breakthrough events) can be disproportionately weighted.
EMA and Daimler further comment that this process results in uncorrected data being placed in
the same bin. In support of their comment, EMA cites a WVU study that shows more than 26%
of the measured datapoints end up in multiple bins. EMA additionally cites examples of data
points being included in bins that do not appropriately reflect the 1 Hz operation.
850
-------
PACCAR comments that they oppose the 3B-MAW requirements, stating that the process will
assign a variety of operating conditions to a specific bin, some of which will be inappropriately
assigned.
EMA comments that accumulating 2400 windows in each bin for a wide array of vehicle types
may be difficult. EMA presents a study by WVU showing that in some application a second shift
day would be required for many tests, and state that the additional test burden is not sustainable.
EMA further comments that accumulating 2400 windows in the idle bin in a shift day can also be
difficult, and that they support allowing manufacturers to intercede "anytime during the shift day
to increase the number of windows in the idle-bin." They also state that the only real option for
adding windows is at the end of the shift day.
In addition, EMA states that some vehicles are equipped with an automated 5-minute shutdown
timer, required under various state and local regulations, which will turn off the engine after five
minutes of idle. They recommend that manufacturers be allowed to override the automated
shutdown feature where possible, or to "blip" the throttle periodically as needed to reset the
automated shutdown timer.
CARB comments that the provision in §1036.420(c) allowing additional idle to increase the
number windows in the idle bin allows additional idle "anytime during the shift day." They state
that allowing the additional idle in the middle of the shift day would contradict the real-world
behavior of the vehicle, and that additional idle should be restricted to the end of the shift day,
for times between 40 and 60 minutes.
Additionally, EMA and PACCAR comment that 2400 windows are inadequate to adequately
characterize the operation in non-idle bins. EMA and PACCAR present data, stating that at least
10,000 windows are required for the data to converge and to adequately characterize the
operation in non-idle bins. Furthermore, EMA presents data they state shows that, if 10,000
windows were required in both bin 2 and bin 3 in a single shift day, a high percentage of tests
would require more than one shift day, leading to an unreasonable test burden. Thus, EMA and
Navistar recommend combining bins 2 and 3 into a single bin, and requiring a minimum of
10,000 windows in the combined bin. EMA further states that, optionally, some minimum
percentage of the windows in the combined bin could be required to be "bin 2" windows and
"bin 3" windows, in order to demonstrate compliance over a range of activities.
EMA further comments that the combination of bins 2 and 3 is supported by the Stage 3 RW
engine data as reported by SwRI, where the NOx emissions levels of Bins 2 and 3 were largely
the same. EMA recommends that the standard for the combined bin be set at the average of
Option 2-like LLC and FTP/RMC standards, adjusted upward by the appropriate in-use
conformity factor.
EMA comments that if the current three-bin stricture is maintained, the dividing line between
bins 2 and 3 should be moved from 20% normalized C02 to 25%.
Response:
851
-------
EPA has considered comments on combining bins 2 and 3, and setting the minimum number of
windows for a valid test. Discussion of these comments is contained in the preamble Section
III.C.2.a. Additionally, EPA believes that there is no need to have minimum percentage of
operation for bin 2 and bin 3 as the intent is that the engine operation should be representative of
how that vehicle operates over the shift day.
EPA agrees with CARB that allowing additional idle in the middle of the shift day is contrary to
the intent of real-world testing. EPA also notes that EMA states that the end of the shift day is
the only realistic time to add idle windows. EPA's response to these comments and final
regulations are described in preamble Section III.C.2.a. The final regulations specify that the
ability to add idle time is restricted to the end of the shift day.
EPA's response to comments on individual seconds of data being "smeared" over multiple bins
are addressed in preamble Section III.C.2.a. EPA further notes that alternative approaches
suggested by commenters like using shorter windows, or even the instantaneous 1-Hz data, can
result in segments of data within larger macro-operation being mis-categorized. For example,
creep operation (categorized in bin 1) can result in frequent spikes that instantaneously increase
CO2 emissions above the bin 1-2 threshold. Alternatively, short decelerations during high-speed
operation will have instantaneous CO2 emissions under the bin 1-2 threshold, mis-categorizing
this operation as idle. Thus, windows of any size would likely result in some data being placed in
what might be considered inappropriate bins. The 300 second window length proposed provides
an adequate averaging time to smooth any anomalous emission events. See Section III.C of the
preamble for a description of the binning structure and how this structure addresses these
comments.
EPA also acknowledges some commenters' concerns that individual 1-Hz data points can be
weighted differently within the same bin. However, EPA notes that reducing the number of bins
from three to two will ameliorate this concern to some extent. EPA further notes that all 1-Hz
data points (save those at the beginning and end of the day, and around long exclusions) will be
equally weighted across both bins.
11.1.2 Normalizing CO2 emissions for power
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the windows size, binning structure based on the normalized average C02
rate, 3 bins (idle, low load, and high/medium load), minimum window requirements of 2,400 for
each bin, equation for emissions rate proposed in 40 CFR 1036.515, limited data exclusion
criteria, and additional requirements for PEMS to limit environmental conditions influence on
the accuracy and precision of PEMS. [Also in 11.6.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.57]
852
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
The 3B-MAW approach uses the engine's FTP C02 FCL in calculations to determine both
placement of each window into one of the three bins and the brake specific emissions for a bin.
However, using the FTP C02 FCL is not always representative of engine thermal efficiency on
other duty cycles such as those encountered during in-use testing. Additionally, C02 does not
always correlate well to power produced, such as when excess fuel is burned for thermal
management. Using the FTP C02 FCL will result in higher emissions calculated for more
efficient duty cycles, which penalizes manufacturers with more efficient engines. Cummins
shared data as CBI with EPA in May 2020 showing inaccuracies between C02 and power. One
approach to address this issue could be to reconsider the use of broadcast torque to determine
work for bin placement and emissions calculations, instead of normalizing by C02 and scaling
by FCL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck endorses EMA's comments detailing a number of over-arching concerns related
to the proposed 3-B MAW protocol. These concerns are detailed in the '3-BAW and In use
Testing' section of the EMA comments, the highlights of which are as follows:
• Despite EMA's best efforts to find a workable NOx-binning protocol, it is clear that
using normalized C02-rate parameters alone is not sufficient to yield a protocol for
binning reasonably correlated in-use NOx data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.44]
A g-N0x/g-C02 thresholds approach could have the unforeseen effect of dis-incentivizing
improvements in C02 perfolmance of an engine. For example, if a new technology is developed
that would significantly improve fuel economy, and consequently C02 emissions, that
technology could not be implemented without similar improvements to NOx performance. A
theoretical example at low load might be the following engines shown in Table 8, where Engine
A and Engine B are two different engines, with similar NOx rates but Engine B has significantly
improved C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.48]
Engine B in the example above objectively emits less NOx and less C02, and is consequently
better for the environment than Engine A on any metric. However, when evaluated on a g-
N0x/g-C02 threshold in-use emissions standard, as shown in the example, it would appear that
Engine B ranked worse than Engine A. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.48]
A g-N0x/g-C02 in-use metric will have the effects of (1) penalizing the development of
enhanced fuel economy, i.e., C02 measures that can be implemented in the future, and (2)
incentivizing worse C02 performance in certain operating conditions for better a NOx/ C02
metric. In summary, an engine that is more fuel-efficient is penalized in terms of in-use NOx
emissions thresholds compared to engines which are less fuel-efficient. EPA must consider the
adverse impacts of such rules-lest they limit potential future C02 improvements, or worse, cause
manufacturers to backslide on C02 emissions to meet their NOx obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.48]
853
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The C02-specific metric that EPA proposes as the basis for assessing in-use emissions under the
3B-MAW protocol includes a factor in the bin emissions calculation that attempts to "correct"
for engine efficiency variances. More specifically, the engine family's certified C02 emissions
performance over the FTP cycle is included in Equation 1036.515-5 (calculation of emissions for
the low-load bin and medium/high-load bin) as shown below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al,p .65]
Including the FTP C02 correction factor (eC02FTPFCL) is sensible on its face, because
otherwise, reduced C02 emissions (from a more efficient engine) accumulated in the
denominator would increase measured emissions results for a given amount of criteria emissions
accumulated in the bin. Multiplying that result by the certified C02 emissions performance of
that engine family would, in theory, inversely reduce the net emissions result, correcting for this
issue. ("Efficient" engines having lower FTP C02 levels generate reduced bin emissions, all
other things being equal.) Unfortunately, the FTP C02 emissions result is not necessarily an
accurate assessment of the in use C02 emissions from an engine. Indeed, it can be quite
inaccurate for this purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 65]
To demonstrate this point, we turn to additional WVU analysis of the 100 vehicle SoCal test
fleetl4. In the plot below, each data point represents a single vehicle's performance over
approximately 20 to 30 days of testing. The graph compares actual in-use C02 emissions (in
g/bhphr, as would have been accumulated in Bin 2) to the certified FTP C02 emissions used as
the correction factor in Equation 1036.515-5. (The category breakdown is a reference to the
various EMFAC categories under which each vehicle application falls). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 65]
14 WVU presentation, "eC02 vs bsC02 comparison for FTP/RMC-FCL;" April 21,
2022.
Examining the two circled vehicle data-points, we have an example where the Category la
vehicle and the Category lb vehicle have very similar certified eC02FTPFCL levels (shown as
"eC02" on the y-axis), yet very different average in-use C02 emissions over the 20 to 30 days
each was tested (as plotted on the x-axis). So, while Equation 1036.515-5 uses the certified FTP
C02 value for each of those engines to "correct" for their inherent efficiency characteristics, the
reality is that the more efficient Category la engine (the more environmentally favorable engine)
would have to accumulate 28% less NOx in the bin (per unit work) to generate emissions results
equivalent to those of the less efficient Category lb engine. Said another way, the more efficient
engine in the real-world example above would effectively be held to a 28% more stringent
emissions standard. That would be true for all of the criteria emissions constituents. This is an
inherently unfair consequence of the in-use emissions protocol that EPA proposes. The fact that
the data plotted above was not tested with Stage 3 low-NOx technology or equivalent has
absolutely no bearing on the unlevel and unfair outcome described here. One approach to address
this issue could be to reconsider the use of broadcast torque to determine work for bin placement
and emissions calculations, instead of normalizing by C02 and scaling by FCL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 66]
854
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB comments that they support the use of a binning structure based on the normalized
average CO2 rate.
EMA, Cummins, and Daimler comment that the FTP CO2 FCL is not always representative of
engine thermal efficiency, and using this value in calculations will result in penalizing more
efficient engines that produce lower CO2. In support, EMA presents data showing two different
engines could have similar NOx rates, but very different CO2 emissions. EMA and Cummins
state that one approach to address this issue would be using broadcast torque to determine work
for bin placement and emissions calculations.
Response:
In response, EPA disagrees with commenters suggestion to use broadcast torque rather than
normalized average CO2 rate. The data provided by EMA appears not to account for cycle
variations in the in-use data; i.e., a high or low percentage of idle from engines of the same
efficiency also greatly affects the actual in-use brake-specific CO2 mass rate. Further discussion
on the use of a CO2 specific metric is contained in Section III.C.2.i of the preamble. As detailed
in Sections III.B and III.C of the preamble, we have demonstrated that the off-cycle standards
can be met without increasing the CO2 emissions from the engine over the duty cycles or the fuel
mapping test procedures.
11.2 Test procedures (Preamble III.C.2.ii)
11.2.1 Exclusions and data concatenation
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the inclusion of a cold start requirements, exclusion criteria, 300 second
windowing definition, the creation of windows, valid operation, calculation of window
emissions, binning of windows, and calculating bin emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.65]
CARB staff has concerns with the handling of exclusion events lasting longer than 300 seconds
in 1036.515(b)(3)(ii), where windows are cut off and restarted after the invalid period.
Aftertreatment devices can maintain thermal management passively through the thermal inertia
of the system. Temperatures can be maintained for 10 minutes (i.e., 600 seconds) after
transitioning from a heated catalyst to a lower load or idle operation. Emissions control after
going into idle operation for an extended period has been demonstrated on the Low Load cycle
where similar operation is observed between 4,250 seconds and 5,000 seconds. 135 CARB staff
adopted 600 seconds as the cut off for restarting the window to account for this. CARB staff
855
-------
suggests inclusion of language similar to language in the Omnibus regulation that creates new
windows after 600 seconds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.65]
135 Low NOx Demonstration Program - Stage 3. Pg. 131.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/79-hdomnibus2020-Uj4AaQB2Aj8FbAhw.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck endorses EMA's comments detailing a number of over-arching concerns related
to the proposed 3-B MAW protocol. These concerns are detailed in the '3-BAW and In use
Testing' section of the EMA comments, the highlights of which are as follows:
• The proposal for 'concatenating' data across key-off/key-on cycles will result in an
unrepresentative binning of dissimilar data, which will yield wide spreads in the binned
results; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.44]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The proposed provisions at 1036.515(b)(3) relate to managing window concatenation when
invalid data segments are recorded. Those provisions specify that a window cannot close unless
more than 300 continuous seconds of invalid data are encountered. Otherwise, the window must
continue to accumulate data until 300 seconds of valid data are captured to close the
window. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 66]
Careful management of the procedures regarding concatenation is very important, as an analysis
of the WVU 100-vehicle Southern California fleet data shows. EMA supports EPA's decision to
reduce the 600s continuous invalid data criteria that CARB finalized in their Omnibus regulation
to 300s. When WVU examined the impact of this change on tests of EMFAC Category 6b
vehicles (Heavy towing/moving), 15 the improvement in maximum window length is significant,
as seen here: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 67]
15 WVU analysis, "Summary Results - 3B-MAW - Window Size Analysis CARB vs
EPA;" April 1, 2022.
It makes no sense to allow windows to be open for extended periods of time, as much as 1000s
(16 minutes) or more, when any connection that may actually exist between operational
characteristics and emissions rates (according to EPA's own arguments) is completely lost. The
longest window duration WVU observed when using the 300s continuous invalid data criteria is
1976s (more than 30 minutes). That is far too long. EMA supports the adoption of the proposed
300s concatenation criterion, but recommends that EPA limit that maximum size of any window
to 900s (three times the nominal window length). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 67]
EPA appropriately proposes to exclude data that includes regeneration events (§1036.515(c)(3)).
EPA should also provide an exclusion for windows accumulated for a period of time after the
regeneration event is complete, to allow emissions control to be restored in a way similar to that
856
-------
provided for in proposed §1065.680. The SAE J1939/J1979 standards may require updating to
support this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 67]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB comments that they support the exclusion criteria. However, CARB states that windows
should be concatenated across exclusions up to 600 seconds in length, rather than 300 seconds.
In support, CARB states that aftertreatment temperatures can be maintained for 600 seconds after
transitioning from a heated catalyst to a lower load or idle operation.
EMA and Daimler comment that they support the 300 second continuous invalid data criterion
but recommends that the maximum length of real time any window can be concatenated across
be limited to 900 seconds. They state that, without this limitation, a WVU study showed some
windows could be concatenated across over 30 minutes of real time, and that concatenating this
wide band of data would result in grouping of dissimilar data.
Response:
EPA agrees with CARB that windows should be concatenated across exclusions up to 600
seconds in length, rather than 300 seconds. In the preamble of the proposal, we proposed
concatenation across exclusions up to 600 seconds; however, the proposed regulation
amendatory text inadvertently stated 300 seconds. Consistent with the intended proposed
requirements, the final regulation text we are promulgating in this final action specifies that
concatenation across exclusions is limited to 600 seconds or less.
EPA disagrees with EMA and Daimler that concatenating data across a wide span of real time is
likely to combine dissimilar data into a single bin. We see no reason to limit the maximum real
time length of any window to 900 seconds. The only scenarios that justify starting a new
window is when an extended period with the engine off results in the engine cooling off.
Repeated short exclusions are unlikely to cool off the engine and aftertreatment. For this reason,
we do not see a reason why repeat exclusions events would make combining data into a single
window invalid. EPA also disagrees that the limit on concatenating data should be 300 seconds
as the engine and aftertreatment have not cooled off enough over 300 second to adversely affect
emission performance. Therefore, we are finalizing 600 seconds as proposed. This is further
supported by the fact that the soak period between the cold and hot test intervals of the FTP is
1200 seconds.
11.2.2 Ambient temperatures and temperature exclusions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Apart from the concerns highlighted above and detailed in the EMA Proposed Rule Comments,
we elaborate below on a number of major pitfalls of associated with the proposed 3B-MAW in
use analysis protocol, namely issues related to: (1) in-use cold start; (2) the lack of in-use real-
857
-------
world test data; (3) interactions with OBD requirements; and (4) the fact that in-use g-NOx/g-
C02 metrics fail to adequately scale for emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.44]
EPA's Stage 3 technology demonstration fails to prove technological feasibility, as real world
environmental boundaries are not reflected in the proposed in-use testing procedures. For cold
conditions, EPA's technology demonstration work was done in the test cell for cold FTP. EPA
did not perform vehicle testing in the technology demonstration and hence there has been no
environmental testing beyond the test cell conditions. It is well-known that engine oil and
coolant temperature limits at the start of the engine crank for a valid cold FTP are in the range of
20 to 30 degrees Celsius. The Stage 3 technology demonstrated by EPA at SWRI was never
tested in conditions characterized by engine coolant/oil temperature outside of the range
accepted for cold FTP testing, and no data is available for cold starts with coolant and oil
temperature below 20 degrees Celsius. Some of these Stage 3 demonstrated technologies, such as
cylinder deactivation and EGR cooler bypass, can be affected by engine oil and coolant
temperature due to combustion instability, increased load due to increased oil viscosity and
friction losses, and EGR condensation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.44-45]
The proposed 3B-MAW in-use testing procedure as written in the Proposed Rule extends the
engine cold start boundaries down to -7 degrees Celsius ambient temperature, which is the same
boundary condition in the current in-use NTE test procedure, but the proposed 3B-MAW test
procedure would remove any exclusion of data based on coolant/oil temperature. Moreover, it
does not offer any weighting protocol for the data collected immediately after cold start. In a test
cell, the cold FTP emission data contribution to the final composite FTP is 1/7, but there is no
such reweighting of the cold emission data in the in-use test procedures. This creates a
significant mismatch between what is demonstrated in a test cell on a cold FTP versus what it is
feasible in more challenging real world environmental conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.45]
By way of illustration, imagine the engine block, pistons, crank shaft and all the engine hardware
cold soaked at -7 degrees Celsius—and the engine is supplied with air and fuel at these same
cold temperatures. These cold temperatures will necessarily affect combustion kinematics and
limit the options that manufacturers can use to control their emissions. The longer ignition delays
impact combustion stability and efficiency due the combustion reactions starting late in the
combustion cycle, leading to HC and white smoke emissions. High EGR under these conditions
further increases the ignition delay, further negatively impacting combustion. Additionally, the
control setpoints and functions needed to perform effective thermal management may not always
be feasible in real-world conditions during the cold start with coolant/oil temperatures below 20
degrees Celsius, down to -7 degrees Celsius. These effects combine to slow the rate at which the
system can warm the aftertreatment, significantly increasing emissions in the period when the
catalyst has not reached reaction temperatures. EPA is aware of these effects but has not
evaluated the effectiveness of its system during even moderately cool conditions. In fact, EPA
and SWRI have not tested the system outside of test cell conditions, with a minimum ambient
temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.45]
EPA cannot claim to have demonstrated feasibility of the proposed standards without evaluating
the system in all conditions in which it will be evaluated for compliance, especially in cold
858
-------
ambient temperatures that directly affect the system's ability to comply. EPA must either
evaluate its system performance in these conditions or concede that the proposed standards are
not feasible and adjust their rulemaking accordingly. Daimler Truck provides several
recommendations to remedy this issue in Section III.E of these comments (regarding in-use test
procedures). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.45]
One notable deficiency of the EPA technology demonstration program is the lack of in-use real-
world data. EPA Stage 3 testing at SWRI has shown emission results of the UL NOx system on
test cell cycles that could be defined as 'vehicle simulation cycles.' These vehicle simulation
cycles were created using real-world data; however, playing a repeat of engine speed and torque
in a test cell is not fully representative of the challenges of an in-use test, including ambient
conditions, real world fuel, aftertreatment hysteresis effects, and more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.45]
First, these vehicle simulation cycles were run at standard test cell conditions. Combustion air
temperature, coolant temperature and humidity were well-controlled, the engine was already
warmed up, and no cold start data was included in the study. Moreover, no cold start
representative of - 7 degrees Celsius ambient temperature was ever performed, thus leaving
doubts about the feasibility of running engine modes characterized by high rates of EGR and
cylinder deactivation in these conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.46]
EPA's Off-Cycle Testing requirements should exempt in-use emissions data at coolant and
oil temperatures less than 20 degrees Celsius, and ensure that shift-days contain, at a
maximum, the same fraction of cold start testing as a Cold/Hot FTP, to ensure
comparability with On-Cycle testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.64]
It should be expected that all temperature-dependent emission control systems have reduced
effectiveness at lower temperatures. This is evident in the early start portions of the FTP, but is
exacerbated in colder temperatures, as it takes the engine longer to warm up a cold
aftertreatment. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many engine temperature
management strategies, which are effective in the conditions demonstrated on the FTP, or on the
relatively warm in-use simulations performed, are not useable at the cold ambient temperatures
and cold engine coolant/oil temperatures that EPA proposes. Specifically, aggressive combustion
functions such as multiple injections, aggressive EGR rates, reduced boost, and cylinder
deactivation strategies may not be useable, or may have reduced effectiveness, in these
conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.66]
EPA makes no effort to evaluate whether any proposed technology is capable of providing the
required emissions reductions at ambient and engine temperatures below 20 degrees Celsius.
Nonetheless, the proposed off-cycle requirements would hold engine manufacturers responsible
for all emissions, including cold start emissions, in ambient conditions as low -7 degrees Celsius,
with no allowance for cold coolant/oil temperatures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.66]
In the existing in-use test protocol, EPA currently excludes emissions from in-use testing below
a moderate coolant temperature threshold (roughly 70 degrees Celsius), because the Agency
rightly acknowledges some emissions control mechanisms are not effective or feasible with cold
859
-------
engine conditions. Daimler Truck recommends that EPA analyze the state of emissions
technology and its applicability at cold coolant and oil temperatures, and how this technology
might be evaluated in-use under the current proposal—such as cold start emissions control on
days with ambient temperature at or below 0 degrees Celsius. Without this analysis, EPA cannot
determine the extent of emissions reduction that are feasible in such conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.66]
In other words, the off-cycle emissions test (intended to validate that engines are providing the
same emissions performance they were originally certified to) must not hold the engine to
emission standards and testing regimes that EPA's emissions standards do not attempt to test
(such as cold ambient conditions), and whose feasibility has not been demonstrated. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.66]
Daimler Truck believes that such an analysis will show that EPA must create an exclusion for
these very cold coolant/oil temperatures, below the conditions on the Cold FTP. To resolve
this issue, we recommend that EPA create targeted cold start exemptions in the area where
it is expected emissions controls will not, and cannot, be fully effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.66-67]
Specifically, EPA should exclude cold start data when the engine coolant and oil temperatures
are lower than 20 degrees Celsius. Given the opportunity to warm up the engine, we expect that
the same emissions controls demonstrated on the FTP could be leveraged to rapidly warm the
system and reduce NOx emissions at the same level demonstrated on the FTP—even when
ambient temperatures are as low as -7 degrees Celsius. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.67]
The relative effect of such an exclusion on the overall representativeness of the off-cycle test
would likely be negligible, as it would only ever come into effect on days when the engine was
completely cooled down to ambient temperatures, and the ambient temperature was below 20
degrees Celsius. While these cold start conditions are expected to occur relatively frequently,
their duration is expected to be very short—engines warm up quickly, and, as they do, coolant/oil
temperatures would rapidly exceed this 20-degree threshold. Further, all engines are already
required to have diagnostics to detect failures that prevent the engine from warming up to
thermostat operating temperatures—much higher than the threshold proposed here. This would
ensure that all vehicles warm up, or otherwise illuminate a malfunction indicator light (MIL)
indicating their need for repair. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.67]
In Figure 29 below, Daimler Truck provides an analysis of the EMA-WVU data referenced in
Section III.B, which shows that, in this dataset, the proposed coolant/oil temperature exclusion
would have no effect on most shift-days of operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.67]
Even when the dataset is filtered for only shift-days when the exclusion becomes active, the
vehicles warm up so quickly that less than 1% of the shift-day's data is excluded. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.67]
860
-------
While other datasets in colder ambient conditions may contain slightly more data in these
conditions, Daimler Truck expects that they would number in the minutes per shift-day. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.68]
EPA's off-cycle test procedure must provide for adequate weighting of cold engine
operation, to ensure the proposed standards are achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.68]
EPA's proposed off-cycle test procedure would, for the first time, test significant cold operation.
EPA already rightly recognizes, in the proposed FTP procedure, that cold engine operation must
be weighted less heavily than equivalent hot operations. The Agency adjusts for this by
weighting the emissions contribution from the Cold Start FTP at l/7th, and the Hot Start FTP at
6/7th, of the total emissions evaluated in the FTP. Any engine would exceed EPA's proposed
emissions standards if only its Cold FTP emissions results were compared to the standard,
without being adequately weighted against hot operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.68]
Since EPA's proposed test measures cold operation, and bases the proposed off-cycle emissions
standards for each bin on the on-cycle emissions standards, it is critical that the applicable test
procedures do not result in a higher fraction of cold operation than what is included in the
underlying on-cycle tests. As explained above, the off-cycle emissions test must not hold the
engine to stricter standards than the on-cycle emissions tests. Under EPA's proposal, it is
possible that engine off-cycle emissions could be evaluated in conditions with significantly more
cold operation than represented by the FTP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.68]
Daimler Truck recommends that EPA control for this by requiring a maximum amount of cold
operation weighting during any evaluated shift day. We recommend that each bin in the off cycle
test be evaluated for the percent of windows that resemble 'cold start' operation. If this
value exceeds the percentage as measured on the FTP for the same engine, the results could be
weighted to resemble the FTP. An example equation is provided below: Bin SOS NOx = [
(1/Ccold) * (NOx/C02)cold windows + (1- 1/Ccold) * (NOx/C02)hot windows ] x FTP
FCL (Where Ccold represents the relative weighting of Cold operations on the FTP, as
determined by a proxy such as coolant temperature or cumulative engine work.) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.68-69]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
Navistar is also concerned that EPA has not adequately addressed the return-to-service events in
3B-MAW procedure. The nature of vocational pick-up and delivery, as well as other commercial
truck operation, requires drivers to periodically stop and unload freight or conduct other work
operations. The "dwell" period at each discrete stop may be minutes or hours in duration
depending on the application. The 3B-MAW protocol should take each of these events into
consideration and address them in a consistent manner. The primary concern is that
aftertreatment temperature may drop to a level, which will not provide a high initial conversion
efficiency when the truck returns to service. Consequently, any high load transient event would
result in a momentary spike in emissions that may display the emissions control system has
861
-------
malfunctioned, when in fact the system is transitioning up to normal operating temperatures. We
recommend that engine coolant temperatures below 70C immediately after a return-to-service
event be excluded from binning. Only when coolant temperature exceeds 70C would data
collection resume. We further recommend that the proposed -7C ambient test exclusion be
increased to 20C to more accurately reflect real-world conditions that may contribute to ozone
formation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 5]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Exclusions - EPA should consider a higher threshold for the proposed ambient temperature
exclusion of -7 °C. For the current HDIUT program the NTE cold temperature operating
exclusion is based on a formula that considers intake manifold temperature and pressure. For
PACCAR trucks the exclusion becomes active at an ambient temperature between 5 and 20 °C
depending on conditions. The new HDIUT program will drive considerable changes due to the -7
°C ambient temperature threshold and much lower standards. The amount of heat needed to
maintain an effective SCR temperature increases exponentially as temperature decreases. This is
due to exhaust temperature being proportional to intake temperature and secondly as ambient
temperature decreases heat loss through the walls of the exhaust system increases. More heat is
needed and less is available, so manufacturers would need to design and calibrate their heating
strategies to deliver an exponentially increasing large amount of energy into the exhaust as
temperature decreases to meet in-use NOx limits at very cold ambient temperatures. While
technologies exist that can aid in raising exhaust temperature (i.e., CD A) those technologies will
have already been leveraged so the vast majority of the marginal energy increase for exhaust heat
will come from increased fuel consumption. Furthermore, the capacity to deliver the necessary
energy to the exhaust at -7 °C could require hardware changes that drive significant costs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.30]
The commercial trucking industry in the United States annually consumes about 40 billion
gallons of diesel fuel so even a 0.2% fuel consumption increase will add nearly one million tons
of C02 to the atmosphere annually. Because roughly half of truck operation occurs in conditions
that are too cool to form ground level ozone, there is a significant opportunity to mitigate climate
change by considering the ambient temperature exclusion for in-use NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.30]
A more targeted approach would be to keep the ambient temperature exclusion at -7 °C and add
another exclusion that would be active only when catalytic aftertreatment temperatures are below
250 °C that extends to a higher ambient temperature. This which would be similar to the
exclusion for catalytic aftertreatment temperatures as codified in 40 C.F.R. 86.1370(g), except
this exclusion would only be allowed during cold ambient conditions. This could be thought of
as a 'GHG exclusion for cold ambient,' and would ensure engines continue to meet standards
under most operating conditions while not being compelled to deliver an extreme amount of
energy to the exhaust when the C02/ozone cost benefit is disproportionately high. Emissions
control systems would still be required to be functioning in the exclusion zone due to
requirements for Auxiliary Emission Control Device (AECD's). The nuance is that the -7 °C
ambient temperature exclusion as proposed in the NPRM drives up the design target for the
maximum capacity of the heating strategy increasing cost, possibly excluding technical options,
862
-------
and causing more GHG emissions. PACCAR believes the proposed exclusion is narrow enough
to have no meaningful impact on formation of ozone or secondary PM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, pp.30-31]
PACCAR further encourages the EPA adopt: Ambient temperature exclusion: Increase the
threshold for the ambient temperature exclusion proposed at -7 °C to a higher value or add a new
exclusion only active under both the following conditions: • Catalytic aftertreatment temperature
below 250 °C • Ambient temperature below a more modest threshold than -7 °C. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.31]
PACCAR respectfully submits that EPA should revised proposed 1036.515(b)(1). Specifically,
EPA should increase the allowable maximum engine coolant temperature at start of testing to
40°C rather than 30°C. If EPA chooses not to exclude cold starts in this manner, and also
chooses not to combine Bins 2 and 3, then all cold start activity should be excluded from Bin 3,
and only the first cold start should be included to prevent cold-start operation from being
improperly over weighted during the test (i.e., successive cold starts should be excluded as
should engine operation with a coolant temperature below 20°C). Moreover, data should be
excluded completely or excluded from Bin 3 for five minutes post regen due to ammonia storage
depletion that is caused by the regen event. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.58-59]
Ambient temperature exclusion: Increase threshold for the ambient temperature exclusion
proposed at -7 °C to a higher value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.60]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The issue of return-to-service events unduly impacting Bin 3 NOx emissions is exacerbated by
conditions where the return-to-service emissions are generated shortly after a cold start. On
occasions where a vehicle is started for the first time in the day, or started after an extended key
off condition on a cold day, and soon after enters into a high-load condition, those emissions
could almost exclusively be placed into Bin 3. It would take a considerable amount of Bin 3
operation under fully warmed operating conditions to dilute the cold start emissions to a level
compliant to the very stringent Bin 3 standard. There can be no guarantee, of course, that
sufficient operating time will accumulate in Bin 3 to do so. To address this issue, EMA
recommends that EPA include a process to avoid accumulating cold-start emissions in the very
stringent Bin 3. Cold-start engine conditions are associated with low SCR core temperatures,
which are more representative of EPA's goal to segregate Bin 2 low-load emissions. Cold-start
emissions therefore should be held to the Bin 2 emissions standard. EMA recommends that all
Bin 3 windows recorded when the coolant temperature is less than 70°C at any point in the
window should be placed in Bin 2 instead of Bin 3. The coolant temperature threshold of 70°C is
consistent with CARB's cold operation exclusion applicable to MY 2024 through 2026 engines,
and is a reasonable threshold to apply in this case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 63]
The cold-start emissions profile is one that requires serious consideration. If EPA were to adopt a
modified version of 3B-MAW, for example, the proposal that EMA details in subsections h. and
i., below, the Agency would need to consider alternative methods to accommodate the very high
emissions that would result if the engine were heavily loaded shortly after restart. This is
863
-------
especially true for a vehicle that may be stopped for prolonged periods of at least 30 minutes, 2
to 3 times or more per day. If the aftertreatment cools to levels unsupportive of NOx conversion,
the initial NOx emissions surge could be impossible to recover from over the course of the
remainder of the day's operation. This problem becomes even worse under conditions
approaching EPA's minus7oC proposed ambient temperature threshold. One approach to
limiting the impact that cold start emissions can have on the NOx compliance assessment is to
limit the effective "weighting" that cold-start emissions can have in any bin. That would involve
mathematically ratioing-back the time-based or work-based content of the cold-start emissions in
the bin to some maximum regulated level. That would permit capturing and using all the data,
but without unduly jeopardizing the compliance assessment because the day's operation included
multiple cold-starts, potentially even in cold ambient conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 63]
In that regard, the total impact of cold-start emissions associated with EPA's Stage 3RW engine
and aftertreatment have barely been evaluated during this rulemaking. The FTP compliance
evaluation with the Stage 3 engine only included a cold-start from 20 to 25oC. (tellingly, that
cycle generated a non-compliant result, measuring 0.022 g/bhp-hr, so it is clear that there is little
room for compromised NOx control due to cold starts from even colder temperatures.) The few
tested road-cycles included cold-start operation, but again, never at temperatures less than the
engine dyno 20 to 25oC range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 63 - 64]
This discussion of cold ambient operation brings us back to the fundamental question of the
technical feasibility of the proposed standards. The NPRM has been drafted without any testing
experience in cold ambient conditions. But, as mentioned, EPA is requiring compliance down to
minus-7oC. The Stage 3 engine has demonstrated only marginal or even non-compliant results
over the 3B-MAW test protocol under the favorable test cell conditions. There is absolutely no
on-road experience with this technology package, leaving it without any evaluation in cold
ambient conditions at minus-7oC. In addition, EPA has no plans to conduct any testing under
those extreme ambient temperatures before the regulation is finalized. In the absence of any
direct evidence of how EPA's stringent requirements will be impacted by cold ambient
conditions, it is imperative that the Agency provide protections from non-compliance
determinations under those types of conditions. Accordingly, EMA recommends that EPA
include a coolant temperature exclusion threshold of 20oC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 64]
Maintaining compliance to the very stringent NOx standards that EPA is proposing all the way
down to minus-7°C (20°F) ambient temperatures would require aggressive thermal management
strategies to maintain exhaust temperatures conducive to high SCR NOx-conversion efficiency.
Aggressive thermal management strategies under those very cold conditions (minus- 7°C, or
20°F) will lead to high levels of C02 emissions as the controls work to heat the SCR. Those high
C02-emitting strategies will be active under cold ambient conditions where ozone formation
does not even occur. The Agency should seriously consider whether the minus-7°C compliance
threshold is striking the right balance in the C02/NOx tradeoff. EPA should consider increasing
the ambient temperature exclusion to a level closer to where ozone formation might be expected.
Such a revision in the final rule would avoid the need to deploy high GHG-emitting thermal
864
-------
management strategies during operations in cold ambient conditions when ozone formation does
not occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 64]
Returning to engine cold-start conditions, EPA has proposed to invalidate a test is if the engine
coolant temperature at the point of first engine start for the day is more than 30°C (86°F). Such a
requirement is overly restrictive, especially given the ambient temperature conditions typical
over much of the southern U.S. For example, consider the proposed requirement in the context of
the typical in-use test scheduling process. Should a manufacturer cancel all in-use testing for the
day because the engine's coolant temperature failed to drop below 30°C during the course of the
evening? What judgment is the in-use test team supposed to use to feel confident enough to start
the engine and not witness the flow of warmer water resting in the engine block immediately
increase to temperatures >30°C as that water flows past the temperature sensor? [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 64]
Any such outcome would render the scheduling, time, resources and inconvenience to the
customer's operations for naught if the test were to be declared invalid as EPA proposes. The
Agency should remove the maximum coolant temperature criteria at engine-start, or at least
increase it to 40°C to reduce the chances of this kind of wasteful outcome. The additional 10°C
lower threshold that EPA proposes adds very little to the representativeness of the test data in
terms of assessing compliance to in-use standards. EMA is not recommending to eliminate any
data in the day's testing by this recommendation. Indeed, we are only recommending a small
adjustment to the parameter that would declare a test fully invalid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 64]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Daimler, Navistar, PACCAR, and EMA disagree with the proposed rule's exclusion of data
when ambient temperatures are below -7°C from being subject to the off-cycle standards.
Daimler and EMA state that an additional exemption should be incorporated, exempting in-use
emissions data at coolant and oil temperatures below 20°C. In support of EMA's position, they
state that the Stage 3 technology demonstrated by EPA was never tested below 20°C; they
further state that some of the technology in the demonstration will be adversely affected by
colder oil/coolant temperatures, making it infeasible to maintain low NOx emissions.
Daimler further comments that the effect of an oil and coolant temperature exemption below
20°C would be negligible, as the time duration of the exclusion would be short. In support,
Daimler cites a WVU analysis of an in-use data set, which they state shows that this exclusion
would affect a minority of the shift days in the dataset, and for those where the exclusion would
be active, less than 1% of the data are excluded. EMA further comments that aggressive thermal
management strategies used at very cold temperatures where ozone formation does not occur
would lead to high levels of CO2, and thus the CCh/NOx tradeoff over the temperature range
should be re-evaluated.
Navistar also states that the low temperature ambient threshold should be set to 20°C. Navistar
further states that data with engine coolant temperature below 70°C be excluded. They state that
865
-------
after extended dwell periods in which engine coolant and aftertreatment temperatures drop, a
return to service event may cause a momentary spike in emissions. PACCAR further states that
the ambient temperature threshold should be raised, or as an alternative, a more targeted
approach could be adopted, which would be to exclude operation with catalyst temperatures
below 250°C.
Additionally, Daimler and EMA comment that cold engine operation should be weighted, such
that each bin of the in-use test contains a percentage of windows that resemble "cold start"
operation which is no higher than the percentage as measured on the FTP for the same engine.
They state that cycles which place most cold start emissions in any one bin would unduly
jeopardize the compliance assessment.
PACCAR and EMA comment that the allowable maximum engine coolant temperature at start of
testing should be raised to 40°C rather than 30°C. EMA further states that the limitation is overly
restrictive, given the typical in-use test scheduling process and ambient temperature conditions
typical over much of the southern U.S., and that maintaining the 30°C threshold may lead to
wasteful delays in testing.
PACCAR also comments that data should be excluded completely or excluded from Bin 3 for
five minutes after regeneration due to ammonia storage depletion that is caused by the regen
event.
PACCAR and EMA comment that, if Bins 2 and 3 are kept separate, then cold start data in Bin 3
should be treated separately, to prevent over-including these high emissions in the stringent Bin
3. PACCAR states that all cold start activity should be excluded from Bin 3, and EMA states that
all Bin 3 windows recorded when the coolant temperature is less than 70°C at any point in the
window should be placed in Bin 2 instead of Bin 3.
Response:
After further consideration, EPA agrees with the concerns of Daimler, Navistar, PACCAR, and
EMA regarding exclusion of data when ambient temperatures are below -7 °C and that the
temperature limit EPA proposed was too low. EPA has received and reviewed data from SwRI
testing the Stage 3 system at low temperatures over the Southern NTE route and Low Load
Cycles. EPA is increasing the ambient exclusion temperature and incorporating an adjustment to
the numerical value of the standard for temperatures below 25 °C, as described and for the
reasons explained in Section III.C.2.ii of the preamble.
EPA disagrees with Navistar's recommendation that operation with coolant temperatures below
70°C be excluded. EPA also disagrees with PACCAR's proposal that operation with catalyst
temperatures below 250°C be excluded. In both cases, important initial cold start operation
would be excluded from all tests, and a number of return to service events would also be
excluded. These are important operational regimes, and the MAW protocol is intended to capture
emissions over the entire operation of the vehicle. Moreover, these exclusions would create
incentives for manufacturers to cool down the aftertreatment or oil temperatures in order to
exclude return to service events, thus increasing total emissions during in-use operation.
866
-------
Additionally, because the moving average window test procedure averages data collected over
the shift day, the time where the coolant temperature is below 70 °C should only be a small
percentage of the total time in the bin, which will only have a small impact on the binned
emissions over the entire shift day.
EPA disagrees with Daimler's comment that operation with coolant and oil temperatures below
20°C should be excluded. As discussed in preamble Section III.C, the standards are feasible
without excluding this operation. Regarding any increase in CO2 emissions from controlling
NOx under this operation, we have determined that the overall potential impact on CO2 is small
since, as stated by Daimler, the time when coolant and oil temperature are below 20°C is a small
percentage of the total time the engine is operated over the entire shift day.
EPA disagrees with Daimler and EMA's comments that bins should be re-weighted to ensure
cold-start operation is not over-represented. The shift day and the minimum window count are
sufficiently long that true cold start operation - i.e., that operation at the very beginning of the
shift day - is a small portion of the total. Other operation during the day where the aftertreatment
temperature decreases can be managed with appropriate aftertreatment technology.
In regard to comments on re-allocating windows between bins 2 and 3, EPA's final requirements
include a two-bin structure as described in Section III.C of the preamble, which EPA expects
should address commenter's concerns.
EPA has considered comments from PACCAR and EMA on the maximum allowable engine
coolant temperature; see our discussion in preamble Section III.C.2.b.
11.2.3 Process for stop-start vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
There is also a special case to consider where a manufacturer utilizes stop-start technology to
reduce criteria emissions and GHG emissions. Engine shutdown would likely occur almost
immediately upon entering an idle condition. Depending on how the manufacturer has
implemented the technology, there may be no opportunity to override the stop-start function.
That feature, implemented for emissions reductions reasons, could make it impossible to
accumulate idle bin windows in almost all vehicles where it is deployed, regardless of
application. EMA therefore recommends that EPA establish a policy that stop-start engines will
not be held accountable to Bin 1 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 69]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EMA also comments that manufacturers may utilize stop-start technology, in which case the
engine shuts down rather than idle. EMA states that, furthermore, manufacturers may make this
867
-------
feature impossible to override, which would make it impossible to accumulate idle windows.
EMA recommends that stop-start engines not be held accountable to bin 1 standards.
Response:
EPA agrees with EMA that some manufacturers may utilize automatic engine shutdown (AES)
and stop-start technologies, and agrees that special provisions should be incorporated for these
vehicles. However, EPA disagrees that those engines should be automatically exempt from Bin 1
(idle bin) standards, as Bin 1 incorporates operation where the engine would be expected to be
on, even for vehicles utilizing AES and stop-start technologies. Rather, in the final rule, EPA has
included requirements applicable when testing vehicles with AES and/or stop-start technology as
described in Section III.C.2.ii of the preamble.
II.3 Off-cycle Standards and feasibility (Preamble III.C.2.iii and
III.C.3)
11.3.1 Off-cycle criteria pollutant standards, conformity factor, and feasibility
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EPA has also proposed updates to off-cycle emission testing and off-cycle emission standards for
compression-ignition engines that would apply during MYs 2027 - 2030 and MY 2031 and
later.64 EPA has requested comment on the proposed standards, which are differentiated as
between Option 1 and Option 2, including the level of the standards in and the specific operating
range covered by each "bin" of EPA's proposed 3-bin approach (i.e., idle, low-load and medium-
to high-load). EPA has additionally requested comment on whether off-cycle standards and in-
use testing should also apply for SI engines.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.30-31]
64 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,423, proposed 40 C.F.R. §1036.104(a)(4).
Allison would first note that off-cycle expands the area under the torque curve window where
NTE events could occur. Therefore, Allison agrees that revised off-cycle could measure
emissions across a broader range of engine operating conditions and therefore capture additional
areas of "real world" operation. This, in turn, would help ensure that the actual emission
performance of vehicles in the field would be closer to EPA's promulgated emission standards.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231 - A 1, p.31 ]
However, although Allison recognizes the benefits of this more comprehensive emissions
measurement, we remain concerned about insufficient validation for vocational drive cycles in
Southwest Research Institute's emissions system durability testing. Allison cautions EPA
regarding setting aggressive stringencies for new test procedures such as Low Load Cycle and
off-cycle, as seen within Option 1 or the Alternative. Instead, Allison would recommend EPA
take an approach with sufficient compliance margin across these new test procedures to
recognize the research and development challenges of validation across vocational drive cycles
868
-------
and mitigate associated risks to vocational customers regarding technology availability and
productivity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.31]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
For in-use testing, U.S. EPA is proposing Option 1 off-cycle standardsl25 which are 2 times the
Option 1 certification standards for the first 4 years, beginning with the MY 2027, to address the
initial uncertainty in how the emissions control technologies deteriorate beyond current UL on a
variety of HD vehicle applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.55]
125 NPRM, at page. 17474. TABLE 111-17
EPA's rationale for proposing higher in-use standards for off-cycle standards fails to consider the
fact that other aspects of its proposal, such as the elements that establish more rigorous durability
demonstration requirements (Section IV.F), and that lengthen the emissions warranty periods
(IV.B.l), will individually and collectively effectively help to reduce any perceived uncertainty
regarding how emissions control technologies used in heavy HDEs deteriorate when used to
power a variety of heavy-duty vehicle applications, and also overlooks the fact that data relevant
to such deterioration will be available prior to 2033, because the California Omnibus regulation's
primary NOx emission standards will apply to 2024 and subsequent model year engines and
vehicles using almost identical in-use testing method. U.S. EPA's rationale for the flexibility
provisions is accordingly inconsistent with the evidence before the agency, and does not
articulate a rational connection between the facts and its proposal. State Farm, 463 U.S. at
43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.55]
U.S. EPA requested comments to elements of the off-cycle standards. CARB staff supports the
general structure of the off-cycle standards. CARB staff prefers the Alternative proposal where
the off-cycle standards are a multiplier of 1.5 times the certification standards since U.S. EPA is
considering also including a 10 percent measurement accuracy margin. The proposed structure
would provide assurance that in-use emissions more closely align with certification standards.
CARB's Omnibus standard provides a 2.0 multiplier margin (conformity factor) to the emission
standards used to determine bin emission compliance for 2027 through 2030 MY engines and a
1.5 conformity factor for 2031 and later MY engines. A table summarizing the off-cycle
thresholds in the Omnibus, Option 1, Option 2 and the Alternative are provided in Table 6-
1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.58]
Although the Omnibus structure is similar to Option 1 where the off-cycle standards are 2.0
times the engine cycle standards for 2027 to 2030 MY engines, Option 1 is less stringent than the
Omnibus proposal and the Alternative when including a measurement accuracy margin. Option 2
has a much higher standard, resulting in much higher off-cycle standards that are amplified with
the application of a measurement accuracy margin that is a multiple of the standard plus
conformity factor imbedded within the proposed off-cycle standards. Also, CARB staff suggests
defining the off-cycle standards for the idle bin, if the engine is certified to the idle
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.59]
869
-------
Additionally, CARB staff suggests adding and defining an 'off-cycle emissions threshold' that is
the sum of the off-cycle standard and applicable margins as described in 1036.420, similar to the
existing structure of the NTE threshold in 86.1912. The proposed off-cycle emissions standard
does not clearly identify the maximum emissions limit of off-cycle testing because it does not
include the proposed PEMS measurement allowance margin. For example, the Omnibus
establishes an in-use threshold and describes the maximum allowable emissions limit that is
based on the standard and a sizable margin (conformity factor). The conformity factor in the
Omnibus is large enough to account for both in-use operation variability and the use of field
PEMS measurements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.59-60]
U.S. EPA requested feedback on the in-use testing proposal. CARB staff supports most of U.S.
EPA's proposed Option 1 changes to the in-use testing procedures and programs applicable to
both the manufacturer and U.S. EPA administrator for 2027 and later model year compression
ignition engines and makes recommendations to change some provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.63]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
While Commenters prefer the more stringent numerical emissions standards of Option 1 to the
unjustifiably lax standards of Option 2, we urge EPA to further strengthen the standards in
certain key areas: (1) duty cycle and in-use (off-cycle) standards, (2) idle standards, and (3) the
FEL cap. EPA should also reject its proposed two-step approach for Option 1, finalizing the
more stringent standards in MY 2027 instead of delaying their application until MY 2031 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.57]
Increased stringency is particularly warranted for the low-load and idle bins of the in-use
standards and the LLC of the duty cycle standards. The Proposal notes that European vehicles
with similar highway-speed NOx emissions as American trucks have lower low-load emissions.
87 Fed. Reg at 17,472. EPA is correct to interpret this information as suggesting 'that
manufacturers are responding to the European certification standards by designing their emission
controls to perform well under low-load operations, as well as highway operations.' Id.
Manufacturers of American HDEs should likewise be able to design emissions controls that
perform well both under highway and low-load conditions. A number of available technologies
can increase exhaust temperature at low load and thereby increase the effectiveness of SCR-
based emissions controls, including cylinder deactivation and other forms of variable valve
actuation. And some engines are able to currently achieve EPA's proposed 2031 standard with
compliance margins of 50% for the low-load bin. See Comments of MFN, to be filed in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. CARB also notes that its testing data supports the
feasibility of an LLC standard stricter than that included in Option 1 or the Omnibus. See
Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.58]
870
-------
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA's low-NOx demonstration using the Stage 3 / RW system assumes that the conditions
specified by SWRI for system performance and aging are representative of an upper limit of
combined real world conditions including: o Measurement tolerances; o Production tolerances; o
Catalyst aging; o Direct NOx impacts from biodiesel, as well as fuel-quality related additional
catalyst degradation; and o Installation/temperature drop. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.26]
Aftertreatment catalysts age through a variety of mechanisms, most simply binned as thermal or
chemical aging. While the Diesel Aftertreatment Accelerated Aging Cycle (DAAAC) protocol
developed by SWRI and applied to the EPA demonstration system makes great progress toward
capturing aging impacts, the accelerated aging protocol applied in this study has not been
validated by any field data with a similar system layout. A single, controlled test does not fully
capture the range of variability that real world systems experience in 600-800k miles, including
but not limited to: o Metal contamination due to field fuel quality; o Variation in catalyst
performance due to changes in fuel properties; o Ingestion of dust or road salt through the intake
air system; and o Intrusion of contaminants via the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system due to
poor quality DEF, inappropriate DEF storage or mishandling, or failure to properly replace DEF
tank caps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.26]
The thermal and chemical aging protocol applied by SWRI does not account for the above
sources of degradation and instead assumes: o Constant engine oil formulation over lifetime; o
Expertly handled lab grade ULSD and DEF; and o Controlled lab environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.26]
Figure 3 below shows one example of the difference in SCR performance in a controlled, OEM
on-highway fleet test setting (purple) versus an uncontrolled customer system (gray). These two
systems ran similar duty cycles with similar mileage accumulation (approximately 435k)
and thermal aging characteristics. The OEM fleet system ran on a standard ASTMD975 B5 fuel,
whereas the uncontrolled test system filled at fleet or retail stations en route. For both SCR
formulations shown below, the 435k mile field return system performs similarly to or worse than
the 650k mile fleet test vehicle. The delta shown below in NOx conversion efficiency observed
between a controlled test and uncontrolled test is significantly more degradation than what is
observed in the test cell simulated 800,000 miles aftertreatment during EPA Stage 3 and rework
investigations. We expect similar deltas as shown in the Figure 3 below between a lab-aged
environment and fleet-aged environment: [Comment also included in 11.5.4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.26-27]
Apart from the concerns highlighted above and detailed in the EMA Proposed Rule Comments,
we elaborate below on a number of major pitfalls of associated with the proposed 3B-MAW in
use analysis protocol, namely issues related to: (1) in-use cold start; (2) the lack of in-use real-
world test data; (3) interactions with OBD requirements; and (4) the fact that in-use g-NOx/g-
C02 metrics fail to adequately scale for emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.44]
871
-------
Secondly, running a replay of engine speed and torque at the test cell inevitably links the
emission results to the unique specification of the vehicle that originally collected the data in the
real world. The specific payload and road speed limit, transmission, rear axle ratio, and tire
dimensions all play a role in terms of how the engine operates on a particular route. In some
quite different applications (e.g., down speed fleet day cab versus construction vocational truck),
the engine operating points may differ substantially, thus affecting exhaust flow rates, fuel
consumption (directly linked to the C02 denominator of the 3B MAW), and NOx emissions.
Therefore, the EPA Stage 3 demonstration at SWRI cannot be considered a valid representation
of in-use data (because the demonstration system was never successfully tested in a vehicle
running in the real world). Furthermore, it also fails to consider the great deal of variability that
is intrinsically associated with vehicle testing due to multiple vehicle configurations, varying
environmental conditions, and background emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.46]
To illustrate these observations, Figure 15 shows data from a current Detroit Diesel heavy duty
engine installed in a real vehicle. This data was processed and binned according to EPA's
proposed 3B-MAW protocol. When tested on a dyno, these engines emit well below the
FTP/RMCs 0.2 g/hp-hr NOx limit. However, when installed in a vehicle and measured according
to the 3B-MAW protocol, measured emissions are not representative of test cell emissions, as
shown in Figure 15 below. In contrast, Figure 16 shows a very narrow spread of distribution of
3B-MAW moving average windows on a Detroit Diesel GEN5 heavy duty engine when tested
on an engine dynamometer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.46]
We believe this difference is due, in part, to variability induced by different routes, payload,
ambient conditions, and other variability only ever encountered in the real world. EPA asserts
that this mismatch between 3B-MAW performance and test cell performance of current engines
is a function of the inadequacies of existing technologies, and that the technologies the Agency
has demonstrated with SWRI will improve this correlation. However, EPA has never
demonstrated this to be true. We believe that, while some improvements can be made at low
loads and temperatures, this lack of correlation is a fundamental consequence of the 3B-MAW
procedure, which EPA has not considered in its feasibility analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.46]
To summarize, EPA never tested the low-NOx technology demonstration in the vehicle, and
EPA must perform such an analysis to determine whether the NOx emission standards it has
proposed are feasible under real-world conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.46]
As described above in this section of Daimler Truck's comments, there are a number of reasons
why the SWRI test data does not demonstrate the feasibility of EPA's proposed NOx standards.
To summarize:
• The EPA demonstration system configuration for low-NOx feasibility at SWRI testing
was performed on the shortest possible exhaust length and most favorable rating;
• Necessary design margins—due to field fuel quality and fuel impacts—were not
considered in evaluating the feasibility of the proposed standards;
• The test cell demonstration SWRI system does not package on the vehicle;
872
-------
• The EPA preliminary vehicle paper study itself shows significant compromises with
reduced SCR volumes than was demonstrated in the test cell; and
• The technology demonstrated never met the Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG standards, even with
the shortest exhaust length configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.49]
In addition to these issues detailed above, EPA also fails to acknowledge the increased N20
emissions (shown in Figure 17), and, most obviously, that the demonstration results for PM
reflect an emission rate of 0.007 g/hp-hr during some tests (as shown in Figure 18),
notwithstanding the SWRI statement that all numbers from the demonstration are 'below the new
0.005 g/hp-hr standard even after 800k miles.' Further, we note that PM IRAF's were not
developed for the demonstration program, thus this factor would need to be added on the top of
the failed demonstration result. These results clearly show failing PM in-use test results after the
DPF ash-cleaning procedure. In other words, the data shows that the engine fails to comply with
EPA's proposed PM standards and raises questions about N20 compliance feasibility. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.49]
Additionally, even taking into account the best technology (which cannot be installed on a
vehicle) and test cell conditions (which are significantly favorable when compared to the
conditions of vehicle testing), EPA's demonstration results for field replay cycles in the test cell
reflect failed NOx results at 10% above the standard as shown in Figure 19. The data clearly
shows that EPA's engine cannot demonstrate compliance with their proposed in-use
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.49]
The EPA Stage 3 / RW engine, as demonstrated in a test cell, has C02 emissions that are 5.3%
higher than the MY 2027 HHD tractor C02 emission standard, and 2.3% higher than the MY
2027 vocational engine C02 standard. The technology considered for vehicle demonstration
(which is demonstrated to be infeasible due to C02 impacts, as discussed above) also shows
significantly higher C02 impacts (i.e., a 7.2% exceedance of the MY 2027 C02 standard for
HHD tractors and an 8.2% exceedance of the MY 2027 C02 standard for vocational engines).
The final SWRI calibration in the EPA test cell demonstration of the EPA Stage 3 / RW system
does not meet the MY 2021 GHG standards and has C02 emissions slightly higher than even the
baseline MY 2017 Cummins XI5 production configuration (from which the EPA Stage 3 / RW
system was developed). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.49]
SWRI in fact notes (in Figure 20) that despite all of their efforts, significant challenges still
remain for EPA's demonstration system to demonstrate the feasibility of EPA's proposed
standards. However, EPA considers this data as sufficient demonstration of feasibility. EPA must
consider all of these factors, rightly mentioned by SWRI here, and detailed in these comments
and in the comments of the EMA, in their feasibility analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.49]
To summarize, Daimler Truck submits that EPA's proposed standards would not be feasible—
and that the Agency has failed to show otherwise—for the following key reasons:
• EPA tests the best possible configuration and rating, in a configuration that cannot be
installed in a vehicle.
873
-------
• EPA's demonstration program tested technology that will not be available for
commercial vehicles in 2027.
• The Agency did not attempt to test its demonstration system in cold ambient conditions,
or with biofuel, nor did it age the system in a manner representative of real world aging
and exposure to poisoning.
• EPA did not attempt to test the system in real-world, in-use performance against their
proposed in-use emissions standard.
• Even under these extremely favorable conditions in which EPA's system was
demonstrated, the Agency did not demonstrate that compliance with the proposed suite of
requirements is feasible: the system fails PM emissions tests, fails EPA's proposed SB-
MAW evaluations, fails existing GHG Phase 2 C02 standards, and provides insufficient
margin with regard to NOx emissions and N20 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.52]
As noted in Section I.B of these comments, Congress in the CAA set clear limitations on EPA's
ability to prescribe emission standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines, not the least of
which is the requirement that EPA's standards reflect the 'greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable' through the application of technology that EPA determines will be available for the
model year to which such standards apply, giving 'appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and
safety factors associated with the application of such technology.'80 While EPA has some
discretion to project what future advances in pollution control technology may occur to facilitate
compliance with its standards, this discretion is not limitless. Indeed, courts have recognized that
the Agency's technological projections are 'subject to the restraints of reasonableness' and do
not 'open the door to 'crystal ball' inquiry.'81 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.52]
80 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
81 SeeNRDC, 655 F.2d at 328 (citation omitted).
In light of the shortcomings noted above, the demonstration results that EPA relies upon in
support of the Proposed Rule amount to a 'crystal ball' inquiry into whether the standards
proposed would be feasible in an actual vehicle operating under real-world conditions. EPA has
thus failed to give reasoned explanation for believing that its feasibility projections are reliable.
EPA must re-visit and substantiate its finding with greater data, or propose a suite of
requirements that have in fact been adequately demonstrated—or that are supported by reasoned
explanation as to why the Agency expects them to be achievable 'in the time remaining' before
they will be enforced.82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.52]
82 Id. at 333.
EPA has not shown feasibility of its proposed off-cycle testing standards and has set standards
that are not achievable with the technology that will be available. Daimler Truck provides
significant evidence of this feasibility concern in Section II.B.3 of these comments. Many of the
same concerns detailed in Sections III.B and III.C of these comments regarding the infeasibility
of EPA's proposed FTP and RMC emissions thresholds inform our analysis of the Agency's
proposed thresholds for in-use testing, which are similarly infeasible. Specifically, Daimler
874
-------
Truck has significant concern about emissions variability that EPA has not accounted for in its
analysis. As with the cycle emissions standards, EMA has calculated that various sources of
variability for the off-cycle standards—including long-term deterioration due to fuel poisoning,
ash and soot accumulation, increased emission due to biofuel's immediate NOx increases, and
more—mean that manufacturers must design for emissions margin of at least 0.036 g/hp-hr
NOx.87 The result is that EPA's proposed off-cycle standards and testing do not merely validate
that trucks maintain their dyno-demonstrated emissions performance, but in fact create a level of
technology forcing emissions stringency that goes beyond the cycle emission standards and
procedures in the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.64-65]
87 See EMA Proposed Rule Comments.
Most importantly, EPA has never tested its proposed candidate UL NOx system in a truck.
Daimler Truck believes that the system cannot be packaged in a vehicle as is, and its vibration
and drivability characteristics may be unacceptable to the end users as designed. Accordingly,
EPA has not demonstrated feasibility when considering the broad range of applications,
operating conditions, environmental conditions, and aging effects that real trucks experience in
the field. Since the system has never been installed in a truck, it has never been tested against
EPA's proposed off-cycle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.65]
EPA and SWRI have performed some evaluation of the EPA Stage 3/RW System in an attempt
to demonstrate feasibility. However, their data ultimately shows that, even in the limited
conditions the EPA and SWRI have tested, the system is not capable of meeting EPA's proposed
emissions requirements. The most recent results from EPA's investigation are shown
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.65]
These results demonstrate that the system cannot meet EPA's proposed standards, even though
they:
• Do not test at Full Useful Life (435,000 miles instead of 800,000 miles);
• Do not expose the system to real-world fuel poisoning effects, or to biodiesel;
• Do not account for the wider variety of customer applications and maintenance
procedures
• Only test on a limited number of cycles; and
• Most importantly, do not test in cold conditions that challenge the emissions control of
the system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.66]
As Daimler Truck explains in Section III.B of these comments, most emissions in any UL NOx
system occur during the initial cold conditions, before the system has come up to operating
temperature. Despite this fact, EPA makes no effort to demonstrate the emissions in conditions
colder than the FTP, which starts at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.66]
875
-------
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: We are also requesting comment on several aspects of the proposed
off-cycle standards for heavy-duty CI engines, including the levels of the standards in proposed
Options 1 and 2 and the specific operating range covered by each bin, and whether off-cycle
standards and in-use testing should also apply for SI engines [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.8]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: Eaton supports off-cycle testing for both certification and
in-use testing. Compared to European regulations, the off-cycle limits seem to be equivalent to
conformity factors of 1.5 to 3. We would suggest a revision of that factor, given that option 1
emissions post IUL are already elevated to account for emissions controls degradation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.8]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The latest SwRI results from April 2022 demonstrated excellent and consistent performance with
respect to the proposed off-cycle NOx standards. For bin 1, the idle bin, the Option 1 proposal is
10 gr/hr for MY2027-2030 and 7.5 g/hr after that. The SwRI off-cycle NOx results demonstrate
compliance below the standards with a margin of 60%, even at 800k miles with an aged system.
For bin 2, the low load operation bin, the results demonstrate a 70% compliance margin, even at
800k miles of aging. For bin 3, the middle to high load operating bin, the aged system performs
well at 800k miles, achieving compliance margins between 25-50%. For bin 3 the results are
better at 800k miles than at 435k miles. Thus, SwRI results indicate that even more stringent
limits can be adopted for off-cycle NOx compliance, especially at idle and low load. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA suggests that EPA consider tightening two categories of the Proposed Option 1 standards
such that they are more stringent than those finalized in CARB's Omnibus. This
recommendation is based on new, previously unavailable test results that have been released
since the adoption of the Omnibus. Further testing on certification and real-world field cycles
suggest that tighter standards are possible while retaining sufficient compliance margin that
engine manufacturers need to account for manufacturing and field variability. We strongly
encourage CARB to review this new test information and harmonize with EPA on more stringent
standards. The two standards that can be tightened are the LLC standard and the idle standard.
Similar to CARB's Omnibus, the idle standard should also be required for certification rather
than an optional standard as currently proposed. There is significantly more data available from
the SwRI demonstration program since CARB developed its Omnibus regulation. These data
show that the LLC and idle standards finalized by CARB and proposed by EPA in Proposed
Option 1 can be achieved with significant margin. The NOx level achieved over the LLC with
systems fully aged to 800,000 equivalent miles is 0.037 g/bhp-hr, which includes the infrequent
regeneration adjustment factor (IRAF) [6], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.5]
876
-------
[6] EPA, 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration,' 10 May 2022. [Online],
Available: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
MECA recommends that EPA tighten the in-use compliance standards and moving average bin
limits commensurate with a lower LLC certification standard. In the SwRI demonstration
program, the 800,000 mile aged parts were also tested over several field duty cycles and results
calculated with the new three bin moving average window (3B-MAW) in-use compliance
methodology. The results for the low load bin (Bin 2) ranged from 0.033 to 0.048 g/bhp-hr,
which provides 70% or more margin to the standard (0.15 g/bhp-hr). The results for the idle bin
(Bin 1) ranged from 0.4 to 3.3 g/hr, which provides 60% or more margin to the optional standard
(7.5 g/hr). Tightening the standards in line with test data and compliance margin would prevent
emission backsliding over the life of the engine and ensure emissions are maintained as low as
possible in underserved communities where low speed operation and idling operations are most
likely to occur. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.5]
MECA supports the proposed changes to in-use requirements that achieve low NOx emissions in
the real world. However, it is feasible to tighten the in-use compliance limits for Bin 1 and Bin 2
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p. 19]
SwRI engineers have tested the Stage 3 aftertreatment system, that was engine-aged to an
equivalent of 800,000 miles, on a dynamometer over a speed-load trace from several actual drive
cycles. These driving cycles include the Southern NTE route, drayage cycle, grocery cycle and a
European in-use compliance drive cycle. The Southern NTE has been used by CARB for Heavy -
Duty In-Use Testing and lasts approximately three hours and includes several challenging
profiles, such as coasting, motoring and high transient return to service that requires the
aftertreatment to stay hot as it prepares for acceleration under load. The CDA system on the
engine retained heat in the aftertreatment by shutting down valves and cylinders during these
coasting events and prevented cold air from being pumped by the engine into the aftertreatment
system, thus keeping the SCR hot for the next transient acceleration. Over these real-world
cycles, the system achieved extremely low tailpipe NOx emission limits for each bin. The results
for the mid-high load bin (Bin 3) ranged from 0.022 to 0.046 g/bhp-hr, which provides 25-50%
margin to the proposed Bin 3 limit (0.06). The results for the low load bin (Bin 2) ranged from
0.033 to 0.048 g/bhp-hr, which provides 70% or more margin to the proposed Bin 2 limit (0.15
g/bhp-hr). The results for the idle bin (Bin 1) ranged from 0.4 to 3.3 g/hr, which provides 60% or
more margin to the proposed Bin 1 limit (7.5 g/hr) [6], These results confirm the tremendous
efficacy of the Stage 3 system for reducing emissions across the range of real-world operating
conditions, especially in areas where reductions are most needed such as in urban city
centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.20]
[6] EPA, 'Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration,' 10 May 2022. [Online],
Available: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Furthermore, EPA should consider increasing the compliance margins for in-use
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4]
877
-------
Furthermore, EPA should consider increasing the compliance margins for in-use standards to
make up for the lack of real-world in-use data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
EPA is requesting comment on several aspects of the proposed off-cycle standards for heavy-
duty CI engines, including the levels of the standards in proposed Options 1 and 2 and the
specific operating range covered by each bin, and whether off-cycle standards and in-use testing
should also apply for SI engines. MEMA supports new HD NOx emissions standards and
additional test cycles that will drive additional NOx emissions reductions on the road and
encourages best-in-class technologies. These standards should be performance-based and
technology-neutral and the test-cycles should reflect real-world use of vehicles. Both the
standards and test cycles should enable multiple technology paths to achieve compliance. In
addition, similar standards are important between CI and SI to avoid the unintended
consequences of truck buyers switching between CI and SI as a way to "game" the regulatory
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
We support EPA's proposal to move forward with the moving-average-window (MAW)
approach, which will better capture all real-world behavior. However, the numerical values used
in this program in 2027 are wholly inadequate, arbitrary, and undermine the efficacy of the
proposed NOx program. EPA itself even notes that its own system performed well below the
Option 1 standards, 123 and we've included Tables 1 and 2 to reinforce this point. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 29]
122.Ibid.
123. "As can be seen see from the results in Table III-18, the EPA Stage 3 engine
performed well below the proposed Options 1 and 2 NOx standards," 87 FR 17475.
In examining Table 1, it's important to recognize that there is an additional compliance margin
for the proposed MAW approach related to assumed measurement accuracy—as proposed, this is
"10 percent of the off-cycle standard for a given bin."124 Under EPA's own proposed protocol,
its demonstration powertrain already complies with the 2031 off-cycle requirements, for all load
bins, under all representative test cycles. In fact, there is a compliance margin of more than 80
percent for the idle bin at intermediate useful life, and about 50 percent for the low-load bin even
under the most stressing test cycle, well beyond what is reasonable. Even under the Omnibus
regulation's intermediate useful life requirements, which are more stringent in 2027-2030 than
Option 1, there is more than sufficient margin for compliance, owing to the conservative
approach taken by CARB in proposing those standards nearly two years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 29 - 30]
124. 87 FR 17477.
Table 2 shows that these margins are even greater over the full useful life of the vehicle for the
low-load and medium/high-load bins—at 800,000 miles, the low-load bin has a 70 percent
compliance margin, and the medium/high-load bin a 30 percent compliance margin. Given that
878
-------
this is an absolute worst case scenario, with more efficient test cycles showing as much as 80- or
even 90-percent margins, this suggests that EPA should be setting off-cycle compliance
standards that are even more stringent than those in the Omnibus regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 30]
Moreover, it is not just EPA's data which shows that there is overly sufficient margins of
compliance— Achates Power's test data on its own heavy-duty engine further confirms that it is
possible to achieve CARB's limits. 125 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 30]
125. "These results suggest that OP Engine can achieve future 2027 regulations with
sufficient margin to satisfy the 800k mile warranty requirement, based on a 50% discount
on aftertreatment degradation factors determined for zero to 435k miles applied to 435k
to 800k miles," Salvi et al. 2022.
EPA has appropriately identified three bins which are representative of current test procedures
(idle test, LLC, and FTP); however, EPA should maintain no worse than a 1.5X assumption on
real-world operation (compared to the standards) under the proposed bin structure. [This
comment also in Chapter 3.4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 30]
At worst, we urge EPA to pull forward its 2031 off-cycle numerical requirements to the 2027
model year, and EPA should consider further tightening the limits of its idle and low-load bins,
in particular, based on its own data. Communities cannot afford four more years' worth of trucks
that are allowed to pollute well beyond what is technically achievable. [This comment also in
Chapter 3.4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 30]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In particular, we support: Establishing "in-use" compliance-assurance protocols throughout the
(emissions/full) useful life to control emissions over a broader range of real-world operating
conditions, provided such protocols include adequate compliance margins; [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Statistical analysis applied to test results from a research engine has predicted a log normal
distribution of in-use results depicted in the upper right corner of the figure. The CFT fleet
distribution is expected to take on that shape after application of new technology that will pull
the peak toward the left and, to a certain extent, move the whole distribution to the left. Some
operation missed by inactive NOx sensors would increase frequency counts to right of the peak if
the fleet were measured with PEMS. Much of the long tail of the distribution can be addressed
through OBD. However, we can expect frequency counts to remain higher than desired to the
right of the peak over a considerable range of emissions levels. This area is shown as the
'challenge area' in the figure and will involve a mix of solutions:
• Durability Improvement - There is no evidence to support the idea that manufacturers
will be better able to improve the durability of emissions control systems more
879
-------
effectively when motivated by the HDIUT program than when motivated by the strong
incentives of the existing OBD regulations. Efforts to improve are continuous, but the
scale of future improvements should not be overestimated. Further, the durability of new
systems has not been proven, for example for CDA hardware and close coupled
Catalysts, so it will be difficult not to move backwards. PACCAR believes that the off-
cycle standards proposed by EMA are attainable through more modest improvements in
durability in line with what PACCAR's experience has shown to be realistic but with
significant risk in the early years when new technologies are deployed.
• New Technology - Application of improved technology will move the entire distribution
to the left, but with limits. For example the proposed off-cycle standards will require
greatly reduced transient emissions breakthroughs that are still present in test data from
the SwRI demonstration engine and will require technology beyond that which was
considered for the cost basis of the NPRM to meet option 1 standards. A technical
solution can be imagined for every situation but there is a limit to what is cost effective.
Other sections of this document go into more detail about technological limitations.
. OBD - OBD can be an effective tool when applied to the far right of the distribution.
Application of OBD too far to the left side, without other solutions, will result in too
much MIL illumination due to false detection or the misclassification of normal
deterioration as component failure. It should be left to manufacturers to set the
appropriate emission thresholds for each fault where root causes of malfunctions can be
effectively identified.
• Conformity Factor (CF) - The conformity factor accounts for the variation caused by
the drive cycle and values of 2 moving to 1.5 are implied by the NPRM. This makes a
major contribution to why the in use test results fall along a spectrum. The cycle
dependence of ultralow NOx engines is still largely unknown and remains a risk area for
manufacturers.
• Variability Allowance (VA) - There are many variables that can affect the performance
of a Low NOx system in the real world such as Sulfur in fuel, metals in biodiesel,
differences in oil consumption, a spectrum of customer applications that leads to
variation in aging, and variation among sensors. Variation could become significantly
magnified under ultra-low NOx standards because sources of variation that are small by
today's standards might not scale down in a linear way when new technology is applied
contributing to sources of variation that are more significant relative to the
standards. [Comment also in chapter 11.4.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.27-29]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Similarly, the Agency has not fully demonstrated the feasibility of the new proposed "in use"
bin-based low-NOx testing and compliance protocols, particularly with respect to "Bin 31," and,
as noted, has not conducted any actual in-use testing with any prototype vehicles equipped with
Stage 3 technologies. In that regard, EPA also has not adequately addressed the in-vehicle
packaging requirements of the assumed low-NOx technologies (e.g., cylinder deactivation and
close-coupled multi-stream dual aftertreatment systems) in any prototype HDOH vehicle, nor has
EPA assessed whether current engine control units (ECUs) and data-processing protocols can
be upgraded and reconfigured to accommodate the very significant data-processing demands that
880
-------
are associated with EPA's "3B-MAW" proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 8 -
9]
1. Throughout these comments, the idle bin, the low-load bin, and the medium/high-load
bin are alternatively referred to as "Bin 1", Bin 2", and "Bin 3."
Another of EMA's core concerns relates to the Agency's proposed new "3B-MAW" protocols
and standards for assessing in-use compliance. Those in-use standards and protocols have not
been developed simply to assess compliance with the underlying certification standards. To the
contrary, the proposed 3B-MAW standards are, in effect, more stringent than the base
certification standards, and will necessitate, among other things, larger catalyst volumes. That
amounts to a fundamental paradigm shift in the scope and purpose of in-use testing. Heretofore,
it was understood and agreed that in-use testing was a tool for assessing compliance with the
corresponding initial certification standards, and was not intended to increase the stringency of
those standards, or to compel additional emission-control technologies or hardware. That no
longer will be the case under the 3B-MAW proposal. The Agency concedes as much: The
proposed Option 1 in-use standard for the medium/high load bin [Bin 3] would likely require
manufacturers to increase the volume of the SCR catalyst. We [also] project that the proposed
off-cycle standards could be met through additional efforts to calibrate the duty-cycle
technologies to function properly over the broader range of in-use conditions. We also recognize
that manufacturers could choose to include additional technology. (87 FR at p. 17475.) [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 10]
The paradigm shift at issue raises the stakes of the feasibility issues that the Agency has failed to
adequately address. Those issues are especially pronounced with respect to the proposed Option
1 "Bin 3" standards. Indeed, out of the five in-use off-cycle drive cycles that SwRI ran using
EPA's Stage 3 prototype, two of those cycles yielded results that either just met or failed to meet
the Bin 3 standard, even after additional "re-calibration" efforts at SwRI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 10]
The Option 1 3B-MAW standards also are unrealistic because those in-use standards are at levels
that essentially are equivalent to the emissions-detection capabilities of the latest portable
emissions-measurement systems ("PEMS"), and an order-of-magnitude below the malfunction
detection capabilities of the latest on-board diagnostic ("OBD") sensors and systems. EPA's
proposed low-NOx regulations will rely on PEMS-based assessments and OBD sensor-based
requirements to assure in-use compliance. But those systems cannot do so in a sufficiently
reliable and consistent manner at the Option 1 NOx levels at issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 11]
Even in an emissions laboratory, PEMS NOx-detection technologies (based on nondispersive
ultraviolet ("NDUV") detection methods for NO and N02) have measurement "drift" that can be
roughly equivalent to 20% of the proposed Option 1 in-use "Bin 3" NOx standard of 0.03 g/bhp-
hr, before taking any in-use operational and environmental factors into account. Those factors
include imprecise exhaust and fuel-flow estimations, time-alignment issues, adverse ambient
conditions and vibration, and PEMS-installation concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 11]
881
-------
In that regard, it should be noted (again) that the Stage 3 prototype has not demonstrated robust
compliance with the Option 1 3B-MAW standards. To the contrary, out of the five in-use drive
cycles that SwRI used to test Stage 3 prototypes on an engine dynamometer, the Stage 3 system
failed or just met the requisite standards over two of those cycles. If production families were to
pass only at a rate of 3 to 4 out of every 5 vehicles tested, the vast majority of families would be
determined to be noncompliant to the in-use requirements, and thereby potentially liable for
recall. Thus, the feasibility of the Option 1 3B-MAW standards, like the Option 1 certification
standards, has not been and cannot be established. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 48 -
49]
The proposed 3B-MAW in-use testing method and standards do not sufficiently distinguish
between modes of in-use engine operation, and so cannot adequately separate in-use emissions
into separate bins of idle, low-load, and medium-to-high load operations. As demonstrated by the
extensive analyses performed by WVU, the proposed 3B-MAW method can spread (or "smear")
and comingle in-use emissions data across and among all of the three proposed bins. As WVU's
work reveals, the binned data under the 3B-MAW method have no adequate correlation, trend
lines, consistency, repeatability or reliability of results to support the establishment of separate
regulatory standards for the three proposed bins. Moreover, EPA has not supported the proposed
NOx-binning method with any actual in-use testing data derived from compliant test articles or a
low-NOx HDOH prototype vehicle in-use. It is significant that the Agency originally committed
to undertake real-world in-use testing of the proposed 3B-MAW protocol utilizing a Stage 3
prototype engine installed in a vehicle, but then reneged on that commitment, claiming that the
Agency has run out of time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 50 This comment is also in
section 11.1.1]
In setting the standard for the combined Bin 2+3, EPA must take all of this uncertainty into
account, as well as the simple fact that EPA has so far demonstrated that the Stage 3RW package
is incapable of meeting the proposed standards, both dyno certificaton standards and in-use
standards, despite its having been operated solely in the carefully-controlled laboratory setting.
In that regard, EPA cannot simply establish emissions standards on the basis of "wishful
thinking." Accordingly, EMA proposes that the Bin 2+3 emissions standard be set at the average
of Option 2-like LLC and FTP/RMC standards, adjusted upward by the appropriate in-use
conformity factor, which should be 2.0 for at least seven model years before dropping down to
1.5. [Also included in section 11.1.1 EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 81]
EPA's proposed implementation of the 3B-MAW approach also includes the establishment of an
in-use multiplicative conformity factor of 1.5 that links each of the three bins to a unique test-cell
standard. But EPA has not demonstrated that the uniform 1.5 conformity factor was reasonably
derived from an analysis of the three separate bins of NOx data, or is based on any independent
assessment of technical feasibility. Nor has EPA demonstrated whether an additive rather than a
multiplicative approach would be more appropriate. In that regard, and as discussed further
below, the in-use conformity factor also needs to be assessed against the limits of detection of
the instruments that will be used to assess in-use compliance. EPA's proposal of a 10% NOx
accuracy margin is neither sufficient nor adequately data-driven. These factors are addressed in
more detail in the technical feasibility section of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 67]
882
-------
Such a massive regulatory undertaking, with cost implications many times over any prior
rulemaking directed at the heavy-duty engine and vehicle industry, should be supported by
extensive research and analysis to prove-out and justify the very considerable expenses and
burdens that will fall upon manufacturers and the public. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
To the contrary, there are many underlying research activities that are still underway, some
which likely will not be completed by the time the rule is finalized, let alone when it was
proposed, and there are other major gaps in the overall research effort that will not be filled at
all. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 171]
The feasibility demonstration of the Stage 3 technology package that EPA proposes as
justification for the proposed standards was incomplete when EPA drafted the requirements
included in the NPRM. The initial 800,000-mile test results became available well after EPA
staff had drafted the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171]
Dissatisfied that the results from the Stage 3 aging tests show multiple instances of
noncompliance to the proposed standards, EPA has initiated testing of an "improved" technology
package simultaneous with the release of the NPRM, with the hope of improving long-term
emissions stability and reducing the significant increases in N20 emissions measured on the first
attempt (N20, has a 100-year scale global warming potential of 265 to 298.) Testing and aging
of this new "System A" prototype is expected to extend out through October 2022, after the time
EPA will be obliged to finalize this rulemaking so it can move on to inter-agency review, all in
accordance with the Agency's self-imposed year-end deadline for a published final rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171]
Industry-funded testing of the EPA Stage 3 prototype technology package to understand tailpipe
NOx sensitivity to sensor variabilities and cold weather operation will not be conducted until
May or June of this year. The analyses of those data will require additional time. Without those
industry-funded test results, there will be no assessment of those critical variabilities, which
represent only a subset of the factors that "stack-up" into the compliance margin that
manufacturers will need, but that EPA has yet to account for in this rulemaking process. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171]
All of the critical research outlined above was not available or not completed in time to support
the pending NPRM. Indeed, the vital research at issue is still in process, with much of it expected
to be delivered just as the proposed rule is expected to "go final" in the fall, all to meet EPA's
goal of having the new low-NOx standards take effect in 2027. Thus, there is considerable risk
that these critical data will be unavailable when these largely infeasible standards are to be
finalized. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 172.]
Perhaps even more concerning are the necessary data-generation projects that are completely
unplanned at this time. More specifically, EPA intends to complete this rulemaking without
having access to the following: In-vehicle in-use testing of the Stage 3 low-NOx technology
system, to understand if emissions compliance is really achievable over the full range of real-
world ambient conditions and operating cycles covered under the completely revamped 3B-
MAW in-use test requirements, and to see if the new multi-component system can even fit into
the broad array of impacted trucks, will not be done. The rulemaking record will have no data
883
-------
from any vehicle equipped with a Stage 3-type engine system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 172]
EMA has funded additional testing of the Stage 3 RW engine over five "road cycles." Engine
parameters were recorded during five actual on-road cycles, and then set up for engine dyno
testing. Those results were processed according to the new proposed "3-Bin Moving Average
Windows" ("3B-MAW') in-use testing and compliance protocol. While only scratching the
surface of the myriad cycles HD trucks will encounter in the field, the Stage 3 RW system (and
the CARB Stage 3 system) failed one of the five initial road cycles (the EU ISC cycle, as
developed by WVU according to EU In-Service Conformity requirements), since it yielded a
NOx result that exceeded the most stringent in-use "Bin 3" (medium/high power bin) limit of
0.030 g/bhp-hr by 10%. A second of the five road cycles was just at the Bin 3 limit, which SwRI
improved later by preconditioning the aftertreatment system to ensure robust pre-test ammonia
storage, a preconditioning process not permitted according to the applicable manufacturer in-use
testing requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 25]
Actual in-vehicle road-testing of a Stage 3 system obviously would be highly informative to the
rulemaking process. Unfortunately, EPA (and CARB) conducted no such actual in-use testing of
a vehicle equipped with the Stage 3 prototype engine, despite earlier commitments to do so.
Rather, EPA's proposal of aggressive in-use standards utilizing a completely new 3B-MAW
emissions measurement protocol is based solely on the partially failed emission results generated
with one prototype engine operated on an engine dyno over just five simulated road
cycles. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 25]
It also is important to consider that the Stage 3 technologies that serve as the basis for EPA's
feasibility demonstration offer little or no improvement to NOx emissions levels when operating
over periods of sustained engine load, the types of operation that should be included in the
medium/high-load bin ("Bin 3") of the proposed 3B-MAW protocol. For example, in the case of
a line-haul vehicle pulling a load at highway speeds, a condition where SCR temperatures with
current technologies would be at levels optimal for NOx conversion, none of the proposed Stage
3 technologies (i.e., cylinder deactivation, EGR-cooler bypass, LO-SCR, heated dosing, zone-
coated catalyzed soot filters, switchback mixing tubes) would have any impact on lowering
tailpipe emissions levels, save perhaps for some marginal effect from increased SCR sizing. Yet
EPA's Option 1 "Bin 3" proposal includes a 90%-lower steady-state NOx standard associated
with that type of already-optimized operation under quasi-steady-state engine operation. That is
inherently infeasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 25]
The limited emissions test results generated with the Stage 3 RW prototype aftertreatment
system, as aged in the laboratory environment, do not represent reasonable worst-case emissions
performance, nor do they represent reasonable worst-case aging effects that can be expected
from field-returned engines. There are in-use operating conditions and events experienced in the
field that are not even considered in EPA's discussions of "technical feasibility," but for which
diesel engine manufacturers are held accountable in assessing their compliance with EPA's
emissions related requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 26]
884
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB supports the general structure of the off-cycle standards, and prefers the Alternative
proposal where the off-cycle standards are a multiplier of 1.5 times the certification standards.
CARB states that other aspects of the regulation, (such as longer warranty periods and more
rigorous durability demonstration) and the availability of data related to California Omnibus
regulation's primary NOx emission standards will reduce uncertainty regarding deterioration of
emissions control technologies. Additionally, CARB suggests defining an "off-cycle emissions
threshold" that is the sum of the off-cycle standard and applicable margins.
Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks Conservation
Association, and Sierra Club comment that they prefer Option 1 standards to Option 2 standards.
Additionally, they recommend further strengthening the standards, specifically in the idle and
low load bins (bin 1 and 2). They further state that available diesel technologies can reduce
emissions in these bins to a greater extent than determined by EPA.
MECA comments that it is feasible to tighten the standards for the idle and low load bins (bin 1
and 2). In support, they cite test data from SwRI on the Stage 3 aftertreatment system, that was
engine-aged to an equivalent of 800,000 miles. These results provide 60% or more margin in bin
1 and 70% or more margin in bin 2. MFN also comments that standards for the idle and low load
bins should be tightened. In support MFN refers to Achates Power's test data, stating the data
demonstrate that there are overly sufficient margins for compliance. MFN also states that EPA
should, at a minimum, pull forward the 2031 off-cycle numerical requirements to the 2027 model
year.
Navistar comments that they support in-use compliance testing with adequate compliance
margins and support a robust standard with a lower NOx level. PACCAR comments that a
conformity factor of 1.5. to 2 is applied to account for the variations due to drive cycle, and an
additional "variability allowance" should be included to account for variations due to
contaminants in the fuel, oil consumption, aging differences, and other factors.
Allison comments that the off-cycle standards seen in option 1 may be too stringent, because
there has been insufficient validation of vocational drive cycles in Southwest Research Institute's
emissions system durability testing.
Daimler comments that the EPA Stage 3 demonstration at SWRI cannot be considered a valid
representation of in-use data, as it does not include the variability intrinsically associated with
vehicle testing. In support, they present data from a current Detroit Diesel heavy duty engine
tested on a dyno and installed in a real vehicle, demonstrating the differences in measured
emissions. Furthermore, they state that the EPA demonstration system configuration included the
shortest possible exhaust length which cannot be packaged in a vehicle, did not consider
necessary design margins, showed significant compromises with reduced SCR volumes, did not
meet Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG standards, included technology that will not be available for
commercial vehicles in 2027, did not test at cold temperatures or with biofuels, and did not age
the system in a representative manner. They also comment that that the engine fails to comply
885
-------
with EPA's proposed PM standards and raises questions about N20 compliance feasibility.
Finally, they state that demonstration results for field replay cycles in the test cell reflect failed
NOx results at 10% above the standard. Thus, Daimler states that EPA has failed to show
feasibility of the proposed off-cycle testing standards.
Daimler and EMA further state that the sources of variability mean that manufacturers need to
design for tighter emissions levels than are required for the dyno-demonstrated emissions
performance, creating a level of stringency beyond the cycle emission standards. In support,
Daimler presents data comparing SCR performance in a controlled setting versus an uncontrolled
setting. They state that the uncontrolled system shows significantly more degredation, and they
would expect similar differences between a lab-aged environment and fleet-aged environment.
EMA comments that critical data from the SWRI Stage 3 testing is not available to EPA or
industry to understand tailpipe NOx sensitivity to sensor variabilities. Additionally, EMA states
that in-vehicle testing of the Stage 3 low-NOx technology system has not been accomplished,
and that EPA committed to undertake real-world in-use testing but reneged on that commitment.
They also state that the Stage 3 prototype system failed or just met the requisite standards over
two of five in-use cycles.
EMA states that the Bin 2 and 3 emission standards should be set at the average of Option 2-like
LLC and FTP/RMC standards, adjusted upward by the appropriate in-use conformity factor,
which should be 2.0 for at least seven model years before dropping down to 1.5.
MEMA and Eaton recommend increasing the compliance margins for in-use standards. EMA
also comments that the uniform 1.5 conformity factor and the 10% NOx accuracy margin are not
sufficient and have not been derived from the data.
MEMA also comments that CI and SI engines should have similar standards to prevent truck
buyers switching between CI and SI as a way to "game" the regulatory standards.
Response:
See preamble Section III.C.2 for the final off-cycle standards and Section III.C.3 for our
feasibility analysis for those off-cycle standards.
EPA disagrees with Daimler and EMA that the final in-use off-cycle standards would be, in
effect, more stringent than the new certification standards. See section 11.5.1 of this document
for more detail.
EPA agrees with CARB on the general structure of the off-cycle standards and that the off-cycle
standard multiplier of 1.5 times the certification standards is appropriate for this rule's final
standards based on EPA's assessment of feasibility for the off-cycle standards as explained in
preamble Section III.C.3. EPA disagrees with CARB that other aspects of the regulation, (such
as longer warranty periods and more rigorous durability demonstration) will reduce uncertainty
regarding deterioration of emissions control technologies to the extent that would result in more
stringent standards than we are finalizing. EPA is finalizing standards and an interim in-use
886
-------
compliance allowance that take into account uncertainty that wasn't included in our technology
demonstration, see Section III.C of the preamble for additional details. The off-cycle standards
and applicable margins are clearly defined in 40 CFR 1036.104 and 1036.420.
EPA disagrees with Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club that available diesel technologies can reduce
emissions in these bins to a greater extent and should result in lower emission standards than
determined by EPA. EPA is finalizing standards that take into consideration technologies that
are capable of achieving lowNOx emissions, but also take into account degradation in
performance from in-use operation over the engine's useful life. We also take into consideration
other sources of variability like the duty-cycles, fuel quality, test procedure variability,
performance of other engine ratings, production engine variability, DEF quality, and the effects
of sulfur, soot, and ash on aftertreatment performance. See preamble Section III.C for more
information on how we consider each of these elements in setting the off-cycle standards.
EPA disagrees with MECA and MFN that the standards should be tightened for the idle bin
because the idle standard needs to be met over much broader ambient conditions than were tested
at SwRI. We are setting the standards to account for the effect of these conditions on engine
emission performance. In regard to bin 2, for the reasons further explained in preamble Section
III.C.3, we are combining bins 2 and 3 into a single bin with a standard that accounts for the
additional margin that was demonstrated at SwRI at the 800,000-mile equivalent. EPA is
finalizing a one-step program starting in MY 2027, and setting standards for spark-ignition, light,
medium and heavy HDEs at the lowest level achievable taking into account the technology
available starting in MY 2027, and giving appropriate consideration to cost and other statutory
factors. See preamble Section III for details on how each of the standards were set.
EPA considered comments from MEMA, Eaton, and EMA on compliance margin, and Navistar
and PACCAR comments that a conformity factor of 1.5 to 2 is needed to account for in-use
variations. While EPA disagrees that a conformity factor of 2 is needed for these final standards
based on our feasibility analysis explained in preamble Section III.C.3, EPA has set standards
that provide adequate compliance margins to account for drive cycle variations as well as
variation due to contaminants in the fuel, oil consumption, aging differences, and other factors as
described in Section III.C of the preamble.
With regard to MEMA's comment on the stringency of CI and SI standards, we have not set
standards at a level to encourage or prevent a purchaser from buying an SI engine over a CI
engine or vice versa, but have set appropriate standards as discussed in preamble Section III for
both CI and SI engines in a manner generally consistent with a fuel neutral approach, with the
exception of CO for Spark-ignition HDE over the new SET duty cycle. We expand on our
rationale for this deviation from fuel neutrality in preamble Section III.D.l.
Regarding Allison's comment, we are not finalizing as proposed all of the proposed Option 1
off-cycle standards after further consideration of feasibility and the other statutory factors for
some of those standards, however we believe that the stringency of the final bin 2 (which is now
combined with bin 3) should be increased and we have incorporated increased stringency in the
final bin 2. We disagree with Allison that vocational vehicle operation was not captured within
887
-------
the five cycles tested at SwRI. These duty cycles were developed with consideration of input
from engine manufacturers and incorporated field data consisting of in-use operation from
hundreds of vehicles.
We disagree with Daimler that the standards we are finalizing do not include the variability
intrinsically associated with vehicle testing. See preamble Section III.C regarding how EPA has
accounted for the effects of in-use operation, as well as emission control system packaging and
size, that were not accounted for within the SwRI Stage 3 testing. We also note that EPA is
providing a process using the recall requirements in 40 CFR 1068.505 for a manufacturer to
receive EPA approval to exempt test results from in-use off-cycle standards testing from being
considered for potential recall if an engine manufacturer can show that the vehicle was
historically fueled with biodiesel blends whose B100 blendstock did not meet the ASTM
D675 l-20a limit for Na, K, Ca, and/or Mg metal (metals which are a byproduct of biodiesel
production) or contaminated petroleum based fuels (i.e. if the manufacturer can show that the
vehicle was misfueled), and the manufacturer can show that misfueling lead to degradation of the
emission control system performance. See preamble Section III.C.4 for further details.
Regarding Daimler's comment on meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards, the NOx standards are
incremental to the GHG standards, and the technology required to achieve both standards
simultaneously can be independently applied to the engine. The Stage 3 engine was a MY 2017
engine that did not include the technology needed to meet the Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG standards.
The demonstrated NOx emissions were achieved without increasing GHG emissions from the
base engine, and thus would have no adverse effect on GHG reductions achieved through the
introduction of additional technology. See also discussion in preamble Section III. EPA expects
that the four-year lead time will provide sufficient time for all of the technologies to become
commercially available.
EPA has taken into account cold temperature effects on emission performance when setting the
standards, as explained further in section 11.2.2 of this document. As discussed in preamble
Section III.C.4, EPA is modifying the proposed approach to in-use off-cycle standards testing
and will allow manufacturers to continue to exempt engines from in-use off-cycle standards
testing if the engine is being operated on biofuel that exceeds the manufacturers maximum
allowable biodiesel percentage usable in their engines, as specified in the engine owner's
manual, as described in 40 CFR 1036.415.
EPA aged the Stage 3 emission control system using an established bench aging test procedure
that has been validated and incorporated into 40 CFR 1065.1130, see preamble Section IV.F.
With regard to "the mismatch between 3B-MAW performance and test cell performance", EPA
agrees that the emissions from the EPA Stage 3 engine on the duty cycles do not fully match the
emissions performance in each of the off-cycle bins, but we disagree that this means that there is
a fundamental issue with the off-cycle test procedure or that the off-cycle standards are not
feasible. As discussed in Section III.C of the preamble we have demonstrated that the off-cycle
standards are feasible, with margin to account for effects that were not directly captured with the
EPA Stage 3 demonstration. Furthermore, we have set the numeric level of the off-cycle
standards independent of the duty cycle standards and at the most stringent level for MY 2027
engines after giving appropriate considering to cost and other statutory factors. EPA disagrees
888
-------
that the Stage 3 engine fails to comply with EPA's proposed PM standards. As further discussed
in preamble Section III. the higher PM emission data points in the demonstration data occurred
immediately following DPF ash cleaning, and the PM level returned to a level well below the 5
mg/hp-hr standard shortly after return to service once a soot cake layer reestablished itself in the
DPF. These very short-term elevations in PM that occur after required maintenance of the DPF
should not be the basis for the stringency of the PM standard. It has been shown that soot buildup
in the DPF improves filtration efficiency and as with ammonia storage on SCR catalysts, EPA
allows for preconditioning prior to carrying out the manufacturer's test of record for certification.
This preconditioning not only establishes baseline ammonia storage on the SCR catalyst but
reestablishes the DPF soot cake layer that was removed during the initial forced DPF
regeneration that occurs prior to the preconditioning sequence. After considering the comments
and evaluating the data from the Stage 3 engine, EPA is finalizing the proposed PM standard of 5
mg/hp-hr for the FTP, SET, and LLC and 7.5 mg/hp-hr for the bin 2 off-cycle standard. See
preamble Section III for details on EPA's feasibility analysis for these standards. EPA disagrees
with Daimler's concern regarding N2O compliance feasibility, as the N2O emissions from the
EPA and CARB Stage 3 engine were below the N2O standard, even after the aftertreatment was
aged to the equivalent of 800,000 miles, which is beyond the final useful life for Heavy HDEs.
EPA agrees that the EPA Stage 3 engine had higher emissions than the most stringent off-cycle
standards proposed, but as discussed in preamble Section III.C the level of the final off-cycle
standards corresponds to at least a 40 percent compliance margin for the EPA Stage 3 engine.
EPA disagrees with EMA that NOx sensitivity to sensor variabilities was not taken into
consideration when setting the standards. Testing of the Stage 3 system at SwRI used production
NOx sensors and any variability associated with the use of those sensors was part of the test
results. EPA acknowledges that in-vehicle testing of the Stage 3 low-NOx technology system has
not been accomplished, however we note that EPA has accounted for the effects on emission
performance that were not included in the Stage 3 testing, which includes packaging and ambient
effects as described in Section III.C of the preamble.
EPA disagrees with EMA that the 1.5 conformity factor and the PEMS NOx accuracy margin
were not derived from data. The PEMS accuracy margin that we are finalizing in 40 CFR
1036.420 was derived from data generated at SwRI with three commercially available PEMS
units measuring emissions from the Stage 3 engine at NOx levels that meet the standards. EPA
is setting off-cycle standards as described in Section III.C of the preamble based on data from the
Stage 3 engine tested over five representative field cycles.
In response to EMA's comment, EPA agrees the standard for the combined bin 2 and 3 should be
based on the LLC and FTP/RMC standards and should be adjusted upward by the appropriate in-
use conformity factor, but disagrees that the appropriate conformity factor is 2 based on EPA's
assessment of the feasibility of the off-cycle standards. Further discussion of the proportionality
of the off-cycle standards to the LLC and FTP/RMC standards is contained in the preamble
Section III.C.2.C.
11.3.2 Other comments on criteria pollutant off-cycle standards
889
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
On-road NOx emissions are often concentrated in these communities, as they are produced by
trucks traveling on highways located within or near them, as well as trucks idling at ports,
warehouses, and other freight applications in these communities. Current lab testing cycles of
these NOx levels may underestimate the true amounts of NOx emissions produced due to
insufficient testing under real world conditions or artificially short regulatory useful life
figures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.4]
Organization: Odyne Systems, LLC (Odyne)
Odyne worked with the U.S. Department of Energy to study emissions produced during Power
Take-Off (PTO) operation by medium and heavy-duty vehicles. According to a report published
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, very high NOx can be produced when vehicles
are in a PTO mode. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.2]
The PTO is a device that attaches near the engine and provides an output for rotational power. A
PTO may receive power from the engine through a transmission, from a gear attached to the rear
of an engine, such as a rear engine power take off or REPTO, or from a crankshaft, such as a
front engine power take off, or FEPTO. The PTO provides power output from the engine to
operate hydraulic pumps, compressors, and other devices. Devices such as hydraulic pumps
rotate and enable vehicle mounted equipment to move, examples include bucket trucks, digger
derricks, cranes, refuse compactors, cable pullers, dump trucks, tank truck and other
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.2]
There are over 100,000 PTOs installed yearly on new chassis, per data from the NTEA,
https://www.ntea.com , most on medium and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1264-A1, p.3]
The typical operation of the chassis engine to power truck-mounted equipment through the PTO
results in higher fuel consumption than idle and high emissions (GHG and NOx). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.3]
The attached document provides information about high NOx output during PTO operation:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75782.pdfFile 75782 (attached) - Power Take-off (PTO)
section on pages 35- 59 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.3]
A side by side test of electrified PTO vs. conventional 100% engine power PTO was conducted
by NREL, please see the attached report 75782: 'Investigation of Emissions Impacts from
Hybrid Powertrains' Produced under direction of California Air Resources Board (CARB) by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Work for Others Agreement number
FIA-15-1802 and Task No WWGR.1000. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 January
2020 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.3]
890
-------
A typical chassis engine-driven PTO runs for long durations with relatively low loads, with
occasional higher bursts of power output, such as when a hydraulic pump or compressor
produces flow to move equipment or perform work. As a result of low loads and intermittent
higher loads, the chassis engine emission control system is ineffective in PTO mode, resulting in
very high NOx output, over three times as high as idling emissions, see page 54 and 55 of the
NREL report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.3]
Many trucks operate PTOs for extended periods, often for many hours a day, as the trucks
perform work at jobsites or when the trucks require stationary power, resulting in very high NOx
output. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.3]
Per the NREL report: 'For explanation, the highest NOx emitting drive cycle was for the
HHDDT transient cycle. If this cycle were continuously operated, it would average 30.8
grams/hour of NOx emissions out of the tailpipe.' The conventional PTO operation produce
more than twice as much NOx per hour as the HHDDT transient cycle, and typically operates for
many hours. As an example, utility trucks often spend 75% of operational time in PTO
mode. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.4]
While the 'EPA is proposing the addition of a low-load test cycle and standard that would
require CI engine manufacturers to demonstrate that the emission control system maintains
functionality during low-load operation where the catalyst temperatures have historically been
found to be below their operational temperature,' the proposed cycle does not appear similar to
the engine operation of PTOs, where overall average power output of the engine is extremely
low, followed by sudden power requirements (often still low compared to the output of the
engine) and then followed again by idling. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.4]
Note torque requirements above 50% require significant power which generates heat and
increases the effectiveness of emissions systems. A PTO may require a fraction of the maximum
torque output of the engine and will likely be at a much lower average power level due to the
intermittent power requirements for many types of vehicle mounted equipment. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2019-0055-1264-A1, p.5]
For reference the Low Load Cycle (LLC), showing high torque requirements often over 50%
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/staff/03_llc.pdf [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.5]
NREL report Page 54: Conventional PTO operation using 100% power for PTO from engine
'.. .NOx emissions are at the highest rate during PTO use. This is likely due the nature of the
engine and exhaust operating conditions during PTO work. The engine spends a majority of the
time at idle which results in low exhaust temperatures and low SCR NOx conversion efficiency,
but then work is commanded at abrupt segments very transient in nature resulting in large engine
out NOx spikes. These spikes cannot be mitigated by the aftertreatment system because of the
low temperatures which then results in high NOx concentration values out of the vehicle
tailpipe.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.5]
891
-------
EPA: We request comment on the proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards, as well as the
overall structure of the off-cycle program. We also request comment on the need for fewer or
more than 3 bins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.5]
Odyne recommends adding a test cycle bin to the off-cycle standards that represents the
operation of the vehicle engine when a typical power take-off (PTO) is operated, specifically
very low average load with occasional relatively high spikes of power output. The U.S.
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has further information
on the operation of PTOs and likely duty cycles. The test cycle should apply to all powertrains
that have the capability of readily installing a PTO, including those with transmissions that have
an internal PTO gear within the transmission that would interface to a PTO when the PTO is
installed. The test cycle would not apply to vehicles with transmissions that do not have the
capability to accept a PTO, such as transmissions that are typically used for box trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1264-A1, pp.5-6]
Odyne recommends that vehicles with an ePTO system should be operated in conformance with
the operator's manual during the testing of the off-cycle PTO bin, including charging the battery
through the grid if it is recommended as the primary means of recharging the ePTO system
battery. The ePTO should be operated with the same load and duty cycle that would be applied to
the ICE if it were to operate the PTO with a representative load. If the ePTO battery discharges
to the point that the system would turn on the engine during a normal day, then the emissions
should be measured and applied to the result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.6]
EPA: 'We are also requesting comment on a possible broadening of our in-use compliance
strategy to cover more engines and more operation.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.6]
Odyne recommends that manufacturers include at least one vehicle with a Power Take-Off
(PTO) in the group of vehicles that are subject to in-use compliance, if that manufacturer sells
vehicles with PTOs. The vehicles with PTOs should be operated in a manner that is typical for
work vehicles, such as turning on the PTO when the vehicle is stationary and operating a device
powered by the PTO, such as an aerial bucket or small crane mounted to a truck, for many hours
for one day. The PEMs should be active during the PTO test and the test should verify that the
onboard diagnostics system is fully active during PTO operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1264-A1, p.6]
Based upon Odyne's interpretation of current regulations, portions of the diagnostic system,
sometimes referred to as HDOBD, can be suspended during PTO operations, and no specific
testing is performed to ensure that any emissions standards are met during PTO
operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.6]
For reference, see Section 4.5.2 of the HD OBD regulation, section 1971.1 of title 13, California
Code of Regulations, link https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/13-CCR-Sec-1971-
1 Note, the EPA commented that they often reference CARB regulations, so the CARB
regulation is shown: (4.5.2) Within 10 seconds of the start of a PTO (see section (c)) operation
that disables a monitor required to meet the monitoring conditions in section (d)(3.2), the OBD
system shall disable further incrementing of the corresponding numerator and denominator for
892
-------
each monitor that is disabled. When the PTO operation ends, incrementing of all corresponding
numerators and denominators shall resume within 10 seconds. 'Power Take-Off (PTO) unit'
refers to an engine driven output provision for the purposes of powering auxiliary equipment
(e.g., a dump-truck bed, aerial bucket, or tow-truck winch). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-
Al, pp.6-7]
Also note that idle shut-down regulations are not in effect when a PTO is activated, even if the
equipment is not operated after the PTO mode has been selected. Some fleets report instructing
their workers to select the PTO mode rather than turn off the engine, even if the PTO is not
needed to power hydraulic equipment, so that the engine can remain on to power low voltage
loads, such as a 12V lights and flashers and provide air conditioning and heat when the vehicle is
used as shelter for workers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
While in-use testing might address some scenarios, it remains unclear to Odyne whether
comprehensive in-use testing of trucks with PTOs would be mandated to detect high NOx and
GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Based upon data from NTEA, Odyne estimates that approximately 30%+ of medium and heavy-
duty vehicles operate a PTO, indicating that the number of vehicles is large, and testing of this
operational mode is necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Odyne recommends that trucks tested for in-use compliance with an ePTO be fully charged as
documented in the system operator's manual, and then the equipment on the truck operated with
the ePTO for the normal duty cycle and duration that is typical of a full day use. Emissions
should be measured during the process, so that if the battery discharges and the engine turns on,
emissions can be measured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.7]
Odyne supports efforts by the EPA to control air pollution for heavy-duty engines and vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.9]
The currently proposed updated regulations appear to provide a potential loophole for a
significant portion of annual medium and heavy-duty trucks produced in the U.S., those that
operate power take-offs (PTOs), estimated to be approximately 30% of total U.S. production by
Odyne. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p. 10]
Power take off operation typically places engines under a different load cycle than the proposed
low load cycle. Due to very low loads followed by occasional higher loads, the average load on
the engine is very low and the higher loads cause high NOx emissions. Per testing by the U.S.
Department of Energy, NOx emissions in grams/hour during conventional PTO operation, in
which the engine is on continuously to power truck mounted equipment, can be more than three
time higher than idle and twice that of high NOx output during driving. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1264-A1, p. 10]
Odyne recommends changes to proposed Options 1 and 2 off-cycle standards to incorporate tests
that represent PTO operation for vehicles that are configured to accept a PTO, such as those with
893
-------
a PTO gear installed internal to the transmission that would interface with a PTO. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p. 10]
Odyne also recommends broadening in-use compliance standards to require the testing of one or
more vehicles with the PTO operational, if that manufacturer produces vehicles that have PTOs
installed in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p. 10]
Odyne also encourages the EPA to confirm that emission system diagnostics are required to be
completely functional during PTO operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.10]
Organization: Valeria Trujilo Aguilar
Evaluate Performance of HDVs Accurately
According to Badshah et al.13, a disproportionate amounts of NOx emissions from HDV are emitted during
low-speed operations, a characteristic of urban driving. A study conducted by the International Council
on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that vehicles operating at a speed lower than 25 mph results in 5
times more emissions than certification limit allows14. Also, this study found that single line-haul trucks
emit the NOx equivalent of 100 cars under urban driving conditions15. The ICCT study states that EPA
certified trucks under 2010 HDV diesel standards are not in compliance emitting 5-7 times more NOx
under actual urban driving conditions than laboratory findings suggest16.
^PA, "Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act 1990-2020, the Second Prospective
Study", Clean Air Act Overview, accessed May 15, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-
act-overview/benefits~and-costs~clean~air~act-1990~2020~second-prospective-studv.
13 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, and Rachel Muncrief, "Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States", International
Council on Clean Transportation, Aspen Institute, Environment and Climate Change
Canada, November 2019, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/NQx Emissioi
IT! ixir.
14 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, and Rachel Muncrief, "Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States", International
Council on Clean Transportation, Aspen Institute, Environment and Climate Change
Canada, November 2019, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/NQx Emissioi
I I - ! LHlf.
15 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, and Rachel Muncrief, "Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States", International
Council on Clean Transportation, Aspen Institute, Environment and Climate Change
Canada, November 2019, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/NQx Emissioi
IT! ixi r.
894
-------
16 Huzeifa Badshah, Francisco Posada, and Rachel Muncrief, "Current State of NOx
Emissions from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles in the United States", International
Council on Clean Transportation, Aspen Institute, Environment and Climate Change
Canada, November 2019, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/NQx Emissions In I
IT! ixir.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
C2ES and Valeria Trujilo Aguilar comments that current lab testing cycles may underestimate
the true amounts of NOx emissions produced in real world situations. Valeria Trujilo Aguilar
also comments that low speed operation results in NOx emissions 5-7 times higher than
suggested by laboratory tests.
Odyne comments that PTOs are installed on over 100,000 vehicles yearly. They further comment
that PTO operation leads to high NOx output due to its duty cycle, which alternates idle operation
with sudden high power transient operation. They recommend adding a bin to the off-cycle
testing that represents PTO operation, and further recommend requiring manufacturers to include
at least one vehicle equipped with a PTO (and exhibiting typical PTO operation) in their in-use
testing.
Response:
EPA thanks C2ES, Valeria Trujilo Aguilar, and Odyene for their input and notes that the final
laboratory duty cycles in conjunction with the new off cycles standards and moving average
window test procedures will significantly reduce real world emissions, making up for the
shortcomings of the current NTE standards and test procedures. EPA believes that the "idle" bin
(bin 1) is defined in such a way that 300-second windows would capture PTO operation for
inclusion in this bin.
11.4 HDUIT: Selecting engines and vehicles (Preamble III.C.5.ii)
11.4.1 Timing of the testing program
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff has concerns with the changes in 1035.405(d) where testing must be completed
within 18 months of the test plan approval. In this case, no firm timeline is provided because the
time to produce a test plan is undefined. CARB staff suggests adding a timeline for test plan
submission or using the previous language that states testing would need to be completed within
18 months after the administrator directed to test an engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.64]
895
-------
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA amend certain aspects of the proposed manufacturer-
run field-testing program. First, proposed section 1036.405(d) states: 'We will typically select
engine families for testing and notify you in writing by June 30 of the applicable calendar year.'
PACCAR submits that EPA should make its selection in January of the applicable calendar year,
rather than June. EPA has proposed an additional step that requires OEMs prepare a test plan that
EPA must approve. Because the 18-month 'clock' does not start running until the test plan is
approved, the test period must begin earlier than June so OEMs have two summers and one
winter (instead of two winters and only one summer) for testing. Winter testing is logistically
difficult and has certain risks. For example, PACCAR uses a trailer, which weighs nearly 10,000
pounds and contains analyzers and other equipment worth up to $1 million, to support PEMS
testing that is towed with a light-duty truck. Not only does conducting PEMS testing in the
winter on icy roads create unnecessary risks, it also increases workplace safety risks that are
inherent to working outside in icy conditions. EPA should therefore make its selection in
January to accommodate additional summer testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.54-55]
In addition, proposed 1036.430(c) would require a number of testing and reporting notifications
but the Agency has not specified the time in which such notifications must be submitted to the
Designated Compliance Officer. PACCAR respectfully submits that 30 days would be a
reasonable time frame in which to require OEMs to submit these notifications. In addition, EPA
should remove proposed 1036.430(c), which would require notification if two out of five tests
fail because OEMs can pass with an average of ten engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-
Al, p.58]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA supports that EPA is maintaining similar requirements regarding vehicle recruiting
routines, test processes, and reporting requirements to those that are in place today. There are,
however, a few important issues in the proposal that the Agency should address before finalizing
the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 91]
Regarding test plans to be submitted to the Agency, it is unclear whether the manufacturer must
wait for EPA to approve the test plan before proceeding with setting up and executing the first
tests. If EPA would require that they approve the test plan before it gets underway, EPA should
specify that they will provide approval of, or specify changes to, the manufacturer's test plan
within 30 days of its submittal. It is also unclear how EPA plans to coordinate with CARB on
test plan approval to be sure to meet the 30-day response time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 91]
Also with respect to timing and scheduling, EMA recommends that EPA (and CARB) issue
annual in-use test orders earlier in the year than is the current practice. With the proposed 18-
month period within which a manufacturer must satisfy all the requirements of the test order
(from the date of plan approval), there is a significant benefit to manufacturers' ability to
complete these requirements if the test orders are issued early in the year. More specifically, a
896
-------
manufacturer has a better chance of completing the testing over a period that includes a single
winter rather than two winters if the test orders are issued sooner. Winter tests include the
complication and inconvenience of PEMS installation and support in undesirably cold weather
conditions, which can also introduce complications for PEMS performance and function. Winter
tests also run a higher risk of inclement weather disrupting travel logistics for the manufacturers'
test technicians, as well as last-minute interruptions to vehicle scheduling and completion of the
shift-day as planned. Those complications and potential planning disruptions could be avoided if
EPA and CARB issued in-use test orders by February 1st each year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 91]
Regarding the various notifications described in §1036.430(c), those also do not include clearly
stated requirements as to reporting deadlines from the actual events described. EMA
recommends that manufacturers be required to submit any of those notifications within 30 days
of the triggering event. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 92]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB comments that section 1035.405(d) states that testing must be completed within 18
months of the test plan approval, but gives no timeline for test plan submission, leading to an
undefined timeline. They suggest either adding a timeline for test plan or altering the language to
require test completion within 18 months of the administrator's direction to test an engine
family.
Both EMA and PACCAR request that rather than selecting engine families for testing by June
30, EPA instead make a selection by January. They state that the earlier selection would reduce
test burden by allowing manufacturers more opportunities for warm-weather testing rather than
the logistically more difficult cold-weather testing.
EMA comments that it is unclear whether the manufacturer needs to obtain EPA approval of a
test plan before beginning testing. They recommend EPA should specify they will respond
within 30 days. EMA and PACCAR also recommend that manufacturers be required to submit
any notifications described in §1036.430(c) within 30 days. PACCAR also recommends that
EPA remove the requirement for notification if two out of five tests fail because OEMs can pass
with an average of ten engines.
Response:
EPA agrees with the commentor that the timeline to submit the test plan to EPA is open ended.
We note, however, that the vehicle recruitment process can be challenging for an engine
manufacturer, and EPA is therefore affording additional time in the final regulation for
manufacturers to put together their test plan prior to the 18-month period that constitutes the
testing and reporting time.
EPA does not agree with the commentors' request to change the engine selection test month to
January. While EPA considered the issue raised by commenters, EPA also considered that we
897
-------
need time within the calendar year to determine which vehicles to have the manufacturer test.
EPA notes that in both cases the 18-month period would encompass both winter and summer
months and would not necessarily lead to more cold weather testing.
After consideration of comments, EPA's final requirements do not include a deadline for EPA
approval of the test plan and the manufacturer is free to start testing once the test plan has been
submitted. Once the manufacturer submits it, EPA intends to let the manufacturer know in a
timely manner if there are any concerns with the plan.
EPA agrees with the commentors that a 30-day deadline is appropriate for any notifications
required from manufacturers described in §1036.430(c), and the final 40 CFR 1036.430(c)
includes a requirement to submit any notifications with 30 days.
EPA disagrees with the commentor, and the final regulation includes the requirement to provide
the Agency with notification if only 2 out of the first 5 engines tested pass the emission
standards. Under this scenario, a notification is appropriate so that EPA is informed of the
failures as this is indicative of a potential engine family noncompliance. This notification does
not alter that the manufacturer still can test 5 additional engines, for a total of 10, to show the
engine family is in compliance as described in 40 CFR 1036.425(c).
11.4.2 MIL light illumination threshold: identifying malfunctioning vehicles in test
program
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Another area of concern with of the proposed off-cycle test procedures is the mismatch between
the applicable NOx emissions and the detection capabilities of state-of-the-art OBD systems.
Current generation OBD systems are designed and calibrated to detect degradation of emission
control systems before such degradation results in tailpipe NOx emission of 0.4 g/hp-hr as
measured on the cold/hot FTP, and RMC cycles. This limit was intentionally set higher than the
existing applicable emission standards to recognize the limits of detection capability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.47]
EPA does not propose any modification to the diagnostics emission limit, and in fact enshrines
the current emissions thresholds in its new OBD proposal. EPA is tacitly acknowledging that
current technology does not allow for the design of OBD systems with a higher detection
sensitivity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.47-48]
Today, manufacturers are protected from in-use liability for failed emissions control components
by their OBD systems. With the current emissions thresholds and OBD emissions limits, it is
very likely that the OBD system will detect a failure before the system's emissions are
significantly increased. These vehicles will be identified and repaired- and would not be tested
for compliance while an emissions failure is present. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.48]
898
-------
This protection against possible high emitters due to malfunctioning emission control systems is
lost with EPA's proposed standards. With the proposed extremely low in-use limits for NOx
emissions, manufacturers will be liable for the in-use emissions of vehicles with failed emissions
control systems which the EPA acknowledges cannot be detected by OBD systems. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.48]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
OBD is critical for ensuring in-use compliance by alerting the vehicle owner when an emissions-
related repair is needed. This leads to truck servicing, a warranty claim, additional OEM costs,
and customer inconvenience. As a result, there is a strong incentive for manufacturers to design
their emission-control systems to be durable and to manufacture accurate OBD systems that can
distinguish when the Malfunction Indicator Lamp ('MIL') must be illuminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.23]
The new Off-Cycle standards set forth in the Proposed Rule create a major shift in regulatory
strategy, because the limits are set at a small fraction of the current On-board Diagnostic
Emissions Limit (OBDEL), and are well below what is technologically achievable for increased
diagnostic sensitivity for most, if not all, fault monitors. This creates a new regulatory landscape
where the manufacturer is incentivized to reduce MIL-on thresholds below regulatory
requirements to manage the population of non-compliant vehicles in the field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.23]
OBD is a tool to detect malfunctioning trucks and is not intended to be used to reduce the
population of units within the expected distribution of wear and deterioration. There are many
factors such a technological feasibility, failure rates, emissions impacts, etc. that manufacturer
are in the best position assess to optimize the OBD systems to correctly distinguish malfunction
from normal wear at levels below the current OBDEL, helping to ensure in-use
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.24]
The figure below provides a graphical demonstration of how this new regulatory landscape could
look. The green line represents how a future technology engine could perform during off-cycle
testing, which will include considerable variability caused by the drive cycle and environmental
conditions, production variability, and variability in deterioration rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.24]
This graph illustrates a considerable slope representing the probability of setting a MIL.
Diagnostics thresholds are based on an FTP, which is a controlled test, while off-cycle operation
is more random and produces a broader spectrum of results. Also, some diagnostics may differ
from others due to safety factors, and certain diagnostics can be affected by deterioration. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.25]
There are limits to what is feasible for OBD diagnostic thresholds. For example, catalyst
efficiency monitoring is limited by NOx sensor accuracy and has limited ability to pinpoint the
cause, which leads the service technician to grapple with a complex troubleshooting tree and
costly trial-and-error service actions. If this monitor is used too aggressively, there will be too
899
-------
many false fails and too many units in the normal deterioration range showing up in service bays
where no clear service action can be identified to clear the fault. There is no new technological
breakthrough for OBD monitors that would be analogous to the technology used for the Stage 3
demonstration engine. The proposed off-cycle limits are too low for OBD to be an effective or
appropriate tool to limit the range of emissions rates expected in-use. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, pp.25-26]
Statistical analysis applied to test results from a research engine has predicted a log normal
distribution of in-use results depicted in the upper right corner of the figure. The CFT fleet
distribution is expected to take on that shape after application of new technology that will pull
the peak toward the left and, to a certain extent, move the whole distribution to the left. Some
operation missed by inactive NOx sensors would increase frequency counts to right of the peak if
the fleet were measured with PEMS. Much of the long tail of the distribution can be addressed
through OBD. However, we can expect frequency counts to remain higher than desired to the
right of the peak over a considerable range of emissions levels. This area is shown as the
'challenge area' in the figure and will involve a mix of solutions:
• Durability Improvement - There is no evidence to support the idea that manufacturers
will be better able to improve the durability of emissions control systems more
effectively when motivated by the HDIUT program than when motivated by the strong
incentives of the existing OBD regulations. Efforts to improve are continuous, but the
scale of future improvements should not be overestimated. Further, the durability of new
systems has not been proven, for example for CDA hardware and close coupled
Catalysts, so it will be difficult not to move backwards. PACCAR believes that the off-
cycle standards proposed by EMA are attainable through more modest improvements in
durability in line with what PACCAR's experience has shown to be realistic but with
significant risk in the early years when new technologies are deployed.
• New Technology - Application of improved technology will move the entire distribution
to the left, but with limits. For example the proposed off-cycle standards will require
greatly reduced transient emissions breakthroughs that are still present in test data from
the SwRI demonstration engine and will require technology beyond that which was
considered for the cost basis of the NPRM to meet option 1 standards. A technical
solution can be imagined for every situation but there is a limit to what is cost effective.
Other sections of this document go into more detail about technological limitations.
. OBD - OBD can be an effective tool when applied to the far right of the distribution.
Application of OBD too far to the left side, without other solutions, will result in too
much MIL illumination due to false detection or the misclassification of normal
deterioration as component failure. It should be left to manufacturers to set the
appropriate emission thresholds for each fault where root causes of malfunctions can be
effectively identified.
• Conformity Factor (CF) - The conformity factor accounts for the variation caused by
the drive cycle and values of 2 moving to 1.5 are implied by the NPRM. This makes a
major contribution to why the in use test results fall along a spectrum. The cycle
dependence of ultralow NOx engines is still largely unknown and remains a risk area for
manufacturers.
900
-------
• Variability Allowance (VA) - There are many variables that can affect the performance
of a Low NOx system in the real world such as Sulfur in fuel, metals in biodiesel,
differences in oil consumption, a spectrum of customer applications that leads to
variation in aging, and variation among sensors. Variation could become significantly
magnified under ultra-low NOx standards because sources of variation that are small by
today's standards might not scale down in a linear way when new technology is applied
contributing to sources of variation that are more significant relative to the
standards. [Comment also in chapter 11.6.4] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.27-29]
Off-cycle standards are set far below the level at which OBD systems are able to detect emission
control system malfunctions, which will contribute to a wider spectrum of results. Therefore,
PACCAR supports pass/fail metrics to accommodate more non-passing engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.57]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Similarly, today's OBD NOx-sensor-based capabilities are insufficiently precise to detect in-use
NOx emission as EPA is proposing, or to assess in-use emissions compliance or potential
emission-control malfunctions down at the proposed Option 1 levels. To the contrary, the current
OBD NOx-malfunction threshold is no lower than 0.40 g/bhp-hr. Tellingly, EPA is proposing to
retain, not lower, that OBD NOx malfunction threshold under the new low-NOx regulations,
implicitly recognizing that OBD NOx sensors and related emission-detection systems are not
accurate or robust enough to allow for the implementation of lower in-use OBD malfunction and
enforcement thresholds. That is very significant because the higher OBD thresholds could allow
emissions to far exceed the proposed in-use NOx standards before detecting a fault or
illuminating a MIL, which could increase manufacturers' potential in-use compliance risks,
while, at the same time, reducing the benefits of the proposed emission standards by allowing
potentially malfunctioning engines to operate without an indication of the need for emissions-
related repairs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 11 - 12]
In effect, then, EPA is proposing to maintain the NOx-related OBD in-use compliance
assessment and enforcement criteria at a level that is an order of magnitude above the proposed
applicable "3B-MAW"-based in-use NOx emission standards. The net result is that EPA is
proposing in-use low-NOx standards (based on the Option 1 requirements) that could be below
the ranges at which PEMS and OBD systems are able to accurately and consistently detect,
measure or assess compliance with the proposed in-use NOx standards. Similarly, EPA has not
assessed whether ECUs have the data-processing capacity and capabilities to implement the
proposed 3BMAW program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
Yet another factor that EPA should consider before obligating manufacturers to stricter engine
family pass/fail criteria is that manufacturers would be at much greater risk to recruit vehicles for
testing that have a component failure in progress to the point of exceeding the in-use standards,
but not yet progressed enough to have exceeded the threshold required to illuminate the OBD
MIL. This much greater risk of recruiting such a "pre-MIL" vehicle, as well as tripling the
number of standards against which compliance must be demonstrated under a broader range of
901
-------
operating conditions, should be considered when establishing the pass/fail criteria. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 87]
Today, the OBD "MIL-ON" emissions threshold requirement of 0.40 g/bhp-hr is 33% above the
in-use NOx NTE standard of 0.30 g/bhp-hr. Since emissions rates during an NTE window tend
to be lower than during the FTP, the provision that permits a manufacturer to exclude a vehicle
from testing if it has an active fault effectively avoids recruiting an engine with a fault-based
emissions exceedance into the test plan. Under the proposed Option 1 2031 MY requirements,
however, the OBD MIL-on threshold of 0.40 g/bhp-hr is more than 13 times the medium/high
bin in-use emissions standard of 0.030 g/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 87]
Under current regulations, EPA clearly intends the in-use test program to be an assessment of a
manufacturer's product conformance to applicable in-use standards when evaluated on properly
functioning, well-maintained vehicles. That intention is clear from the vehicle recruiting
practices that EPA requires under the current regulatory provisions of §86.1908, where a
manufacturer "must" select vehicle/engine systems that "have been properly maintained" and
"have not been tampered with, rebuilt, or undergone major repair." Importantly, among the
conditions a manufacturer must satisfy is that "the engines do not have an illuminated MIL or
stored OBD trouble code..From the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that EPA did not intend
for the in-use testing program to include vehicles with engines or aftertreatment systems that are
operating in a manner inconsistent with manufacturers' design intent due to, among other things,
an emissions-related component fault. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 88]
There are other provisions within the HDOH emissions regulations that serve to ensure that
manufacturers have designed adequately robust components and systems for emissions control
purposes (see emissions related warranty provisions proposed at §1036.120 and emissions defect
reporting requirements at §1068.501.) The in-use testing program is clearly intended to confirm
that manufacturers have designed and calibrated their properly-functioning products for
compliant emissions control, which is why EPA requires that manufacturers confirm that
recruited vehicles are properly maintained, without active diagnostic codes, and so on. The
proposed in-use low-NOx standards, however, would work in contravention of that fundamental
premise of excluding vehicles experiencing emissions-related component issues, simply due to
the fact that current OBD systems cannot detect faults until emission levels significantly exceed
the proposed in-use low- NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 88]
The graphics below illustrate the difference between today's situation and the significantly
expanded region of risk manufacturers would face under the proposed amendments. The area in
yellow depicts the range of emissions a vehicle may exhibit without a MIL-ON condition, but
which could produce a failing result of the in-use test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
88]
To further illustrate the undue risk a manufacturer would face, consider the hypothetical example
represented graphically below. In this example, an in-use test order has compelled testing of five
vehicles, the fourth of which is experiencing a fault condition that has resulted in a Bin 3 NOx
exceedance of 0.130g/bhp-hr (a level undetectable by the OBD system). The failure resulted in a
sixth vehicle test which, in this example, failed the 3B-MAW requirements due to a minor NOx
902
-------
failure in Bin 1 or Bin 2, or perhaps a minor exceedance of another constituent. The
manufacturer would be compelled to test four more vehicles in this case, and average each bin's
NOx emissions from all ten vehicles (see proposed §1036.245). The Bin 3 NOx results for the
ten vehicles in the example are as represented in the chart below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 88 - 89]
With the exception of a single vehicle exceeding the Bin 3 NOx limit due to a component issue,
and a second vehicle having a potentially minor exceedance in another bin or of another
constituent, the engine family in this example is exhibiting excellent emissions control.
However, because the average Bin 3 emissions exceeds the 0.030g/bhp-hr NOx limit, solely due
to the fault-driven exceedance measured on vehicle 4, the family would not meet the
requirements of the proposed family pass/fail criteria of §1036.425. Today, an exceedance of a
percentage-magnitude like that exhibited by vehicle 4 would have excluded the vehicle from the
in-use emissions assessment consistent with EPA's specific intention. That will change
dramatically. The bottom line is that the proposed provisions would subject manufacturers to an
increased risk of family-level failure, yet, at the same time, EPA is proposing even stricter family
pass/fail criteria. That is untenable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 89]
While it is true that the PEMS measurement accuracy provisions would change the arithmetic in
the example above, it would not change the basic concerns with the outcomes. Indeed, the
current 0.45g/bhp-hr measurement allowance-adjusted NTE limit is above the 0.30g/bhp-hr NTE
NOx standard, providing almost complete assurance of excluding vehicles with engines
experiencing an emissions-related fault, just as EPA intended. In contrast, EPA's proposed
PEMS NOx accuracy margin of 10% of the standard (§1036.420(a)(4)), a mere 0.003g/bhp-hr in
the case of the Bin 3 standard, would imperceptibly influence the pass/fail outcomes in the
example above. It is important to recognize that the measurement allowances are not directly
integrated into the relevant in-use standards. They are instead a means to compensate for
potential measurement error, avoiding the case where a manufacturer's compliant product is
incorrectly determined to be non-compliant simply due to weaknesses in state-of-the-art in-use
measurement systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 89]
There is, then, a very real probability that a vehicle with a faulty or somewhat deteriorated
component, a vehicle which EPA found important to exclude from in-use testing when designing
the current in-use test program, could be recruited so as to cause, almost on its own, a family
failure determination. The only question is the magnitude of that probability. The harsh reality is
we do not know, nor does the Agency know, how the introduction of a much more complex
technology package, being assessed with a new and very different in-use protocol, at extremely
stringent levels, will impact that probability. But what we do know is that it is unrealistic and
unreasonable to tighten the family pass/fail criteria in light of this significantly elevated
risk. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 90]
As noted above, the NOx emission-assessment capabilities of current OBD systems and sensors
could frustrate the implementation of EPA's proposed in-use low-NOx standards. Simply stated,
current OBD systems and sensors are not capable of detecting and flagging emission
exceedances at the proposed low-NOx levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 93]
903
-------
Additional OBD issues also arise under the proposed regulations. EPA has rightly acknowledged
that the multiple HD OBD requirements amount to real constraints on lowering emission
standards, and that revising the current HD OBD requirements and monitoring thresholds as they
would scale-down to the proposed low-NOx standards (i.e., at 2.0 x 0.020 g/bhp-hr) would
further hinder the implementation of the technologies and multiple aftertreatment components
necessary to achieving the types of low-NOx targets that EPA seeks to mandate. To mitigate that
effect, EPA is proposing to leave the OBD thresholds where they are. (See 87 FR at p.
17527.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 93 - 94]
However, it still is not clear at what level of emissions impact a component will need to be
measured by OBD systems to determine whether or not it has a meaningful impact on emissions.
While that criteria is currently not measured directly against the emissions standard (e.g., a % of
the NOx standard) it is often used as an informal metric of emissions impacts from a component
failure. With the new proposed Option 1 NOx standards set to 0.020g/bhp-hr, a component
failure that could have been considered to have no significant impact on emissions might now be
considered significant if it approaches the level of the NOx standard. That could cause the new
regulations to have a significant impact on OBD development costs and feasibility, even though
EPA intends to keep the HD OBD standards as they are. This is yet another factor that shows the
impracticality and infeasibility of the Option 1 requirements. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 94]
Even with respect to Option 2, it is very important for EPA to consider fully all of the impacts
that the Low-NOx regulations will have on the myriad HD OBD requirements, and all of the
necessary OBD revisions that should be included in the relevant OBD regulations. That
necessary consideration will help to promote the implementation of revised HD OBD regulations
in the future that do not frustrate the implementation of the Low-NOx Regulations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 94]
As noted, EPA has tried to account for the technical infeasibility of scaling-down the OBD
thresholds in a similar manner to the proposed reduced emission standards by maintaining the
OBD thresholds at their current levels — e.g. 2x the existing NOx standard, and an additive
0.020 g/bhp-hr to their existing PM standard, for final OBD thresholds of 0.40 g/bhp-hr for NOx;
and 0.030 g/bhp-hr for PM. However, the current in-use emissions standards also are tied to the
certification-cycle emissions standards — e.g. 1.5 x the FTP NOx-threshold is the current
NTE/In- Use emissions testing threshold. Today, that approach for correlating test-cell standards
to in-use testing standards leads to an in-use NTE standard of 0.30 g/bhp-hr NTE NOx, with a
0.15g/bhp-hr additive measurement allowance, for an aggregate in-use NOx limit of 0.45 g/bhp-
hr. The corresponding result, with respect to today's standards, is an effective OBD NOx
threshold of 0.40 g/bhp-hr, at which failed components must be detected and diagnosed. That
currently leaves a small gap (0.05 g/bhp-hr) between the two emission values, where a
component is required to be diagnosed, before a vehicle equipped with such a component could
fail the PEMS-assessed in-use NTE standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 94]
Under the proposed new low-NOx standards, however, the in-use NOx standard would be
lowered substantially, to 1.5x an Option 1 standard of 0.020 g/bhp-hr, with a corresponding OBD
NOx threshold (if not adjusted) of 0.040 to 0.100 g/bhp/hr. The in-use PM standards would be
904
-------
similarly reduced. EPA acknowledges that it is impossible to diagnose emission thresholds at
those values, and therefore would not require it for OBD at this juncture, but nonetheless is
leaving the issue open for a potential tightening of the OBD thresholds through a follow-on OBD
rulemaking. It is unrealistic to expect that OBD systems, strategies and calibration schemes will
advance to the extent that EPA's proposed low-NOx standards might necessitate. If a
manufacturer cannot diagnose an emissions-control system at such a lowNOx level, then
guaranteeing emissions performance at such low levels is inherently infeasible. EPA must take
this into account fully before finalizing any new in-use emission standards. In that regard, EPA
also should respect its own longstanding position that manufacturers should not be required to
implement technologies that they cannot diagnose. Option 1 is clearly untenable in this regard.
The Option 2 standards will still need to be adjusted upward to account for these issues. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 94 - 95]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Daimler, PACCAR, and EMA comment that increasing the stringency of in-use standards will
create a gap between the detection capabilities of OBD systems have and the in-use testing
thresholds. They state that this affects in-use testing because, with the current in-use testing
thresholds, it is likely that the OBD system would identify systems with incipient failure so these
systems can be screened out before being tested. With the new lower in-use testing thresholds,
there could be vehicles with failed emissions systems where emissions exceed in-use testing
standards, but do not trigger the OBD diagnostic threshold.
PACCAR further comments that it is infeasible to lower the OBD diagnostic thresholds to a
range which would be effective in screening out these faulty systems. They also state that the
discrepancy between in-use testing standards and the OBD diagnostic threshold indicates that
pass/fail metrics should accommodate more non-passing engines.
Response:
EPA disagrees with commenters that off-cycle standards or in-use testing should be adjusted
because of the gap between OBD sensing capabilities and the off-cycle standards. EPA would
like to point out that the current NTE standards were put in place well before the existence of
OBD requirements for HD highway engines. The capability of emissions control diagnostics
(which the statute left to the Administration's discretion to promulgate regulations for HD)
should not dictate the stringency of the emission standards set under 202(a)(3). It is up to the
manufacturer to devise a way to ensure that the engine and aftertreatment are functioning
properly when verifying in-use compliance with the off-cycle standards.
11.4.3 Language clarifications
905
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff has concerns with the addition of 1036.405(a)(3) because the language seems to
conflict or contradict with 1036.405(c). In subsection (a)(3), the language states engine families
with production volumes less than 100 would not be selected for testing. In subsection (c), it
states any engine family regardless of sales volume may be selected for testing. CARB staff
believes the current language already helps manufacturers when they have difficulty obtaining
test engines of small families. In the history of the HDIUT program, CARB and U.S. EPA have
never selected an engine family with a production volume of 100 or less. Thus, CARB staff does
not understand why U.S. EPA is proposing this change and recommends keeping the current
production volume provisions. Also, it is important that U.S. EPA has the ability to conduct in-
use testing of all engines, so the regulatory language should make that clear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.63]
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposal to remove the sentence in 1036.405(b): We will
consult with you in reaching a conclusion whether clear evidence of a nonconformity exists for
any engine family. If U.S. EPA has clear evidence of nonconformity as described in this
subsection, then there is no need to consult with the manufacturers in selecting the particular
engine family for in-use testing. Consulting with the manufacturer on engine families with clear
non-compliance is not necessary and only serves to delay timely corrective action. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.63]
CARB staff has concerns with the consistency of the applicability of 40 CFR part 86, subpart T.
In 1036.601(b)(4), subpart T will continue to apply for 2026 and later model year engines.
However, in 1036.401, subpart T will continue to apply for year 2026 and earlier engines. CARB
staff suggests having the two sections being consistent where the 40 CFR part 86, subpart T
would apply to 2026 and previous model year engines, and the requirements in 1036.401 apply
for 2027 and later model year engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.65]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA describes the proposed pass/fail criteria for an individual test article in §1036.420. The
engine passes the requirements if the bin emissions result is equal to or less than the relevant bin
standard for each constituent after accounting for the relevant measurement allowances. EMA
recommends that EPA describe the sum of the in-use standards and their relevant measurement
allowances as in-use "thresholds," to avoid confusion with the in-use standards. This would be
consistent with the current practice related to NTE in-use standards and thresholds as described
in §86.1912. The proposed §1036.420(c) refers to "windows" and "valid windows"
interchangeably, without defining what characteristics provide for a valid window. Also
§1036.420(d) provides that, "having no valid bins for a bin category over a shift-day does not
disqualify an engine from pass-fail determinations under this paragraph (d)." It is unclear what
EPA's intention is with provision. It is unclear what a "bin category" is, or what it means to
"disqualify a vehicle from pass-fail determination under this paragraph (d)", where the cross-
reference to paragraph (d) is unclear. EMA needs to have the opportunity to understand the
906
-------
intention behind this provision before we can comment further. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 93]
Overall, the various requirements that EPA has proposed regarding manufacturers' interaction
with EPA in completing an in-use test order are reasonable and well stated. That said, the
foregoing recommendations need to be implemented in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 93]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB has three separate comments:
1. They state that §1036.405(a)(3) seems to conflict with §1036.405(c), where one section
states that engine families with production volumes less than 100 would not be selected
for testing, and the other states any engine family regardless of sales volume may be
selected for testing. CARB recommends keeping the current production volume
provisions.
2. They support EPA's proposal to remove the sentence in §1036.405(b): 'We will consult
with you in reaching a conclusion whether clear evidence of a nonconformity exists for
any engine family.' CARB states that there is no need to consult with the manufacturers
if evidence of non-conformity exists, and such consultation only serves to delay
corrective action.
3. CARB notes that there appears to be an inconsistency between §1036.601(b)(4) and
1036.401, where the former states that part 86, subpart T will continue to apply for 2026
and later model year engines and the latter states that subpart T will continue to apply for
year 2026 and earlier engines. CARB recommends that subpart T apply to 2026 and
previous model year engines, and the requirements in §1036.401 apply for 2027 and later
model year engines.
EM A has three comments:
1. To avoid confusion, they recommend the use of the term "threshold" rather than
"standard" when referring to the sum of the in-use standards and their relevant
measurement allowances.
2. They comment that the term "valid windows" is used without definition.
3. They comment that the statement in §1036.420(d) that, "having no valid bins for a bin
category over a shift day does not disqualify an engine from pass-fail determinations
under this paragraph (d)" is unclear, as "bin category" is undefined, and the reference to
"paragraph (d)" is unclear.
Response:
EPA agrees with the commentor that proposed 40 CFR 1036.405(a)(3) appears to conflict with
proposed 40 CFR 1036.405(c). EPA's intent in proposed 1036.405 was to exclude from
selection engine families from a given model year if the manufacturer's total U.S.- directed
production volume was less than 100 engines. We based the drafting of the proposed 40 CFR
1036.405 on 40 CFR 86.1905, which did not include the 100-engine production volume
907
-------
exemption. When we added the exemption into 40 CFR 1036.405(a)(3), we wrongly assumed
that the engine family selection limit in 40 CFR 1036.405(c) would also cover the production
volume limit in 40 CR 1036.405(a)(3). This was an oversight and to correct the mistake, we have
modified the final 40 CFR 1036.405(c) from the proposed text to read as follows: "We may
select any individual engine family for testing, regardless of its production volume except as
described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, as long as we do not select more than the number
of engine families described in paragraph (a) of this section. We may select an engine family
from model year 2027 or any later model year." We believe this exclusion is appropriate due to
the additional burden associated with manufacturers trying to locate vehicles to test for engines
with extremely low production volume.
EPA thanks the commentor for their comment regarding 40 CFR 1036.405(b).
EPA agrees that we should clarify in 40 CFR 1036.601(b)(4) how manufacturers transition to
meeting the in-use testing requirements under 40 CFR 1036.401. EPA's intent in the proposed
part 86 migration to part 1036 regarding part 86, subpart T, was that part 86, subpart T, would
apply to model year 2026 and previous engines, unless a manufacturer chose to meet the exhaust
emission standards under 40 CFR part 1036 before model year 2027. In addition, the intent was
that part 86, subpart T, would no longer apply beginning with model year 2027 engines, unless a
manufacturer chose to certify engines through model year 2029 to the part 86 criteria standards
under the limited production allowance. We have modified the final 40 CFR 1036.601(b)(4) to
make it clear that part 86, subpart T, applies for engines subject to criteria exhaust emission
standards under 40 CFR part 86. The requirements in 40 CFR 1036.401 apply for all engines
certified to meet the criteria exhaust emission standards under 40 CFR part 1036.
EPA disagrees with the commentors suggestion that "standard" should be replaced with
"threshold" when talking about the in-use off-cycle standard plus any relative accuracy margin to
account for in-use testing variability. The in-use off-cycle standard that must be met under the
HDIUT program is the in-use off-cycle standard from 1036.104 plus the PEMS accuracy margin
from 40 CFR 1036.420.
EPA agrees that there is arguably inconsistency in the proposed requirements' use of "valid"
when it applies to windows as for all intents and purpose, all windows are "valid". Only data
that is excluded from a window because it meets the exclusion criteria in 40 CFR 1036.530(c)(3)
is really "invalid". Since part 1036 never talks about invalid windows, we will delete all
occurrence of "valid windows" and replace with "windows".
The commentor requested clarification on the intent of proposed 40 CFR 1036.420(d). The
intent of the last sentence was to state that a pass/fail is still determined for the engine, even if all
of the bins are not valid because one or more of the bins does not contain enough windows. We
note, however that 40 CFR 1036.420(d) requires you to test over additional shift days until the
minimum number of windows is achieved for all bins. The last sentence in 40 CFR 1036.420(d)
that the commentor requested clarification on serves no purpose because you will always test
until you obtain the minimum number of windows for all bins. We have deleted the last sentence
in 40 CFR 1036.420(d) (now 40 CFR 1036.420(e) with revisions from proposal to the section).
908
-------
11.4.4 Other comments on selecting engines and vehicles.
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck Requests Clarification on the Proposed Changes to 40 C.F.R. 1036.235(a)
Concerning Demonstration Engine Selection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.70]
EPA proposes to modify Section 1036.235(a) to merge the regulatory requirements for selecting
test engines for criteria pollutant and GHG emission testing into one section. EPA's proposed
modifications would require manufacturers to 'select and configure a single emission data engine
from each engine family.'91 For criteria pollutant emission testing, Section 1036.235(a)(1)
would require manufacturers to select the engine configuration most likely to exceed (or have
emissions nearer to) an applicable emission standard for FEL identified in Section
1036.205(e)(1).92 For GHG emission testing, Section 1036.235(a)(1) would provide that the
standards of Part 1036 apply with respect to emissions measured from 'this tested
configuration.'93 Read together, these proposed changes to Section 1036.235(a) would require
that manufacturers use a single engine—and specifically, the worst case engine for applicable
criteria pollutant emission standards—for both criteria pollutant and GHG emission
testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.70]
91 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,680 (proposed 40 C.F.R. 1036.235(a)).
92 Id. (proposed 40 C.F.R. 1036.235(a)(1)).
93 Id. (proposed 40 C.F.R. 1036.235(a)(2)).
Such a requirement would change how most manufacturers select demonstration engines, as we
interpret current regulations to accommodate the use of engines with different ratings and
configurations for testing under the criteria pollutant and GHG emission standards.94 Under the
proposal, if the engine selected for criteria pollutant testing must also be used for GHG testing,
manufacturers may end up having to test a significantly worse-performing engine for their C02
demonstrations, which would effectively increase C02 stringency. If, for example, the 'worst-
case' engine for criteria pollutant emission testing is a manufacturer's lowest-horsepower engine,
the manufacturer would be required to demonstrate that engine for GHG testing. If this engine
has higher C02 emissions than an engine from the same family that would otherwise be selected
for GHG demonstration under the current program (for example, as a function of reduced cycle
work), the manufacturer would have to declare a higher FEL for the relevant engine family. We
request clarification that this is not the intent of the proposed changes—or, if this is the intent,
we request that EPA explain why it believes that this that these proposed changes are warranted
and how they factored in to EPA's determination that the proposed new standards, as a whole,
are achievable. Assuming that the change described above was not intentional, Daimler Truck
submits that the proposed modifications to Section 1036.235(a) could be changed slightly, to
read as follows:
909
-------
(a) Select and configure a single emission-data engine from each engine family for both criteria
pollutant emission testing and greenhouse gas emission testing, as described in this subsection.
(1) For criteria pollutant emission testing, select the engine configuration most likely to exceed
(or have emissions nearer to) an applicable emission standard or FEL identified in
1036.205(1)(1). To the extent we allow it for establishing deterioration factors, select for testing
those engine components or subsystems whose deterioration represents the deterioration of in-
use engines.
(2) For greenhouse gas emission testing, select an engine configuration for demonstration. Tthe
standards of this part apply only with respect to emissions measured from this the testinged
configuration that you select and other configurations identified in 1036.205(1)(2). Note that
configurations identified in 1036.205(1)(2) are considered to be 'tested configurations' whether
or not you test them for certification. However, you must apply the same (or equivalent)
emission controls to all other engine configurations in the engine family. In other contexts, the
tested configuration is sometimes referred to as the 'parent configuration', although the terms are
not synonymous. This configuration may be, but is not required to be, the same configuration
identified in 1036.235(a)(1). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.70-71]
94 As EPA explains in the Proposed Rule, '[i]n general,' the migration of criteria
pollutant regulations for MY 2027 and later engines from their current location in Part 86
to Part 1036 'is not intended to change the compliance
program previously specified in part 86, except as specifically proposed in this
rulemaking.' Id. at 17,426
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed section 1036.410(c) would require the manufacturer to notify EPA 'before
disqualifying any vehicle.' PACCAR seeks clarification that this proposal is a reporting
requirement, as opposed to a statement that the disqualification is contingent on EPA
approval. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.55]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA recommends that EPA permit manufacturers to install an "activity monitor," a physical
device, on a test-candidate vehicle, where the device is capable of collecting data that determines
bin-counts in each bin for that vehicle, and any additional information that would be helpful to
the vehicle-recruiting process. The device could be prohibited from collecting any emissions
data. Such an activity-assessment tool will improve a manufacturer's chances of recruiting
vehicles that will successfully meet the bin-count requirements without multiple days of testing.
EMA is available to help develop the complete list of acceptable activity-based
parameters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 91]
In proposed §1036.415(b)(1), EPA maintains the options to deal with a vehicle that has an
illuminated OBD MIL or stored trouble code. Those options are fully appropriate because, as
stated in the previous section, EPA's intention with the manufacturer-run in-use test program is
910
-------
to assess emissions compliance on vehicles with "healthy" emissions control systems, operating
according to manufacturers' design intent. However, EPA stipulates that, "You may disqualify
the vehicle only if MIL illumination or trouble code storage exceeds 12 hours." There is no
reasonable justification for this minimum 12-hour constraint to be a condition for excluding such
a vehicle from testing. If the OBD system has identified a component or system issue for which
the manufacturer is compelled (by EPA's OBD regulations) to illuminate the MIL, why is the
duration of the MIL illumination, or the time since a trouble code was stored, a material issue at
all? A fault is a fault, regardless of whether it was identified one hour ago or 12 days ago. The
emissions control system should be deemed as being in a compromised condition, so it should be
disqualified from testing. Accordingly, EPA should not include the sentence regarding the 12-
hour minimum condition in the final regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 92]
EMA also recommends that a manufacturer be permitted to test a vehicle for more than a single
test-day, even if all the requirements for a valid test are fulfilled at the end of the first test-day.
Vehicle emissions can vary from one day to the next, subject to influences of ambient conditions,
traffic conditions and, most especially, vehicle operation. With this degree of variability, it is
conceivable that, on a given (first) test-day, a vehicle could have operated at the high end of its
variable emissions performance. Supplementing the data with additional test-days could provide
a more comprehensive view, a more representative picture of the vehicle's overall on-road
emissions performance. For this reason, EMA recommends that manufacturers be permitted to
conduct additional testing if the manufacturer elects to do so. Today, there is a similar provision
in §86.1910(h), where EPA permits that, "You have the option to test longer than the two shift-
day period described in paragraph (g) of this section." In a similar spirit, EMA recommends that
proposed §1036.415 be revised to include a provision that additional test-days will be
permissible at the manufacturer's discretion, whether the vehicle has passed or failed the in-use
requirement at the end of any test-day. All additional data accumulated would be combined with,
rather than replacing, earlier test-days' data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 92]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Daimler requests clarification on the process of merging the regulatory requirements for
selecting test engines for criteria pollutant and GHG emission testing. They state that the process
described appears to require the same engine be tested for both the criteria pollutant and GHG
emission standards, which would effectively increase CO2 stringency compared to the current
process.
PACCAR requests clarification on whether the requirement that the manufacturer notify EPA
'before disqualifying any vehicle' is a reporting requirement, as opposed to a statement that the
disqualification is contingent on EPA approval.
In their comments, EMA provided three recommendations:
1. EMA recommends manufacturers be permitted to install an "activity monitor" on
candidate HDUIT vehicles to determine bin counts, and thus improve the chances of
recruiting vehicles that will successfully meet the bin-count requirements without
multiple days of testing.
911
-------
2. EMA recommends that manufacturers be permitted to test a vehicle for more than a
single test-day, even if all the requirements for a valid test are fulfilled at the end of the
first test-day, to provide a more comprehensive view of vehicle performance if the first
shift day has emissions on the high end of the variability range.
3. EMA recommends removing the condition that vehicles with Mil, illumination can be
disqualified only if MIL illumination or trouble code storage exceeds 12 hours.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the request for clarification from Daimler regarding the apparent proposed
requirement to select and configure a single emission data engine from each engine family for
criteria and GHG emission testing. It was not EPA's intent to require the same emission data
engine for both criteria and GHG testing. We have modified the final 40 CFR 1036.235 from
proposal to make it clear that the manufacturer can use separate emission data engines for testing
criteria and GHG emissions.
EPA acknowledges the requests for clarification from PACCAR regarding proposed 40 CFR
1036.410(c), specifically whether the requirement that the manufacturer notify EPA 'before
disqualifying any vehicle' is a reporting requirement, as opposed to a statement that the
disqualification is contingent on EPA approval. As proposed, the final 40 CFR 1036.410(c)
requirement is a reporting requirement. If EPA has any concerns with the disqualification of the
vehicle, we intend to follow-up with the manufacturer.
EPA disagrees with EMA's recommendation to allow the installation of an activity monitor. This
would allow manufacturers to sort through the duration and relative position of each operational
mode and identify vehicles with the highest probability of maintaining aftertreatment
temperatures over the shift day. Furthermore, EPA also disagrees with EMA's recommendation
that manufacturers be permitted to test a vehicle for more than a single test-day, even if all the
requirements for a valid test are fulfilled at the end of the first test-day. Adopting this
recommendation would likely dilute the stringency of the rule, as manufacturers would be most
likely to extend testing on those vehicles which have failed the first day's testing.
EPA agrees with EMA's recommendation to remove the condition from 40 CFR 1036.415(b)(1)
that vehicles require a MIL illumination or trouble code storage of longer than 12 hours.
Manufacturers may disqualify a vehicle for a MIL illumination of any time frame.
11.5 HDIUT (Preamble III.C.5.ii)
11.5.1 Elimination of Phase 1 testing
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comments on elements of the Heavy Duty in-use testing program. CARB
staff supports the proposed changes to the HDIUT program of removing the HDIUT Phase 2
912
-------
testing requirements in 40 CFR 86.1915 and the biodiesel fuel blend provisions in 40 CFR
86.1908(a)(6). These elements were also removed for 2024 and newer model year engines in the
Omnibus regulation. 128 [also in 11.2.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.60]
128 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
The removal of Phase 2 testing would decrease the time to initiate corrective action for
discovered non-compliance under the proposed HDIUT Phase 1 testing. The emission averaging
of Phase 1 test engine bin emissions provides manufacturers an additional safeguard that
eliminates the need for performing Phase 2 testing for confirming engine family non-
compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.60]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
EPA did not thoroughly evaluate the feasibility of the proposed rule with respect to its proposal
for a new method for "binning" and evaluating in-use NOx emissions. The method uses a
second-by-second moving-average window approach, with 300-second windows for collecting
in-use NOx emissions, and a so-called 3-bin approach for evaluating in-use emissions based on
average normalized C02 rates (the "3B-MAW" protocol). The 3 bins are Bin 1 (Idle), Bin 2
(Low Power), and Bin 3 (Medium/High Power). As explained in EMA's comments, currently, if
a manufacturer "fails" what is referred to as the "Phase 1" in-use testing of up to ten vehicles,
then "Phase 2" testing is triggered, which can lead to a number of follow-up measures, but which
does not automatically lead to engine recalls. The existing in-use testing requirements would
change dramatically under the proposed rule. Under EPA's 3B-MAW proposal, "Phase 2"
testing would be eliminated, and compliance would be assessed on the basis of the in-use test
results from up to ten engines, which would likely lead to recall orders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1318-A1, p. 4]
As a result, EPA's new 3B-MAW in-use compliance protocols effectively become the new
emissions standards. This approach is unworkable. It underscores the need for EPA to include
adequate compliance margins in the applicable NOx certification standards. It also demonstrates
the infeasibility of the 3B-MAW standards under an Option 1 scenario, in which the in-use
standards are equivalent to the emissions-detection capabilities of portable emissions-
measurement systems ("PEMS"), and an order-of-magnitude below the malfunction-detection
capabilities of the latest on-board diagnostic ("OBD") sensors and systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The ramifications of the infeasible elements of the proposed off-cycle standards are further
heightened due to the fact that the Agency is proposing to convert the in-use testing program into
a de facto strict liability protocol. Currently, if a manufacturer "fails" what is referred to as
the "Phase 1" in-use testing of up to ten vehicles, then "Phase 2" testing is triggered, which can
lead to a number of follow-up measures, but which does not automatically lead to engine recalls.
That would change dramatically under the NPRM. More specifically, under the Agency's 3B-
MAW proposal, "Phase 2" testing would be eliminated in its entirety, and compliance would be
913
-------
assessed solely on the basis of the in-use test results from up to ten engines. In other words,
recall orders seemingly would follow automatically from what before would have been only the
"Phase 1" testing. The Agency's truncation and conversion of the in-use testing protocols into a
strict liability program augments the risks and costs of implementing what already are infeasible
Option 1 standards, and likewise substantially augments the need for the robust compliance
margins referenced above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 10-11]
The new in-use 3B-MAW protocol and its related standards are integral components of the
efficacy of the proposed low-NOx regulations. Consequently, that in-use methodology needs to
be thoroughly evaluated to demonstrate its suitability and feasibility as a robust and effective in-
use emissions-performance metric. The need to ensure a fully feasible 3B-MAW in-use
compliance program is compounded by EPA's proposal to convert that program into one that
leads, in effect, to strict liability and automatic recalls. Heretofore, there have been two phases of
in-use testing. If an engine family does not meet the passing requirements of "Phase 1," then,
following discussions with the OEM, "Phase 2" testing of 10 additional vehicles could be
required to assess potential problems with emission controls. Even after that Phase 2 testing,
however, engine recalls would not be automatic. By contrast, under the pending 3B-MAW
proposal, all Phase 2 testing would be eliminated, and the need for engine recalls would be
premised on strict compliance (or not) with the Phase 1 "pass" metrics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 48]
That is a fundamental change in the rigor and consequences of in-use testing. Those
consequences are further compounded by the fact that the in-use program, as proposed, will not
merely assess real-world compliance with the underlying certification standards. Rather, and as
noted above, EPA's new proposed in-use emission requirements would be, in effect, more
stringent than the new certification standards, and would require additional aftertreatment
hardware and additional engine development. (See 87 FR at p. 17475.) In sum, EPA is changing
the paradigm of the HDIUT program, and is doing so in the context of Option 1 standards that
are not achievable. The resultant recall risks and costs to OEMs will not allow for an
implementable program if the Option 1 standards are finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 48]
EPA has proposed other procedural changes to the HDIUT program that are just as significant
and problematic as the proposed numerical in-use standards. Those procedural changes will need
to be revised in order to allow for an implementable in-use testing program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 85] As noted above, EPA is proposing to eliminate "Phase 2" in-use
testing, and to convert the "Phase 1" testing into what amounts to a strict liability program.
Given the multiple uncertainties associated with the new proposed in-use testing protocols, that
is not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 85]
Under the proposed re-write of the HDIUT program, "failures" of the current "Phase 1" HDIUT
procedures (where 5 out of 5, 5 out of 6, or 8 out of 10 vehicles need to "pass" the in-use
compliance metrics) would be sufficient on their own to support a finding of "non-comformity"
or "noncompliance," and thus, presumably, sufficient for EPA to compel an HDOH engine
family recall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 85]
914
-------
EPA's proposed amendment of the HDIUT program would impose unreasonable risks of recall
liability on manufacturers. The HDIUT program (codified at 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart T,
§§86.1901-86.1935) is a program that resulted from a negotiated settlement of litigation that
EMA filed in 2001 challenging EPA's authority to require that manufacturers test previously-
sold nonnew vehicles no longer in the manufacturers' possession and control. (See 70 FR at
34597.) As a result of a duly approved settlement agreement between CARB, EPA, EMA and
manufacturers (which settlement was subject to a thorough public notice and comment process),
the parties developed and specified the terms of the HDIUT program. (Id., n.2.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 85 - 86]
As negotiated and agreed, the current NTE-based HDIUT program does not compel recall or
other noncompliance liability solely on the basis of an engine family failing to meet the engine
family "pass" critieria (where 5 out of 5, 5 out of 6, or 8 out of 10 in-use vehicles pass) as tested
under "Phase 1" of the program. Instead, under the current negotiated regulations, EPA enters
into further discussions with the manufacturers regarding the extent of any appropriate follow-up
steps, which steps can include no further testing, additional targeted "Phase 2" testing,
engineering studies, or, if deemed necessary, targeted remedial actions. The core concept is that
any initial "failure" of Phase 1 testing is simply a trigger for further discussions and assessments,
not a trigger for strict noncompliance liability. (See 70 FR at pp. 34595-96, 34598 and
34601.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 86]
In light of the foregoing, EPA's proposed establishment of a de facto strict-liability HDIUT
program — with automatic recall liability for any "failed" Phase 1 testing — is contrary to the
foundational agreements and terms that created the HDIUT program. EPA should not alter the
current HDIUT testing and flexible enforcement scheme. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 86]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB supports removing the HDIUT Phase 2 testing requirements, stating that the removal
would decrease the time to initiate potential corrective action, and that the emission averaging
contained in Phase 1 provides manufacturers an additional safeguard that eliminates the need for
performing Phase 2 testing.
EMA commented that EPA's new proposed in-use emission requirements would be, in effect,
more stringent than the new certification standards, and would require additional aftertreatment
hardware and additional engine development.
EMA and Navistar comment that the elimination of Phase 2 testing would likely lead to more
recalls. EMA further comments that the removal of Phase 2 testing will automatically trigger a
recall in the case of a failure in Phase 1 testing, rather than triggering further discussions and
assessments. EMA stated that recall orders seemingly would follow automatically from what
before would have been only the "Phase 1" testing. EMA stated that the Agency's truncation and
conversion of the in-use testing protocols into a strict liability program augments the risks and
costs of implementing what already are infeasible Option 1 standards, and likewise substantially
915
-------
augments the need for the robust compliance margins referenced above. EMA and Navistar state
that the risk of failure is further compounded by the in-use emission requirements, which are
effectively more stringent than the certification standards, and would require additional
aftertreatment hardware and additional engine development.
Response:
EPA agrees with CARB that the emission averaging provided for in the Phase 1 testing
adequately safeguards manufacturers, and that reducing time to initiate a corrective action likely
has positive environmental impacts. Moreover, the HDUIT process proposed would not lead to
an "automatic recall," as stated by other commenters, but as in the current process, would instead
trigger further discussions between the manufacturer and EPA on the subsequent steps, as
described in Section III.C.5.ii of the preamble. EPA has no intention of altering the process after
an engine family fails from that currently followed for the NTE-based HDIUT program. Under
the binned MAW test procedure that EPA is finalizing in this action, an engine family failing to
meet the engine family "pass" criteria outlined in 40 CFR 1036.425 does not trigger an
"automatic recall." EPA intends to continue the current process where we enter into further
discussion with the manufacturer regarding the extent of any appropriate follow-up steps. While
this can include further testing, engineering studies, or, if deemed necessary, targeted remedial
actions; it will not include another "Phase" of testing under the HDIUT program. Thus any
"failure" under 40 CFR 1036.425 is a trigger for further discussions and assessments, not a
trigger for strict noncompliance liability.
EPA disagrees with EMA that the final in-use off-cycle standards would be, in effect, more
stringent than the new certification standards. We acknowledge that complying with off-cycle
standards is more challenging than meeting duty-cycle standards as there is more operational
coverage off-cycle. We have taken this into account when setting the stringency of the off-cycle
standards, including the conformity factor that was applied to the duty-cycle standards to arrive
at the off-cycle standards. We have also included a PEMS accuracy margin on top of the off-
cycle standards to account for the variability of field testing. Off-cycle standard field testing
includes low ambient temperature operation which will require low temperature calibration, but
as described in preamble Section III.C the numeric level of the off-cycle NOx standards increase
at lower temperatures based on EPA's consideration of the higher emissions performance of the
EPA Stage 3 engine under low ambient temperature. As further discussed in Section III of the
preamble, we have included an interim in-use compliance allowance for Medium and Heavy
HDEs to account for additional in-use uncertainties from these engines at the final useful life
values. For further discussion of feasibility and the considerations EPA took into account in
setting the standards, see preamble Section III.
11.5.2 Pass criteria for engine families
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff has concerns with the engine family compliance determination based only on the
case of average of the sum-over-sum emissions of the ten tests. There could be cases where three
916
-------
or more tests fail for the same pollutant and same bin. Consistent deficiency for the same
pollutant and bin is indicative of a defective emission control component causing non-
compliance. CARB staff suggests adding language similar to what was adopted in the Omnibus
regulation. An engine family is deemed to be noncompliant if the Phase 1 sum-over-sum
emissions of the same pollutant and same bin exceed the off-cycle standards for three or more
tests.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.64]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Pass/Fail Determination - Under the current HDIUT program, if the MIL lamp is not
illuminated then a passing HDIUT test result is almost guaranteed because the OBD emissions
limit is similar to the in-use emissions limit, which allows the bar to be set relatively high to pass
a test program. Beginning in MY 2027, EPA is proposing the same pass/fail thresholds of 5 out
of 5 tests, 5 out of 6, and new for MY 2027 the program can be passed with the average of 10
test (for all bins and for all pollutants). This approach is flawed because the off-cycle standard is
set far below the capability of OBD systems and within the range of expected in-use variation.
PACCAR believes that this should be recognized with Pass/Fail metrics that accommodate more
non-passing engines. Metrics of 4 out of 5, 5 out of 7, or the average of 7 or more would be more
appropriate. The manufacturer should be allowed to test more than 7, and after some number of
engines it would be appropriate to begin a discussion with EPA about the reason for the extended
testing. Otherwise, these HDIUT tests are generally quite disruptive to OEM customers'
businesses. This disruption drives the need for earlier consideration of the average emissions
results after testing 7 engines. Testing a greater number of engines the non-normal distribution
should be considered. While we could have an outlier on the high side we can never have an
outlier on the low side by any significant margin (since negative emissions are not possible). A
single outlier on the right side of the spectrum could be difficult to overcome through averaging
and drive the need to test more engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.29]
The NPRM does not adequately describe the consequences of a non-passing outcome from initial
testing. EPA should include a provision for a consultation with the EPA if the pass/fail metrics
are not being met to reach a common understanding of the issue and to agree on further actions
to investigate the root cause before determining that the engine family fails to meet in-use
standards. If the engine family fails to meet in-use standards, there should be an interim
provision allowing the manufacturer to cover the non-compliance with credits to allow time for
manufacturers to gain experience with the statistical nature of the distribution of in-use emissions
rates for new technologies and a new in-use protocol. There should also be certain permanent
alternatives to recall for bringing an engine family into compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, pp.29-30]
PACCAR further encourages the EPA adopt: Pass ratio:
• 4 out of 5
• 5 out of 7
• Or average of 7 or more
• Need provision to allow consultation with EPA if Pass Ratio is not being met
917
-------
• An interim provision that allows HDIUT non-compliance to be covered with NOx
credits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.31]
EPA's proposed engine family pass criteria framework should be amended and focus more on
averaging. Specifically, the initial criterion should require that at least four of the five tested
engines pass; if not, at least five of the seven tested engines should be required to pass. EPA
should allow (i) OEMs to take the average in each bin for each pollutant, reducing from 10 to
seven the number of engines used to determine the test result and (ii) if the average of seven is
above the standard that the manufacturer may elect to test more engines as such a reduction in
engine number would decrease burdens on the OEM. Off-cycle standards are set far below the
level at which OBD systems are able to detect emission control system malfunctions, which will
contribute to a wider spectrum of results. Therefore, PACCAR supports pass/fail metrics to
accommodate more non-passing engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.57]
Pass ratio:
• 4 out of 5
• 5 out of 7
• Or average of 7 or more
• Add provision to allow consultation with EPA if pass ratio is not being met
• Add an interim provision that allows HDIUT non-compliance to be covered with NOx
credits [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.60]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA proposes to establish two-stage NOx emissions standards for HHDE engines, where the
second, higher standard is applicable to the later portion of useful life. These two-stage standards
would apply to in-use emissions requirements as well. EPA's engine family pass/fail criteria
under proposed §1036.425 involves, under certain conditions, averaging bin emissions from
multiple vehicles. Those provisions, however, do not contemplate the possibility that some
vehicles included in the test group may have mileages associated with the first-stage NOx
standard, while others may have accrued mileages triggering the second-stage. As the two stages
have distinct standards, it would not be appropriate to average their emissions as though they
were compliant to a single unform standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 86]
EMA recommends that the provisions of §1036.425 be finalized to state that late-stage vehicles
should have their emissions results reduced by multiplying them by the ratio of the first-stage
standards to the second-stage standards before being averaged with the vehicles in the first-stage.
This adjustment should be made after the applicable PEMS measurement accuracy allowance
(proposed §1036.420) is added to the measured and calculated bin results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 86]
EPA has proposed to modify the engine family pass/fail criteria that apply when a manufacturer
has conducted an emissions compliance evaluation in response to an EPA in-use test order
according to §1036.425. In addition to eliminating the option for "Phase 2" testing, EPA also is
proposing to establish more strict requirements regarding the number of engines that must be
918
-------
demonstrated as meeting the emissions standards in order for the in-use test order to be satisfied.
Because of the increased risk associated with the relationship between these new and
more stringent in-use standards and current OBD detection capabilities, EMA recommends that
the pass criteria be relaxed instead. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 86 - 87]
The family pass/fail criteria currently in place according to §86.1915 provide that a manufacturer
should first test 5 vehicles equipped with engines from the engine family specified in the test
order. If all 5 vehicles meet the minimum NTE pass-ratio, the manufacturer has satisfied the in-
use test order, and may stop testing. If 1 or more of the 5 vehicles do not pass, however, a sixth
vehicle must be tested. If after testing the sixth vehicle, 2 vehicles' results do not meet the
minimum NTE pass-ratio, the manufacturer must test 4 more vehicles, for a total of 10 vehicles.
If 8 out of the 10 vehicles have met the minimum pass-ratio, the test order has been satisfied, and
the manufacturer may stop testing. If, however, at least 3 vehicles failed to meet the pass-ratio
requirement, the manufacturer is obligated to enter into discussions with the agency concerning
additional analysis, and potentially more testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 87]
To summarize the current family pass/fail criteria, a manufacturer can meet the requirements of
the in-use test order if 5/5 ("5 out of 5"), 5/6, or 8/10 vehicles meet the NTE minimum pass-
ratio. However, as noted, EPA's proposed amendments would impose stricter criteria for a
determination that the test order has been satisfied. More specifically, while EPA has carried
over the first two passing thresholds of 5/5 and 5/6, the passing threshold of 8/10 has been
eliminated. EPA instead proposes that if a total of 10 vehicles are tested, the average emissions
from all vehicles must be below the in-use standard for all bins and all constituents to meet the
requirements of the in-use test order. EPA has thereby proposed to eliminate the condition that if
8/10 vehicles pass the in-use emissions requirements, the manufacturer's obligations under the
test order have been satisfied, and no further testing required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 87]
Importantly, these new, stricter pass/fail criteria are imposed simultaneously with the new 3B-
MAW in-use emissions protocol and new very stringent standards. EMA believes that there are
underlying conditions associated with the totality of the proposed amendments that make it
unreasonable to impose stricter pass/fail conditions on the first phase of testing under an in-use
test order. Those underlying provisions include the fact that, for each constituent, EPA has
proposed 3 separate evaluations for compliance in the form of the 3 "bins" with distinct
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 87]
Considering the foregoing, EMA recommends that EPA relax, rather than tighten, the family
pass/fail criteria under an in-use test order. Specifically, EMA proposes that EPA replace today's
5/5, 5/6 or 8/10 pass criteria with a passing condition at 4/5 or 5/7 vehicles. If more than 2
vehicles have failed the in-use test requirements after testing 7 vehicles, the manufacturer should
be permitted test any number of additional vehicles, up to a total of 15 vehicles (including the
original 7), until a passing condition is determined on the basis that the average result for each
valid bin is at or below the standard (adjusted for PEMS accuracy) as described in §1036.420(d).
At any point in the test program following the condition that more than 2 vehicles out of 7 have
failed, the manufacturer should be permitted to initiate discussions with the Agency concerning
options available to move forward with actions deemed appropriate by EPA. EMA recommends
919
-------
these "relaxed" family pass/fail criteria to address, at least in part, the increased risk and
probability that a pre-MIL vehicle could be recruited into testing under an in-use test
order. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 90]
EMA's proposal is appropriate and fair considering all of the circumstances mentioned. If EPA
were to simply retain the 5/5, 5/6 and 8/10 family pass/fail criteria in place with today's in use
test program, overly punitive outcomes would result. A second example makes this clear.
Consider the hypothetical test order results below. After testing 10 vehicles, two vehicles
(vehicles 4 and 9) have Bin 3 NOx exceedances of 0.040 and 0.050 g/bhp-hr, at least one of them
due to a component failure not severe enough to be signaled by an OBD MIL, and a third vehicle
has a mild exceedance in another bin or of another constituent. Even with an 8/10 pass threshold,
this high-performing engine family would nonetheless fail the in-use test assessment. The
Agency should seriously consider whether this level of in-use performance justifies the potential
of an emissions-related recall, especially given the real possibility that the results will have been
unknowingly influenced by a pre-MIL vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 90]
In light of the foregoing, EMA recommends that EPA implement the MY 2027 and later in-use
program in a manner consistent with the current principles that restrict the in-use assessment to
vehicles that are operating according to manufacturers' design intent. The only way to protect
against the increased risk manufacturers face given current OBD detection capabilities, a risk
that puts the in-use testing program at odds with those long-standing principles, is to relax, rather
than tighten, the engine family pass/fail criteria. EMA believes that our recommended pass/fail
criteria would largely fulfill the preservation of those principles in a fair and reasonable
manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 91]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB comments that they have concerns with making an engine family compliance
determination based only on the case of average of the sum-over-sum emissions of ten tests.
Specifically, they comment that in some cases, multiple engines may fail the same pollutant in
the same bin, indicating a defective emission control component. They recommend limiting the
pass criteria so that an engine family is deemed to be noncompliant if the Phase 1 sum-over-sum
emissions of the same pollutant and same bin exceed the off-cycle standards for three or more
tests.
PACCAR and EMA comment that the discrepancy between the in-use standards and OBD
diagnostic thresholds indicate that a more relaxed pass/fail criterion is warranted. They state that
rather than pass/fail thresholds of 5 out of 5 tests, 5 out of 6, and the average of 10 tests, more
appropriate thresholds would be 4 out of 5 tests, 5 out of 7 tests, or the average of 7 or more
tests. For the last, EMA comments that, if the 5/7 threshold is failed, manufacturers should be
able to test any number of vehicles up to 15 and average the result to demonstrate compliance.
Additionally, EMA comments that if late-stage vehicles with higher standards are included in
testing, then the calculations for averaging emissions should be altered. Specifically, these
vehicles should have their emissions results reduced by multiplying them by the ratio of the first-
920
-------
stage standards to the second-stage standards before being averaged with the vehicles in the first-
stage.
Response:
EPA disagrees with commenters that more or less stringency in the proposed pass/fail criteria is
warranted for the overall, long term HDIUT program's final pass/fail criteria. However, EPA
believes that an interim approach with less stringent pass/fail criteria in the initial two years of
the program is appropriate, as manufacturers transition to the final standards, test procedures, and
requirements, while still providing overall compliance assurance during that transition. The final
requirements for the HDIUT program's pass/fail criteria include a specified maximum number of
test engines and, as proposed, the ability to average the results across the engines if the
maximum number of engines are tested. For the MYs 2027 and MY 2028 interim provisions, the
maximum number of test engines is 15. For MYs 2029 and later, we are finalizing as proposed
that the maximum number of test engines is 10. For the overall long-term program in MYs 2029
and later, EPA believes this allows manufacturers sufficient opportunity to demonstrate effective
aftertreatment systems without reducing the pass/fail thresholds for the five test engines and six
test engines steps. EPA believes manufacturers should be able to demonstrate compliance with
an average of 10 vehicles for MY 2029 and later, and only agrees the additional testing of five
more vehicles is appropriate to allow for the first two years of the new standards when
manufacturers are first transitioning into the final program. Regarding comments on changing
the second step to five out of seven test engines passing, we believe that keeping the interim pass
rate at 80 percent (eight out of ten test engines passing) between step one and two, versus going
from 80 percent to 71 percent, is more appropriate, since with more tests there is more
confidence that the tested engines represent the emissions performance of the whole family. See
preamble section III for additional details regarding the first two steps of the final interim
provisions and final overall provisions pass/fail criteria.
EPA also disagrees with CARB that failing three tests with the same pollutant in the same bin
would indicate a failed result. If manufacturers are able to demonstrate compliance over the
average of ten tests for the pollutant, the root cause is unlikely to be a defective emission control
component.
Regarding EMA's comment about late-stage vehicles, the final emissions standards are a single
step in MY 2027 and do not include an IUL standard, so this concern is not applicable to the
final rule.
11.5.3 Onboard NOx sensors
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports opportunity for manufactures to meet in-use testing requirements through
onboard NOx sensors data with approval of an alternative test plan with some concerns.
Although CARB staff supports the requirements for NOx sensors to be on with 100 seconds of
the engine starting and remaining functional the entire shift day, this could still miss the high
921
-------
emissions occurring during cold starts. Also, CARB staff has concerns with the accuracy,
stability, and drift of current NOx sensors for determining in-use compliance. Specifications
should be identified for the accuracy and stability of NOx sensors commiserate with the
applicable standards. Additionally, there should be specifications for instrument drift of the NOx
sensors. CARB staff suggests a minimum percentage of the vehicles reported emissions data and
require any data collected by the manufacturer be submitted to U.S. EPA to avoid biased
selection of data for submission. CARB staff supports a minimum of two test engines be tested
with PEMS, as this would add data that includes cold start emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 63-64]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes in §1036.405(g) to allow manufacturers to request approval of an alternative test
plan using onboard NOx sensors and telematics to collect emissions data from in-use engines
instead of full reliance on PEMS data. It is uncertain how readily this option can be utilized
given the stringent Part 1065 verification, startup, and continuous operation requirements for
NOx sensors that are also proposed. However, Cummins is supportive of EPA contemplating
such an approach. With improved sensor technology and more widespread use of telematics, the
possibility exists for a future "new paradigm" of in-use compliance where data is gathered from
a much broader population of in-use engines to provide a more complete picture of real-world
emissions. Cummins intends to continue working with EPA and the rest of industry to explore
such a concept. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 13]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Second, proposed 1036.405(g) allows OEMs to use on-board NOx measurement system
verification per 40 C.F.R. 1065.920(b) in lieu of PEMS testing. But it would be impossible for
OEMs to comply with the requirements in 1065.920(b), including with respect to how long
sensors would be required to function. Rather than codify this impossible-to-meet option, EPA
should amend proposed 1036.405(g) and simply include the following language EPA has already
proposed: 'You must show us that the alternative program gives comparable assurance that your
engines meet the NOx standards of this part.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1. p.55]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
In anticipation of tighter emission standards and longer durability requirements for heavy-duty
trucks, manufacturers are improving the accuracy and durability of their sensors [55], NOx
sensors only operate above an exhaust temperature threshold to prevent water condensation and
thermal shock of the ceramic element. This may make it difficult to measure NOx during low
load and low speed operation. Manufacturers are developing more durable sensor designs and
experimenting with sensor placement in the exhaust to minimize these limitations and extend the
temperature range of their sensors and improve their durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, pp.33-34]
922
-------
[55] Y. Kawamoto, Y. Todo, H. Shimokawa, K. Aoki, M. Kawai and K. Ide,
'Development of High Accuracy NOx Sensor,' in SAE Technical Paper 2019-01-0749,
2019
MECA, CARB, EPA and EMA are participating in the Emission Measurement and Testing
Committee (EMTC) sensor task force project at SwRI that is characterizing the sensor accuracy
and capability to measure at ultra-low NOx levels that are 90% below current tailpipe
concentrations. MECA is also a member of the On-Board Sensor Monitoring and Reporting
Consortium (OSAR) along with EPA, CARB, SCAQMD, EMA and manufacturers. This
program will evaluate emission monitoring, telematic reporting and sensor durability to assess
their suitability for long-term compliance assurance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
p.34]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Finally, EPA has introduced an option whereby manufacturers may use NOx sensor-based in-use
test data instead of PEM-based emissions tests. EMA supports the interest to use on-board sensor
technology in this manner. There are several issues that require consideration for this process to
be workable, however, including how to account for NOx sensor accuracy, C02 emissions
estimation, the quantity of vehicles to be tested, the duration of the "test period" in question (the
test-day equivalent), and others. EMA is nonetheless pleased with the opportunity to work with
EPA between now and the final rule to develop workable solutions, if possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 93]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
All comments discussing EPA's proposal to allow the use of onboard NOx sensors to supplement
PEMS testing for in-use testing were generally supportive of the proposal with some
qualifications.
CARB comments that they are concerned about the accuracy and drift of onboard NOx sensors,
and the potential to miss high emissions during a cold start. Therefore, CARB suggests EPA
1. identify appropriate specifications for onboard NOx sensors,
2. require any data collected by the manufacturer be submitted to EPA to avoid biased
results, and
3. require a minimum of two test engines be tested with PEMS to ensure some cold start
data are collected.
Both PACCAR and Cummins comment that the stringency of the requirements for onboard NOx
sensor operation would be difficult or impossible to meet. Additionally, EMA comments that
there are several issues to be solved to create a workable process. PACCAR further recommends
that rather than codifying requirements for sensor operation, EPA simply state: 'You must show
us that the alternative program gives comparable assurance that your engines meet the NOx
standards of this part.'
923
-------
Response:
EPA currently agrees with commenters' concerns on the feasibility of this alternate in-use testing
option and acknowledges that at this time there are no available technologies that will enable this
type of testing. We provide more discussion on this topic in Section III.C.4.ii in the preamble.
11.5.4 Misfueling, particularly with biodiesel
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
API provided comments on the 21 January 2020 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
this regulatory activity in response to concerns about the potential role of biodiesel in relation to
metal and water contaminants in highway diesel fuel. We agree with the finding (stated by EPA
in this proposal) that available fuel survey data indicate that biodiesel is compliant with the
ASTM D6751-18 limits for Na, K, Ca, and Mg and that there is no 'widespread off specification
biodiesel blend stock or biodiesel blends in the marketplace.'3 We also would like to draw EPA's
attention to the following remarks:
EPA should consider the results of the SwRI study on the impacts of bioderived fuels on
low NOx emission control technologies for heavy-duty engines before finalizing this
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.l]
2 See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0276
3 See text at 87 Federal Register 17563 (March 28, 2022) 'Biodiesel Fuel Quality'
The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) and the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association
(TEMA) are extending EPA's ongoing heavy-duty engine test program at Southwest Research
Institute (SwRI) with additional research that complements the Agency's work in support of this
regulatory effort. The CRC program (CRC project RW-120 'Impact of Bioderived Fuels on Low
NOx Feasibility') is intended to provide insights on potential fuel-related impacts on heavy-duty
engine and aftertreatment performance and durability. EPA's proposed emissions standards for
model year 2027+ heavy-duty vehicles and engines are expected to increase the performance
demands for aftertreatment systems. Consequently, it is imperative to understand the impact of
alternative fuels on system performance as related to engine-out NOx and other criteria pollutant
emissions. Fuels of interest in the CRC program include petroleum-derived ultra-low sulfur
diesel (ULSD), biodiesel and renewable diesel blends with ULSD. The test fuel blends are B20
and B50 (20%v and 50%v biodiesel in ULSD), RD100 (100%v renewable diesel) and
combination blends of RD/biodiesel/ULSD. Test engine operating conditions include low-load
cycles and incorporate the aftertreatment system currently used in the EPA low NOx technology
assessment at SwRI. Testing is scheduled to start in mid-June and a report on the study is
expected by mid-August 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, pp. 1-2]
924
-------
As described in Section 3.1.4 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA has concluded,
based largely on the findings to date from the SwRI test program, that the technologies and
strategies anticipated for meeting the proposed standards can be designed and implemented to
achieve significant NOx reductions that are GHG-neutral.4 Given the potential significance of
the CRC program in supplementing and expanding the EPA findings to include alternative fuels,
we respectfully request that EPA consider its results before the rule is finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1171-A1, p.2]
4 EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, March 2022
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comments on elements of the Heavy Duty in-use testing program. CARB
staff supports the proposed changes to the HDIUT program of removing the HDIUT Phase 2
testing requirements in 40 CFR 86.1915 and the biodiesel fuel blend provisions in 40 CFR
86.1908(a)(6). These elements were also removed for 2024 and newer model year engines in the
Omnibus regulation. 128 [also in 11.5] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.60]
128 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
With regards to the use of biodiesel, it has been and remains CARB staffs position that engine
manufacturers are required to design their engines to operate on all commercially available fuels
(including fuels containing biodiesel). For many years, most commercial diesel fuels sold at
California service stations and at truck stops dispense diesel fuel containing up to 20 percent
biodiesel. CARB certification staff has reviewed owner's manuals to confirm that manufacturers
are not prohibiting diesel fuel that meets the definition of CARB's diesel fuel and is legal for
sale. If any fuel limitation is found (such as 20 percent biodiesel), CARB staff would contact the
manufacturer to better understand the need for any biodiesel restrictions below 20 percent and
whether the durability demonstrated at the time of certification is representative and whether the
manufacturer is required to rerun durability testing to confirm emission results with existing
commercial fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.60]
CARB staff agrees with the proposal to not continue with the engine misfueled criteria outlined
in 40 CFR 86.1908(a)(6). For 2024 and subsequent MY engines, the Omnibus regulations made
the fueling requirement more explicit for in-use testing. CARB staff recommends harmonization
with the Omnibus proposal timeline for this change with MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.60]
CARB staff supports the inclusion of all commercially available fuels, including fuels that
contain biodiesel up to 20 percent, to be included in off-cycle testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.64]
925
-------
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
Clean Fuels has a long history of working with users, fleets, and the OEM community to conduct
technically credible research that validates the performance and positive impacts of biodiesel
when used in existing diesel engines. Part of that effort has been to conduct testing, evaluate fuel
specifications, and implement changes needed to ensure the fuels we support not only work in
existing engines but will also work in all future new diesel engines as diesel engine regulations
and technology change. Our cooperative efforts continue with our OEM partners and the
technical community to conduct the needed testing and research. As such, we would like to thank
EPA for recognizing biodiesel quality and for proposing to allow vehicles to be tested for
compliance with available biodiesel blends meeting ASTM D7467. This change validates not
only the quality of these blends in the marketplace, but also the standards development process
within ASTM, in which the global fuel community participates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1248-A1, p.3]
Assessment of BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties
As the National Biodiesel Board, now Clean Fuels Alliance America, provided in our comments
on the 2020 ANPR, the most recent studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) and the Association Quality Management Biodiesel (AGQM) show that metals
contamination on average is well below the standards set both in the United States and in
Europe.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.2]
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ANPR Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards, 85 Fed. Reg. 3,306 (January 21, 2020).
available at https://www.federalregister.gOv/d/2020-00542
Over the last five years, BQ-9000 accredited biodiesel producers have willingly submitted
sample analysis results that have been compiled and statistically analyzed into annual quality
reports. NREL has produced four reports on the Assessment of BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for
2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.4 In each of these assessments of BQ-9000 biodiesel properties,
NREL helped to collect and statistically analyze the data from U.S.- and Canada-based BQ-9000
member companies to determine the quality of their production lots versus the ASTM D6751
specification in calendar years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. NREL surveyed current BQ-9000
members for their monthly data on 14 critical parameters (not limited to metals) and determined
an average, minimum, and maximum monthly values for each parameter. The analysis shows
U.S. and Canadian biodiesel almost always meets D6751 specification limits and the average
sodium (Na) and potassium (K) was found to also meet the D6751 specification limits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.2]
4 Alleman, Teresa L. 2020. Assessment of BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for 2017.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-75795.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75795.pdf; Alleman, Teresa L. 2020. Assessment of
BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for 2018. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-75796. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75796.pdf;
Alleman, Teresa L. 2020. Assessment of BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for 2019. Golden,
CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-76840.
926
-------
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/76840.pdf; Alleman, Teresa L. 2021. Assessment of
BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for 2020, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-79815. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79815.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Figure 3 below shows one example of the difference in SCR performance in a controlled, OEM
on-highway fleet test setting (purple) versus an uncontrolled customer system (gray). These two
systems ran similar duty cycles with similar mileage accumulation (approximately 435k)
and thermal aging characteristics. The OEM fleet system ran on a standard ASTMD975 B5 fuel,
whereas the uncontrolled test system filled at fleet or retail stations en route. For both SCR
formulations shown below, the 435k mile field return system performs similarly to or worse than
the 650k mile fleet test vehicle. The delta shown below in NOx conversion efficiency observed
between a controlled test and uncontrolled test is significantly more degradation than what is
observed in the test cell simulated 800,000 miles aftertreatment during EPA Stage 3 and rework
investigations. We expect similar deltas as shown in the Figure 3 below between a lab-aged
environment and fleet-aged environment: [Comment also included in 11.3.1] [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.26-27]
Vehicles in the field do not run on lab-grade ULSD and most owners/operators are not specialists
in fuel handling and maintenance. A recent study by the Fuels Institute found that only 21.6% of
sites surveyed in the U.S., including both retail and fleet locations, reported performing any type
of routine bulk fuel tank maintenance. Nozzle samples at these locations found that 27.9% of
samples contained detectable levels of potassium and 20.5% of samples contained detectable
levels of sodium.65 While these levels are low and meet the applicable ASTM standards,
accumulation over lifetime can amount to significant catalyst degradation. For example, with the
average contamination values reported in the Fuels Institute survey, the cumulative poisoning
level introduced to the aftertreatment during a 435k full useful life (FUL) is more than double the
maximum concentrations specified for DEF (which has recognized impacts on SCR aging), as
illustrated in Table 5 below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.27]
65 See Fuels Institute, 'Diesel Fuel Sampling Study: An Evaluation of Diesel Fuel Sold
and Consumed in the U.S. Market' (Dec. 1, 2021),
https://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Research/Reports/Diesel-Fuel-Sampling-Study (Fuels
Institute Diesel Fuel Sampling Study).
Daimler Truck's fuel sampling data aligns with the Fuels Institute survey findings and has been
shared with EPA previously. We have observed metallic contamination at concerning levels in a
significant number of samples collected from fleets, regardless of biodiesel content as shown in
Table 6. These contamination levels will likely degrade catalysts considerably faster than the lab-
grade fuel used in the EPA demonstration: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.28] Daimler
Truck recently collected data on real-world catalyst poison deposition in the field to evaluate
degradation due to chemical aging. Poison deposition from aftertreatment catalysts was analyzed
for a variety of trucks at approximately 250,000 to 650,000 miles, sourced from a variety of
applications and fleets. From this study, a real-world representative poisoning level was
determined for a variety of contaminants on the first catalyst exposed to exhaust flow. These
927
-------
contaminants were then applied to a copper zeolite close-coupled SCR catalyst, similar to the
catalyst used in the SWRI demonstration system, via wet impregnation to accelerate poisoning,
fu this study, we concluded that the three most detrimental contaminants on the copper zeolite
technology were sodium, phosphorous, and potassium. Table 7 below summarizes the shift of
T90 temperatures (temperature at which 90% SCR conversion occurs) due to the application of
individual poisons compared to a hydrothermally aged (HTA) reference. Note that all poisoned
samples are also hydrothermally aged: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.29]
EPA's low-NOx demonstration utilized the DAAAC protocol, which accelerates oil borne
poisoning (P, Ca, Mg, Zn) and sulfur. Based on these findings, we do not believe the applied
DAAAC protocol fully represents a real-world use case, where sodium and potassium levels
(from diesel fuel and other sources) are also of significant impoltance for a copper close-coupled
SCR. The CCSCR performance used in the EPA investigation to demonstrate low-NOx
feasibility has only accounted for a portion of the degradation expected in real-world operation.
EPA has asserted that aging and poisoning can be corrected by increasing the size of the catalyst;
however, adding more catalyst volume does not necessarily offset the shift in light-off after
chemical poisoning. Increasing catalyst volume also increases thermal inertia, which is counter
to the fast SCR light-off required for low cold strut emissions. EPA also does not consider the
packaging, cost, backpressure, and fuel economy impacts of simply adding additional catalyst.
Daimler Truck does not see this as a workable solution to fuel poisoning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.29]
EPA did not adequately consider the effects of the alkali metals (Na and K) on SCR catalysts in
the accelerated aging protocol applied at SWRI. Daimler Truck's data on field fuel quality and
catalysts sampled from the field indicates catalyst poisoning levels in excess of what has been
applied in the EPA demonstration. Additionally, Daimler Truck has observed significant
variability in chemical contamination in the field and believes that the EPA demonstration is a
best-case scenario, and is not proof of durability or feasibility for a product in the field. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.29-30]
In addition to long term aging impacts, tank-to-tank changes in fuel properties can also
significantly impact engine-out emissions and catalyst performance. The chemical structure of
fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel causes an increase in engine-out NOx as compared to
conventional diesel, regardless of engine make. This is demonstrated in the CARB Biodiesel
Characterization and NOx Mitigation Study, where engine-out NOx increases were observed for
both a 2006 Cummins ISM and 2007 MBE 4000 engine.66 At a B20 blend level, NOx increases
of up to 6.6% were measured on the FTP cycle, an increase of up to 6.9% over 50 mph cruise
cycle as shown in Figure 4.67 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.30]
66 See CARB, Biodiesel Characterization and NOx Mitigation Study, available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdiesel/20111013_carb final biodiesel report.pdf.
67 Id.
More recent data (Figure 5) shows that this effect persists, even with more modern emissions
control technologies. For example, CARB's Low Emissions Diesel (LED) study shows
928
-------
that biodiesel blends above B20, even when blended with ULSD or Renewable diesel biofuel,
produce significantly more engine-out NOx.69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 30-31]
69 See Durbin, et al., Low Emission Diesel Study: Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel
Emissions in Legacy and New Technology Diesel Engines (Nov. 2021) at Table ES-2,
available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Low Emission Diesel
Study Final Report 12-29-21.pdf ('CARB LED Study').
Internal Daimler Truck test results on more recent engine technologies align with the results of
the CARB LED study, noting a direct engine-out NOx increase up to 7%, while showing no
engine-out C02 reduction on the composite FTP cycle with the use of B20. Daimler Truck
expects that this impact will be significantly more important with the proposed ultra low-NOx
(UL NOx) systems, which are much more sensitive to increased engine-out NOx and require
much higher levels of NOx conversion efficiency across the aftertreatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.31]
The data used at SWRI to support the CARB Omnibus regulation does not account for the
adverse effects of biodiesel, either from the immediate emissions increases as demonstrated by
this study, or from the long-term aging effects of biodiesel which are understood by the industry.
These increases in emissions and associated harm to the environment are in the range of what
Daimler Truck would expect from biodiesel blends and are in opposition to both industry and
EPA goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.31]
Additionally, when considering proposed blends of renewable diesel, biodiesel, and traditional
ULSD, EPA should consider the chemistry and physics that govern blending outcomes.
Renewable diesel fuels mix well with traditional ULSD, because they consist of the same
hydrocarbon chain. These fuels, both individually and blended shed water and impurities well.
By contrast, biodiesel and renewable diesel do not mix well. The culprit is the glycerin in
biodiesel which is miscible with water, and therefore the blended fuel carries not only water but
also impurities. This leads to fuel filter plugging, accelerated aging of after-treatment systems
and ultimately increases emissions released into the environment. On a chemical level, to reduce
these effects, any biodiesel fuel blendstock (B100) specification needs to include biodiesel
distillation. Otherwise, blends of biodiesel and renewable diesel could carry the same impurities,
and cause the same long term degradation to emissions control systems, as biodiesel alone.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.31-32]
We believe that the CARB LED Study and test cycles used are sufficiently representative and
confirm the directional correctness of industry-known immediate impacts of biodiesel. No
current technology exists that can mitigate the short- or long-term effects of emissions
degradation from biodiesel, and the results in the CARB study confirm Daimler Truck's
experience in this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.32]
EPA should further research negative emission impacts of biodiesel fuels, including both
short-term effects and long-term degradation of emission control equipment, and use this
information to inform the feasibility of new emission standards and whether these fuels
should be approved or promoted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.32]
929
-------
There is an ongoing CRC/EMA study that involves evaluating a range of market-available fuels
on the SWRI demonstration system for both short term impacts and long term aging impacts. We
expect the short term study to highlight critical fuel properties and their associated impacts on
system performance. We encourage EPA to consider additional margin based on any findings of
this study and/or pursue changes to fuel standards to minimize variation in the marketplace.
Calibration efforts alone on the part of the manufacturer are not sufficient to ensure compliance
with the stringent standards that EPA proposes under Option 1 or Option 2, and work best when
critical fuel properties are known, which is not the case in real-world operation. Daimler Truck is
aware of biodiesel detection algorithms (having introduced a method to detect B100,
experimentally, in European applications), but we do not believe such algorithms meet the need
that EPA's standards create—nor that they are feasible in combination with NAFTA onboard
diagnostics (OBD) requirements. To date, no manufacturer has demonstrated the ability to
accurately detect and correct for biodiesel content at the granularity required for UL NOx
adjustments. No fuel quality or biodiesel content sensors are currently offered in the marketplace
that are production-feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 32]
We appreciate EPA considering a process for a manufacturer to reject heavy-duty in-use testing
(HDIUT) results, given the catalyst poisoning concerns raised in the Proposed Rule and noted
elsewhere within these comments. However, the method on which EPA requests comment in the
Proposed Rule preamble is not reasonable or recommended.89 It is not feasible for the OEM to
show a history of biodiesel where B100 does not meet the applicable ASTM standard, as fuel
quality and recordkeeping by fleets and retail stations are not the responsibilities of the OEM.
This method could be supported if a vehicle or HDIUT fleet were selected at start of mileage
accumulation and a cooperative fuel sampling program put in place over lifetime. Setting up
such program with a large pool of vehicles available for the Agency to select from would provide
significant benefits for the Agency, manufacturers, and customers, in that it would provide fair,
transparent, and auditable system for true FUL emissions performance evaluation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.69]
89 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,563 (requesting comment on a process for receiving
EPA approval to exempt test results from in-use testing compliance (and test results being
considered for potential recall) if an engine manufacturer can show that the vehicle was
historically fueled with biodiesel blends whose B100 blend stock did not meet the ASTM
D675 l-20a limit for Na, K, Ca, and/or Mg metal).
Daimler Truck proposes that a manufacturer determine the level of poisoning on the
aftertreatment's catalysts against a defined normal value for that product. This method would
require the manufacturer invest in significant R&D work and sample a quantity of field aged
catalyst systems to determine a normal range given typical exposure to approved fuels. Systems
with abnormal results that significantly impact performance could be removed from the HDIUT
analysis, and another system selected. This method would allow the manufacturer to fairly screen
for abnormal chemical contamination without the burden of proof of the source, which is outside
of the manufacturer's control. Normal chemical contamination via fuel borne metals, intrusion
via the DEF system, and other potential sources is still significantly challenging for the proposed
NOx stringency for FUL, and may result in costly catalyst replacement. EPA and ASTM must
930
-------
engage on reducing the sources of chemical contamination to enable significant NOx
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.69]
Under current regulation, manufacturers are allowed to specify maintenance procedures that are
critical to the operation of their engines throughout their useful life. This has historically
included specifying the required or recommended fuel types necessary to ensure that systems
perform adequately and are not inappropriately degraded. Manufacturers are rightly allowed to
later remove engines from in-use testing evaluations if the vehicles have not been maintained as
directed, or if they have been fueled in a manner inconsistent with the instructions in their
manuals. Similarly, manufacturers may limit their warranty liability and deny warranty claims
when mis-fueling can be identified as the cause of an emissions control failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.87]
EPA proposes to remove these manufacturer protections, which would expose manufacturers to
liability regarding both in-use emissions performance and warranty. The Agency proposes to do
so at the same time that it refuses to address the demonstrated fuel quality concerns in the field.
The nation's collective fuel quality concern threatens the longevity of emissions control
components and directly contributes to increased emissions, through immediate increases in NOx
and through degradation of catalysts via metals contamination. Yet EPA simultaneously
proposes to limit manufacturers' ability to control exposure to poor-quality fuel and to
implement standards that are so stringent that manufactures must remove all potential sources of
emissions variability and system degradation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.87]
EPA must mandate improvements to nationwide diesel and biodiesel fuel quality—or risk
significant emissions impacts, or worse, the creation of an unfeasible emission standard with
uncertainties that manufacturers cannot tolerate, leading to unavailability of product, and an
eventual unwinding of EPA's proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.87]
Daimler Truck continues to engage in and support fuel quality improvement efforts in a variety
of forums. We support ASTM in the ongoing proposed revisions to ASTM D7467 (B6- B20),
which include moving metals values from the non-mandatory appendix to the mandatory table.
The Company also supports the revision of the test method to lower the limit of detection and the
lowering of metal content allowed in ASTM D6751 (B100 blendstock) to a 4ppm maximum
limit. However, we do not believe these changes alone will serve the needs of modern UL NOx
engines, as is evident by formations of groups like Top Tier, where manufacturers are working
outside of ASTM to improve fuel quality at the pump. We believe it is necessary and appropriate
for EPA to set finished fuel quality standards, measured at the pump, to enable their proposed
emissions programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.87]
In Section II.B.3 of these comments, Daimler Truck provides significant evidence that
contaminants found in fuels contribute to catalyst degradation. We provide detailed information
on this effect, and we present evidence of the metal contamination present in fuels in Section
II.B.3, which addresses EPA's demonstration of feasibility. To summarize, chemical degradation
from contaminants present in field fuel account for significant degradation beyond the 'best case
fuel' degradation experienced in laboratory settings, which directly leads to increased NOx
931
-------
emissions as catalyst NOx conversion efficiency is reduced. This is illustrated in Figure 32
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.88]
Degradation of ATS conversion efficiency, even by 1%, cannot be tolerated with EPA's
proposed stringent standards. Fuel standards must be improved to prevent such
degradation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.88]
Catalyst degradation via fluid impurities is widely acknowledged in this industry for other fluids
outside of fuels. For example, ISO 22241-1 for DEF states 'The quality of the urea solution used
for that technology needs to be specified to ensure reliable and stable operation of the SCR
converter system.' 111 As such, the contaminant limits for DEF are outlined in Figure 33
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.88]
111 See ISO 22241-1:2019, 'Diesel engines — NOx reduction agent AUS 32 — Part 1: Quality
requirements' (2019), https://www.iso.org/standard/66408 html.
These <0.5 mg/kg limits on DEF combined with the relatively low usage of DEF compared to
fuel, result in lower overall contribution of contaminants from the diesel exhaust fluid. For
example, a line haul vehicle with a 6 mpg fuel economy, and 3% DEF:Fuel ratio could consume
up to 9.7 grams of sodium from DEF, and 21 grams of sodium from fuel based on the average
value reported in the DFQC study. The <100 ppb contribution referenced by EPA in the NPRM
results in significantly more contamination via fuel than DEF. Table 11 below outlines the
maximum contribution from DEF compared to the average values reported in the DFQC survey,
as well as the 100 ppb result referenced by EPA in the Proposed Rule: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.89]
As fuel is consumed in much larger quantities than DEF, DTNA believes that the metallic
contamination limits in finished fuel should be at least as stringent as DEF (0.5 mg/kg) or
lowered to a level to result in similar levels of contamination, which requires a limit of approx.
40-50 ppb maximum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.90]
The chemical structure of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) biodiesel causes an increase in engine-
out NOx compared to conventional diesel, regardless of engine make, as demonstrated in the
CARB Biodiesel Characterization and NOx Mitigation Study, where engine-out NOx increases
were observed for both a 2006 Cummins ISM and 2007 MBE 4000 engine. 114 At a B20 blend
level, NOx increases of up to 6.6% were measured on the FTP cycle. 115 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.90]
114 See CARB, Biodiesel Characterization and NOx Mitigation Study, available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/altdiesel/20111013_carb final biodiesel report.pdf.
115 See id.
More recent data shows that this effect persists, even with more modern emissions control
technologies. For example, the CARB LED Study shows that biodiesel blends above B20, even
932
-------
when blended with ULSD or Renewable diesel biofuel, produce significantly more engine-out
NOx:117 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.91]
117 See Durbin, et al., Low Emission Diesel Study: Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Emissions
in Legacy an New Technology Diesel Engines (Nov. 2021) at Table ES-2, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/Low Emission Diesel Study Final Report 12-
29-21.pdf.
Internal Daimler Truck test results on more recent engine technologies align with the results of
the CARB LED Study noting a direct engine-out NOx increase up to 7%, while showing no
engine-out C02 reduction on the composite FTP cycle with the use of B20. Daimler Truck
expects that this impact will be significantly more important with the proposed UL NOx systems,
which are much more sensitive to increased engine-out NOx, and require much higher levels of
NOx conversion efficiency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.92]
Low oxidation stability is a prominent issue among ULSD and biodiesel fuels, and it directly
affects operability and durability of emission control components including fuel injectors.
Internal Daimler Truck studies show that fuel containing 5% biodiesel aged to 6 hours of
stability caused injectors to seize after 13 test cycles while ULSD aged to 6 hours of stability
allowed injectors to complete 30 cycles. Additionally, water and acid content in fuel directly
contribute to corrosion in the fuel system, leading to higher repair costs and replacement of
emissions-critical components. EPA must address these concerns to ensure it has accurately
assessed whether costs for the advanced emissions controls proposed are reasonably—especially
at the extended useful life and warranty periods that the Agency proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.92]
Daimler Truck has presented significant evidence in these comments to show fuel quality is an
important limiting factor for emissions performance and durability of emissions relevant
components. To enable EPA's proposed new standards, ASTM and EPA must set fuel standards
that meet the needs of modern engines. We recommend that EPA take steps to improve fuel
standards and enforcement, similar to lowering sulfur content in ULSD to enable compatibility
with EGR and aftertreatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.92]
Specifically, we recommend a maximum biodiesel content of 20% nationwide. As evidenced by
the CARB LED Study of higher biodiesel blends, the emissions impacts of biodiesel increase
significantly as blend percentage increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.92]
Additionally, Daimler Truck recommends the following fuel standards (enforceable at the pump)
based on industry experience, experimental data, and supplier input: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.92]
In addition to these finished fuel specifications, we recommend improvements to the B 100
blendstock specification, to help enable higher quality finished fuels with biodiesel content. The
following B100 specifications and recommendations refer strictly to B100 as a blendstock (used
for blending up to a maximum of B20) and not as a finished product. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.93]
933
-------
Daimler Truck recognizes and supports the use of renewable diesel (R100) as a greener
alternative to ULSD. This fuel has been validated and released in our current production engines,
and in testing has shown superior stability and reductions in engine out emissions compared to
biodiesel and ULSD. Our evaluation has shown that renewable diesel offers a 9% reduction in
engine-out NOx on the composite FTP and 6% reduction in engine-out C02 compared to B20,
without sacrificing engine operability. Mandating renewable diesel penetration offers significant
real world lifecycle C02 improvement in addition to per vehicle C02, NOx, and PM reduction.
These improvements can be realized easily and inexpensively and provide dramatic emissions
improvements to the commercial sector immediately—improvements that may be realized for
trucks that have already been built, not just new, expensive UL NOx vehicles that will not be
available in the marketplace for several years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.93-94]
Additionally, Daimler Truck recognizes that biodiesel may have a lower carbon intensity score
than ULSD and renewable diesel as well as the time value of carbon, but that the issues with the
fuel discussed in these comments make it incompatible with UL NOx engines in high
concentrations. We urge EPA to consider a uniform, nationwide biodiesel blending proposal (e.g.
B5 standard for all diesel fuel sold). This allows for lifecycle GHG reductions to be realized
while minimizing the negative effects of biodiesel on per vehicle GHG emissions and engine
operability and durability. With lower maximum blend rates and wider distribution, the NOx
increase is mitigated while wider lifecycle GHG reductions can be achieved, suppressing the
negative environmental impacts over the course of a vehicle lifecycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.94]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Some metals found in engine oils can also result in deterioration in catalyst performance. Lube
oil phosphorus is a non-selective poison that effectively masks surface active catalyst sites,
independent of the type of catalyst formulation. Generally, phosphorus deposits heavily at the
front end of the catalyst brick, and typically resides mostly on the surface of the washcoat. There
is some concern that phosphorus could react with other poisons and a catalyst washcoat to form
phosphates that persist on the washcoat surface and mask the catalyst sites [29], More research is
needed here to determine the durability requirements to meet future full useful life provisions;
however, the results of the lube oil poisoning as accelerated in the SwRI program show good
durability of the close-coupled SCR, which receives the bulk of the lube oil metal poisons.
Possible future mitigation actions that catalyst suppliers can deploy include increasing catalyst
volume and/or inclusion of poison-resistant catalyst designs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-
Al, p.24]
[29] B. Bunting, K. More, S. Lewis and T. Toops, 'Exhaust Phosphorus Chemistry and
Catalyst Poisoning,' in 2004 Department of Energy Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction
Conference, 2004.
Other metals that are found in some fuels and oils, such as biodiesel, include calcium, sodium,
potassium and magnesium. Calcium deposits uniformly across the catalyst and can physically
block active sites. Elevated levels of sodium and potassium could displace the active metals and
reduce the NOx conversion and N2 selectivity. At this time, MECA is not aware of any data that
934
-------
shows that magnesium has a negative effect on catalyst performance. Recent research has shown
how biodiesel metal contaminants can affect emission control systems [30, 31], Extensive testing
of light-duty and heavy-duty aftertreatment systems exposed to biodiesel exhaust at the 10-ppm
metal impurity specification for biodiesel has been published by NREL with funding from the
National Biodiesel Board (NBB) and support from MECA. A medium-duty pick-up truck
aftertreatment system equipped with a front-SCR was aged out to 150,000 accelerated miles on
fuel doped with metals to the current maximum specification and met the FTP emission limit for
that vehicle [32], Similarly, in a later study, a heavy-duty 2010 style aftertreatment system
architecture was aged in an accelerated fashion to represent 435,000 equivalent miles of thermal
aging using a similar doped biodiesel fuel and met the FTP emission limit after aging
[31], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.24-25]
[30] A. Williams, J. Luecke, R. L. McCormick, R. Brezny, A. Geisselmann, K. Voss, K.
Hallstrom, M. Leustek, J. Parsons and H. Abi-Akar, 'Impact of Biodiesel Impurities on
the Performance and Durability of DOC, DPF and SCR Technologies,' SAE International
Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 110-124, 2011.
[31] M. Lance, A. Wereszczak, T. J. Toops, R. Ancimer, H. An, J. Li, L. Rogoski, P.
Sindler, A. Williams, A. Ragatz and R. L. McCormick, 'Evaluation of Fuel-Borne
Sodium Effects on a DOC-DPF-SCR Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Control System:
Simulation of Full Useful Life,' SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, vol.
9, no. 3, pp. 683-694, 17 October 2016.
[32] A. Williams, R. McCormick, M. Lance, C. Xie, T. Toops and R. Brezny, 'Effect of
Accelerated Aging Rate on the Capture of Fuel-Borne Metal Impurities by Emissions
Control Devices,' SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.
471-479, 2014.
The metal content of B100 from field samples analyzed by researchers at NREL [33] [34] [35]
have shown metal content far below the current specification for the vast majority of samples
collected, and the impurity level has been coming down over the sample years in 2013 and 2019.
MECA supports more stringent limits of fuel additives that contain metals including evaluating
their potential impact on aftertreatment components. We have been working with NBB, OEMs
and biodiesel producers to generate the necessary data that supports tighter ASTM specifications
for metal impurities in biodiesel at or near the detection level of analytical techniques as a way to
provide confidence to engine manufacturers that biodiesel fuels can be as clean as
possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1. p.25]
[33] T. L. Alleman, L. Fouts and G. Chupka, 'Quality Parameters and Chemical Analysis
for Biodiesel Produced in the United States in 2011,' National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-57662, Golden, CO., 2013.
[34] T. L. Alleman, L. Fouts and E. D. Christensen, 'Metals Analysis of Biodiesel
Blends,' National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-72341, Golden, CO,
2019.
935
-------
[35] T. L. Alleman, 'Assessment of BQ-9000 Biodiesel Properties for 2020,' National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-79815, Golden, CO, 2021.
Current fuel quality in the market: CARB staff reported sulfur and metals levels in today's
fuel supply for diesel engines without any applied corrections for volumes represented or market
share of producers [36], To better understand sulfur content and variability in the California fuel
supply for diesel engines, CARB-collected over 400 fuel samples from California producers,
importers and distribution terminals during 2017 to 2019 calendar years. These samples included
diesel and some biodiesel and renewable diesel blends with maximum sulfur content observed of
13 ppm and an average sulfur content 4 ppm with a standard deviation of 3 ppm. These sulfur
levels in current ULSD are adequate for engine and aftertreatment systems to meet the Proposed
Option 1 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.25]
[36] CARB, 'Regulations.gov,' 25 February 2020. [Online], Available:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471.
CARB staff also collected and analyzed over 400 diesel and biodiesel blend samples collected at
retail fuel pumps throughout California in 2019 [36], The findings concluded that phosphorus
and metal contents of biodiesel were significantly lower than current ASTM limits, which
supports minimal impact of biodiesel metals and phosphorus on the full useful life durability of
diesel exhaust aftertreatment systems. CARB staff also analyzed 27 B100 samples that EPA
collected from biodiesel production facilities nationally and did not identify metals
contamination. These results are consistent with trends seen in national biodiesel fuel surveys
conducted by NREL and referenced above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.25]
[36] CARB, 'Regulations.gov,' 25 February 2020. [Online], Available:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471.
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
The recently published CARB Low Emissions Diesel ("LED") study 1 demonstrates that fuel
quality has a significant impact on emissions. Poor fuel quality, especially driven by the
biodiesel production and distribution process is more prevalent in the U.S. as compared to
Canada, European Union, and Japan. The current ASTM D975 and D7467 are inadequate when
compared to EU and other worldwide standards. These inadequacies have led to increased
downtime, and a risk of elevated and irreversible in-use emissions. Common fuel contamination
from magnesium, zinc, calcium, potassium, sodium can irreversibly poison aftertreatment
systems. Low oxidation stability can lead to significant increases in acid formation in the oil,
which can cause corrosion and accelerated wear in bearing and sealing surfaces. Navistar
recommends the adoption and enforcement of both Top Tier and EU biodiesel standards in lieu
of the ASTM D975, D7467 and D6751 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 6]
1. CARB Low Emission Diesel Study (LED): Low Emission Diesel (LED) Study:
Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Emissions in Legacy and New Technology Diesel
Engines - Final Report: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/Low_Emission_Diesel_Study _Final_Report_12-29-21.pdf
936
-------
Organization: Neste US, Inc
Renewable fuels can be used by older engines equipped to run on fossil diesel, and can therefore
be used to cut emissions immediately. Neste has worked with leading original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) to test renewable diesel in diesel engines. As a result, many OEMs,
including Cummins, Volvo Trucks, Caterpillar, and Detroit Diesel endorse renewable diesel for
use in their equipment. Last year, Neste's advanced biofuels helped our customers prevent 10.9
million tons of C02 equivalent from entering the atmosphere. We want to get that number up to
20 million tons by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.l]
Renewable diesel produced via hydrotreating removes metals, and other contaminants
The proposed rule mentioned biodiesel fuel quality and related compliance issues, expressing
EPA's concerns that trace metals in biodiesel may adversely affect engines and emission control
systems.6 However, the Agency ignores that renewable diesel produced via hydrotreating
removes molecules of sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen and heavy metals such as P, Ca, and Mg from the
same feedstocks to produce high quality diesel fuel for modern exhaust aftertreatment systems.
Elimination of these contaminants means that renewable diesel has improved properties and
removes significantly fewer contaminants on combustion, and that the product can be further
treated catalytically without poisoning the catalysts used.7 Neste would also like to emphasize
significant differences between biodiesel and renewable diesel, for EPA's consideration should
the agency decide to address its concern about metals in biodiesel in a more formal way in the
future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.4]
6 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17563 (Mar. 28, 2022).
7 Jack Reese, Ellen M. Silva, Shang-Tian Yang, Liang-Shih Fan, Industrial Applications of
Three-Phase Fluidization Systems, in Fluidization, Solids Handling, and Processing, 582-682
(1999).
In addition to renewable diesel lowering GHG emissions by up to 75% over the fuel's lifecycle
when compared with fossil diesel, our fuel also provides, depending on the age and make of the
engine, a cost-effective solution for reducing transport-related local emissions and improving
local air quality in cities, on average:
• 33% lower levels of fine particulates (and a smaller number of particulates in general)
• 30% less hydrocarbons (HC)
• 24% lower carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and reduced levels of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)
• 9% less nitrogen oxides (NOx) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, pp.4-5]
Organization: Renewable Energy Group
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Martin Haverly, Renewable Energy Group] I'm the
senior manager of research and development and innovation with Renewable Energy Group. As
you've already heard from my colleague earlier, Renewable Energy Group is an industry leader
937
-------
delivering high-quality low-carbon biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel to markets in the U.S. and
abroad. I would like to reiterate our support for the EPA and its finding that the pool of biodiesel
available to vehicle and equipment operators across the country is of very high quality while
biodiesel blends above 5 percent, or B5, are not expected to impede the performance of next-
generation after treatment, devices developed to meet this proposed new tailpipe standard.
According to findings, including the proposed rulemaking, EPA reports that the presence of
metals and other quality metrics has greatly improved. These findings are derived from a robust
fuel sampling survey conducted by the agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The vast majority of fuel samples show the presence of
impurities far below specified and allowable levels. We support EPA in its proposal to require
engine manufacturers to provide detailed evidence to document claims of off-spec biodiesel
when seeking an exemption of test results as part of an end-use compliance. Decades ago, REG
developed processes to produce and deliver to the marketplace the highest quality biodiesel. As
the industry leader, we are encouraged to know that our competitors have also stepped up to
develop and deliver high-quality low-carbon bio-based diesel fuel including biodiesel, and that
plays a disproportionate role in reducing transportation sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
Evidence in this proposed rule demonstrates that access to high-quality biodiesel is prevalent and
that higher blends of biodiesel are not expected to impede the performance of after treatment
devices. Through the renewable fuel standard, the EPA has proposed growth in bio-based diesel
volumes in 2022 and we believe that even more fuel may be delivered to the market this year and
beyond. Blends of 20 percent biodiesel, or B20, should be the norm and we encourage engine
manufacturers to work alongside fuel producers like Renewable Energy Group to support blends
above B20. The diesel commercial trucks of the future can deliver cleaner air through the next-
generation after treatment devices while delivering even greater climate benefits when operating
using higher blends of low-carbon bio-based diesel fuels. Thank you very much for this
opportunity to present our views and suggestions at this public hearing. As already noted,
Renewable Energy Group will also be submitting written comments and we look forward to
supporting the EPA as you continue your important mission to fight global warming and increase
investment in renewable fuels while improving air quality and reducing emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: State Soybean Associations
In its Proposed Rule, EPA raises concerns about trace metals in biodiesel and their potential to
adversely affect emissions control systems and engines. Its stated concern is that metals, such as
sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium can enter the production of biodiesel and impact the
diesel particulate filters or selective catalytic reduction catalyst. EPA has insufficient scientific
data to back up this conclusion, however. EPA should not let this kind of unsubstantiated
concern limit the use of biodiesel, given its proven utility in significantly reducing GHG
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA's proposed procedures for in-use testing require that MY 2027 and later products comply
with all in-use standards when operating on "any commercially available biodiesel fuel blend
that meets the specifications for ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467." (See §1036.415(c)(1).) There is
938
-------
a significant body of evidence accumulated over the last decade29 showing that fuel quality has
a significant impact on emissions. Poor fuel quality, especially driven by the biodiesel chemistry,
production processes, and distribution impacts, is prevalent in the U.S. compared to the rest of
the leading markets (USMCA, EU, Japan). This is driven to a large extent by inadequate fuel
quality standards as published by ASTM compared to other world-wide standards. Those
inadequate standards and associated lack of regulatory oversight have led to vehicle downtime,
and risks of elevated in-use emissions. Those risks will be even greater for engines and vehicles
compliant with the proposed low-NOx emissions standards, where a single tank of poor-quality
biodiesel fuel can permanently compromise the emission reduction efficacy of the entire
aftertreatment system. The effect of this is shown in the CARB LED study. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 137]
29. CARB Low Emission Diesel Study (LED): Low Emission Diesel (LED) Study: Biodiesel
and Renewable Diesel Emissions in Legacy and New Technology Diesel Engines - Final Report
(ca.gov)
Furthermore, the recently published Fuels Institute's Diesel Fuel Quality Council's (DFQC) field
fuel quality study30 revealed that over 50% of nozzle samples contained metals such as
magnesium, calcium, and zinc, which are all elements poisonous to the aftertreatment system.
While those metals values were within the ASTM standard, several manufacturers expressed
concern that even at low levels, those metals could be impactful to aftertreatment deterioration at
higher mileages. Those results, combined with the fact that 32% of the samples failed to meet the
20-hour oxidation stability threshold, raise serious concerns about the potential impacts of fuel
quality going forward as new low-NOx requirements take effect. Finally, it is known that regular
preventative tank maintenance can aid in minimizing unfavorable fuel properties such as high
oxidation stability and high metal contamination. The DFQC field fuel quality study reported
that less than 22% of tank sites reported performing routine tank maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 138]
30. Fuel Institute Diesel Fuel Sampling Study: An Evaluation of Diesel Fuel Sold and Consumed
in the U.S. Market | Fuels Institute
Biodiesel also can degrade some gaskets and seals with prolonged exposure, particularly those
made from natural or nitrile rubber. The lack of oxidation stability of biodiesel can put materials
at risk of swelling, leaking, and/or failure. Fuel lines containing elements such as brass, bronze,
copper, lead, tin, and zinc, may accelerate the oxidation process of biodiesel, thereby creating
fuel insoluble compounds or gels and salts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 138]
As acknowledged by EPA in the Draft RIA, metallic contamination in the aftertreatment due to
fuel-borne contaminants has been shown in a variety of studies to degrade emissions control
catalysts. "Brookshear et al. 2012 studied the impact of Na on heavy-duty diesel engine
aftertreatment devices. In this accelerated aging study, they doped a B20 fuel to 5,000 ppm each
of Na and S and aged to an equivalent 435,000 miles. They found impacts on SCR function if the
SCR was positioned before the DPF." Due to the cold-start stringency proposed, leading
concepts for system layouts, including EPA's Low-NOx Stage 3 demonstration system at SWRI,
rely heavily on an SCR placed before the DPF. EPA further acknowledges these concerns, as
939
-------
follows: "Williams et al. 2013 studied the effect of Na, K and Ca on a 2011 LD 6.7L diesel
engine aftertreatment. They doped their B20 fuel to 14 times the pseudo 1 ppm Na and Ca limit
of a B20 fuel and accelerated aged the emission control systems out to 150,000 miles. The
authors aged sets of production exhaust systems that included a DOC, SCR catalyst, and DPF.
Four separate exhaust systems were aged, each with a different fuel: ULSD containing no
measurable metals, B20 containing sodium, B20 containing potassium, and B20 containing
calcium. Analysis of the aged catalysts included Federal Test Procedure emissions testing with
the systems installed on a Ford F250 pickup, bench flow reactor testing of catalyst cores, and
electron probe microanalysis (EPMA). The thermo-mechanical properties of the aged DPFs were
also measured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 138]
EPA further acknowledges these concerns, as follows: EPMA imaging of aged catalyst parts
found that both the Na and K penetrated into the washcoat of the DOC and SCR catalysts, while
Ca remained on the surface of the washcoat. Bench flow reactor experiments were used to
measure the standard NOx conversion, NH3 storage, and NH3 oxidation for each of the aged
SCR catalysts. Flow reactor results showed that the first inch of the SCR catalysts exposed to Na
and K had reduced NOx conversion through a range of temperatures (Figure 1-8 and Figure 1-9)
and also had reduced NH3 storage capacity. The SCR catalyst exposed to Ca had similar NOx
conversion and NH3 storage performance compared to the catalyst aged with ULSD." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 138 - 139]
EPA has also referenced "A level of 1 mg/kg (1 part per million) of trace metal in the fuel result
in an estimated accumulation of about 22 g of trace metal in diesel particulate filters per 100,000
miles (assuming a fuel economy of 15 mpg and 100% trapping efficiency)." Even at that low
concentration, this equates to an additional 132 grams of DPF ash in a 600,000 mile full useful
life. The additional ash accumulation caused by low levels of metals in the fuel will require more
frequent DPF ash maintenance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 139]
EPA suggests manufacturers can overcome this challenge by simply increasing the size of their
emissions control catalysts, but fails to recognize that while a 5% conversion loss due to metallic
contamination may have been acceptable with a 0.2 g/hp-hr standard, it is not acceptable with a
0.02 g/hp-hr standard, or even a 0.05 g/hp-hr standard. Increasing catalyst size also increases the
thermal inertia of the system, which is counterproductive to the rapid catalyst light-off required
by these regulations. Finally, increasing catalyst size adds additional cost to the product and
requires additional installation space in the vehicle, potentially driving additional complexity
around aftertreatment variants in vehicle applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
139]
In addition, metals are technically unregulated in ASTM D975 and ASTM D7467, which does
not clearly translate to a design criteria. Since EPA's data shows metallic contamination is low,
EMA recommends EPA work with ASTM to adopt lower limits, in the range of lppm, for all
metals, and particularly phosphorous, sodium and potassium, in all finished fuel blends. With
regard to ASTM D6751, EMA strongly recommends a reduction to the phosphorous limit from
lOppm to something in the range of lppm. Individually, these contaminants at concentrations
>lppm can have irreversible impacts on aftertreatment elements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 139]
940
-------
Engine manufacturers develop products to meet a range of emissions, safety and performance
requirements driven by customer demand and regulatory requirements. Manufacturers believe
that the availability of biodiesel fuels presents a significant risk to compliance with emissions
standards and to customers' satisfaction. Fleets expect a minimum level of performance and
durability from the engine products they purchase, with total operating costs equal to or better
than the products currently in the fleet. Significant changes to the engine and aftertreatment
system, coupled with increased useful life requirements, make it particularly important to
minimize the variables that can impact emissions compliance and customer downtime. Requiring
that manufacturers allow operation (and testing) on any commercially available biodiesel blends
up to B20 is not supportive of those important goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp.
139 - 140]
The expanded use of biodiesel poses a significant risk to the performance of low-NOx engine
and aftertreatment technologies. While many manufacturers currently approve the use of up to
B20, the impact of those fuels in widespread use is still unknown given the currently limited use
of biodiesel nationwide. Customers are often unaware of the blend level of the fuel being
dispensed when refueling. Despite the limited deployment of biodiesel and low-carbon
alternative fuels, OEMs have seen increased incidences of wear and downtime associated with
these fuels. Several manufacturers recommend reduced oil change intervals by up to 30% when
using B20 or higher blends. In sum, the Agency should not eliminate the current provision
allowing manufacturers to restrict operation and testing with B20. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 140]
ASTM specs for biodiesel stability are the lowest in the world. This causes oxidation byproducts
and raises TAN in the fuel, which either form fuel system deposits, or cause corrosion within the
fuel system. This makes the fuel unsuitable for use in any application where the equipment may
sit for as little as a week. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 140]
The following are real-world examples of problems experienced by customers operating on fuels
not meeting specification. These examples illustrate just how sensitive engines and
aftertreatment systems are to these contaminants, justifying the need for tighter, well-enforced
controls: Injector Deposits caused by carboxylate salts from water contamination: Customer
complaint with nearly 100% failure rate at two facilities. Both locations had heavy amounts of
water, sediment, and significant microbial growth in tank bottoms. One location had >10,000
ppm sodium content (limit <5 ppm). Fungible supply in biodiesel creates acid in the water layer.
The presence of sodium and acid combined creates a reaction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 140]
The following are real-world examples of problems experienced by customers operating on fuels
not meeting specification. These examples illustrate just how sensitive engines and
aftertreatment systems are to these contaminants, justifying the need for tighter, well-enforced
controls: Injector Deposits caused by carboxylate salts from fungible supply: 3 different
customers were having consistent injector failures where all customers were LTL operators and
were located in the same area. Two customers fueled at different retail locations, while one
customer had its own bulk tank. However, the fuel distributor for all 3 locations was the same
941
-------
fuel terminal. Analysis was nearly identical between all 3 customers - spectrums indicated that
the deposit was most likely a carboxylate soap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 140]
The following are real-world examples of problems experienced by customers operating on fuels
not meeting specification. These examples illustrate just how sensitive engines and
aftertreatment systems are to these contaminants, justifying the need for tighter, well-enforced
controls: Plugged filters: All customer vehicles activated a "fuel filter plugged" diagnostic within
1 week. Fuel samples ranged from 16-22% biodiesel and all fuel samples failed ASTM D7467
(B6 to B20) standards with an oxidation stability in the range of 3-5 hours. TAN/TBN loss
ranged from 0.16 to 0.25 mg KOH/g, all within D7467 limits, but extremely high compared to
most fuel samples. All fuel filters showed media collapse and media discoloration once removed.
Black gum was extracted from the fuel filter and was analyzed and determined to be consistent
with byproducts from biodiesel oxidation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 141]
It is clear from the foregoing that acids in the presence of metal can lead to deposits. Fuel system
corrosion causes injector and pump failures from water and fuels with high TAN. Although
increased acidity provides increased lubricity, the increase in TAN can lead to deposit formation
on fuel injection system hardware. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 141]
Prior to implementing compliance requirements on any commercially available B20,
manufactures would need to develop sensors that can detect the oxygen concentration or other
markers that define the biodiesel fraction in conventional diesel. This will need to be correlated
to service frequency requirements to prevent component failures due to loss of oil oxidation and
loss of TBN. Given the new emphasis on variable oil life attributed to biodiesel content,
manufacturers would also need to update their diagnostic, adaptive calibration and maintenance
prognostics to account for variable biodiesel blends and the associated impact to tailpipe
emissions. Finally, OEMs would need time to work with lube oil manufacturers and ASTM
standards committees to develop oil formulations that are resistant to oxidation and degradation
overtime. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p .141]
In addition to the durability concerns discussed above, fuel characteristics have the potential to
alter engine out-emissions, as has been reported in CARB's Biodiesel Characterization and NOx
Mitigation Study. Table 1 from that study (reproduced below) illustrates the significantly
increased NOx emissions levels observed when compared to a reference BO diesel fuel. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 141]
The foregoing data further confirm that the requirement to allow the use of any commercially
available biodiesel blends will pose serious risks to manufacturers' ability to comply with in-use
emissions standards. EMA supports that EPA has proposed to permit manufacturers to use
results from fuel sample testing to void in-use test results after-the-fact (see §1036.415(c)(5)),
but it is very uncertain whether manufacturers will able to identify improper fuel usage records
or otherwise determine the cause of a failed in-use compliance test that might be attributable to
previous operation on poor-quality fuels. In the event of a test failure, manufacturers would be
compelled to differentiate normal system wear, contamination, or deactivation from that
attributed to the use of biodiesel and/or inadequate maintenance procedures appropriate to
account for the use of biodiesel. The ability to identify the source of damage resulting from the
942
-------
use of biodiesel may be difficult or inconclusive in many cases. The serious and costly
consequences for recall due to compromised in-use compliance could result in manufacturers
being compelled to reduce maintenance intervals to mitigate the risk of damage from biodiesel
fuels, even to the point of requiring aftertreatment replacement within the useful life period,
significantly increasing the cost of vehicles compliant with the new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 142]
It is important to reiterate that EPA indicated in the RIA that the impacts of biodiesel would not
significantly increase emissions and could be addressed by increasing the catalyst size. However,
that data is based on engines compliant to a 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOx standard rather than the proposed
Option 1 or 2 standard, where a "small" increase of just 0.002 g/bhp-hr could render a product
non-compliant. That risk is exacerbated by a 800,000 mile useful life requirement. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 142]
The Coordinating Research Council (not EPA) is evaluating the influence that diesel fuel
variables, as wells as varieties of renewable diesel and biodiesel fuels, have on tailpipe NOx
emissions from the Stage 3 low-NOx technology EPA is relying on in this rulemaking. That
testing is scheduled to be completed in May or June, with follow-on data analysis thereafter.
Additional testing to understand long-term effects of operation on biofuels has yet to be planned,
but should be very informative to the setting of standards as well, given EPA's new requirements
for compliance using "any commercially available" biodiesel fuel meeting the current inadequate
ASTM specifications. EPA has formulated its proposal without any of those fuels-impacts
data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 172]
All of the critical research outlined above was not available or not completed in time to support
the pending NPRM. Indeed, the vital research at issue is still in process, with much of it expected
to be delivered just as the proposed rule is expected to "go final" in the fall, all to meet EPA's
goal of having the new low-NOx standards take effect in 2027. Thus, there is considerable risk
that these critical data will be unavailable when these largely infeasible standards are to be
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 172.]
Accordingly, EMA recommends expanding the fuel requirements beyond the current ASTM
standards to include the more stringent European biodiesel standards and the Top Tier
requirements. This would apply to both feedstocks (B100) as well as finish stock. It is widely
understood that after metals contamination, poor fuel oxidation stability is a key factor
contributing to much of the biodiesel-based engine damage and the cascading downstream
collateral damage impacts to aftertreatment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 143]
Additionally, EMA recommends that the applicable regulations explicitly provide for a
maximum biodiesel content of 20% nationwide. The emissions impacts from biodiesel increase
significantly as blend percentages increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 143]
Finally, EMA recommends that EPA support updating ASTM D975 and D7467 to reduce the
allowable concentrations of Calcium, Magnesium. Sodium, Potassium and Phosphorous. EMA
stands ready to work with EPA and other stakeholders to determine appropriate limits for those
properties, reducing them to levels in the range of lppm. These new fuel standards should be
943
-------
developed based on industry experience, experimental data, and supplier input, and should be
enforceable at the pump. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 143]
In addition to these finished fuel specifications, EMA recommends improvements to the B100
feedstock specification as well, to help enable higher quality finished fuels with biodiesel
content. The following B100 specifications and recommendations refer strictly to B100 as a
blendstock and not as a finished product. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 143]
To summarize, EMA opposes the requirement that manufacturers must comply on any
commercially available biofuel meeting current ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467 standards.
Manufacturers should be permitted to continue to specify the maximum allowable biodiesel
blend levels for their products, and vehicles operating on, or having operated on, fuels
inconsistent with the manufacturers' recommendations, should not be required to comply with
the final standards. In addition, EPA should take action to assist in the development and
enforcement of the improved biofuel specifications listed above before holding manufacturers
liable for compliance when operating on such fuels. Only after improved fuel quality standards
are developed, implemented, and enforced at the pump can the industry embrace the widespread
deployment of alternative fuels, and promote their usage, so as to realize the rapid and significant
reductions in GHG emissions they might offer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 143]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
In the preamble to the NPRM and the Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA raised concerns about
the potential for trace metals (especially sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium) in
biodiesel to adversely affect the performance of engines and emission control systems,
suggesting that trace metals can accumulate in and impact the effectiveness of diesel particulate
filters or poison selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst. The potential routes for metals
introduction into the fuel mentioned by EPA include: presence of metals in vegetable oil seeds
used to produce the biodiesel feedstock; introduction of metals from catalysts or filtration media;
and introduction of metals from hard wash water. EPA believes it is possible for ASTM D6751
and ASTM D975-compliant biodiesels to have trace metals present at levels that could impact
emission control systems, and EPA indicates that ASTM is evaluating a possible revision to the
measurement method in D6751 to a method with a lower detection limit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1328-A2, p.8]
Although we have no basis to agree or disagree with EPA's concern regarding biodiesel, Valero
is confident that metals are not an issue with renewable diesel. Any metals introduced via
vegetable oil or animal fat feedstocks are removed as part of the unique processing involved in
making renewable diesel. We recognize that EPA does not propose any regulations to address
this issue. If EPA were to consider addressing the issue, however, we urge EPA to recognize that
renewable diesel is processed in a different manner than biodiesel and should be distinguished
accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.8]
944
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group appreciates the following EPA Biodiesel Quality comments. ".. .metals (e.g.,
Na, K, Ca, Mg) can enter the biodiesel production stream and can adversely affect emission
control system performance if not sufficiently removed during the production." (87 FR at p.
17563.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 6]
While off-specification blends may not be widespread, continued focus on specifications that
protect emission reduction performance and component durability is needed. In support of this
objective, the Volvo Group promotes endorsement of the following ASTM B100 specifications
contaminant limits: Na+K+Ca+Mg 4 ppm, P 1 ppm. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 6]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Regarding the use of biodiesel and the effect of contaminants from biodiesel, EMA, Daimler,
and Navistar state that current ASTM standards for biodiesel are inadequate compared to other
worldwide standards, and the use of even a small amount of poor-quality biodiesel could damage
the aftertreatment system. These commenters further state that increasing the size of the
aftertreatment system to compensate for use of biodiesel would be counterproductive, and
introduce packaging, cost, and fuel economy concerns. Therefore, they recommend that the
Agency should not eliminate the current provision allowing manufacturers to restrict operation
and testing with B20. Daimler further recommends that EPA consider a uniform, nationwide
biodiesel blending proposal (for example, B5 standard for all diesel fuel sold).
Daimler states that they have observed concerning levels of metallic contamination in fuel
samples collected from fleets. EMA states that a field fuel quality study revealed that over 50%
of nozzle samples contained metals such as magnesium, calcium, and zinc. Additionally, EMA
cites several instances of real-world problems experienced by customers operating on biodiesel
fuels not meeting specification.
EMA, Daimler, and Navistar recommend EPA mandate more stringent standards on biodiesel
fuel, such as improving the current ASTM specifications to lower metal content, and/or adopting
of both Top Tier and EU biodiesel standards in lieu of the ASTM D975, D7467 and D6751
standards. Volvo also recommends more stringent limitations on contaminants. Further, EMA
and Daimler recommend setting a maximum biodiesel percentage of 20% nationwide. EMA and
Daimler state that the impact on emissions increases significantly as biodiesel percentages are
increased beyond 20%.
Furthermore, EMA and Daimler support EPA's proposal to permit manufacturers to use results
from fuel sample testing to void in-use test results after-the-fact. However, EMA and Daimler
comment that identifying a test failure due to the use of biodiesel would be difficult or
inconclusive, as fuel quality and recordkeeping by fleets and retail stations are not the
responsibility of the OEM. Daimler further recommends that a more supportable program would
be where if a vehicle or HDIUT fleet were selected at start of mileage accumulation and a
cooperative fuel sampling program put in place over the vehicle's lifetime.
945
-------
EMA comments that they oppose the requirement that manufacturers must comply on any
commercially available biofuel meeting current ASTM D975 or ASTM D7467 standards. They
recommend that manufacturers should be permitted to specify the maximum allowable biodiesel
percentage usable in their engines, and further state that manufacturers should not be required to
comply using engines which have not been fueled to the stated specification.
However, CARB comments in support of the inclusion of all commercially available fuels,
including fuels that contain biodiesel up to 20 percent, in off-cycle testing. The Renewable
Energy Group comments that blends including 20 percent biodiesel should be the norm. API also
agrees with EPA that there is no widespread off specification biodiesel blend stock or biodiesel
blends in the marketplace. Clean Fuels comments that the most recent studies have shown that
metals contamination in biodiesel is, on average, well below the standards set both in the United
States and in Europe. MECA comments that results of a survey by researchers at NREL of
biodiesel has shown metal content far below the current specification for the vast majority of
samples collected. Both MECA and the Renewable Energy Group state that CARB also collected
diesel and biodiesel samples, finding that phosphorus and metal contents of biodiesel were
significantly lower than current ASTM limits. Additionally, the State Soybean Associations
comments that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that metals can enter the production
stream of biodiesel.
API also recommends that EPA consider the results of the SwRI study on the effect of biofuels
on lowNOx emission control technologies before finalizing this rule.
MECA comments that sulfur is found in diesel fuels, and testing has shown some loss of
aftertreatment performance due to the presence of sulfur from 435,000 miles to 800,000 miles.
MECA also comments that metals found in lube oil can also cause deterioration in catalyst
performance.
Multiple organizations, including Daimler, Neste, and Valero, support the use of renewable
diesel. Valero comments that they are certain metal contamination is not an issue with renewable
diesel.
Response:
In regard to water and acid content of the fuel; we do not have evidence that this is a widespread
issue. In addition, engines are already equipped with fuel-water separators that mitigate the
effects of water and inorganic acid by removing them prior to the fuel entering the fuel injection
system. Based on this, we believe that we have adequately assessed the costs of this rule; our
cost analysis is detailed in the preamble and RIA for the final rule.
The rest of EPA's response to these comments is detailed in preamble Section III.C.4.ii.
11.5.5 PM emissions measurement
946
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comment on the need to measure PM emissions during in-use testing.
CARB staff opposes eliminating PM emissions measurement during heavy duty in-use testing.
PM emission measurement is critical to determine if an engine is emissions compliant and even
more so now that the PM emission standard is lowered to 0.005 g/bhp-hr to ensure current wall
flow DPF technology will be used. Unfortunately, CARB staff has discovered that manufacturers
have been inappropriately screening their HDIUT vehicles. This includes but is not limited to
rejecting engines based on visual inspections that identify excess PM on the exhaust tailpipe and
replacing DPFs prior to in-use testing. These inappropriate screening practices were discussed by
CARB staff at industry workshops. Since it is unclear how the historical engines in the HDIUT
program were screened for PM testing, we believe it is necessary to continue PM testing. CARB
staff strongly opposes the NPRM proposal to consider opacity testing for determining PM
compliance. CARB staff believes that while opacity testing may well provide an indication of a
failed DPF, it cannot, define PM emission compliance, especially with the proposed lower PM
standard. Hence, CARB staff would not accept an opacity test method for determining
compliance in lieu of current 1065 PM test requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
P-61]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed 1036.415(g) provides that '[y]ou may ask us to waive testing relative to one or more
emission standards if you can show that field testing for such emissions is not necessary.' EPA
must provide OEMs additional flexibilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.55]
As a general matter, the proposed HDIUT testing needs to be streamlined to make the individual
tests less burdensome because overall testing is expected to increase due to (i) more cases where
7 to 10 engines will need to be tested and (ii) possible separate engine families for California.
PEMS testing requires skilled engineers and technicians who are willing and able to carry out
challenging, physical work while traveling in harsh environments and expending long hours
often during the night. These individuals are always very difficult - and currently nearly
impossible - to find. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.55-56]
HDIUT testing also significantly disrupts OEM customers rendering recruiting participants
extremely challenging. To sustain a base of customers that are willing to participate, and to make
the proposed program potentially feasible, OEMs would need to drastically reduce installation
time, vehicle space, and electrical power. On this issue, PACCAR incorporates EMA's
Comments on this subject. See EMA Comments at 41. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
P 56]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In the Preamble to the NPRM, EPA requests comment on whether in-use testing for PM is still
necessary. It is not, and should be eliminated. In fact, since the beginning of 2015 - more than
947
-------
seven years ago - EMA has been requesting that the Agency eliminate in-use testing for PM.
EPA staff agreed with EMA on this matter in mid-2020, but have not taken the necessary steps to
revise the relevant regulations. Now is the time to do that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 44]
The background for this issue is important. The heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) program,
including for PM, resulted from the 2003 settlement of extensive NTE-related litigation
(asserting that there were no sufficient test procedures for the then-new NTE standards). As
part of that settlement, the parties (EMA, EPA, and CARB) negotiated a comprehensive outline
of the NPRM for the HDIUT program, which included the following express provisions: The
goal of this [HDIUT] program is to generate data on in-use emissions of heavy-duty on-highway
diesel engines that can be used by EPA, CARB, and diesel engine manufacturers to ensure that
emission standards are met throughout the useful life of 2007 and later model year heavy-duty
on-highway diesel engines under conditions normally experienced in-use. The program is
intended to monitor for NTE compliance and to help ensure overall compliance with emission
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 44 - 45]
The background for this issue is important. The heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) program,
including for PM, resulted from the 2003 settlement of extensive NTE-related litigation
(asserting that there were no sufficient test procedures for the then-new NTE standards). As
part of that settlement, the parties (EMA, EPA, and CARB) negotiated a comprehensive outline
of the NPRM for the HDIUT program, which included the following express provisions: In-use
NTE emissions testing will include total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and carbon dioxide (C02) (and also
02)... .Recognizing that experience may show that the effectiveness, durability and overall
performance of new engine technologies and aftertreatment systems may demonstrate that in-use
testing for certain pollutants may not be necessary, EPA/CARB will consider requests from the
engine manufacturers to discontinue reporting and/or measurement of one or all engines based
on test experience. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 45]
The follow-on final HDIUT rule was fully consistent with the parties' negotiated outline, and
stated in relevant part as follows: All manufacturers will be regularly providing EPA with a
significant quantity of data generated from engines used in regular service, which EPA will
evaluate to ensure the engines comply with specified emissions requirements. The rule is a result
of an agreement between EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association. (70 FR at
34594.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 45]
The follow-on final HDIUT rule was fully consistent with the parties' negotiated outline, and
stated in relevant part as follows: [HDIUT] is specifically intended to monitor compliance with
the NTE exhaust emission standards and to help ensure that heavy-duty diesel engines will
comply with all applicable emission standards (including those based on the FTP) throughout
their useful lives. (70 FRat 34595.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 45]
The follow-on final HDIUT rule was fully consistent with the parties' negotiated outline, and
stated in relevant part as follows: Recognizing that experience may show that the effectiveness,
durability and overall performance of new engine technologies and exhaust aftertreatment
948
-------
systems may demonstrate that in-use testing for certain pollutants is unnecessary, we will
consider requests from the engine manufacturers to discontinue reporting and/or measurement of
one or more pollutants from some or all engines based on future test experience. (70 FR at
34610.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 45]
Test experience, which EMA catalogued and shared with the Agency starting in 2015, has
conclusively demonstrated that the measurement and reporting of in-use PM emissions is both
unnecessary and costly. Thus, EPA should honor its commitment to eliminate HDIUT for PM.
More specifically, since 2006, the relevant test results from the HDIUT program have
demonstrated that there have been no "failures" for PM emissions. While one failure was
initially reported, that vehicle was subsequently found to have a cracked DPF due to misfuelling.
Indeed, EPA has acknowledged that there have been no in-use testing failures for PM under the
HDIUT program. At the same time, in-use testing for PM is expensive, and requires a separate
PEMS, elaborate installation configurations and vehicle mountings, significant additional vehicle
recruiting and set-up time, and significant additional de-installation and post-processing
time. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 46]
The proposed reduction of the certification standard for PM (from 0.010 g/bhp-hr to 0.005 g/bhp-
hr) does not alter the justifications for eliminating PM from the manufacturer-run HDIUT
program. As EPA concedes, that reduced standard will not drive any new DPF technologies; it is
simply intended to prevent hypothetical "backsliding." Accordingly, no new risks of
noncompliance are at issue. Moreover, eliminating manufacturers' in-use testing for PM will also
eliminate the Agency's legitimate concerns of whether PM PEMS are up to the challenge of
assessing in-use PM levels below 6 or 7 mg/bhp-hr. (See NPRM, 87 FR at 17468.) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 46]
There is an additional technical reason supporting the elimination of in-use testing for PM. In-
use PM compliance is already monitored by on-board PM sensors. The failure mode for a DPF is
cracking, which is easily detected by a PM sensor. Thus, if the goal of the HDIUT program for
PM is to monitor DPF performance in-use, that is already robustly built-in with today's engines.
Consequently, and as EPA staff has previously agreed, it is time to eliminate HDIUT testing for
PM. There is no reasonable basis to do otherwise at this point. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 46]
It also is time to eliminate in-use testing for NMHC. The reasons for this are many and well-
documented. First, there is a growing need to streamline HDIUT testing because the test burdens
(the number of engine families and potentially the number of tests per family) continue to grow.
Second, the HDIUT program is very disruptive to an OEM's customers, which makes it
extremely difficult to recruit willing fleet-owner participants A smaller footprint in terms of
installation time, vehicle space, and electrical power is required to streamline HDIUT testing to
maintain a sustainable base of willing customers needed to support this program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 46]
This is not a trivial concern. Installation of PEMS often involves the removal of certain items
that can include passenger seats, windowpanes, storage boxes, bedding and personal belongings,
and other accessories and equipment belonging to the customer or driver. There is always risk of
949
-------
damage to a customer vehicle, and customers are often surprised by the intrusive nature of a
PEMS installation and left questioning what they agreed to. When a PEMS test needs to be
repeated, the altered configuration of the vehicle sometimes limits flexibility in terms of the next
assigned task for the customer vehicle. It is not unusual for a customer to need to alter their
activities and/or driver schedules to accommodate an OEM's need for extended in-use testing.
The ancillary in-use testing of NMHC and PM adds significant risks that additional days of
testing will be necessary due to an issue with an analyzer. In sum, in-use testing needs to be less
invasive to be sustainable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 46]
Third, a streamlined PEMS (i.e., gas PEMS, without FID or PM PEMS) is much lighter and has
a much lower power requirement, such that it is feasible to power it with Li-ion batteries or 12
volt power from the chassis electrical system, or both, potentially eliminating the need for a
gasoline-powered generator and its associated hazards, space requirements, and possible delays
during inspection at a truck scale, which can adversely affect customers' operation. A
streamlined PEMS's would reduce staffing pressure for executing PEMS tests, could be installed
in a reasonable amount of time with minimal disruption to the customer vehicle, and would
eliminate the risks of voiding a test or rescheduling a test trip due to a PM or FID analyzer
issue. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: Diesel engines are inherently low emitters of NMHC, and there have been few, if any,
failures of in-use tests for NMHC emissions since the inception of the HDIUT program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: Hazards and associated HazMat handling protocols for the use of FID fuel (DOT
special permit and HazMat shipper certification) is an unnecessary risk. Customers often express
concern over the FID fuel, and recognize that it adds risk for major disruptions during an
inspection at a weigh station. NMHC testing puts OEMs in the position of directly asking a
customer to assume that risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: The supply of FID fuel is expensive and unreliable due to the continuing Helium
shortage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: The 181°C heated line and FID temperatures that are necessary to avoid HC hang-up to
keep HC's in gaseous form drive high demand for power that is limited in a PEMS application.
Long heated lines are often necessary due to constraints on the location of the PEMS, which
draw even more power due to their length. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: OEM's are already incentivized to reduce NMHC to manage risks of thermal runaway
of an aftertreatment system contaminated with HC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
950
-------
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: Actions necessary to control engine-out PM also reduce HC emissions (i.e., high
injection pressure, droplet size, and distribution). Low engine-out PM is desired to minimize
EGR cooler fouling and to reduce regen frequency to improve IRAF and fuel economy driving a
co-benefit of HC reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: The base architecture of diesel aftertreatment systems includes an NMHC-reducing
DOC necessary to support combustion of the injected HC that, in turn, is needed to support DPF
regen cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: The base architecture of diesel aftertreatment systems includes an AMOX catalyst
necessary to control ammonia slip, which can also reduce NMHC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: NMHCs from diesel engines are composed of heavy long-chain HCs lacking the
volatility needed to contribute to ozone formation.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 47]
Other more technical issues also warrant the elimination of in-use NMHC testing going
forward: HC standards are to be lowered under the NPRM, but that is driven by goals for SI
engines (EPA stated goal is to maintain the same numerical standard for CI and SI). There is
no intent to force any new technology to control HCs from CI engines, and CI engine currently
easily comply with the NMHC standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 47-48]
In sum, there is no need for further incentives to control NMHC emissions; there is no
undeployed control technologies for NMHC; and no environmental need that justifies the
continued burdensome measurement of NMHC with PEMS in the HDIUT program.
Accordingly, just as for PM, EPA should eliminate the need to conduct in-use testing for
NMHC. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 48]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB opposes eliminating PM emissions measurement during heavy duty in-use testing. They
comment that manufacturers have been inappropriately screening their HDIUT vehicles by
rejecting engines based on visual inspections that identify excess PM on the exhaust tailpipe and
replacing DPFs prior to in-use testing, and thus it is not clear in what way engines were
historically screened for PM testing. CARB also opposes using opacity testing for determining
PM compliance.
EMA comments that testing for PM emissions is unnecessary and costly. EMA states that since
2006, there have been no test failures for PM emissions, and that the reduction of the
certification standard for PM will not introduce further risks of noncompliance. Additionally,
951
-------
they state that the failure mode for a DPF is cracking, which is easily caught by onboard PM
sensors.
EMA also comments that testing for NMHC should be eliminated. They state that streamlining
the PEMS unit would reduce cost and test burden and reduce the intrusion on the vehicle owner's
time and space from installing the PEMS unit. They further comment that there have been few, if
any, failures of in-use tests for NMHC emissions since the inception of the HDIUT program, and
that there is no environmental need that justifies the continued burdensome measurement of
NMHC with PEMS in the HDIUT program. PACCAR states that HDUIT testing needs to be less
burdensome, and explicitly agrees with EMA's comments on streamlining testing.
Response:
EPA does not agree with the comment by CARB that removing the requirement for in-use off-
cycle PM standards testing will lead manufacturers to stop using wall flow DPF technology to
meet the PM standards. Wall flow DPF technology will still be needed to meet the standards at
the time of certification, especially given the PM standard of 5 mg/hp-hr promulgated in this
action. EPA also does not share CARB staffs concern that manufacturers have been
inappropriately screening their HDIUT vehicles for PM related concerns. If a DPF is properly
maintained there will be no visible soot on the tailpipe. If soot is found on the tailpipe, that is
indicative of a DPF failure, typically due to cracking of the substrate that allows PM to slip
between the catalyst channel walls. Measurement of PM from a failed trap due to cracking is not
representative of the level at which a properly maintained and functioning system emits PM.
EPA has considered comments on elimination of requirements to measure PM and NMHC
emissions; a discussion is included in preamble Section III.C.4.b.
11.5.6 Notification and data reporting
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the new requirement in 1036.430(c)(1) where notification is required after
the testing of an engine is completed. This would aid in real time assessment of the test plan and
provide updates sooner than the previous quarterly reporting requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.64]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR respectfully request that EPA revise certain aspects of its proposed reporting
requirements provisions. Proposed 1036.430(a)(3)(ix) would only authorize gaps in the 1 Hz test
data file over the shift-day during analyzer zero and span verifications. This overlooks the fact
that data gaps will exist when the engine is off. Any data transmitted by the engine ECU will
stop when the key is off because a shut-off ECU is unable to send data. Therefore, EPA should
add a 'key off condition to the list in the Agency's proposed provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.57]
952
-------
EPA should also clarify the effect, if any, of potential data gaps. PACCAR respectfully submits
that data gaps should not necessarily void a test, especially because occasionally an analyzer or
measuring instrument will encounter a temporary issue. Proscribing any data gaps is unrealistic
and overly burdensome - as long as the minimum window count is met, the test should be valid
notwithstanding potential data gaps. EPA should revise its proposal accordingly. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.57-58]
PACCAR is also concerned with proposed 1036.430(a)(3)(ix)(0), which currently provides:
'Any parameter sensed or controlled to modulate the emission control system or fuel-injection
timing.' As drafted, this provision is too broad and vague to provide regulatory certainty and
enable compliance. EPA should therefore remove it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.58]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In the reporting requirements of §1036.430(a)(3)(ix), EPA proposes to require that "gaps in the 1
Hz data file over the shift-day are only allowed during analyzer zero and span verifications."
That is an impractical and unworkable requirement. First, the vehicle's CAN communications
are interrupted whenever there is a key-off event. The PEMS may continue to record, but much
of the required data provided by vehicle systems is not available during these engine-off events.
Second, because PEMS are imperfect devices, it is currently difficult to complete a day of testing
without at least one incident of data interruption. In some cases, toward the end of a test day, the
FID may exhaust its fuel supply, terminating measurement capability. The provision as drafted is
outside the test technician's control and should be eliminated in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 92]
Another item of concern relates to EPA's proposed §1036.430(a)(3)(ix)(0), where it would be
required, for each vehicle tested, that manufacturers provide 1 Hz data for "any parameter sensed
or controlled to modulate the emissions control system or fuel injection timing." That
requirement simply cannot be fulfilled. There are hundreds if not thousands of calculations
performed in the ECU that contribute in some way to engine and aftertreatment control that
would be subject to this requirement. SAE standards J1939 and J1979 would require updating to
include this multitude of parameters, which, in reality would be an impossible task given that
each manufacturer has its own set of control algorithms. The requirement is unworkable, and
should be eliminated in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 93]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB supports the provision in §1036.430(c)(1) requiring notification after the testing of an
engine is completed.
EMA and PACCAR comment that only allowing gaps in the 1 Hz data file over the shift
day during analyzer zero and span verifications is unworkable. EMA and PACCAR state that
data interruptions can occur during a key-off event, and PEMS units can also experience data
interruptions; stating that both of these occurrences are unavoidable. EMA and PACCAR further
state that the requirement that manufacturers provide 1 Hz data for "any parameter sensed or
953
-------
controlled to modulate the emissions control system or fuel injection timing" is also unworkable,
as there are hundreds if not thousands of calculations performed which affect the emissions
control system.
Response:
EPA agrees with EMA and PACCAR that gaps in the collection of emissions data in the 1 Hz
data files when the engine is keyed off are unavoidable and is adding this as an allowed
exclusion in the final 40 CFR 1036.430(a)(3)(ix). In response to this concern EPA is finalizing a
new 40 CFR 1036.430(a)(4)(vi) that was not in the proposal, that covers summary information
that must be included with the data submission and states "Describe the number and length of
any data gaps in the 1 Hz data file, the reason for the gap(s), and the parameters affected."
Requiring a summary report of these exclusions will limit the number of allowable exclusions
and protect against manufacturers not including data that is unfavorable in the test and
representing them as data gaps. In the windowing process, these gaps must be treated as
exclusions and concatenated across as described in 40 CFR 1036.530.
Additionally, EPA agrees that the recording of ECU calculated parameters is unworkable and
this was not the intention of what we proposed. The final requirement to provide 1 Hz data in 40
CFR 1036.430(a)(3)(ix)(0) applies only to parameters sensed or controlled and available on the
Controller Area Network (CAN), and not parameters internal to the ECU. This requirement is
no different than the current requirement for HDIUT NTE testing in 40 CFR part
86.1920(b)(4)(xii)(O). CAN signals that indicate changes to fuel injection timing or operational
parameters of the emission control system are important to understand the operation of the
engine in concurrence with what is being emitted from the engine.
II.6 PEMS and measurement accuracy margin (Preamble
III.C.5.iii)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA requested comment on PEMS measurement uncertainty. CARB staff has significant
concerns with U.S. EPA adding a PEMS accuracy margin for NOx in addition a certification
standard multiplier for establishing the off-cycle standards. CARB staff views the use of both a
multiplier and a separate PEMS accuracy margin to be redundant and unnecessary; having both a
multiplier and accuracy margin would unnecessarily raise the off-cycle emissions threshold and
allow excess emissions. The effects of applying multiple in-use margin is clearly listed in Table
6-1 above. Furthermore, U.S. EPA's impermissibly failed to consider the extent to its proposal
will likely result in in-use emissions exceeding the off-cycle standards. State Farm, 463 U.S. at
43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.61]
CARB staff agrees with the JRC study estimated the uncertainty of PEMS measurements to be
10 percent. The PEMS accuracy evaluation conducted by JRC recommends the multiplier
between the standard and the in-use threshold for the In-Service Conformity testing be reduced
954
-------
to the PEMS uncertainty (i.e., using a conformity factor of 1.10 multiplier to set the off-cycle
standard). The U.S. EPA proposed off-cycle emission thresholds would be between 10 to 120
percent greater than the Omnibus thresholds. CARB staff believes the conformity factor in the
3B-MAW in the HD Low NOx rulemaking 129 and the multipliers in the off-cycle emission
standards are already inclusive of the PEMS accuracy margin for NOx. The recommendations in
the JRC reportl30 are to reduce their conformity factor to the estimated error rather than having
an additive PEMS margin as proposed by U.S. EPA. CARB staff suggests not to have an
additional PEMS accuracy margin of 10 percent of the off-cycle emissions standard to be applied
when evaluating bin emissions. CARB staff also suggests that U.S. EPA review the latest PEMS
measurement results from the Achates engine.131,132,133 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.61-62]
129 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox
130
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC124017/pems_uncertainty_2
020_vl0.pdf
131 Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS) Testing for the Achates Opposed
Piston Low NOx Diesel Engine, https://calstart.org/event/heavy-duty-program-review-
webinar/
132 https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-In-Use-
Emissions-Measurements.pdf
133 https://achatespower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Achates-Power-Heavy-Duty-
Diesel-In-Use-Testing-Results.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck supports an adequate Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS)
measurement error allowance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.69]
Finally, Daimler Truck supports EPA's proposal to include a margin for PEMS measurement
error. While EPA references some initial studies on PEMS uncertainty on EPA's candidate
system, the Agency has not performed a broad study across a wide variety of test cycles and
ambient conditions. It is well known that PEMS variability is heavily dependent on ambient
conditions. We believe that EPA must perform a joint study with industry to determine an
appropriate margin to apply. Manufacturers must have certainty that their systems will pass
based on the merits of their actual emissions performance, and not be held liable for inaccurate
measurements performed in the field. Moreover, we point the EPA to EMA's extensive
comments on this topic.90 We believe industry must participate in the testing to determine an
adequate allowance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.69-70]
90 See EMA Proposed Rule Comments.
955
-------
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
Real world emissions testing plays an important role in confirming that emissions systems are
performing as designed in the field. Portable Emissions Measurement Systems (PEMS) are
laboratory devices that may be temporarily installed on a vehicle to estimate emissions produced
during real-world driving. The measurement capability of these systems to estimate emissions is
less precise, accurate, and repeatable than dedicated lab facilities. Similarly, the test procedures,
and binning of emissions results based on a wide range of conditions,8 produce significant
variance in the estimate of emissions relative to proposed standards. EPA is considering
standards, as measured in the laboratory, that reduce emissions rates to a small fraction of the
current standard. As a result, the noise typically associated with data collected from PEMS is
amplified relative to the size of the standard. EPA should carefully consider the precision,
accuracy, and repeatability of measurements in PEMS devices when finalizing conformity
factors. Low conformity factors in combination with standards with very small emissions
increase the likelihood of misdiagnosing emissions performance when measured with
PEMS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.4]
8 Idle, start-stop, highway driving, laden highway driving, etc.
GM recommends that, if PEMS must be used to verify compliance with very stringent criteria
emissions standards, a larger conformity factor be specified to properly account for the capability
of the PEMS device to accurately estimate emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.4]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
Proposed 1036.420 is flawed because a ten percent margin is much too small. In any event,
PACCAR expects SwRI's ongoing work will support a much different PEMS accuracy margin
and encourages EPA to use those findings to establish the margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.56]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner: The proposed in-use standards should be adjusted to account
for the measurement variability and capabilities of portable emission measurement systems
("PEMS"), and to reflect the fact that the current OBD thresholds will not be able to screen-out
potentially malfunctioning vehicles, as is done under the current in-use testing program. While
EMA agrees with the Agency that the in-use standards should be reduced, the safeguards to
ensure proper vehicle screening and to guard against "false" or otherwise unwarranted failures
need to be retained. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 7]
EPA is proposing to address this issue by providing for a 10% measurement allowance (accuracy
margin) based on an earlier European study that did not evaluate PEMS in the context of testing
ultra-low-NOx engines in-use. (87 FR at p. 17477.) Nevertheless, on the basis of that one earlier
study, EPA is proposing to reduce the current in-use accuracy allowance margin for NOx from
956
-------
150 mg/bhp-hr to what amounts to 3 mg/bhp-hr with respect to the "Bin 3" standard - a 98%
reduction. That is an unreasonable reduction. The accuracy of PEMS at low-NOx levels certainly
has improved, but not by 98%. EPA should wait for the results from the pending PEMS
Measurement Allowance Study at SwRI before proposing, in effect, to eliminate the in-use
accuracy margin for NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 11]
An additional component of SwRI's work has included a technical assessment of the type of
MAW-based approach on which EPA intends to build its 3B-MAW in-use compliance program.
SwRI's research and findings indicate that the necessary sensors and electronically-
broadcast engine parameters may not be accurate or robust enough to implement EPA's 3B-
MAW-based approach as envisioned. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 81 - 82]
Specifically, SwRI has examined whether state-of-the-art NOx sensors are sufficiently accurate
at low-NOx levels to support the proposed in-use regulations. As depicted in Figures 72 and 73
below from the SwRI Report, SwRI found that "substantial errors can be seen on the order of
10%) to 20%o, which errors grow larger at low overall NOx mass levels," and that "NOx sensor
data at present are not yet at the same level of accuracy as some of the other EMC broadcast
measurements, such as exhaust flow." (SwRI Report, ISOR Reference 191, p. 63.) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 82]
In summing up its conclusions regarding CARB's (and now, EPA's) MAW-based approach,
SwRI highlighted the facts that NOx sensors will "require considerable improvement in
application and accuracy to support in-use compliance measurements at Low NOx levels," and
that "further investigation of the [in-use] metrics is needed, as well as to set a proper compliance
threshold for whichever new metric is chosen." (SwRI Report, ISOR Reference 191, p.88.)
Accordingly, SwRI ended its report with the following recommendation: "More analysis needs
to be performed before setting a final in-use measurement protocol, and the appropriate
compliance thresholds [plural] for that protocol." (SwRI Report, ISOR Reference 191, p.
89.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 83]
Following on that recommendation, and with funding from EMA and other stakeholders, SwRI
has conducted additional research on the capabilities of current NOx-sensors to assess emissions
at the ultra-low NOx values at issue. The results of that follow-on research are significant. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 83 - 84]
Perhaps just as significant as the concerns related to the 3B-MAW protocol, which concerns
support the adoption of EMA's alternative combined-bin approach, there are a number of
concerns regarding whether the portable emissions measurement systems (PEMS) that will be
used to implement and enforce the proposed in-use testing program are capable of measuring and
"binning" NOx emissions at the near-zero levels that the low-NOx regulations would
require. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 84]
Current PEMS may not be capable of measuring and sorting NOx emissions at levels below the
Option 1 Bin 3 NOx standard of 0.030 g/bhp-hr level. To the contrary, the regulatory-capable
NOx-detection and measurement range of current PEMS is at a level that can be equivalent to a
significant percentage of the in-use NOx limits that EMA's regulations envision, and that is
957
-------
before any in-use operational and environmental conditions and impacts are taken into
account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 84]
All stakeholders have recognized the critical importance of evaluating and quantifying the
incremental low-NOx accuracy and variability of current PEMS. Accordingly, multiple
stakeholders, including EPA, are collaborating on a PEMS Measurement Allowance (PEMS-
MA) Evaluation Project at SwRI. Work under that program is still on-going, and an additional
follow on PEMS-MA in-use validation program will be initiated soon. EPA will need to account
for those measurement allowance results before finalizing this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 84]
The need for a sufficient PEMS-related measurement allowance is well-established. The current
PEMS measurement-accuracy adjustment factor was determined in 2008 through an extensive
series of tightly controlled laboratory and in-vehicle tests designed specifically for the
assessment of PEMS measurement accuracy and variability. EPA was an active participant in the
development of that testing program, which was performed at SwRI. 17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 84]
17 See "Determination of PEMS Measurement Allowances for Gaseous Emissions
Regulated Under the Heavy-Duty Engine In-Use Testing Program." SAE Paper, 2009-01-
0938/0939/0940, SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants (2009); EPA Report
No. EPA 420-R-08-005 (Feb. 2008); EPA, Direct Final Rule, "In-Use Testing for Heavy -
Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles; Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins for
Portable Emission Measurement Systems," (73 FR 13441-52, March 13, 2008).
To put this issue into perspective, today's NTE-based in-use NOx standard of 0.30 g/bhphr (0.45
when the authorized NOx measurement allowance of 0.15 g/bhp-hr is added on) involves
measuring NOx concentrations on the order of 45 ppm. In comparison, the proposed
medium/high load 3B-MAW "Bin 3" in-use Option 1 NOx standard of 0.030 g/bhp-hr would
require measuring NOx concentrations of approximately 4 to 5 ppm, or closer to 3 ppm since
manufacturers would need to design for some minimum level of compliance margin. Those
single-digit ppm levels are not far removed from the "drift" of PEMS NOx measurements over
an 8-hour period, before factoring in any of the actual in-use sources of PEMS' measurement
inaccuracy and variability, such as signal noise, span errors, time-alignment, fuel and exhaust-
flow estimates, interference from other emissions species in the exhaust stream, and varying
environmental and ambient conditions. To be able to tolerate unavoidable NOx breakthroughs in
the medium/high bin, the overall window result would basically have to be zero. Thus, 2 or 3
ppm of PEMS measurement error, on its own, could lead to a non-compliant in-use NOx
result. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 84-85]
Significantly, the measurement "drift" that is permitted under the relevant federal and CARB
specifications for emissions-measurement equipment (see 40 CFR 1065.550) would equate to a
0.0008 g/bhp-hr drift limit at the low NOx levels that EPA is targeting, a drift limit that would be
difficult even for laboratory grade instruments to meet, let alone PEMS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 85]
958
-------
Given the foregoing, it is vitally important for EPA to fully account for the results of SwRI's
current PEMS-assessment program before finalizing the in-use compliance elements of EPA's
low-NOx regulations. EPA's proposal to provide for a 10% accuracy margin (see NPRM, p. 219)
is simply not adequate nor sufficiently data-based. It would amount to a 0.003 g/bhp-hr NOx
margin for Bin 3, as compared against the current NOx accuracy margin of 0.15 g/bhp-hr. EPA
has not and cannot demonstrate that such a 98% reduction in the in-use accuracy margin for NOx
is appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 85]
Such a massive regulatory undertaking, with cost implications many times over any prior
rulemaking directed at the heavy-duty engine and vehicle industry, should be supported by
extensive research and analysis to prove-out and justify the very considerable expenses and
burdens that will fall upon manufacturers and the public. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
To the contrary, there are many underlying research activities that are still underway, some
which likely will not be completed by the time the rule is finalized, let alone when it was
proposed, and there are other major gaps in the overall research effort that will not be filled at
all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171.]
The PEMS measurement variability study, involving extensive testing, modeling, analysis, and
verification, is incomplete. SwRI anticipates completing that work, which also will be supported
through on-road validation testing by UC Riverside (CE-CERT), by the end of August 2022,
likely just weeks before EPA will be obliged to finalize this rulemaking according to the
Agency's internal self-imposed schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171]
All of the critical research outlined above was not available or not completed in time to support
the pending NPRM. Indeed, the vital research at issue is still in process, with much of it expected
to be delivered just as the proposed rule is expected to "go final" in the fall, all to meet EPA's
goal of having the new low-NOx standards take effect in 2027. Thus, there is considerable risk
that these critical data will be unavailable when these largely infeasible standards are to be
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 172.]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
CARB comments that they believe adding a PEMS accuracy margin within off-cycle standards is
unnecessary, as the conformity factor used is already inclusive of the PEMS accuracy margin for
NOx. In support, they cite a JRC study which recommends a conformity factor equal to the
PEMS uncertainty, without an additional PEMS margin. Furthermore, CARB comments that
EPA impermissibly failed to consider the extent to which its proposal will likely result in in-use
emissions exceeding the off-cycle standards.
In contrast, Daimler, GM, and PACCAR all state that a PEMS accuracy margin is necessary, and
that a 10%) margin is too small. EMA agrees in their comments, and furthermore states that the
testing cited by the EPA in establishing this margin was based on a study that did not evaluate
PEMS in the context of testing ultra-low-NOx engines in-use. In support, EMA refers to a SWRI
study finding that NOx sensors have substantial errors on the order of 10%> to 20%>. Both EMA
and PACCAR encourage EPA to account for results in the on-going PEMS-assessment program
959
-------
by SWRI before finalizing the PEMS accuracy margin value. Daimler recommends that EPA
perform a joint study with industry to determine an appropriate margin to apply across a wide
variety of test cycles and ambient conditions.
Response:
EPA disagrees with CARB that a PEMS accuracy margin is unnecessary. The conformity factor
and PEMS margin, although both raise the numeric value of the in-use standard, are applied for
different reasons and ultimately arrive at the same stringency whether the accuracy margin is part
of or separate from the off-cycle standards. The final conformity factor was set at a level that
was feasible based on the emission performance of the Stage 3 engine. The PEMS accuracy
margin was set to capture the incremental measurement uncertainty of PEMS relative to the
laboratory. EPA acknowledges the cited JRC study, but believes that having a conformity factor
independent of the PEMS margin is necessary to separate the measurement variability from the
standard, especially in situations where the in-use engine is removed from the vehicle and tested
on an engine dynamometer. In such situations, the accuracy margin would not be applied to the
off-cycle standard because the engine is being testing in the laboratory.
The PEMS accuracy margin work at SWRI on the Stage 3 engine included testing the engine
over five field cycles with three different commercially available PEMS. EPA's conclusion after
assessing the results from this study, as described in Section III.C of the preamble, was that 0.4
g/hr (which is 4 percent of the Bin 1 standard), is more appropriate for Bin 1 and 5 mg/hp-hr
(which is 8.6 percent of the Bin 2 standard), is more appropriate for Bin 2. Thus, the proposed 10
percent uncertainty margin is reduced in the final provision.
12 Emission credits and averaging, banking, and trading
(ABT)
12.1 General ABT provisions for NOx emission standards
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE recommends EPA conduct compliance modeling based on different credit and flexibility
scenarios and avoid backsliding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
Before adopting new flexibilities and credits, AVE recommends EPA provide modeling
scenarios that outline possible compliance strategies manufacturers might deploy to meet future
standards. The modeling would allow suppliers to better estimate the need for various advanced
technologies to meet the future standards and to plan accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1280-A1, p. 6]
960
-------
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
The EPA HD Engine notice of proposed rulemaking includes provisions for using credits to meet
fleet requirements. Averaging Banking and Trading (ABT) credits are an important flexibility for
manufacturers to meet stringent emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 1]
Flexibilities to earn credits and to move credits between years and product applications are
helpful for manufacturers. Quick changes to production and product plans often result in
stranded capital and disruptions to the supply chain and manufacturing workforce. Depending on
the product lineup and lifecycle position of their product portfolio, a manufacturer may not have
the ability to respond to large changes in stringency immediately, with limited lead time.
Alternatively, a manufacturer may be able to transition quickly in one part of its business, but not
immediately in another. Manufacturers are more likely to be able to respond to stringent
regulations with adjustments to their portfolios over time, and an ABT program with sufficient
flexibilities can help manufacturers smoothly transition to stringent regulations. EPA should
consider adding flexibilities to trade credits between certification classes, such as light-heavy and
medium-heavy, for criteria emissions and GHG. [Also in Section 28. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1293-A1, p. 1]
A reasonably constructed ABT program can help industry achieve air quality targets cost
effectively, without undermining the air quality regulatory objective. Such a program can
acknowledge that a ton of emissions is a ton of emissions, regardless of source, while still
reducing the overall emissions to levels required to meet regulatory objectives. Similarly, a
program with sufficient flexibilities to trade credits between certification classes reduces the
likelihood that a manufacturer would need to develop two engines to address the different
regulations for different regulatory classes, when one engine could meet customer requirements
and deliver overall emissions reductions in line with program regulatory objectives and
emissions reduction targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 2]
President Biden's Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and
Trucks encourages the EPA administrator to consider the role zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles
might have in reducing emissions from certain market segments, 1 and an ABT program is a
practical structure in a regulatory program aligned with this Presidential order. The ability to
carry credits between years is a helpful flexibility for manufacturers, especially given the
proposed rapid ramp in stringency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 2]
1. Sec. 3. (b) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-
trucks/
EPA has proposed reductions in NOx and PM FTP emissions for gasoline spark-ignited
emissions to the same level as diesel engines. In addition to the California Low NOx Regulation,
the EPA also is proposing to reduce hydrocarbon (HC) emissions by 57-71% and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) emissions by 58% versus the current standards. The proposed HC and CO
emission standards are challenging and technology-forcing for spark-ignition engines,
particularly when coupled with the new requirement to certify to a Supplemental Emissions Test
961
-------
(SET) standard. Given the stringency of the new standards and test procedures, we believe that
an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) requirement should also apply for HC and CO
emissions. Having an HC and CO ABT program will allow additional compliance flexibility as
manufacturer engineer new solutions for these stringent standards. [This comment can also be
found in section 3.2 of this comment summary.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 3]
EPA should consider averaging, banking, and trading for other regulated criteria emissions,
including HC, PM, CO, and N20. Zero emissions vehicles should be allowed to participate in
these programs as well, given their potential to reduce real world emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17550 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed revisions to
the ABT program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 10]
CARB staff supports the elimination of the hydrocarbon (HC) and particulate matter (PM)
pollutants from the ABT program. As indicated in the NPRM, modern day HD diesel and Otto-
cycle engines can easily meet the emissions standards for HC and PM. Therefore, an ABT
program for the HD sector is no longer needed and should be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 10]
On page 17550 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed revisions to
the ABT program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 13]
CARB staff supports the proposal to discontinue the use of old credits that were generated
almost a decade ago. It is obvious that these older credits generated before 2010 were not needed
to transition to the 2010 standards. Allowing the use of these very old credits now and in the
future would only unnecessarily delay emission reductions and prevent the timely transitioning
to the new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.13]
The ABT program was developed to assist manufacturers in their product planning schedule to
ease the transition to new stringent standards. As mentioned, these credits were generated with
engine and aftertreatment system (EAS) technologies that do not meet the 2027 MY
requirements. As such these older credits should not be available for use starting with the 2027
MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 13]
Manufacturers seeking additional flexibility for meeting U.S. EPA's 2027 MY standards should
begin certifying to lower FEL now. In fact, because of California's more stringent 2024 MY
standards, manufacturers will generate new credits to help them meet U.S. EPA's 2027 MY CTP
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.13]
Organization: CALSTART
Double-counting should also not be allowed for combustion engines required under states'
adoption of the Heavy-Duty Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.5]
962
-------
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
An Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) program that includes an appropriate balance of
flexibilities and constraints, coupled with an appropriate engine FEL cap, are important and
necessary elements for a successful EPA heavy-duty engine NOx emissions regulatory program.
ABT encourages earlier implementation of new technologies, allows manufacturers flexibility in
planning their investments and managing product costs, and can provide some amount of relief
when a manufacturer encounters technical or lead-time constraints. Those attributes of ABT all
help manufacturers deliver reliable and affordable products that meet the diverse range of heavy-
duty applications and customer needs. Therefore, Cummins generally supports EPA's proposed
ABT program because it provides additional environmental benefits, while providing some of
the flexibility manufacturers need to address customer needs. However, because of the wide
range of emerging zero and near-zero NOx emissions technologies, and the uncertainty of the
rates at which those technologies will be adopted by the U.S. heavy-duty market, Cummins
recommends that EPA finalizes a few ABT-related constraints to prevent unintended
consequences that otherwise could be caused by the ABT program itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, pp. 8-9]
A relatively unconstrained ABT program could lead to competitive disruptions between
manufacturers, based on the mix of technologies different manufacturers are able to sell into
various market subsegments. Specifically, if zero NOx emissions technologies sold in one
market subsegment are used to bank significant NOx credits, those could be used to offer higher-
emitting, lower-technology, lower cost engines in a different market subsegment, where another
manufacturer is only able to offer lower emitting, higher-technology, higher-cost engines. That
would disrupt the current competitively level playing field in that subsegment, and it would
discourage the investment of manufacturers developing and customers purchasing lower-
emitting engines. To prevent such a scenario, EPA should maintain its current NOx ABT
averaging set constraints, which are based on the engine family primary intended service classes
prescribed in Part 1036, namely: Spark-Ignition HDE and Light, Medium, and Heavy HDE CI
engines. Additionally, EPA should maintain its constraints prohibiting the exchange of NOx
credits between light-duty and heavy-duty classes and between chassis-dynamometer certified
vehicles and engine-dynamometer certified engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 9]
To include powertrains that are neither SI nor CI internal combustion engine-based, EPA should
prescribe how to align its vehicle-level primary intended service classes from EPA's Heavy-duty
GHG Phase 2 regulations in Part 1037 with the appropriate engine-based NOx averaging
set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 9]
Furthermore, Cummins does not support EPA justifying the feasibility of a HC standard based
on the projected availability of HC emissions credits. That approach to standard-setting could
lead to competitive disruptions between manufacturers, based on the mix of technologies
different manufacturers are able to sell into various market subsegments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 6]
963
-------
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck supports EPA's proposal to maintain a NOx credit ABT program, giving
manufacturers latitude to manage their development schedules and investments. The ABT
program helps manufacturers address compliance risks and maintain a complete portfolio while
transitioning to UL NOx products and, ultimately, to ZEVs. It also allows for the balancing of
business needs while simultaneously providing real NOx emission reduction benefits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.80]
The NOx ABT program should, however, optimally incentivize ZEV development and increased
penetration. It should also recognize manufacturers' current investments in improved emissions
performance and seek to allow manufacturers to spread their investments across a number of
years. EPA's proposal lacks sufficient flexibility to be effective in attaining these important
objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.80]
EPA proposes to make manufacturers' existing NOx credits valueless for the purpose of
offsetting emissions from new engines in MY 2027 and later. This retroactive invalidation of
earned credits is in bad faith: manufacturers have made improvements today to improve
emissions, and accordingly, have certified their engines to lower-NOx FELs, yet the EPA
proposes to strip away these credits. Engines certified to lower FELs today are providing real
world NOx benefits and should be recognized accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.85]
Daimler Truck understands EPA's concerns that these current engines are not certified to all of
the test conditions of the proposed program. However, that does not change the fact that these
engines are generating improved emissions today—improvements that manufacturers made, in
part, because of the opportunity to generate credit. EPA also asserts, as basis for its proposal, that
the Agency did not require NOx credits to demonstrate feasibility of the standards in
the Proposed Rule. Daimler Truck has provided evidence that EPA has not demonstrated
feasibility at all (see Section II.B.3 of these comments), and therefore credits will be necessary
for manufacturers to meet the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.85-
86]
EPA's proposal to change the rules of the credit program this significantly threatens to
discourage manufacturers from proactively improving emissions performance (and accepting
additional in-use risk), since EPA may later decide to devalue those very improvements. EPA
states in the proposal that it wishes to 'provide flexibility for manufacturers to spread out their
investment and prioritize technology adoption in the applications that make the most sense for
their businesses during the transition to meeting new standards.' 108 Utilizing existing credits to
accomplish this would improve manufacturer flexibility and is supported by real world emissions
improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.86]
108 Id.
Daimler Truck recognizes that the EPA wishes to prevent decades-old credit windfalls from
undercutting the effectiveness of the proposed program. Nevertheless, manufacturers are making
964
-------
improvements today that are rightly generating NOx credits and should be recognized
accordingly. We recommend that EPA allow credits generated after the release of the Cleaner
Trucks Initiative Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemakingl09 to be used in MY 2027+, as this
is the benchmark date when manufacturers became aware of potential future increases in NOx
stringency and the possibility of using NOx credits to manage the transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.86]
109 EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine Standards;
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 Fed. Reg. at 3306 (Jan. 21, 2020).
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
The proposed HC and CO emission standards are challenging and technology-forcing for spark-
ignition engines, particularly when coupled with the requirement to certify to a Supplemental
Emissions Test (SET) standard. Given the stringency of the new standards and test procedures,
we believe that an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) requirement should apply for HC and
CO emissions. Having an HC and CO ABT program will allow additional compliance flexibility
as manufacturer engineer new solutions for these stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1300-A1, pp. 3 -4]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
The ability to use ABT is an important tool for manufacturers, especially as the potential
stringency ramps up in future model years. This allows OEMs to manage compliance over a
longer time horizon, and across fuel types and averaging sets, in conjunction with the turnover of
its portfolio and aligned with the preferences of its customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-
Al, p.4]
Proposed restrictions to averaging, banking, and trading credits decrease a manufacturer's ability
to respond to these stepped changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.4]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• Averaging, banking, and trading. The Department fully supports EPA's proposal to not
allow averaging, banking, and trading for PM or hydrocarbons for model year 2027 and
later engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.7]
• Eliminating averaging, banking, and trading would maximize nationwide NOx
reductions. If EPA retains these provisions, it should consider establishing a 0.05 grams
NOx cap in 2027 that is consistent with that in the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus
regulation in lieu of EPA's proposed family emission limits (FEL) of 0.15 grams NOx in
2027 and 0.05 grams NOx in 2031. Manufacturers have already conducted engine
development work to prepare for and comply with California 2024-2026 standards and if
the CARB FEL caps are implemented federally, all states can benefit from this research
965
-------
and development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-Al,p.8] [Also appears in Section
13.2 of this document]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
The total impact of the above crediting provisions is quite large, yet EPA has not completed any
analysis of the environmental and/or public health impacts of these provisions. EPA has not
required the necessary mechanisms to track the crediting provisions or guidance to prioritize
environmental justice communities for the deployment of ZEV. If the agency had done a
complete analysis, it would see clearly the deleterious effect such actions have on the efficacy of
the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
Below, we detail the harms posed by the agency's proposed flexibilities. In short, the proposed
flexibilities are weak enough to virtually turn the 2027-2030 phase of the Option 1 standard from
a 0.035 g NOx/bhp-hr standard, on paper, into a 0.05 g NOx/bhp-hr standard, in practice. These
flexibilities under status quo deployment eliminates 12 percent of the benefits of the first step of
the proposed Option 1—some of the more likely scenarios of electric vehicle adoption and/or the
likely possibility that additional states adopt the Omnibus standards would only further erode the
benefits of EPA's proposed program as a result of these unnecessary flexibilities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
In order to estimate the impacts of the program, we have primarily relied upon three key sources
of data: 2022 heavy-duty engine certification data; 182 engine production and installation data for
2019,183 the last year for which data is available which predates the temporary supply chain
issues which have occurred as a result of the pandemic; and new vehicle registration data for
2019-2021,184 sorted by vehicle class, fuel, and state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p.
50]
182. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/heavy-duty-gas-and-diesel-engines-
2015-present.xlsx (updated February 2022)
183. https://wardsintelligence.informa.com/WI964489/North-America-Factory-Sales-December-
2019
184. Atlas EV Hub, Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicle Registrations Dashboard, which collects
data from IHS Markit: https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicle-
electrification/
While engine configurations are available in numerous horsepower configurations, they are
generally certified under a single FEL, so we have reduced the number of engines to 34, covering
the different fuels and engine classes the engine might be deployed. 185 While the Wards data
identifies engine manufacturers for a given gross-vehicle-weight rating (GVWR) class, it does
not identify which of the engines manufactured by a given supplier is deployed to those vehicles,
except in the case of Class 8 sales, where the data distinguishes between engines greater than or
less than 10 liters in volume. Therefore, to assign these engines we have used our best technical
judgment in assigning engines, including distinguishing between classes within a given engine
966
-------
class (e.g., LHDD encompasses both Class 4 and Class 5 vehicles) as well as additional data on
engine configurations from manufacturers (for example, the engine manufacturers themselves or
specific applications such as transit or school buses, where only a subset of engines might be
deployed), or data from the Phase 1 greenhouse gas program.186 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 50]
185. For example, while Cummins' L9 engine is available in at least 9 different configurations,
our analysis reduces this to 4 separate assigned engines, first to distinguish between L9 diesel
and L9N compressed natural gas fuels, and then assigning each of those to both medium- and
heavy-heavy-duty diesel engine classes (MHDD and HHDD, respectively).
186. https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/epa-heavy-duty-vehicle-and-
engine-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Our analysis identifies three main buckets of credits: 1) engines certified below today's standards
which will qualify for the transitional credit program; 2) engines certified to the Omnibus
standards, which will qualify either for the transitional credit program or will, on average,
achieve a standard below the federal requirements; and 3) zero-emission vehicles, which earn
credits under the proposed provision for plug-in and fuel-cell electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 53]
While current certification procedures are not identical to the certification procedures required to
qualify for the transitional credit program, as noted in Section IV.D.3 there is sufficient
compliance margin such that these engines will almost certainly qualify for the program, and
these credits are of such a large magnitude that it is obviously within the polluting industry's
interest to take advantage of such a generous crediting program. Moreover, this is a conservative
estimate of the likely availability of credits because this assumes no improved performance in the
next two years of engines. Finally, for simplicity engines which would likely qualify for EPA's
early credit program (and thus be able to use a credit multiplier) have been lumped into the
transitional credit program only, and there has been no attempt to quantify the credits earned by
those engines beginning in 2027, an additional conservative estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 53]
For the Omnibus credits, it was assumed that all six states which have currently adopted ACT
will move forward to adopt the Omnibus. To-date, three ACT states have done so (California,
Oregon, and Massachusetts), representing 60 percent of the current ACT sales volume.
Washington and New Jersey both have ongoing regulatory procedures to align with the
Omnibus, and it is likely that New York, which just completed its ACT process less than six
months ago, could follow. 190 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 53]
190. Washington: https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Laws-rules-
rulemaking/Rulemaking/WAC173-423-400Janl8. New Jersey:
https://www.nj.gOv/dep/njpact/materials.html#NJPACT-co2trucks20200910-am. New
York: https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/adopted218.pdf.
967
-------
Additionally, numerous other states could join the Omnibus program. Colorado is currently
considering the program as part of its 2022 Clean Truck Strategy. 191 Connecticut, which is not
included in either ACT or Omnibus states, just passed a bill permitting the Commissioner of
Energy and Environmental Protection to "implement the medium and heavy-duty motor vehicle
standards of the state of California," which includes both ACT and Omnibus, signaling even
more vehicles required to meet such standards. 192 Moreover, there are numerous other advocacy
efforts moving forward at the state level to adopt these stronger standards and additional
complementary policies to cut freight pollution in light of federal inaction and the severity of the
problem facing communities today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 53]
191. https://freight.colorado.gov/sites/freight/files/documents/CleanTruckStrategy.pdf, p.
4, calls for "new trucks sold in the state to produce 90% less NOx emissions than current
standards starting in 2027."
192. https://legiscan.eom/CT/text/SB00004/id/2579528/Connecticut-2022-SB00004-
Chaptered.pdf.
The determination of electric vehicle sales was described above. Because the proposal does not
permit heavy-duty Otto-cycle (HDO) engines to receive credits, it was assumed consistent with
the proposal that these credits would be allocated to the respective diesel engine class based on
the GVWR of the according vehicle. Sales of HDO engines are dominated by Class 4-5 vehicles,
so the majority of such generated credits (about 60 percent) applied toward LHDD
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 53]
To convert NOx certification levels into awarded credits, we've utilized the same procedure
adopted by EPA in its MOVES modeling—for diesel engines, the work assumed over the FTP
cycle is based on a linear function of the horsepower of the engine, where we've used the
certified horsepower corresponding to the FEL; for gasoline engines, we've used a fixed value
based on limited data. 193 This is then combined with an assumed mileage factor for the FTP
cycle (6.3 miles for gasoline vehicles, 6.5 miles for diesel) to yield an engines conformance
factor. For reference, the average conformance factors for engine classes are: HDO, 3.07;
LHDD, 3.50; MHDD, 3.90; and HHDD, 4.88. Because credits are not allowed to be traded
between engine classes, however, there is little impact on any of the results stemming from the
use of such estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 54]
193. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/03-heavy-duty-start-emission-
rates-2017-06-07.pdf, slides 9 and 10.
The magnitude of these credit programs is quite large (Figure 10). This is, however, not
surprising—the transition credit program awards credit compared to a 0.2 g/bhp-hr standard.
HHDD engines see a large number of early credits related to the deployment of high-volume
products like Detroit Diesel's latest DD13, which is certified to a 0.16 g/bhp-hr standard, as well
as a small volume of CNG engines. HDO engines see a significant share of early credits due to
the large volume of propane engines as well as the large share of gasoline engines certified
below the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx standard. Very few LHDD and MHDD products are currently
certified below today's standards so are not projected to earn a significant share of transitional
968
-------
credits; however, as indicated by Figure 2, there is plenty of room at the margins for that to
change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 54]
Under our analysis, over 325,000 metric tons of lifetime NOx emissions are credited through
2030, and nearly 450,000 metric tons through 2035. The majority of these credits stem from
vehicles sold under state regulations that are stronger than the current federal program,
representing a windfall credit for manufacturers that erodes the benefits of the proposed federal
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 54 - 55]
The majority of credits earned under our projections is granted for engines sold under the
Omnibus standards, which are already required to achieve standards below the federal
requirements in 2024 and beyond. For all but HHDD engines, these standards continue to be
stronger than Option 1 in the 2027-2030 timeframe, yielding additional credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 55]
Owing to the nature of the banking and trading program, these credits have a significant impact
on the emissions from the remaining vehicles in the fleet, especially in the early years of the
program. Manufacturers have a range of ways in which they could utilize these credits, so it is
impossible to capture every nuance in possible outcomes. Below, we consider two different ways
to utilize those credits, as well as different limitations EPA could impose on the credit generation
programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 55]
It should again be emphasized that we do not support the use of these credit programs, generally,
as they undermine the real-world emissions reductions desperately needed in communities
impacted by the freight sector. The analysis below is meant to be illustrative for EPA,
emphasizing the need to consider the impacts of their proposed flexibilities in both their analysis
of the feasibility of the standard and the degree to which they are upholding their legal
requirements under the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 55]
The first way in which manufacturers could choose to deploy the credits earned under EPA's
flexibilities would be to maximize the number of vehicles sold at the worst polluting level
allowed under EPA's program. Such a deployment strategy is indicated in the panes of Figure 11
on the left side of the figure. Here it is assumed that manufacturers would sell as many engines
with an FELFTP =150 mg NOx/bhp-hr as possible in the 2027-2030 timeframe, and as many
engines with an FELFTP = 50 mg NOx/bhp-hr in 2031 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 55]
An alternative strategy would be to maximize the bare minimum improvements needed over the
largest share of the fleet. As noted elsewhere in this document, the 50 mg NOx/bhp-hr FTP
standard can be achieved with minimal changes in configuration and technology. 194 Therefore,
rather than target credit usage at a narrow selection of engines, a manufacturer may choose
instead to minimize the improvements broadly over the entire volume of engines. This is
represented by the panes of Figure 11 on the right. This FEL also represents the FEL for the
Omnibus standards, and the required average FEL for Option 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, pp. 55 - 56]
969
-------
194. See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/appi.pdf
pp. 18-21 for an analysis of the small changes needed based on data from Southwest Research
Institute.
EPA's proposed credit program has the potential to substantially erode the benefits of stronger
NOx tailpipe standards, delaying the deployment of cleaner trucks. As proposed, EPA's proposal
would mean that 27 percent of all engines sold in 2027-2029 would be no better than today's
engines under Option 1. Under Option 2, this number would be 32 percent, with at least 10
percent of engines never being required to improve compared to today's engines. While
excluding vehicles sold in states adopting California's truck standards or excluding the proposed
transitional credit program can help reduce the impacts of these credit provisions, only excluding
them entirely can forestall their adverse impacts on the efficacy of the federal NOx program, and
EPA must carefully consider these impacts under its requirements under the Clean Air Act
before finalization. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 56 - 57]
The graphs in Figure 11 show the marketshare of a given FEL as a share of engines in a given
engine class. The top-most figure represents the proposed Option 1 program. As indicated by the
left-hand graph, we see that in the 2027-2029 period, nearly one-quarter of MHDD and HHDD
engines, more than one-third of HDO engines, and nearly half of all LHDD engines could be
deployed with an FELFTP =150 mg NOx/bhphr. EPA considers this FEL level "consistent with
the average NOx emission levels achieved by recently certified CI engines," so this would mean
that 27 percent of all engines sold in 2027-2029 would be no better than today's engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
In the right-hand graph, credits for LHDD engines are sufficient as to require no improvement in
those engines, thanks to the overwhelming share of zero-emission credits earned and the
disproportionately small share of certified LHDD engines. However, three-quarters of all engines
sold in the first step of Option 1 could be certified at the average level required under the
weakest standard considered by EPA (Option 2). In fact, more than 15 percent of the fleet would
never be required to improve beyond an FELFTP = 50 mg NOx/bhp-hr, even under the more
stringent second step beginning in 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
The bottom-most figure shows how the weakest standard considered by EPA would further be
weakened by the adoption of this credit program. Nearly a third of engines sold in 2027-2029
would be allowed not to improve from today's certification levels, and more than 10 percent of
all engines sold would never be required to improve beyond those levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
In total, at least 12 percent of the lifetime benefits of the first step of Option 1 (2027-2030) are
expected to be given away under the credit provisions proposed. For the weaker Option 2 over
this same timeframe, this increases to 17 percent of a program that is, as proposed, substantially
less effective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
Given the harm caused by the proposed credit program, the best option for EPA is to simply
eliminate all bonus crediting provisions—given the extensive lead-time and technical feasibility
to reduce emissions from the freight sector, manufacturers do not need help transitioning to the
970
-------
levels of standards required by Option 1 or even the Omnibus. The so-called flexibilities
provided are clearly detrimental to EPA's obligation to protect public health and welfare from
pollution, the response most consistent with the agency's legal obligations under the Clean Air
Act is to simply eliminate these provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
However, should EPA not take the more protective step of eliminating the proposed crediting
provisions, there are measures that can be taken to improve the proposed credit program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 57]
One clear issue is the windfall that results from the result of state regulatory programs that are
more protective than the federal program. Elsewhere, we have noted that EPA should be
factoring in the impacts that these state actions will have on the industry in assessing the
feasibility of the program. However, if the agency does not adjust its stringency in response to
these regulations, it must isolate the impact of those regulations. To do this, it can do as it has
previously done in heavy-duty engine regulations and exclude engines certified to stronger state
standards. 195 The results of this are shown in the third graph of Figure 11. The result of this is to
substantially reduce the impacts of the crediting program by excluding zero-emission vehicles
driven by state adoption of the ACT, but it also excludes the impact of credits earned in 2027-
2030 from engine classes other than HHDD resulting from Option 1 being weaker than the
Omnibus rule. On net, this cuts the number of available credits by more than 50 percent. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 57 - 58]
195. "It is worth clarifying that this phase-in excludes California complete heavy-duty vehicles,
which are already required to be certified to the California emission standards. It also excludes
vehicles sold in any state that has adopted California emission standards for complete heavy-duty
vehicles. It would be inappropriate to allow manufacturers to "double-count" the vehicles by
allowing them to count those vehicles both as part of their compliance with this phase-in and for
compliance with California requirements. We would handle heavy-duty engines similarly if
California were to adopt different emission standards than those being established by this rule."
(66 FR 5043)
One additional obvious issue is the delay that the transitional credit program specifically causes.
As noted above, three-quarters of engines sold under the first step of Option 1 could be certified
to an FELFTP = 50 mg NOx/bhp-hr, the dirtiest engine allowed under the Omnibus and a level
required, on average, beginning in 2024, a full seven years before the second step in the Option 1
program. This level of delay allowed under EPA's proposal flies in the face of what is needed in
areas around the country to meet federal air quality standards, which is immediate action to
reduce emissions from the freight sector. 196 To reduce the amount of delayed action allowed
under EPA's proposal, the agency should eliminate the transitional credit program. Eliminating
the transitional credit program would cut credits available in the first step of the Option 1
program by nearly 80 percent. By reducing the credits available in this critical, initial part of the
proposed regulation, EPA would increase the likelihood that manufacturers deploy the much
needed cleaner trucks more quickly. However, in the long run, eliminating the transitional credit
program alone would not mitigate the harm caused by the agency's credit program, which would
permit at least 15 percent of heavy duty vehicles sold under the second phase of the proposed
971
-------
Option 1 program to be certified to the dirtiest allowed FEL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al, p. 58]
196. "[California's South Coast Air] Basin will be unable to achieve the ozone standards by the
attainment dates of 2024 and 2032 without the additional emissions reductions from a revision of
the existing on-road heavy-duty engine exhaust emission standards for NOx. A nationwide
standard is also critical in assisting other states to achieve the more stringent 2015 NAAQS."
Letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy from The South Coast Air Quality Management
District, et al., June 3, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
09/documents/petition_to_epa_ultra_low_nox_hd_trucks_and_engines.pdf. "The Ozone
Transport Commission concluded in its 2020 Annual Report that, to address the persistent air
quality issues in the tri-state area [of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York], reducing NOx
from heavy-duty diesel vehicles is of 'utmost importance.'" Letter to National Climate Advisor
Gina McCarthy and EPA Administrator Michael Regan from the Attorneys General of
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, November 23, 2021. https://portal.ct.gov/-
/media/AG/Press_Releases/2021/NY-CT-NJ-Letter-REHeavy- Duty-Truck-NOx-Emission-
Standards_l 12321. pdf.
In addition to the above changes to the program, we refer EPA to our comments on the zero-
emission vehicle crediting program specifically (Section II.B). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 58]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA does not support the inclusion of a NOx emission credit or Averaging, Banking and
Trading (ABT) scheme. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
EPA acknowledges in the NPRM that its proposed NOx standards are feasible without the use of
credits. Even so, the agency proposes a NOx credit-generation scheme and ABT that would
allow manufacturers to use credits generated from producing engines with emission levels below
the standards to produce engines with emission levels above the standards. With areas all across
the country seeking every possible ounce of NOx reduction in order to protect the health of those
who live and work in their jurisdictions, including those in overburdened communities where
neighborhood truck traffic is disproportionately high, the concept of turning additional NOx
emission reductions beyond those required by the new standards into currency to be used to
negate those reductions seems senseless. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
This approach would also open the possibility of the federal program issuing to manufacturers
large NOx credits against the current 200-mg/hp-hr federal standard for engines sold in Omnibus
jurisdictions at the 50-mg standard. This would allow manufacturers to continue making dirtier
engines at the expense of the emission reductions intended to occur from the states' Omnibus
programs and would effectively float the standard higher, increasing emissions across engines in
all states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
Although NACAA supports efforts to encourage and expand the deployment of ZEVs, we do not
support efforts that come at the expense of NOx reductions in the rule. EPA should not include in
972
-------
the final rule provisions for generating NOx credits or an ABT program that will, in any way,
deplete or negate important NOx emission reductions achieved through implementation of new
emission standards, especially when the standards are feasible without the use of credits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
EPA should, however, finalize its proposal to end the ABT program for PM and hydrocarbons
for MYs 2027 and later engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
Navistar also wants to be very clear on another point. Some commenters on the proposed rule to
date have asserted that diesel engine manufacturers may actually raise NOx emissions levels as a
result of the AB&T credit structures in the proposed rule. The concern seems to be that the NOx
credits from ZEVs will be sufficient to allow engine manufacturers to raise NOx emission levels
even from their current levels. To be very clear: Navistar will not raise its NOx emission levels.
The AB&T program will be used solely to balance the transition to the lower emission standards
across engine families and model years and help keep costs in line. Navistar is in favor of a rule
structure that makes it clear that backsliding on NOx emissions levels is prohibited. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 2]
In particular, we support: Providing a stable structure for NOx emissions credit generation and
use to allow continued investments in clean diesel engines and development of ZEVs; [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: We support EPA's proposal to not allow Averaging, Banking, and
Trading (ABT) for PM or hydrocarbons for model year 2027 and later engines. EPA proposes to
continue to allow ABT of NOx credits generated against applicable heavy-duty diesel engine
NOx standards. As part of this proposal, manufacturers could certify battery electric and fuel cell
vehicles to generate NOx emissions credits. NESCAUM does not support the inclusion of a NOx
emission credit or ABT scheme. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 14]
EPA acknowledges in the NPRM that its proposed NOx standards are feasible without the use of
credits.44 Even so, the agency proposes a NOx credit-generation scheme and ABT that would
allow manufacturers to use credits generated from engines with emission levels below the
standards to produce engines with emission levels above the standards.
Given the urgent need to reduce NOx emissions in the Northeast, we are opposed to heavy-duty
engine NOx ABT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
EPA requests comments on multiple aspects of the Proposed Rule related to the emission credit
ABT programs for heavy duty trucks. Oshkosh generally supports the ABT provisions and views
973
-------
them as this as an important tool for incentivizing the introduction of EV and other advanced
technologies. In past rulemakings, EPA has significantly limited the ability of manufacturers to
carry over legacy credits for vocational trucks certified under the Phase 2 GHG custom chassis
provisions. As a result, in the move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 GHG programs, Oshkosh's C02
credit bank was effectively eliminated, thus constraining the Company's ability to use earned
emission credits. The current rulemaking presents an opportunity to obtain a different result. To
this end, Oshkosh is pleased to provide these comments regarding EPA's ABT proposals: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1226-A1, p. 5]
To provide further incentives for EV development, Oshkosh also requests that EPA ensure
harmonization of NOx and C02 credit programs for heavy-duty vehicles. In general, we request
that EPA modify existing credit ABT programs to (1) allow credit transport across all heavy-duty
engine/vehicle families; (2) allow a credit life of 10 years for credits generated by EV, FCEV
and hybrid technologies; and (3) guard existing credit banks to enable carry over of legacy
credits to future programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Averaging Banking and Trading: The OTC supports EPA's proposal to not allow Averaging,
Banking, and Trading (ABT) for PM or hydrocarbons for model year 2027 and later engines.
However, EPA proposes to continue to allow ABT of NOx credits generated against applicable
heavy-duty diesel engine NOx standards. As part of this proposal, manufacturers could certify
battery electric and fuel cell vehicles to generate NOx emissions credits. The OTC does not
support the inclusion of a NOx emission credit or ABT scheme. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1250-A1, p.16]
EPA acknowledges in the NPRM that its proposed NOx standards are feasible without the use of
credits.40 Even so, the agency proposes a NOx credit-generation scheme and ABT that would
allow manufacturers to use credits generated from engines with emission levels below the
standards to produce engines with emission levels above the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1250-A1, p.16]
40 87 Fed. Reg. 17414 (March 28, 2022), at 17550.
Further, with a NOx ABT program, higher NOx emitting engines could be driven in
Overburdened Communities in the OTR, potentially exacerbating the adverse health effects from
gasoline and diesel vehicle emissions. Given these concerns and the urgent need to reduce NOx
emissions in the OTR, we are opposed to heavy-duty engine NOx ABT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1250-A1, p.16]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR agrees with the following EMA comments: However, because of the uncertainty
associated with market adoption of zero and near-zero NOx emissions technologies, EMA
recommends that EPA modify the proposal to include certain constraints to prevent unintended
974
-------
consequences from the ABT program. For example, a relatively unconstrained ABT program
could lead to competitive imbalances among manufacturers, especially where product mix
differences exist. More specifically, if zero-NOx emissions technologies sold in one market
subsegment are used to bank significant NOx credits, those could 132 be used to offer higher-
emitting, lower cost engines in a different market subsegment, competing against another
manufacturer without credits and that, as a result, is only able to offer lower emitting, higher-cost
engines. That would disrupt the current competitively level playing field in that subsegment of
the market, and could discourage the purchase of lower-emitting engines. To prevent such an
unintended outcome, EPA should maintain its current NOx ABT averaging set categories based
on primary intended service classes (i.e., HDE SI, LHDE CI, MHD CI, and HHD CI). To include
zero-emissions powertrains (that are neither spark-ignited nor compression-ignited internal
combustion engine-based) in the ABT program, EPA should prescribe how to align its vehicle-
level primary intended service classes from EPA's Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 regulations in 40
CFRPart 1037 with the appropriate engine-based NOx averaging set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, pp.35-36]
PACCAR generally supports EPA's proposed Subpart H Averaging, Banking, and Trading
amendments, including those addressing NOx Family Emission Limit (FEL) credits and credit
generation for Zero Emission Vehicles. However, EPA should amend 1036.745, which currently
only addresses 'end-of-year C02 credit deficits' to address NOx credit deficits as well. Although
OEMs are increasingly adopting ZEV technology and business strategies, there continues to be
significant uncertainty about the extent to which consumers will embrace and purchase ZEVs in
substantial quantities, and whether there will be adequate nationwide charging infrastructure in
place in the near future to accommodate ZEV fleets. See e.g., McKinsey & Company, Building
the Electric-Vehicle Charging Infrastructure America Needs, (April 18, 2022) (estimating that
the United States would need almost 20 times more EV chargers than it has now to achieve
federal ZEV sale targets).2 For OEMs, the uncertainty surrounding ZEV purchases means
uncertainty about credit generation, and the final end-of-year MY accounting does not take place
until September 30 of the calendar year following the MY, which makes resolving NOx credit
deficits within one MY following the deficit extremely difficult. In light of this uncertainty,
OEMs need to have the same flexibility for NOx credit deficits that exists for C02 credit
deficits. This includes allowing OEMs to remedy NOx credit deficits 'with surplus credits within
three model years.' 40 C.F.R. 1036.745(e). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.51-52]
2 Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-
sector/ourinsights/building-the-electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-america-needs
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
In the Proposed Rule, EPA rightly recognizes the imperative to "ensure that NOx emission
credits ... do not compromise the environmental benefits expected from the proposal."89 The
averaging, banking, and trading program (ABT) has an important but limited role in supporting
the heavy-duty sector's transition to stricter standards, reducing compliance costs for
manufacturers and operators, and incentivizing early adoption of advanced technologies. The
States strongly support EPA's proposed measures to tailor the ABT program to this role,
including (1) limiting credit life to at most five years, (2) replacing existing credit balances with
975
-------
transitional credits, and (3) lowering family emission limit (FEL) caps to below the 2007 heavy-
duty standards.90 The States also generally support EPA's proposed early adoption incentives
and the proposal to generate NOx credits from heavy-duty hybrid, battery, and fuel-cell electric
vehicles (HD ZEVs).91 However, EPA should carefully calibrate ZEV-generated credits to
ensure their environmental benefits are not offset by higher-emitting conventional
engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 20 - 21]
89. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,555.
90. Id. at 17,552-54.
91. Id. at 17,554-62.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
A successful heavy-duty engine emissions regulation necessarily includes an Averaging,
Banking and Trading ("ABT") program with the appropriate balance of flexibilities and
constraints, coupled with an appropriate engine Family Emission Limit ("FEL") cap. Such an
ABT program provides manufacturers with the needed flexibility to plan investments and
manage product costs while also providing opportunities to overcome technical or lead-time
challenges. Those attributes of ABT all help manufacturers deliver reliable and affordable
products that meet the diverse range of heavy-duty applications and customer needs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 134]
For these reasons, EMA generally supports EPA's proposed ABT program, which provides
environmental benefits and the flexibility manufacturers require to address customer needs.
However, because of the uncertainty associated with market adoption of zero and near-zero NOx
emissions technologies, EMA recommends that EPA modify the proposal to include certain
constraints to prevent unintended consequences from the ABT program. For example, a
relatively unconstrained ABT program could lead to competitive imbalances among
manufacturers, especially where product mix differences exist. More specifically, if zero-NOx
emissions technologies sold in one market subsegment are used to bank significant NOx credits,
those could be used to offer higher-emitting, lower-cost engines in a different market
subsegment, competing against another manufacturer without credits and that, as a result, is only
able to offer lower emitting, higher-cost engines. That would disrupt the current competitively
level playing field in that subsegment of the market, and could discourage the purchase of lower-
emitting engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 134 - 135]
To prevent such an unintended outcome, EPA should maintain its current NOx ABT averaging
set categories based on primary intended service classes (i.e., HDE SI, LHDE CI, MHD CI, and
HHD CI). To include zero-emissions powertrains (that are neither spark-ignited nor
compression-ignited internal combustion engine-based) in the ABT program, EPA should
prescribe how to align its vehicle-level primary intended service classes from EPA's Heavy-Duty
GHG Phase 2 regulations in 40 CFR Part 1037 with the appropriate engine-based NOx averaging
set. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 135]
976
-------
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
First, Tesla supports and agrees with EPA reasoning that existing banked credits should be
eliminated and not used to meet the proposed MY 2027 standards. 135 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1219-A1, pp.15-16]
135 87 Fed. Reg. at 17533.
The unlimited lifetime of existing credits would allow the existing credit bank to erode to
effectiveness of the standard and extension is unjustified given use of these credits would reward
outdated technology in perpetuity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp.15-16]
EPA Summary and Response
Many of the summaries of comments on the proposed ABT program in the proposed rule, and
EPA's responses to those comments, are included in Preamble Section IV.G. Immediately below,
we briefly summarize and respond to additional comments on the proposed ABT program.
Summary of comments supporting and opposing the proposed general ABT provisions:
One commenter (MFN) stated that EPA has not conducted analyses on the environmental and/or
public health impacts of the proposed credit flexibilities. The commenter conducted analysis
suggesting that, under proposed Option 1, program benefits in 2027-2030 would be 12 percent
lower than expected due to the proposed credit flexibilities; in the same timeframe, benefits from
proposed Option 2 would be 17 percent lower. In the commenter's analysis the reductions in
program benefits would come from credits generated by: 1) engines certified below today's
standards which quality for the transitional credit program, 2) engines certified to the Omnibus
standards which will qualify for the transitional program or on average achieve a standard below
federal requirements, and 3) ZEVs. In the first category (transitional credit program) the
commenter recognized that there would be different certification requirements for engines to
qualify for the program, but states that they expect almost all engines to qualify for the program
due to manufacturers having sufficient compliance margin. The commenter's analysis suggests
that credits generated through 2030, as well as through 2045 are largely through engines sold to
meet more stringent standards in state regulations. Three commenters stated that EPA should
exclude engines certified to stronger state standards from generating federal credits, and that
doing so would reduce the available credits by 50 percent. One commenter also urged EPA to
eliminate the transitional credit program; their analysis suggested that doing so would decrease
the credits available in 2027-2030 by 80 percent. Finally, one commenter stated that EPA should
require mechanisms to track crediting provisions or issue guidance to prioritize ZEV deployment
in environmental justice communities.
In addition to commenting on whether EPA should finalize a NOx ABT program, commenters
also provided input on several more specific topics, such as a flexibility for Credit NOx Deficits.
A commenter urged EPA to allow manufacturers to carry a deficit of NOx emissions credits for
three model years, which is currently allowed for CO2 emissions credits. The commenter stated
this flexibility is necessary because of uncertainty in ZEV adoption rates and, in turn, the volume
of ZEV credits manufacturers would have in a given model year.
977
-------
Finally, a commenter stated EPA should model the possible compliance strategies that
manufacturers could take to meet future standards in order to provide suppliers with information
for their product planning. Another commenter also stated that EPA should prescribe how to
align its vehicle-level primary intended service classes from EPA's Heavy-duty GHG Phase 2
regulations in Part 1037 with the appropriate engine-based NOx averaging set for powertrains
that do not include an internal combustion engine.
Response to comments supporting and opposing the proposed general ABT provisions:
See preamble Section IV. G for EPA responses to several of the comment themes summarized
above; additional responses on more specific aspects of comments are included immediately
below in Section 12.1 of this document.
EPA appreciates the suggestion for guidance on prioritizing environmental justice communities
for ZEV deployment; we may continue to evaluate and consider the suggestion in the future.
Additional discussion on ZEVs, including our decision not to finalize an allowance for
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs in the final rule, is available in
Section 12.6 of this document. Similarly, we appreciate the suggestion to develop a publicly
available tracking system for emissions credits; we intend to consider this suggestion separate
from this rulemaking. (See also Section 30 of this document and preamble Section XI for
additional discussion on EPA's determinations that certain information is emission data or
otherwise not entitled to confidential treatment.)
We did not propose or take comment on allowing manufacturers to carry a credit deficit for NOx
emissions credits, and we are not taking final action to allow such in this rule. Further, as just
noted and discussed in Section 12.6 of this document and Section IV.G of the preamble, we are
not including in the final action the proposal to allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits from ZEVs; thus, manufacturers' uncertainty in the volume of ZEV credits in a given
model year, which the commenter pointed to as the main reason for needing the additional
flexibility, is not applicable to the final NOx ABT program. Similarly, since we are not including
in the final action the proposal to allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
ZEVs, we have not included a description on how to align vehicle-level primary intended service
classes from EPA's Heavy-duty GHG Phase 2 regulations in Part 1037 with the appropriate
engine-based NOx averaging set for powertrains that do not include an internal combustion
engine.
12.1.1 Additional comments on general ABT provisions
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• An alternative approach that EPA should consider is the extent to which state programs
and other efforts, including new federal funding,2 could result in the retirement of pre-
2010 vehicles and equipment. Programs that provide incentives to replace older
equipment have been highly effective, as validated by EPA's own analysis3 and could be
978
-------
further integrated into EPA's analysis of resulting costs and benefits of its proposed
program and alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.5]
2 See Pub. L. 117-58, Sec. 71101, containing $5 billion in appropriated funds for "clean
school buses.".
3 See, e.g., DERA Fourth Report to Congress, EPA Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, July 2019
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
Finally, we encourage EPA to consider creation of a voluntary alternative compliance pathway
that recognizes the significant investments manufacturers are making in ZEV technologies and
affords a pathway to achieve even greater levels of emission reductions and ZEV deployment
than would otherwise be incorporated in the standards. Such a pathway could pull forward
reductions prior to 2027, given that many manufacturers are introducing ZEV technologies now
and also planning for compliance with more protective NOx Omnibus requirements in 2024. It
could also allow manufacturers to opt in to protective reductions post 2030, thereby providing
manufacturers with added certainty as EPA is developing its Phase 3 program and also building
strong momentum toward ensuring 100 percent of all new vehicles sold by 2035 are zero-
emitting. Such a voluntary pathway could also be expressly multipollutant in nature, which, as
we discuss above can help to accelerate ZEV deployment without sacrificing NOx or GHG
emissions reductions from ICE vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.26]
A voluntary pathway could also provide EPA an opportunity to create needed incentives for
manufacturers of electric drivetrains, which will not be subject to compliance certification
obligations under the proposed adjustment to the Phase 2 GHG vehicle standards. Indeed,
EPA has adopted programs in past medium- and heavy-duty rules that have included similar
mechanisms. 114 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.26-27]
114 See, e.g., Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, 66 Fed.
Reg. 5002 (January, 18, 2001). See, e.g., Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control
Requirements, 65 Fed. Reg. 6698 (February 10, 2000).
Critically, however, such a voluntary program must achieve emissions benefits greater than
would be achieved assuming manufacturer participation in the mandatory program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.27]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
The Greenhouse Gas regulations do not currently allow trading of engine-based C02 credits
between averaging sets (e.g., between Light Heavy-Duty and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel
engines). This restriction is unnecessary and can drive costly investments for manufacturers who
would otherwise be looking to invest in the advanced technology powertrains of the future
979
-------
(electric, fuel cell, etc.). A manufacturer with a single engine (which could be used to meet both
the newly proposed NOx standards as well as the more stringent proposed GEM-based vehicle
C02 standards) could be forced to develop or purchase separate light-heavy-duty and medium-
heavy-duty diesel engines simply to meet the "normalized to work" engine C02 standards of
both segments. This would not yield any additional GHG or NOx emission benefits. Ford
recommends that EPA remove the restriction on trading of engine-based GHG credits between
service classes or, at a minimum, allow trading in cases where engines and emission systems are
substantially the same (e.g., displacement, combustion system design, emissions controls
including aftertreatment chemistry and loading, etc.). This change would have no negative
impact on fleet NOx or C02 emissions and would enable manufacturers to more efficiently
invest in the powertrains of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
Lion strongly believes that incentive programs should benefit communities historically exposed
to higher levels of air pollution. Lion suggests the EPA prioritize disproportionately impacted
communities and disadvantaged business enterprises. These applicants often have fewer
resources to supply a cash match and require extra support to start their fleet electrification
process. Prioritizing these applicants will ensure a diverse range of applicants and geographic
distribution of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
All clean options must be advanced to make a collective difference beginning today. We can't
afford to pick the wrong solution or leave out available solutions. It is imperative that regulatory
incentives not be used as a weapon to ensure market dominance for any one technology or
company. It is abundantly clear that regulatory incentives influence today's market decisions.
Our industry would not be where it is without the Renewable Fuel Standard and the low-carbon
fuel standards adopted by several states. These programs have proven extremely valuable in
encouraging the development, production, and use of a wide range of low-carbon fuels. It is also
clear that regulatory incentives for electric vehicles have been disproportionately favorable to
that technology (e.g., ignoring upstream emissions, providing sales multipliers, allowing credit
trading from low-mileage vehicles to high-mileage vehicles, providing credits for fueling station
capacity - not actual fuel use or emission reductions). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1,
P 11]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
EMA Comments at 131-32. EPA should propose an initiative to encourage turning over outdated
fleets. EPA should incentivize removing these high emission vehicles in an effort to accelerate
the environmentally-beneficial newer Low NOx technologies. An analysis of vehicle registration
data was conducted to explore the makeup of heavy-duty Class 8 vehicle on the road today. In
this analysis, registration data updated in the first quarter of 2022 was evaluated to determine the
number of trucks, by vehicle Model Year (engine Model Year is Vehicle MY-1) on the road
today Vehicle registration data analysis shows that 41% of today's Class 8 vehicles on the road
are pre-2010 MY vehicles. EPA should therefore revise proposed section 1036.705 (NOx credit
980
-------
generating and calculating emissions credit) to accelerate retiring these pre- 2010
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.36]
EPA should allow vehicle manufacturers to offer incentives to pre-MY 2010 vehicle owners in
the form of vouchers that can be applied to the purchase of a new technology vehicle. In
exchange for retiring a pre-MY 2010 vehicle, EPA should allow the manufacturer to bank NOx
credits in the new federal NOx bank. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.37]
An exploration of the NOx generation, using the NOx credit equation provided by EPA is used
to illustrate the significance of this proposal. The NOx emission credit equation proposed by
EPA is: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.37]
This equation was used to explore the Mega gram of NOx emission (or displaced emission) from
Zero Emission Vehicles and Current and Future CI diesel engines for a Class 8 HHDE. The
lifetime emission was calculated by setting 'FEL' to zero. The lifetime NOx emission (for a CI
diesel) or credit (for a ZEV) for an EPA MY2010-2026 powertrain is about 0.4 mega-grams. For
the MY2027 and later vehicle certifying to a 0.05 NOx standard the lifetime emission of NOx is
about 0.1 mega-grams of NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.37]
The analysis then explored the emission of NOx from a pre-2010 vehicles over approximately
one year (assumed to be about 40,000 miles for illustration). The emissions from a Class 8 MYs
1996-2003 and a MYs 2003-2009 diesel engine over one year of operation was estimated to be
0.66 and 0.41 mega-grams of NOx, respectively. This example illustrates that these vehicles are
emitting about four times the predicted lifetime emission of a proposed MY 2027 and later Low
NOx diesel engine, every year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.38]
Therefore EPA should allow vehicle manufacturers to provide incentives to their customers to
trade in their older vehicles for a new technology vehicle, and then OEMs should be allowed to
bank NOx credits equivalent to one year of NOx emission from the older technology vehicle.
OEMs would 'retire' the traded-in vehicle, meaning its engine would be seized or otherwise
made permanently inoperable. This 'Credits for Clunkers' scenario would benefit both the
Agency and manufacturers: EPA can realize accelerated real-world emission reductions and
manufactures can use the displaced real-world NOx to ease the transition into the new Low NOx
technology. Also, by taking only one year of credit, the benefit realized by the agency will
be much greater than the credit given. Additionally, the new Low NOx technology trucks will
also provide emissions control under low load operation, where the older technology vehicles are
not as well controlled and produce much higher NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, pp.38-39]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking: EPA should also allow vehicle manufacturers to provide
incentives to their customers to trade in their older vehicles for new technology vehicles, after
which manufacturers should be allowed to bank NOx credits proportional to one year of service
for eliminating the trade-in vehicle from the population. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
P-60]
981
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters provided additional perspectives on incentivizing additional emissions
reductions, either through the proposed criteria pollutant ABT program, or alternative
approaches through one or more specific technologies. One commenter (EDF) suggested a
voluntary alternative compliance pathway to pull forward reductions prior to 2027. The
commenter noted that many manufacturers are introducing ZEV technologies now and also
planning for compliance with more protective NOx Omnibus requirements in 2024, but the
commenter did not provide specific information on how the voluntary, alternative compliance
pathway would work.
Two other commenters (Allison, PACCAR) suggested that EPA consider voluntary federal or
state programs to encourage fleet turnover. One of these commenters (Allison) suggested that
EPA could further integrate such programs into our cost and benefit analyses of the rule. The
other commenter (PACCAR) provided an analysis of vehicle registration data that shows that
41% of today's Class 8 vehicles on the road are pre-2010 MY vehicles. The commenter stated
that EPA should therefore revise proposed section 1036.705 (NOx credit generating and
calculating emissions credit) to accelerate retiring these pre- 2010 vehicles, and the commenter
provided a potential approach for allowing vehicle manufacturers to provide incentives to their
customers to trade in their older vehicles for a new technology vehicle, which would in turn
allow OEMs to bank NOx credits equivalent to one year of NOx emission from the older
technology vehicle. Another commenter (Lion) stated generally that EPA should prioritize
disproportionately impacted communities and disadvantaged business enterprises for incentive
programs.
Another commenter (Ford) urged EPA to allow manufacturers to trade engine-based CO2 credits
between averaging sets, or at a minimum, allow trading in cases where engines and emission
systems are substantially the same (e.g., displacement, combustion system design, emissions
controls including aftertreatment chemistry and loading, etc.). The commenter claimed this
change would have no negative impact on fleet NOx or CO2 emissions and would enable
manufacturers to more efficiently invest in the powertrains of the future.
Finally, one commenter (NGVAmerica) expressed concern that regulatory incentives for electric
vehicles have been disproportionately favorable to that technology.
Response:
Related to the voluntary, alternative compliance pathway one commenter (EDF) presented, we
agree with the importance of incentivizing manufacturers to pull forward emissions reducing
technologies prior to MY 2027. As discussed in Section 12.4 of this document and Section IV.G
of the preamble, we are finalizing a transitional credit program that we modified from the
proposal after consideration of comments we received. We believe the Transitional Credit
program we are finalizing will better incentivize manufacturers to participate in the transitional
credit program, and therefore better achieve emissions reductions prior to MY 2027. While we
believe the transitional credit program we are finalizing partially addresses the commenter's
982
-------
concern about pulling forward emissions reductions, we recognize that it is likely not the
voluntary pathway for incentivizing electric drivetrains that the commenter suggests. We note
that we are finalizing language that clarifies how heavy-duty ZEVs certify to criteria pollutants
in 40 CFR 1037 (see Section 12.6 of this document and preamble Section III for details). We
also note we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs, as discussed in Section 12.6 of this document and preamble
Section IV.G; our decision is based in part on ensuring that the final ABT program maintains the
emissions reductions expected from the final standards, which is consistent with the
commenter's stated interest in not sacrificing NOx or GHG emissions from ICEs.
We also agree with the importance of encouraging fleet turnover, particularly for vehicles with
engines that are compliant with pre-2010 emissions standards. In particular, we agree that state
and other federal programs can result in the retirement of pre-2010 vehicles, and that some of
these programs have been highly effective, and that some of these programs can be particularly
impactful for disproportionally impacted communities.32 Further, since we did not propose or ask
for comment on incentive programs to allow vehicle manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits based on providing incentives to their customers to trade in their older vehicles for a new
technology vehicle, we are not including such a program in the final rule.
Similarly, we did not propose or request comment on allowing heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers
to trade engine-based CO2 credits between averaging sets; this comment was outside the scope of
the rule and we are not including such an approach in this final rule.
Finally, as just mentioned and discussed in Section 12.6 of this document and preamble Section
IV.G, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits from zero-emissions vehicles; our rationale for that decision is detailed in preamble
Section IV.G, but we anticipate the decision addresses the commenter's concern about this rule
containing regulatory incentives favoring electric vehicle technologies. Further, as discussed in
Section 3 of this document and preamble Section III, we are finalizing performance-based
standards that do not specify a particular technology path for manufacturers to comply with the
standards.
12.2 FEL Caps
32 For example, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allows EPA to prioritize certain applicants in the Clean School
Bus (CSB) Program, including school districts listed in the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
School district Estimates for 2020 as having 20% or more students living in poverty (EPA "2022 Clean School Bus
Rebates - Prioritized School Districts" May 2022; available at https://www.epa.gov/svstem/files/documents/2022-
05/2022-csb-rebates-prioritized-school-districts-2022-05.pdf. last accessed on August 29, 2022).
983
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports additional modifications to Option 1 to provide the best opportunity for driving
more rapid adoption of advanced engine and emission control technologies. These additional
modifications include:
• Tightening the family emission limit (FEL) to 0.05 g/bhp-hr, down from the current
proposal of 0.15 g/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 3]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17552 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed family
emission limit (FEL) caps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.ll]
CARB staff strongly encourages U.S. EPA to adopt an FEL cap lower than the 150 milligram per
brake-horsepower hour (mg/bhp-hr) nitrogen oxides (NOx) FEL cap included in both Options 1
and 2. As described further below, an FEL cap of 150 mg/bhp-hr would allow engines only
slightly cleaner than those being certified today (FEL of 160 mg/bhp-hr) to be produced until
2030. It should be noted that the current Omnibus regulation NOx FEL caps are specified as:
• 2024-2026 model years (MY): 100 mg/bhp-hr for all service classes
• 2027 and subsequent MYs: 50 mg/bhp-hr (light heavy-duty diesel (LHDD), medium
heavy-duty diesel (MHDD)), 65 mg/bhp-hr (2027-2030 MY heavy heavy-duty diesel
(HHDD)) and 70 mg/bhp-hr (2031 and subsequent MY HHDD) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p.ll]
California's adopted HD Low NOx regulation (or Omnibus regulation) establishes a 50 mg/bhp-
hr NOx emission standard in 2024 MY. Under U.S. EPA's proposed rule, manufacturers would
have a four-year lead time to redesign their products to meet the future standards. It is not clear
why a 150 mg/bhp-hr NOx FEL cap would be needed for 2027 through 2030 MY engines
because manufacturers will be producing engines meeting California's 50 mg/bhp-hr up to three
MYs ahead of CTP implementation. Such a high FEL cap would only lead to continued
production of relatively high emitting legacy HD diesel engines using today's emission control
technologies. For example, Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) has certified two HD diesel-fueled
engine families (Appendix I) [Appendix I can be found at EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p. 136-142] with California for the 2022 MY at an FEL of 160 mg/bhp-hr, just slightly above the
FEL cap U.S. EPA is proposing for five years from now and that, under U.S. EPA's proposal,
would continue until the 2030 MY. It is CARB staffs understanding that there are no major
emission control technology changes associated with this new family emission limit. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.ll]
On page 17555 of the proposed rule, U.S. EPA asserts that 'specifically, our proposed NOx FEL
caps would ensure significant emission reductions from all HD highway engines compared to
today's products'. CARB staff agrees with the concept that the purpose of an FEL cap is to
984
-------
prevent the use of old, legacy technologies. However, setting a 150 mg/bhp-hr NOx FEL cap
would not achieve that purpose. U.S. EPA has impermissibly ignored the aforementioned
considerations and evidence, which undermine its rationale for this proposal, Genuine Parts Co.
v. Env't Prot. Agency, 890 F.3d 304, 312 (D.C. Cir. 2018), failed to consider an important aspect
of the proposal, namely, the extent to which the proposed FEL caps may adversely affect the
projected emissions benefits of the Option 1 and Option 2 standards. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., (hereinafter State Farm), 463 U.S. 29, 43, (1983), and has not
set forth a rational connection between the facts and its proposal. State Farm, 463 U.S. at
43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.11-12]
As discussed further in section 3.a, CARB staff has serious concerns that CTP's proposed HD
electric vehicle NOx credits with no sunset date and federal NOx credits generated by
manufacturers complying with Omnibus standards will provide manufacturers with substantial
amounts of credits. Thus, these credits would allow manufacturers to continue producing legacy
engines with high NOx FEL caps nationally, causing serious erosion of the environmental
benefits generated by the proposed rule. CARB staff strongly recommends that U.S. EPA adopt
the same FEL caps outlined in the Omnibus regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
P-12]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
And third, EPA's proposed FEL caps are unreasonably high. See Section D.2.c, infra. That
failure exacerbates the effect of the Proposal's credit mechanism, and results in unacceptable
emissions and health impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.53]
Option l's proposed FEL cap for NOx is far too lenient because it fails to require the greatest
degree of emissions reduction achievable by technologies that will be available by MY 2027. See
42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Flouting Congress's direction to set technology-forcing standards,
EPA instead proposes FEL caps that are based on the 'average NOx emission levels achieved by
recently certified CI engines.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,522. But 'recently certified' engines were
designed to comply with standards promulgated more than twenty years ago, and do not utilize
the improved pollution-control technologies that will be available in MY 2027. See id. at 17,419
(noting emergence of new technologies). EPA's proposed FEL cap of 150 mg/hp-hr for MY
2027 is twice as high as the Omnibus's FEL cap of 100 mg/hp-hr for MY 2024-2026, and three
times higher than the Omnibus's general NOx emission standard of 50 mg/hp-hr (which will take
effect in MY 2024).240 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,552; Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. Given that manufacturers will already be required to
implement technologies to achieve a 50 mg/hp-hr standard and a 100 mg/hp-hr FEL cap in
several markets three years before EPA's rule takes effect, the proposed 150 mg/hp-hr cap lacks
any technical justification. Commenters also support and incorporate by reference comments by
MFN and CARB demonstrating the technological feasibility of (and the health and equity
rationales for) a lower FEL cap. See Comments of (1) MFN and (2) CARB, to be filed in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. Establishing a lower FEL cap is technologically
achievable and would better conform with the Clean Air Act's core pollution-minimizing
mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.58-59]
985
-------
240 The Omnibus's FEL caps decrease to 50-70 mg/hp-hr in later model years,
depending on service class. See Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022.
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
We support NESCAUM's recommendations to limit flexibilities that could significantly reduce
the emissions benefits of Option 1. For example, we recommend establishing stronger family
emission limit (FEL) caps that are consistent with the FEL caps in the Low NOx Omnibus rule to
avoid potential erosion of the effectiveness of the rule from the use of ZEV credits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
To further prevent unintended consequences, EPA should constrain the NOx FTP/SET FEL cap
for MY 2027 and later to be no higher than 100 mg/hp-hr for all service classes. Depending on
other details in the final rule, setting the FEL cap at some value between 50-100 mg/hp-hr may
be more appropriate. Setting that lower FEL cap also will help to prevent the competitive
problems described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• Eliminating averaging, banking, and trading would maximize nationwide NOx
reductions. If EPA retains these provisions, it should consider establishing a 0.05 grams
NOx cap in 2027 that is consistent with that in the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus
regulation in lieu of EPA's proposed family emission limits (FEL) of 0.15 grams NOx in
2027 and 0.05 grams NOx in 2031. Manufacturers have already conducted engine
development work to prepare for and comply with California 2024-2026 standards and if
the CARB FEL caps are implemented federally, all states can benefit from this research
and development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-Al,p.8]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA recommends that each HD manufacturer's fleet have a not to exceed limit (NTE limit)
on individual vehicles by class to avoid very high emissions vehicles being permissible as part of
the overall fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
To safeguard against potential underestimates of ZE truck sales under this approach, EPA must
also significantly and progressively lower the FEL cap to ensure combustion engine families
continue to utilize state-of-the-art technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 20]
986
-------
EPA's standards are defined as an average compliance value. This means that to the degree
trucks are able to perform better than the average standard, a manufacturer can earn credits.
These credits can then be used to offset vehicles that emit more of the harmful emissions than
required by the average level of compliance. The only limit as to how dirty an individual truck
can be is provided by the family emissions limit (FEL) cap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al, p. 30]
For Option 1, EPA has proposed setting the FEL cap at 150 mg/bhp-hr NOx in 2027, a level
"which is consistent with the average NOx emission levels achieved by recently certified CI
engines." 126 This means that at least through 2030, trucks can be certified to a level consistent
with compliance with a standard promulgated three decades earlier. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 30]
126. 87 FR 17552.
Setting the FEL cap at a level consistent with today's technology falls well short of EPA's
mandate under the Clean Air Act to set "standards which reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines
will be available for the model year to which such standards apply."127 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
127 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A).
SwRI's Stage 1 testing program showed that updates to engine calibration alone were able to
reduce the tailpipe emissions of a modern diesel engine by 36 percent, to 0.09 g/bhp-hr.128
Simply by adding a heated catalyst, the system was able to reduce tailpipe NOx emissions below
0.05 g/bhp-hr, the Omnibus standard for 2024. These are minor changes to engine
configurations, which is, in part, why they were used in the justification for the Omnibus
standards in this timeframe. 129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
The Omnibus standard will be enforced in a number of states by 2027, representing at least 9
percent of the total market, and likely more (see Section IV.D.5.C for further discussion). For
three years, that standard will have been mandating an average requirement of 50 mg/bhp-hr, and
in 2027 a maximum standard of 50 mg/bhp-hr. With such a substantial share of the market
already required to achieve this standard or less, and a number of technological paths for
manufacturers to achieve this standard, it is hard to argue on a technical basis that this should not
be, at absolute worst, the upper level of emissions for all kinds of trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
EPA offers an historical precedent of setting the FEL at the previous standard level. 130
However, this is not true for the rules currently on the books—the current HD diesel FEL cap is
0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx (2010+), whereas the previous average standard (2004-2006) was 2 g/bhp-
hr. 131 In citing the reason for not leaving the FEL at 2 g/bhp-hr and instead moving to the
current 0.5 g/bhp-hr cap, EPA explicitly notes the 90 percent difference between the 0.2 and 2
g/bhp-hr NOx standards. 132 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
987
-------
130. 87 FR 17552
131. The standard was either a combined 2.5 g/bhp-hr cap for NMHC+NOx, with a 0.5
limit on just NMHC, or a 2.4 g/bhp-hr cap on NMHC+NOx.
132 66 FR 5111
The situation the industry faces today is vastly different than in 2001. Whereas previously the
new rules were predicated on unknown technologies, here there is much more certainty as to the
capability of diesel powertrains to meet the requirements, with established technologies like
variable-valve actuation, 48V hybridization, and evolutionary improvements in emissions
controls. One similarity, however, is the tremendous disparity between the new average
requirements and the old regulations. Here again EPA is expected to reduce emissions by 90
percent on the FTP cycle, and, as such, it is more important to worry about the disparity between
different new trucks on the road and the capability of manufacturers to meet more stringent
standards in the allocated timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
It is clear based on available technology and the latest evidence that manufacturers are more than
capable of meeting much stronger standards than have been on the books since 2010 (see Section
III.B). This is precisely what the Omnibus program was meant to address, beginning 3 years
prior to EPA's proposed rule. It is therefore appropriate that EPA align its FELs with the
Omnibus program. These limits yield identical percentage improvements from the FELs and
average standards from 2010 to 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 31]
In 2027, EPA's FELs for LHDD and MHDD engines should be set no higher than 50 mg/bhp-hr,
representing a 30 mg/bhp-hr shortfall from our recommended average standard, and a 90 percent
reduction from the current FEL, consistent with the 90 percent reduction in the average standard.
For HHDD engines, the gap should be identical (30 mg/bhp-hr), but the longer useful lifetime
requires an additional margin, putting this limit at no more than 65 mg/bhp-hr. Should EPA set
an intermediate lifetime limit on HHDD engines, its limits would be identical to the LHDD and
MHDD engine requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 32]
For 2031, the FELs appear to be aligned with the Omnibus rule. However, EPA should consider
whether it is appropriate to allow in perpetuity a difference of 150 percent of FTP-cycle NOx
emissions. Given the concerns about equity, and where the dirtiest trucks on the road inevitably
end up (Section III.B.6.c), EPA should continue to tighten the FEL over time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 32]
With respect to the 30 mg/bhp-hr value, it is important to note that it is not that 30 mg/bhp-hr is
an appropriate gap, but that 50 mg/bhp-hr is a technically justified maximum, which so happens
to have a difference of 30 mg/bhp-hr. The FEL is the level achieved by the worst-performing
trucks. As technology continues to be improved and is broadly used across the entire fleet, the
FEL should be reduced to reflect the fact that those worst vehicles can perform better than
previously allowed, regardless of the value set by the average emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 32]
988
-------
Implicit in the existence of the FEL is EPA's belief that some trucks should be allowed to emit
more pollution than others. However, 100 percent of today's heavy-duty diesel engines are
certified to the required average standard (0.2 g/bhp-hr) or better. This indicates that there is no
difference in technical capability across truck applications to meet today's standards. Therefore,
FELs above the average technical capabilities of diesel engines should be considered a
temporary, transitional option available only in the initial years of the standard, if at all. Given its
mandate under the Clean Air Act and the wealth of evidence on the technological capability of
diesel control technologies, not to mention the growing number of applications for zero-
emissions vehicles, EPA should consider whether it is appropriate at all in the long run to
maintain FELs that do not reflect the maximum technical capability to reduce emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 32]
As noted above, the FEL cap (and by extension the averaging program) allows some trucks to
pollute more than others. Unfortunately, those more polluting trucks are frequently in operation
or operating conditions where they are likely to do the most damage-in communities already
overburdened by pollution. For example, port drayage operations involve high volume freight
flows, and freight operators use older trucks to limit the marginal costs, even in regions with
targeted environmental policies meant to limit the use of older trucks. 133 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 32]
133. See
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=gguelj
and the references contained therein.
A recent study of real-world emissions control operations showed that under urban operating
conditions, including goods movement and delivery with extended low-load conditions, diesel
vehicles with modern emissions controls performed just 33 percent better on average than those
without an SCR system, 134 despite a required reduction of more than 90 percent on the federal
test cycles. Other studies have shown similar conditions—while line-haul tractors may spend a
significant share of time at highway speeds, the vocational operations most common in urban
centers spend a lot more time at conditions where modern diesel controls are functioning
suboptimally.135 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
134. McCaffery, C., et al. "Real-world NOx emissions from heavy-duty diesel, natural
gas, and diesel hybrid electric vehicles of different vocations on California roadways,"
Science of the Total Environment 784 (2021), 147224. DOI:
10.1016/jscitotenv.2021.147224. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147224.
135. Boriboonsomsin, B., et al. "Real-world exhaust temperature profiles of on-road
heavy-duty diesel vehicles equipped with selective catalytic reduction," Science of the
Total Environment 634 (1 Sept 2018), 909-921. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.362.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/j. scitotenv. 2018.03.3 62.
EPA acknowledges this issue in its establishment of the low-load cycle (87 FR 17463). However,
the flaws in the FELs on the FTP cycle are even further exacerbated on the LLC, which has even
greater margins for compliance, virtually eliminating any possible potential gains this cycle
989
-------
could have for the worst performing vehicles: while the FELFTP is defined as 150 mg/bhp-hr for
2027-2030 diesel engines under Option 1, FELLLC is 150 / 35 x 90 = 385 mg/bhp-hr (87 FR
17551), a value that is worse than some 2017- 2019 diesel engines achieve today (87 FR 17470,
Table 111-12)136 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 33]
136. 150 mg/bhp-hr is the FEL FTP limit; 35 mg/bhp-hr is the required standard on the
FTP cycle; and 90 mg/bhp-hr is the required standard on the LLC cycle.
By setting its FEL as high as it has, EPA is proposing to allow in perpetuity vehicles that its own
data show far exceed the levels of pollution allowed by current test procedures, in precisely the
communities that are already overburdened by freight pollution. This is yet another example of
how even EPA's most stringent proposed standard would prolong systemic environmental
inequities in freight pollution and fall short of the Act's requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 33]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA also seeks comment on a proposed Family Emission Limit (FEL) cap of 150 mg/hp-hr in
2027, which the agency says is consistent with the average NOx emission levels achieved by
recently certified diesel engines. An FEL cap being achieved today is far too high for
implementation more than four years from now and, at 150 mg, is inconsistent with the 50-
mg/hp-hr standards applicable to engines that will be in production in 2026 to comply with the
Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
We are especially concerned that EPA's proposed family emission limit (FEL) cap of 0.15 grams
of NOx between 2027 and 2030 could cause significant erosion of the stringency of the heavy-
duty engine NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 14 - 15]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
We are especially concerned that EPA's proposed family emission limit (FEL) cap of 0.15 grams
of NOx between 2027 and 2030 could cause significant erosion of the stringency of the heavy-
duty engine NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.16]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
To further prevent unintended consequences, EPA should reduce the FTP/RMC NOx FEL cap to
be no higher than 0.100 g/bhp-hr for all service classes. Setting that lower FEL cap also will help
to mitigate the competitive problems described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1,
pp.35-36]
990
-------
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States strongly support EPA's proposed measures to tailor the ABT program to this role,
including (1) limiting credit life to at most five years, (2) replacing existing credit balances with
transitional credits, and (3) lowering family emission limit (FEL) caps to below the 2007 heavy-
duty standards.90 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 20 - 21]
90. Id. at 17,552-54.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
To further prevent unintended consequences, EPA should reduce the FTP/RMC NOx FEL cap to
be no higher than 0.100 g/bhp-hr for all service classes. Setting that lower FEL cap also will help
to mitigate the competitive problems described above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
135]
EPA Summary and Response
Many of the summaries of comments on the proposed FEL cap in the proposed rule, and EPA's
responses to those comments, are included in Preamble Section IV.G. Immediately below, we
briefly summarize and respond to additional comments on the proposed FEL cap.
Summary of comments on the FEL cap:
One commenter suggested that each manufacturer's fleet have a not to exceed limit (NTE limit)
on individual vehicles by class to avoid very high emissions vehicles being permissible as part of
the overall fleet.
One commenter stated that EPA should lower the FEL over time to reflect expected
improvements in the maximum technical capability to reduce emissions. The commenter stated
that the FEL cap allows some trucks to pollute more than others, and that more polluting trucks
frequently operate in communities already overburdened by pollution (e.g., port drayage
operations often use older trucks even in regions with polices meant to limit the use of older
trucks). The commenter further stated that lowering the FEL over time would address concerns
about equity given where the dirtiest trucks often end up, which is commonly in port drayage or
urban operating conditions. The commenter provided data showing that trucks with modern
emissions controls operating in urban driving conditions, including extended low-loads,
performed only 33 percent better than trucks without an SCR system. They argued that the FEL
for LLC is worse than some 2017-2019 diesel engines can achieve today and that finalizing the
FEL caps as proposed would prolong systemic environmental inequities in freight pollution, and
fall short of the Act's requirements.
Response to comments on the FEL cap:
EPA agrees with commenters that lower FEL caps than proposed are appropriate for the final
rule. We believe the lower FEL caps in the final rule will ensure that the vast majority of engines
make meaningful improvements from today's emissions levels, while also allowing
991
-------
manufacturers flexibility in their product plans.33'34 We expect that this approach in the final rule
will address the concern raised by one commenter regarding avoiding very high emissions
vehicles as part of a manufacturer's overall fleet. Details on the FEL caps in the final rule,
including EPA's analysis and rationale, are available in preamble Section IV.G.4.
As described in preamble Section IV.G.4, after further consideration, including consideration of
comments, the FEL caps in the final rule will lower over time (i.e., progressively lowering the FEL cap to
the level of the standards, as one commenter suggests). However, as proposed, we are not choosing to
include an expiration date for the final ABT program. As discussed in Section IV.G.l, EPA continues to
believe that an ABT program is an important flexibility for manufacturers to spread out their
investment and prioritize technology adoption in the applications that make the most sense for their
businesses during the transition to meeting new standards. In later years of the program when no
changes in emission standards are involved, banking can provide manufacturers additional flexibility,
provide assurance against any unforeseen emissions-related problems that may arise, and in general
provide a means to encourage the development and introduction of new engine technology (see 55 FR
30585, July 26, 1990, for additional discussion on potential benefits of an ABT program). We note that
the final FEL caps, particularly the FEL cap applicable to later years of the program, will require
manufacturers to make meaningful improvements from the emissions control technologies used to
meet the currently existing standards. Further, we note that credits banked prior to MY 2027 will
expire as early as by MY 2030 and no later than by MY 2035 (depending on the extent to which engines
used to generate credits meet the MY 2027 and later requirements, as explained in preamble Section
IV.G.7); it is possible that at least some of the credits generated will not be used, particularly as the
heavy-duty fleet continues to transition to ZEVs. Finally, as discussed in preamble Section IV.G, EPA is
not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs,
and thus the growing number of ZEVs that the commenter points to is not a factor to consider in
progressively lowering the FEL cap.
One commenter also stated that the FEL cap allows some trucks to pollute more than others and
that more polluting trucks frequently operate in communities already overburdened by pollution
(e.g., port drayage operations often use older trucks even in regions with policies meant to limit
the use of older trucks). We acknowledge that an ABT program does inherently allow some
engines to produce higher levels of emissions than other engines; however, the FEL cap
constrains the extent to which engines can emit above the level of the standard and can be set to
ensure that all engines improve. After further consideration, including consideration of
comments from this commenter and others, we are finalizing lower FEL caps than proposed to
33 As discussed in Section IV.G.9, we are finalizing an allowance for manufacturers to continue to produce a small
number (5 percent of production volume) of engines that meet the current standards for a few model years (i.e.,
through MY 2029); thus, the vast majority, but not all new engines will need to include updated emissions control
technologies compared to those used to meet today's standards until MY 2030 when all engines will need updated
emissions control technologies to comply with the final standards. See Section IV.G.9 for details on our approach
and rationale for including this allowance in the final rule. Except for this interim allowance, the FEL caps in the
final rule are the maximum level to which manufacturers may certify an engine family while using NOx emissions
credits. In setting the FEL caps and requirements for this interim allowance, we considered concerns raised by
commenters regarding the potential for high emissions from individual engines.
34 We note that, as specified in 40 CFR 1036.101, each engine must meet the final standards unless participating in
the voluntary ABT program. Under the current and final NOx emissions standards, manufacturers must either certify
that each of their engine families meets the numeric standards, or use NOx emissions credits generated by engines
certified to a numeric level below the standards
992
-------
ensure that all engines improve at least 68% from today's standards in the early years of the
program, and at least 75% in the later years of the program, compared to the 25% improvement
that would have been required with the proposed FEL cap. The commenter argues that higher-
emitting trucks are more likely to operate in communities that are already overburdened with
pollution, such as port drayage operations; however, we have no data to suggest that engines
certified to the FEL caps in the final rule would be more likely than other trucks to operate in
these communities. While we agree that older trucks are more likely to operate in port drayage
and other communities with environmental justice concerns, we do not have evidence that new
trucks with an engine certified to 65 or 50 mg/hp-hr would be more likely than trucks with
engines certified at 35 mg/hp-hr to operate in certain areas or operations. Further, by allowing
manufacturers to participate in the NOx ABT program in the final rule we are providing a
flexibility for manufacturers to spread out their investments; as some commenters have noted,
flexible program may help with fleet turnover as the new emission standards take effect (see
Section 25 of this document for more discussion on fleet turnover). Fleet turnover would help
replace older trucks, which emit at much higher levels than the FEL cap in the final rule, with
newer trucks in port drayage and other communities impacted by freight operations. Finally,
inherent in the ABT program is the requirement for manufacturers producing engines above the
emissions standard to produce engines below the standard, or purchase credits from another
manufacturer who has produced lower emitting engines. As a simplified example, the result is
that any engine certified to a 50 mg/hp-hr FEL would need to be balanced by an engine certified
to a 20 mg/hp-hr FEL. As the commenter points out, local or regional policies that limit the use
of older, higher-emitting trucks could help to ensure that the lowest-emitting engines operate in
communities overburdened by pollution. We also note that recent Federal funding may also help
to encourage turnover of older, higher-emitting trucks.35
Finally, one commenter stated that the proposed FEL cap for the LLC is a value worse than what
some 2017-2019 diesel engines can achieve today. After further consideration, including
consideration of comments from this commenter and others, we are finalizing a lower LLC
standard than proposed. As described in preamble Section III, the final LLC standard is based on
the most recent EPA engine demonstration data, which includes emissions control technologies
that are not widely used in current diesel engines (see Section 3 of this document and preamble
Section III for additional details on the final LLC standard). As discussed in Section IV.G.2,
manufacturers will base their final FELftp for credit generation on their engine family's emission
performance on the most challenging cycle. Thus, if a CI engine manufacturer demonstrates NOx
emissions on the FTP that is 25 percent lower than the standard but can only achieve 10 percent
lower NOx emissions for the low load cycle, the declared FELftp would be based on that 10
percent improvement to ensure the proportional FELllc would be met. We expect that the
combination of the lower LLC standard and the lower FEL cap in the final rule address the
concern the commenter raised about the FEL cap for the LLC.
12.3 Credit Life
35 For example, see Sections 13403 (Qualified Clean Vehicles), 13404 (Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit),
60101 (Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles), 60102 (Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports), and 70002 (United States
Postal Service Clean Fleets) of H. R. 5376,
993
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17553 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed five-year
credit life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.12]
CARB staff supported the five-year greenhouse gas (GHG) emission credit life specified in
1036.740 (d) in the U.S. EPA Phase 1 GHG standards and aligned with them. CARB staff
supports changes to also limit criteria emission credit life to five years. An unlimited credit life
beyond five years would only serve to allow manufacturers to produce higher polluting engines
when emission standards become more stringent many years from now, such as in the 2030 MY
under the CTP proposal. For example, during development of the Omnibus regulation, CARB
staff analyzed existing federal NOx credit banks and the credit accumulation practices of HD
engine manufacturers for the 2007-2021 model year period and observed that several
manufacturers had accumulated enough credits during the 2007-2009 MY period to be able to
certify new 2024-2026 MY engine families at the proposed Omnibus regulation FEL caps. If
CARB staff had not sunset the allowed use of these credits, it would have delayed needed
emission reductions of the program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 12]
If manufacturers desire to have additional flexibility for meeting 2030 MY requirements, they
would have the opportunity to certify lower FEL engine families up to five years prior to help
transition to those standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.12]
On page 17552 of the proposed rule, U.S. EPA asserts that the same credit life provisions for
Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions should also be applicable to NOx emissions. CARB staff
strongly agrees with this assessment, which is in alignment with California's Omnibus
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.12]
"As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.740(d), NOx emission credits generated for use in
MY 2027 and later could be used for five model years after the year in which they are generated.
... We request comment on our proposed five-year credit life." (87 FR 17552-3) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
With those averaging set and FEL cap constraints to protect against unintended consequences,
Cummins supports unlimited NOx credit life, or at least credit life in-line with useful life, in lieu
of EPA's proposed 5-year credit life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
"As specified in the proposed 40 CFR 1036.740(d), NOx emission credits generated for use in
MY 2027 and later could be used for five model years after the year in which they are generated.
... We request comment on our proposed five-year credit life." (87 FR 17552-3) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
994
-------
Three years, not five, is a reasonable timeframe to average out year-to-year variability and
should therefore be an appropriate credit lifetime. EPA's three-year stability requirement under
the Clean Air Act § 202(a)(3)(C) represents an industry standard pace of improvement to which
manufacturers already adhere and plan against. Prior to EPA's elimination of credit lifetime,
NOx and particulate emission credits had a three-year expiration (40 CFR § 86.091-14(f)(l)
[2004] 180). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
180. This section of the CFR has since been amended, but an archival reference is
available here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title40-voll7/pdf/CFR-
2004-title40-vol 17-sec86-09 l-15.pdf.
Acknowledging the harm that the current indefinite credit system would cause were it allowed to
persist, EPA has not justified its choice of five years, and a three-year lifetime is both more
protective under the Clean Air Act and has previously been used by the agency. In fact, prior to
its most recent elimination of a credit lifetime, EPA had proposed reintroducing the three-year
lifetime after a temporary transition period but finalized an infinite credit lifetime based on a
rationale it now rejectsl81— a return to the previous three-year lifetime for credits is thus the
natural outcome of such action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
181. E.g., compare EPA-420-R-97-102, pp. 19-22 ("EPA believes that a limit on credit
life would in this case to some degree stifle the development and introduction of new
technology.") and 87 FR 17552-3 ("Manufacturers could continue to generate credits by
adopting increasingly advanced technologies. ... We believe a five-year credit life
adequately covers a transition period for that option, while continuing to encourage
technology development in later years.").
To appropriately limit the environmental harm caused by credit usage, EPA should reinstate the
three-year (not five-) credit lifetime, if it is to have a banking and trading program at all. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 49]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
With those averaging set and FEL cap provisions in place to protect against unintended
consequences, EMA recommends that EPA allow unlimited NOx credit life, in lieu of the
Agency's proposed 5-year credit life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp.35-36]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States strongly support EPA's proposed measures to tailor the ABT program to this role,
including (1) limiting credit life to at most five years, (2) replacing existing credit balances with
transitional credits, and (3) lowering family emission limit (FEL) caps to below the 2007 heavy-
duty standards.90 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 20 - 21]
90. Id. at 17,552-54.
995
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
With those averaging set and FEL cap provisions in place to protect against unintended
consequences, EMA recommends that EPA allow unlimited NOx credit life, in lieu of the
Agency's proposed 5-year credit life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 135]
EPA Summary and Response
A high-level summary of comments along with EPA responses to comments on credit life are
available in preamble Section IV.G.
12.4 Transitional NOx credits
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
As of December 2020, approximately 50% of all commercial diesel trucks in operation,
nationwide, were purchased after MY 2010 or later, while 50% of the heavy-duty trucks now on
the roads continue to operate without the benefit of NOx and PM emissions control technologies.
New heavy-duty trucks will be operational for decades. Incentives for compliant trucks, not just
ZEVs, purchased prior to the MY 2027 will bring tremendous health benefits to at-risk
communities and the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On pages 17553-17554 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed
transitional credits before 2027 model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 13]
CARB staff recommends that the transitional credits for 2024 through 2026 MYs be subject to
the following conditions:
• First, the five-year credit life should apply to these credits because these credits should be used
to help manufacturers transition to the CTP 2027 MY standards that function within the proposed
implementation schedule.
• Second, the 2024-2026 MY engines should be certified so that they are subject to all 2027 and
subsequent model year requirements. This includes the low-load cycle, off-cycle standards, etc.
Basically, there needs to be consistency between the way these credits are generated and the way
they are used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.13]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA has proposed allowing various types of NOx credits to be used within its ABT program,
with a credit lifespan of five years. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,552-53. Under that proposal, 'transitional'
credits, early adoption incentive credits, and BEV and FCEV credits could be generated as early
996
-------
as MY 2024. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,552-57. EPA's Proposal does not adequately assess the impact
of those pre-MY 2027 credit mechanisms on its emissions standards— especially given the gap
between the EPA and Omnibus standards from MY 2024-26, and the extraordinarily large
number of credits that could result from that gap. If EPA uses a single national credit bank, that
credit surplus would threaten to drastically and unlawfully erode the emissions reductions
achieved by the standards. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). That potential erosion should be a
central factor in EPA's decision whether to allow transitional credits, and (if it does allow them)
how to limit those credits' use; EPA is consequently required to thoroughly address it before
including transitional credits in its final rule. See Michigan v. EPA, 576 U.S. 743, 750 (2015) (to
be lawful, agency decisions must rest on a consideration of all relevant factors). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.61]
EPA's existing NOx standards that apply to MY 2024 through MY 2026 are much higher than
the Omnibus standard—.2 g/hp-hr, rather than .05 g/hp-hr. Engines certified to the Omnibus
standard in that time will, consequently, generate a very large quantity of credits against the
federal standard (approximating .15 g/hp-hr per engine sold per year). California and other states
adopting the Omnibus have a substantial market share; the credits generated prior to MY 2027
are therefore likely to be significant. Depending on the FEL cap incorporated into the final rule,
whether the final rule allows BEVs and FCEVs to generate NOx credits, and manufacturers'
decisions, the transitional credits generated between MY 2024-2026 could allow a large
fraction of HHDEs to emit at the FEL cap even in MY 2030 and beyond. See Comments of
MFN, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, pp.61-62]
That threat requires EPA to carefully assess the impact of the surplus credits generated by the
gap between the pre-2027 EPA and Omnibus standards. Michigan, 576 U.S. at 750. And it
further demands some adjustment to the Proposal's NOx crediting structure. EPA should adjust
its standards to account for the effect of its transitional crediting program on manufacturers'
actual compliance responsibility. In the alternative, EPA should eliminate or amend the
transitional crediting mechanism (e.g., by establishing a separate credit bank for states adopting
the Omnibus, and/or shortening the credit life of NOx credits to no more than three years) so as
to ensure the 'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable' in the relevant model years. 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.62]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA states that the intent of the credit program is, in part, 'to provide flexibility for
manufacturers to spread out their investment and prioritize technology adoption in the
applications that make the most sense for their businesses during the transition to meeting new
standards.' 107 Daimler Truck agrees with this approach and supports a credit program. New
generation engines will require very significant investment across a variety of platforms.
Manufacturers must be allowed to spread that cost over several years, determining which
applications to prioritize. It is not possible for manufacturers to develop and release new engines
across the entire breadth of their portfolios all at once. Manufacturers are limited on an annual
basis in terms of investment dollars, but also in terms of resources—there are only so many
engineers, test facilities, dynos, etc. available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.83]
997
-------
107 Id. at 17,550.
To generate credits that could be applied in MY 2027 and later, manufacturers would have to
certify to all of the test conditions of the proposed program starting in MY 2024. Given the
infeasibility of manufacturers satisfying the proposed standards with one year's lead time, it will
be virtually impossible to generate the proposed 'transitional' credits. In many cases, DF testing
for MY 2024 engines has already started. It is not possible for manufacturers to adjust their
engine development plans to meet new additional low load cycle and off-cycle test standards by
MY 2024. As proposed, manufacturers would likely only be able to meet these new standards if
by chance the engines they have already designed for MY 2024 happen to meet EPA's newly-
proposed low load cycle and off-cycle standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.86]
Compliance flexibilities such as credit ABT programs are arguably part of the whole package of
program elements that constitute the emission 'standard' that EPA is proposing. In setting a new
HD emission standard, the CAA requires EPA to provide at least four years lead time. 110 For
manufacturers that must rely on credits to meet the very stringent NOx standards that EPA is
proposing for certain engine families, the ABT portion of the compliance program is a de facto
standard that would have to be met in a period much shorter than the four years' lead time
required under the Act. EPA's transitional credit proposal thus runs contrary to the spirit—and
potentially the letter—of the CAA, which rightly recognizes that manufacturers require lead time
to develop and validate new engine technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.86]
110 See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(C).
More importantly, EPA's proposal serves to disincentivize the real world NOx improvements
that could be (and are being) made for MY 2024+, unless manufacturers can design and validate
their engines to meet the requirements of these newly proposed rules—which, as noted above, is
virtually impossible in the time frame allowed. Under these circumstances, manufacturers have
no regulatory incentive to make improvements that would otherwise go forward under their
engine development programs. In other words, EPA's proposal would remove incentives for real
world emissions improvements that could be made immediately—and thereby, if finalized,
EPA's rule would actively discourage those improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.87]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
There is no need to incentivize manufacturers to adopt the proposed test procedures earlier than
required in MY 2027 because they are already required to adopt essentially identical test
procedures beginning in 2024 under the Omnibus program. Moreover, any such transitional
program will lead to a windfall of credits for manufacturers meeting the required state Omnibus
standards, which are 75 percent lower in the 2024-2026 timeframe than the federal program.
These credits will then be used to delay emissions reductions nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 46]
Model heavy-duty engines are all certified at or below the 0.2 g NOx/bhp-hr average FTP/SET
requirements (blue bubbles). The sales-weighted average compliance margin for these engines is
998
-------
over 50 percent, with many achieving FTP test values far below the standard (green bubbles).
The size of the bubble corresponds to sales volume estimates. Importantly, a high-volume
product from a major manufacturer was just certified to a 0.16 FELFTP, which only bolsters
concerns about windfall credits for today's engines delaying future progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 47]
In addition to the windfall credits from vehicles sold in states where the Omnibus standards are
in place, manufacturers will likely be able to certify 2024-2026 engines to the new test
procedures with little effort, and doing so will result in a substantial amount of credits owing to
the current, weak average NOx standards. Every engine today is certified at or below the average
required standard, with an average sales-weighted compliance margin of just over 50 percent
between the FELFTP and the value from the certification test (Figure 8). 179 This large
compliance margin likely covers any difference owing to the new test procedures—the scalar
provided for the 2027 FELLLC/FELFTP is 90/35 = 2.6, and the best-performing engines from
2017-2019 already achieved a scalar of 3.5, just a 25 percent difference, and well below the level
of wiggle room provided by the current compliance margin. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al, p. 47]
We support EPA's proposal to exclude the current credit balances (87 FR 17553); however, the
transitional credit program raises all the same concerns, and all the same risks. With only
marginal improvements in performance owing to the new test procedures, it is far more critical
that EPA push manufacturers to adopt new technology rather than meet new tests, and the best
way to do this is to limit any flexibilities for manufacturers. The transitional credit program
undermines efforts to reduce emissions in 2027 and beyond by rewarding the status quo. It
should therefore be eliminated from the proposal in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, pp. 47 - 48]
While we oppose these credits, if EPA moves forward with this program, it must ensure that any
credits are predicated on meeting all of the changes in program design changes adopted by EPA
beginning in 2027 to improve the robustness of any test-cycle reductions in the real world.
Critical to these changes is the elimination of the NTE program and the adoption of the moving-
average-window approach to ensure that these newer trucks are seeing required reductions in
real-world emissions on the road and the adoption of the low-load cycle, which better reflects the
need to capture operations where today's vehicles fail miserably. If EPA moves forward with the
credits they must ensure that reductions in medium- and heavy duty vehicle emissions occur
within environmental justice communities by requiring the ZEVs are deployed in environmental
justice communities. EPA must require that these vehicles are part of a publicly available
tracking system to ensure adherence to the Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 48]
We are absolutely opposed to credits for any engines that do not adhere to updated testing and
compliance procedures that are at least as effective as those already met by the state
Omnibus. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 48]
There should be absolutely no credits awarded for legacy engines nor legacy technologies. The
difference is these engines cannot simply be captured in a conforming factor—it goes directly to
the operation of the engine itself and the corresponding emissions controls. The current test
999
-------
procedures have not led to the reductions promised—there is absolutely no reason not to require
that all certified engines moving forward are required to be certified under the updated
procedure, directly assessing their emissions under the new protocol, without any conditional
fudge factor that could be manipulated or gamed and would lead to a continuation of the
inadequate compliance procedures to-date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 48]
As is noted below, the impact that the credit program could have on future emissions
requirements is substantial. This is particularly true in the years prior to 2027, when the
difference between what is feasible and what is required is (at an absolute level) the greatest.
While we oppose the generation of any credits in this time period, worse still is the possibility
that any such credits could linger as late as 2031. If granting any such credits, EPA should
propose a limit of no more than three years, as discussed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 48]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush supports the proposed use of transitional NOx emissions credits for 2024-26MY, and
believes the proposed calculation method for credits and SET FEL's is reasonable. We cannot
assess whether Roush will participate in this optional program or not, as we have not yet
evaluated the impact on the SET requirements on our product design and customer acceptance,
but we would expect to complete that analysis once the proposed rule is finalized. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.2]
EPA Summary and Response
Many of the summaries of comments on transitional credits in the proposed rule, and EPA's
responses to those comments, are included in Preamble Section IV.G.7. Immediately below, we
briefly summarize and respond to additional comments on the proposed transitional credit
program.
As part of their comments on the transitional credit program in the proposed rule, one commenter
stated that EPA should require ZEV deployment in EJ communities and require the vehicles to
be part of a publicly available tracking system. See Section 12.1 of this document for our
response to the comment regarding ZEV deployment in EJ communities and a publicly available
database for tracking emissions credits.
A commenter also stated that they oppose any allowance to use credits through MY 2031 if those
credits are generated prior to MY 2027. Another commenter stated that the same five year credit
life should apply to transitional credits as in the proposed ABT program. We have carefully
considered appropriate credit life for the four transitional credit pathways and for the reasons we
explained for each pathway in preamble Section IV.G.7, we have allowed the use of certain
transitional credits through MY 2032 under two transitional credit pathways and through MY
2034 for one transitional credit pathway.
12.5 Early adoption incentives
1000
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17555 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed early
adoption incentives program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.14]
CARB staff recommends that the introduction of the early adoption incentives which would
incentivize compliance with all future model year requirements be subject to the following
conditions. CARB staff believes that most of the engines participating in this program would be
designed to comply with California's Omnibus requirements. As such, CARB staff recommends
that the term StdFTP in equation IV-2 (page 17555 of the NPRM) be redefined as the applicable
current MY standard as specified in the Omnibus regulation. Doing so would match the amount
of credits generated with what is calculated in the Omnibus regulation and avoids the generation
of excess credits under the federal program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.14]
Excess credits could potentially be used to certify higher polluting engines in future model years,
thereby eroding the environmental benefits of the CTP proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 14]
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
We support the proposed structure of the early adoption credit multiplier which not only
incentivizes early compliance for diesel engines but will also encourage the wider deployment of
near-zero trucks. As proposed, zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) should remain ineligible for the
early compliance credit multiplier since they already benefit significantly from state mandates
and incentives as well as a plethora of federal incentives. Furthermore, incentives need to be
focused on improving the emissions from internal combustion engines. ZEV incentives would be
a distraction from the purpose of the rule and send a mixed message to engine
manufactures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.4]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA believes that incentivizing early introduction of technologies is an effective way of
driving development of the cleanest technology ahead of regulations to deliver early emission
reductions. We believe that staffs proposed use of NOx credit multipliers as phased-in by
earliest year of introduction is appropriate and rewards manufacturers that have invested in the
cleanest technology first with greater credits. Natural gas engines that are already emitting at the
lowest 2027 limits will be able to generate these early compliance credits as investments are
made to introduce diesel trucks that emit at these ultra-low NOx levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, p.28]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
EPA's generous early action credits must be removed as they unnecessarily dilute the emission
standard while incentivizing a harmful, dead-end technology: natural gas vehicles. A strong fleet
1001
-------
averaging system inherently incentivizes early action since earlier reductions can ease
manufacturer compliance and provide flexibility, rendering early action credits redundant.
Further, since natural gas vehicles, under the current inadequate testing and certification regimes,
are falsely labeled as "low NOx" vehicles, early action credits functions as a carve out for these
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 44]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
1. Support the early adopter NOx credits proposed by EPA to be included as part of the
averaging, banking and trading program including the proposed sales multipliers for
natural gas engines and vehicles and other technologies that certify to more demanding
NOx levels ahead of schedule; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
EPA's proposed early incentive credit multipliers, however, should be scaled back or
eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.7]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Tesla supports early action crediting as it will hasten manufacturers' pace of clean vehicle
deployment. Early action NOx credits generated by BEVs will create an additional incentive for
manufacturers to pull forward deployment of heavy-duty BEVs and accelerate the pace of fleet
turnover to zero NOx vehicles. 134 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 15]
134 87 Fed. Reg. at 17556, fn. 681-2 (noting past Tesla comments).
While BEVs should play a central role in NOx compliance and credit markets, the various credit
multipliers in the proposed crediting systems are unequitable toward electrification and will
dampen actual near-term delivery of BEVs. Accordingly, the multipliers provided in the credit
trading provisions should be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.15]
Second, regardless of technology eligibility, any multiplier for early adoption incentives should
be eliminated. 136 As proposed, the early adoption multipliers will provide the perverse incentive
of a credit bonus encouraging new use of pollution emitting technologies. 137 The multiplier will
incentivize manufacturers to speed up deployment of improved but legacy, polluting
technologies that will continue to load NOx emissions for years to come. Further, the multiplier
will also create more credit accumulation and value for manufacturers that bring about a lesser
emission reduction technology than BEVs. The early adoption multiplier should be eliminated.
Tesla also agrees with the agency that providing credit multipliers can unnecessarily dampen
actual deployment of the best emission control technologies and lead to a loss of emission
reductions. 138 This is true regardless of the technology to which a multiplier may be attached
and is not applicable just to BEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 16]
1002
-------
136 87 Fed. Reg. at 17557.
137 87 Fed. Reg. at 17555.
138 87 Fed. Reg. at 17426.
For example, as proposed in MY 2024 thru and 2026 hybrid powertrains would generate two
times as many credits as a BEV if deployed over the same period. Under this approach, the
proposed regulation is asserting that hybrid powertrains are more valuable, in terms of NOx
mitigation, than BEVs. Given BEV technology is available and provides greater emission
reductions than other technologies, it simply does not make sense to favor hybrid technologies in
the NOx rule over zero emission solutions. It is also consistent with the notion of technological
neutrality. Accordingly, Tesla recommends eliminating the provisions in the regulation that
provide credit multipliers for hybrid powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 16]
As a general matter of policy development, in setting an emissions performance standard, such as
the NOx rule, the regulation should be agnostic with respect to what technology is used to meet,
and ideally outperform, the standard. Excluding or limiting ZEVs in the proposed regulation's
crediting provisions would promote one set of solutions to reduce NOx, consisting of efficiency
measures and post combustion emission controls, over better solutions, like BEVs that represent
a more effective means of addressing the problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 16]
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
EPA has often used various program elements to incentive early emissions reductions due to
their ability to drive more estimated health benefits. Much as early investments help drive more
retirement savings down the road, achieving earlier emissions reductions allows the time value of
those health benefits to accrue over a longer period of time, thus providing more cumulative
benefits. EPA has applied various incentives through its averaging, banking, and trading
programs under both its mobile source and stationary source regulations. Early reduction credits,
emissions reduction multipliers, and other incentives help businesses to take steps to reduce their
emissions earlier. EPA does this recognizing that the benefits of earlier reductions, even if the
standards are less stringent, will often outweigh potentially larger benefits achieved at a later
date. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
Organization: Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)
Though, we caution EPA that the proposed early adoption credit program could undermine some
of the benefits of the rule depending on the final design. If credits under the program can be
generated from zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) that were already planned for production, those
credits could allow more polluting conventional diesels to be manufactured. It is important that
any credit system be crafted so that it does not incentivize the continued production of dirtier
diesels when the technology exists to make them cleaner. Any benefits from this proposed rule to
visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas will likely occur during the third and fourth regional
haze planning periods, 2028- 2038 and 2038-2048, respectively. It is important to WESTAR that
EPA be an active partner in making reasonable progress towards improving visibility in Class I
1003
-------
areas. The final rule should reflect the choices and alternatives within the proposal that are
technologically available to reduce the most emissions in the shortest period of time. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1230-A1, p.4]
EPA Summary and Response
See preamble Section IV.G for EPA's summary and response to comments on the proposed
Early Adoption Incentives program.
12.6 NOx emission credits from electric vehicles
12.6.1 Proposal to Allow Electric Vehicles to Generate NOx Emission Credits
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
It is critical that zero emission trucks be excluded from generating NOx credits because they
diminish the genuine NOx control reductions from internal combustion engines. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE opposes the use of credits for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or fuel cell electric vehicles
(FCEVs) for low-NOx compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
As proposed, the credits being offered to manufacturers for BEVs, and FCEVs will undermine
the goals of EPA's proposal to reduce NOx and other pollutants from heavy-duty engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
Cost-effective technologies exist that will ensure enormous emission reductions from heavy-duty
engines. To achieve the goal of improving engine emissions, compliance credits should be
generated for compliance with a standard, not a technology. As proposed, manufacturers can
over deploy BEVs or FCEVs at volumes higher than predicted, and easily backslide on engine
improvements or emission control technology changes on ICE vehicles. For this reason, AVE
recommends that EPA tighten the family emission limit (FEL) to 0.05 g/bhp-hr, down from the
current proposal of 0.15 g/bhp-hr. Without a lower FEL cap, the opportunity for significant NOx
reduction from new ICE trucks will be lost and the higher NOx levels will negatively impact at-
risk communities for decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
AVE also supports a sunset date of MY 2030 for all Heavy-Duty-ZEV NOx credits and adopt
other protections such as tightening the family emission limit (FEL) to 0.05 g/bhp-hr, down from
the current proposal of 0.15 g/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 6]
1004
-------
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
In this regard, EPA's proposal to allow for generation of NOx credits by ZEVs, BEVs should not
be finalized.68 While Allison generally favors incentives for development of new technologies,
allowing vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions (albeit not zero C02 emissions overall depending
on the fueling source) does not provide an incentive for new technologies to reduce NOx in as
much as it provides an additional incentive for the production of ZEVs. Thus, the credit is
misaligned with the environmental gains it is seeking to address and unduly favors one
technological approach over another. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.32-33]
68 86 Fed. Reg. at 17,557.
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
It is appropriate for zero emissions vehicles to average into a fleet average on NOx standards,
given the proposed step change in criteria emissions stringency. Zero emissions trucks are
recognized as an important technology to meet air quality goals.2 President Biden encouraged
the EPA Administrator to consider zero emissions vehicles when formulating emissions
standards for 2027 and beyond. Accelerating the adoption and use of zero emissions technologies
is widely accepted as a pathway for reducing GHG emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels by
2030, which President Biden also ordered.3 Excluding zero emissions vehicles from an ABT
program ignores real world NOx emissions reductions and subsequent air quality benefits that
the use of these products can deliver. As a result, through unreasonable warranty and useful life
requirements, there is a missed opportunity to incentivize and accelerate the adoption of zero
emissions technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 2]
2 "This requirement to shift to zero-emission trucks, along with the ongoing shift to
electric cars, will help California meet its climate goals and federal air quality
standards..https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-takes-bold-step-reduce-truck-
pollution
3 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-
president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-
good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/
Some stakeholders have expressed concern that allowing zero emissions vehicles to generate
ABT credits for criteria emissions would allow "backsliding", or higher criteria emissions on
next generation internal combustion engines, and that backsliding may threaten the ability of the
program to achieve air quality policy objectives. These concerns are unfounded. The EPA
proposal includes a maximum threshold for NOx emissions for any engine, via the NOx Family
Emission Limit (FEL). The EPA proposed FELs that are 25% or more below the current
manufacturer average standard, which is enough to prevent backsliding. The proposed fleet
standards for 2027MY+ are a fraction of the FELs, meaning that only a very small portion of a
manufacturer's portfolio (including credit generating vehicles) could certify near the FEL
value and still meet the overall fleet stringency. Maximum threshold caps, in combination with
overall stringency requirements, are an effective policy mechanism to address concerns of
1005
-------
backsliding and to still include zero emissions vehicles in an ABT program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1293-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
Organization: BorgWarner
BorgWarner urges against the use of NOx credits for EV or fuel cell vehicles, as doing so
could unintentionally dilute NOx-reducing technology in HD trucks. These credits could
disincentivize manufacturers from investing in and developing the next generation of cleaner
ICE trucks. A manufacturer could overachieve on the production of EV trucks and backslide on
NOx-reducing technologies for ICE trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 3]
We recommend EPA consider adopting a sunset date of 2030 MY for all HD-ZEV NOx
credits and adopt other protections such as lower family emission limit (FEL) caps.
Sunsetting these credits will help ensure manufacturers will adopt cost-effective and feasible
technologies to reduce NOx emissions from combustion engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1234-A1, p. 4]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• CARB has concerns that the proposed NOx credit generation mechanism for battery
electric vehicles and fuel-cell vehicles described in 40 CFR 1036.741 and 1037.616
would seriously erode the environmental benefits of the proposed rule. In developing
these provisions, U.S. EPA staff has assumed an unrealistically small penetration of
heavy-duty zero-emission technologies (1.5 percent heavy-duty zero-emission trucks in
2027 model year). CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA should incorporate a sunset date of
2026 model year for generation of these credits similar to the proposal in CARB's
Omnibus regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.3]
On page 17558 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the proposed NOx credit
generation program for battery electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel-cell electric vehicles
(FCEV). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 14]
While CARB staff believes in incentivizing the early development and production of HD fuel-
cell and battery electric vehicles, we oppose the proposed crediting mechanism without a sunset
date for the program. CARB staff strongly recommends U.S. EPA include a sunset date of the
2026 MY for generation of NOx emission credits from electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 14]
As stated in page 17556 of the proposed rule: 'Forecasting models and studies generally agree
that Hybrid electric vehicle, BEV, and FCEV production volumes will grow, yet the predicted
rate of growth ranges widely across various forecasts and partly depend[s] on the specific market
segments and time periods being evaluated, study methodologies, as well as underlying
assumptions'. For analysis, U.S. EPA used a 1.5 percent projected penetration rate for BEVs in
2027 model year (page 17458 of the proposed rule). CARB staff believes this projected
penetration rate is an underestimate for the following reasons:
1006
-------
• There are more than 140 modelsl of zero-emissions medium- and HD trucks and buses
commercially available today with additional models expected to enter production this
year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.15]
1 HVIP eligible vehicles, https://californiahvip.org/vehiclecatalog/
• The Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulation2 will help place nearly 300,000 zero-
emission vehicles (ZEV) on California roads by 2035. In addition, the ACT regulation
has been adopted by five other states (Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, New Jersey,
New York). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 15]
2 ACT regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks
• Multi-state action on heavy duty zero-emission policy and supporting activity is
widespread. Seventeen states with the District of Columbia and supported by northerly
neighbor Quebec are working under a memorandum of understandings (MOU) that
commits to developing4 the multi-state action plan, currently in draft review,5 to identify
barriers and propose solutions to support widespread electrification of medium and HD
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.15]
3 Memorandum of understanding, https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-
20220329.pdf/
4 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicles: Action Plan Development Process —
NESCAUM https://www.nescaum.org/documents/medium-and-heavy-duty-zero-emission-
vehicles-action-plan-development-process
5 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/announcement-mhd-zev-ap-public-draft.pdf
• Several Midwest states including Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin
have formed their own Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest MOU to promote HD ZEV
infrastructure, manufacturing and other supportive policies.6 Other multi-state MOUs
have been recently signed by states pursuing transportation applications of hydrogen as
part of their joint proposals for federal Hydrogen Hub funding including Arkansas,
Oklahoma and Louisiana's HALO Hub,7 Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming's
Western Inter-States Hydrogen Hub,8 Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia's Northern
Appalachian Industrial and Ohio Clean Hydrogen Hub Alliance,9 and the Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York's Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub. 10 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 15-16]
6 https://www.michigan.gov/-
/media/Project/Websites/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master.pdf?rev=6dd781b5a4eb4551b3b3
a5b875d67fb9
7 https://ee.ok.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/OK-LA-and-AR-Final-Hydrogen-RFI-
Submittal-to-DOE-for-H2Hub-3-21 -2022.pdf
1007
-------
8 https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/climate-energy/western-inter-states-hydrogen-hub
9 West Virginia Steps Toward Hydrogen Hub Despite Criticism (governing.com)
10 Governor Lamont Announces Connecticut Partners With New York, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts To Develop Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub Proposal
https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/03-2022/Governor-
Lamont-Announces-Connecticut-Partners-To-Develop-Regional-Clean-Hydrogen-Hub-
Proposal
• Eight different major HD manufactures 11 each have ZEVs that are commercially
available in the class 8 semi-tractor category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
P-16]
11 HVIP eligible heavy-duty vehicles, https://californiahvip.org/vehicle-category/heavy-
duty/
• Zero-emission Class 8 refuse vehicles are also available from at least six manufacturers
in addition to more manufacturers supporting the smaller class refuse market. 12 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 16]
12 https://californiahvip.org/vehicle-category/refuse/
• Manufacturers continue to release subsequent generation class 8 ZEV models with
increased performance and range. 13,14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 16]
13 Volvo Trucks introduces second-generation VNR Electric with bigger battery, added
range, and new configurations - Electrek https://electrek.co/2022/01/14/volvo-trucks-
introduces-second-generation-vnr-electric-with-bigger-battery-added-range-and-new-
configurations/
14 Manufacturers power up the EV marketplace | FleetOwner
https://www.fleetowner.com/ernissions-efficiency/electric-
vehicles/article/21238869/manufacturers-power-up-the-ev-marketplace
• One analyst estimates that manufacturers are currently sitting on an order book of some
140,000 units for commercial battery electric trucks alone. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 16]
15 https://www.ttnews.com/articles/high-diesel-prices-do-little-speed-adoption-alt-fuel-
trucks
• Significant private investments are going into public HD charging infrastructure with
Daimler leading a $650M project to install fast chargers on the East and West coasts as
well as Texas. 16 This follows their 'Electric Island' high power public charging station in
Oregon. 17 Truck stops are planning for electric charging including dedicated HD actions
1008
-------
like the MegaWatt E-Truck stop in Bakersfield, CA,18 Travel Centers of America's eTA
business unit, 19 and more conventional DC fast charging forays that can accommodate
lighter class commercial ZEVs.20,21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.16-17]
16 Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable
Power Announce Plans To Accelerate Public Charging Infrastructure For Commercial
Vehicles Across The U.S. - Daimler Truck Media Site
https://media. daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko. xhtml?oid=51874160
17 Daimler Trucks North America, Portland General Electric open first-of-its-kind heavy-
duty electric truck charging site | Daimler
https://northamerica.daimlertruck.com/PressDetail/daimler-trucks-north-america-portland-
general-2021 -04-21
18 Dedicated e-truck charging site coming up in California - electrive.com
https://www.electrive.eom/2021/05/10/dedicated-e-truck-charging-site-coming-up-in-
California/
19 TravelCenters of America Announces eTA (ta-petro.com) https://www.ta-
petro.com/newsroom/travelcenters-of-america-enhances-commitment~to-sustainability-and-
alternative-energy
20 Electrify America Announces Collaboration with Love's Travel Stops (loves.com)
https://www.loves.eom/en/news/2020/august/electrify-america-announces-collaboration-
with-1 ove s-travel -stop s
21 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Coming to Truck Stops (govtech.com)
https://www.govtech.com/transportation/electric-vehicle-charging-stations-coming-to-truck-
stops.html
• Detroit diesel is pivoting to become the supplier of e-axles for Freightliner's
trucks.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.17]
22 https://www.greencarreports.eom/news/l 13123 l_detroit-diesel-is-going-electric-in-pivot-
to-keep-powering-freightliner
• To address the upfront costs of HD ZEVs and their supporting infrastructure, more
examples of innovative financing options are taking advantage of lower ZEV operating
costs over time to better match existing budgeting practices for combustion vehicles.
These include so-called Vehicle-as-a-Service and Charging-as-a-Service products are
offered by manufacturers themselves23,24,25,26 or third parties.27,28,29 Traditional
truck leasing companies like Ryder and Penske are already active in the ZEV space and
bring their inclusive vehicle service models to ZEV introduction.30,31 These existing
approaches offer the potential to substantially accelerate ZEV rollouts and market
penetration by allowing broader access to the ZEV long term operational savings. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 17]
1009
-------
23 https://stnonline.com/industry-releases/highland-electric-fleets-and-thomas-built-buses-
sign-agreement-to-make-electric-school-buses-an-affordable-option-today/
24 Mack Launches Vehicle-as-a-Service Program for Battery Electric Vehicles | Mack
Trucks
25 BYD, Levo Announce Collab to Deploy BEVs to U.S. Fleets - Green Fleet - Work Truck
Online
26 LionPressReleaseLion Capital Solutions.pdf (thelionelectric.com)
27 https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-stories/press-releases/2022/mar/volvo-trucks-
sells-50-electric-trucks-to-truck-as-a-service-start-up.html
28 Zeem Solutions Launches First Electric Vehicle Transportation-As-A-Service Depot |
Business Wire
29 'Charging As A Service' For Electric Vehicles Growing As A Market Offering
(forbes.com)
30 Fleets prepare for arrival of electric trucks in 2022 | Commercial Carrier Journal
(ccjdigital.com)
31 Penske Electric Trucks and Vehicles - Penske Truck Leasing
https://www.pensketruckleasing.com/full-service-leasing/leasing-services/electric-fleets/
• Ford, GM, and Rivian have new zero-emission pickup models that are commercially
available for order. All three combined have already received over 300,000 orders on
their respective pickup truck. This demonstrated demand is further underscored by a
recent survey showing that 43 percent of current pickup owners expect to buy a ZEV
pickup in the next decade.32 Although these pick-ups are class 3 vehicles, they are
similar to Class 4 light HD vehicles and these powertrains will quickly transition to
heavier class vocational vehicles. Ford has seen over 10,000 orders on their E-Transit
vehicle as of January this year.33 Ford is also planning to nearly double production
capacity for the second time of the all-electric F-150 Lightning pickup to 150,000
vehicles per year.34 GM has started deliveries of their BrightDrop vans35 and states
25,000 already on order.36 The United States Postal Service (USPS) has just placed an
order for 10,019 BEVs Next Generation Delivery Vehicles37 and USPS Inspector
General points out that 99 percent of the postal delivery routes are electrifiable
today.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 17-18]
32 https://www.globenewswire.eom/news-release/2022/02/03/2378575/0/en/CarGuruS"
Releases-Latest-Pickup-Truck-Sentiment-Study.html
33 Ford E-Transit Hits 10,000 US Orders, Including 1,100 From Walmart (insideevs.com)
https://insideevs.com/news/563265/ford-etransit-10000-orders-usa/
1010
-------
34 Full Speed Ahead: Ford Planning to Nearly Double All-Electric F-150 Lightning
Production to 150,000 Units Annually; First Wave of Reservation Holders Invited to Order |
Ford Media Center
35 FedEx receives its first electric delivery vans from GM's BrightDrop - The Verge
https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/17/22839470/fedex-gm-brightdrop-electric-delivery-van-
ev600
36 High Demand For BrightDrop Electric Delivery Vans, Says CEO (gmauthority.com)
gmauthority.com/blog/2022/04/high-demand-for-brightdrop-electric-delivery-vans-says-ceo/
37 https://www.prnewswire.eom/news-releases/usps-places-order-for-50-000-next-
generation-delivery-vehicles-10-019-to-be-electric-3 01509809.html
38 https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2022/RISC-WP-22-
003.pdf
The aforementioned factors comprise an important aspect of the proposed crediting provision,
because they are centrally relevant to the accuracy of U.S. EPA's assumption regarding projected
numbers of HD ZEVs, and the likelihood that the projected NOx reductions from the CTP rule
will be eroded because of ZEV NOx credits generation. U.S. EPA must therefore account for
such factors in evaluating the impacts of NOx credits generated from electric vehicles. State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2 p.18]
U.S. EPA should not permit NOx credit generation from electric vehicles to continue
indefinitely. Such an allowance would allow these NOx credits to be used to certify higher
polluting engines in future years, thereby eroding the overall environmental benefits of the CTP
proposal. In order to assess the impacts of NOx credits from electric vehicles, CARB staff
working on the Omnibus regulation performed an inventory analysis39 which showed significant
losses of benefits from ZEV NOx credits if there is no sunset date for these credits. A summary
of the results from that analysis is shown in Figure 3-1. As shown, having no sunset date would
have reduced the overall benefits of the Omnibus regulation by 11 percent in 2050. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2 p.18]
39 Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking. Pages 196-203.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslownox/fsor.
pdf
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA perform a similar analysis using a penetration rate from
one or more knowledgeable, independent sources40 for HD electric vehicles to quantify the
potential losses of benefits in tons per year on nationwide basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 19]
CARB staff asked International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) staff to perform a
national emissions inventory analysis of CTP's Option 1 proposal based on a projected
penetration rate of HD ZEVs, similar to that is estimated by ACT Research.40 As shown in Fig.
1011
-------
3-2, ICCT's analysis projects that about 14 percent of the projected benefits of U.S. EPA's
Option 1 proposal would be lost due to manufacturers using HD ZEV NOx credits to certify
engines to higher FELs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.19]
40 ACT: Third of Class 4-8 Vehicles to be Battery-Electric in 10 Years.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10144947/act-third-of-class-4-8-vehicles-to-be-battery-
electric-in-10-years
Given the uncertainty in predicting the nationwide electric vehicle penetration rates and the
strong possibility that HD ZEVs will soon make up a significant portion of new HD sales, CARB
staff strongly recommends that U.S. EPA sunset the generation mechanism for the electric
vehicle NOx credits in 2026 MY. This would almost fully align the opportunity manufacturers
would have to generate ZEV NOx credits under Omnibus and CTP. To further align, U.S. EPA
could allow ZEV NOx credits to begin with 2022 MY vehicles. This would further incentivize
earlier uptake of these vehicles on a national level and would also align with the Biden
administration goals of quickly transitioning to zero-emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.20]
CARB staff believes that the implementation of California's ACT, other states adopting ACT,
and the fact that ZEVs are expected to become more cost effective than operating conventional
combustion vehicles in the 2027 MY timeframe means that NOx credit incentives would lose
their effectiveness and would only serve to delay needed NOx emission reductions from
combustion vehicles. For some categories, ZEVs are already cheaper to operate today41 and this
cost advantage is rapidly broadening to at least 42 percent of truck sales in 2030 according to a
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) cost analysis42 while Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory projects that even regional and long-haul ZEV trucks will be 50 percent
cheaper to operate than diesel in 2030.43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.20-21]
41 'ELECTRIC TRUCKS HAVE ARRIVED: The Use Case for Vans & Step
Vans' https://www.nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd-free-downloads-cache/Vans-and-
Step-Vans-Report-Executive-Summary-FINAL.pdf
42 'Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles
Cost Analysis' https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
43 'Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now' https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/publications/why-regional-and-long-haul-trucks-are
In conclusion, U.S. EPA should re-analyze its estimates of the ZEVs market, craft the credit
portions to deliver intended emissions benefits in a way that would be resilient to ZEV success,
and include a sunset date of the 2026 MY for NOx emission credits from electric vehicles. If
U.S. EPA adopts a sunset date that is later than the 2026 MY, then U.S. EPA needs to include
provisions to limit ZEV NOx credits between 2026 and the adopted sunset date. A HD ZEV
NOx credit backstop needs to be created to avoid the unanticipated consequence of HD ZEV
credits undermining expected NOx reductions from HD combustion engines by allowing such
engines to be certified to U.S. EPA's proposed high NOx FEL caps. CARB staff expects that this
1012
-------
unintended detrimental impact will grow with time with the increase in sales of HD ZEVs, which
will prevent progress reducing HDE emissions and have an especially detrimental impact on our
most vulnerable communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.21]
Organization: CALSTART
We also support a policy that gives vehicle manufacturers flexibility in meeting NOx emission
targets through accelerated deployments of battery and fuel cell technologies. Crediting could be
used to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission trucks before new NOx standards take effect
in model year 2027. Credits could have higher value for earlier production, starting in model
year 2024 for example, and phase down annually in advance of compliance dates, e.g., model
years 2027 and 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.5]
EPA's credits for zero-emission trucks, however, should drive emission reductions and not erode
intended reductions. Sales of zero-emission vehicles required under state policies, i.e., states'
adoption of ACT, should not be credited and double-counted under the final rule. Double-
counting should also not be allowed for combustion engines required under states' adoption of
the Heavy-Duty Omnibus. The lifetimes of credits should be capped to ensure credits do not
delay adoption of innovative combustion engine technology. Without the flexibility afforded by
deployments of zero-emission vehicles, the policy should be backstopped with a 0.02 g
NOx/bhp-hr standard for all engines no later than 2031. Engines allowed through zero-emission
vehicle credits should emit no more than 0.05 g NOx/bhp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-
Al, p.5]
To prevent the weakening of existing GHG standards and proposed NOx standards, the final rule
should account for the number of zero-emission vehicles expected to be deployed from state
policies and not allow double-counting of these vehicles. Credits for zero-emission vehicles in
the Clean Trucks Plan should be awarded for deployments beyond those required from other
polices, namely states' adoption of the ACT and Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p. 11]
Credits for zero-emission trucks should not erode net criteria or GHG emission reductions from
combustion engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.26]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
We also ask that EPA eliminate Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) crediting towards NOx engine
standard compliance. The ZEV crediting program should not be an offset mechanism that results
in the production of higher emitting diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1, p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA must also modify its crediting proposals to ensure that 'transitional' credits and credits for
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) do not undermine the
effectiveness of its criteria pollutant program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.8]
1013
-------
In a departure from its previous regulations, EPA has proposed to permit manufacturers to
generate NOx emissions credits, from MY 2024 onwards, for BEVs and FCEVs. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,556-57. Absent changes to the Proposal, those credits will substantially undermine the
effectiveness of EPA's NOx standard. Commenters urge EPA to include BEV and FCEV
technologies in its analysis of the appropriate NOx standard. See Section IV.B, supra. In the
alternative, EPA should eliminate the provisions allowing BEVs and FCEVs to generate NOx
credits, or at a minimum sunset the generation of those credits in MY 2026. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.52]
EPA's proposed NOx emissions credits are intended to provide an incentive for adoption of zero-
emission technologies and an 'opportunity for manufacturers to develop and refine transferable
technologies to BECs and FCEVs (e.g., batteries, electric motors).' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,556-57.
EPA's Proposal would provide a one-for-one credit—that is, it does not include multipliers—
because these technologies are relatively 'mature,' and in reliance on analyses indicating that
'BEV technologies will reach parity in the total cost of ownership with CI or SI engine
technologies in most market segments by 2025 or earlier.' Id. at 17,561-62. Although the
Proposal would allow manufacturers to generate credits from BEVs and FCEVs, EPA's
underlying emissions standards do not consider '[hybrid electric vehicles (HEV)], BEV, or
FCEV technologies,' based on EPA's conclusion that such technologies can achieve only limited
penetration within the relevant model years. Id. at 17,458 (also requesting comment on whether
EPA should instead include such technologies in its feasibility analyses for its NOx standards
based on 'information showing higher BEV/FCEV market penetration in the MY 2027 or later
timeframe'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.52]
As currently structured, the credit proposal would permit unnecessary and unlawful pollution. As
EPA recognizes, NO X emissions credits create 'the potential for a greater portion of CI engines
to emit up to the level of the FEL cap.' Id. at 17,560-61. Three elements of the Proposal sharply
increase the likelihood and magnitude of those increased emissions. First, EPA has (as set forth
in Section III, above) markedly underestimated HD ZEV market penetration in the relevant
model years, even in a baseline scenario. See also 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561-62 (recognizing that
BEV technologies may reach cost parity in most market segments by 2025 or earlier). A more
realistic estimate of baseline market penetration undermines EPA's rationale for providing NOx
credits; there is no need to provide regulatory incentives for vehicles that will be built and sold
based on their cost-competitiveness, to meet existing regulatory requirements, or to satisfy
corporate or fleet commitments. And such an estimate suggests that the credits will erode the
standards' effectiveness far more than the Proposal acknowledges, permitting a substantial
number of vehicles to pollute at the FEL cap with concomitant adverse effects for surrounding
communities.232 The result is a standard that, taken as a whole, fails to achieve the statute's
requirement of the greatest achievable emissions reductions. 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.52]
232 See CARB, Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of
Comments and Agency Responses 196-203 (Aug. 27, 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslownox/fsor.
pdf (assessing impacts of credits on emissions reductions).
1014
-------
In the alternative, we ask EPA to eliminate the provisions of its rule allowing BEVs and FCEVs
to generate NOx credits, see Section IV.E, infra (suggesting elimination of transitional credits),
or at a minimum to 'sunset' the generation of BEV and FCEV NOx credits no later than MY
2026. EPA recognizes in its Proposal that once 'BEVs and FCEVs [have transitioned] into
mainstream technologies in the heavy-duty market,' it would be appropriate to 'sunset, i.e., end,
the generation and use of NOx emissions credits for BEVs and FCEVs.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.
A more accurate projection of BEV and FCEV emergence indicates that the transition is
occurring at a pace that warrants excluding those vehicles from the NOx credit program. See
Section III, supra. If EPA does permit BEVs and FCEVs to generate NOx credits, the Agency
should at least end the generation of credits well before MY 2027. Given the likelihood that
BEVs and/or FCEVs will be cost-competitive in most applications by 2027, allowing credits
beyond that point would needlessly dilute EPA's emissions standards. And if EPA retains non-
ZEV transitional credits in its final rule, manufacturers will—even without BEV and FCEV
credits—amass ample credits to retain any necessary flexibility in compliance with the
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.53]
See Section IV.E, infra (describing glut of credits that will result from gap between federal and
Omnibus standards during MY 2024-26). Commenters also agree that EPA should not adopt any
emission credit multipliers, 87 Fed. Reg at 17,562 (requesting comments on whether emission
credit multipliers should be included in the final rule). If EPA does permit the generation of NOx
credits from BEVs and FCEVs, Commenters support EPA's proposed useful-life and warranty
certification requirements for the generation of NOx credits from those vehicles, 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,553. We would also urge EPA to shorten the lifespan of any NOx credits generated by BEVs
and FCEVs for the reasons explained in Section IV.E (discussing the effects of credit
oversupply). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.54]
Finally, EPA should in any event—but especially if it includes provisions for BEV and FCEV
credits—make its FEL caps more stringent. See Section IV.D.2.C, infra. The inclusion of credits,
as EPA acknowledges, increases the risk that a greater number of HDVs will pollute up to the
level of the FEL cap. See also 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,552 ('The zero-tailpipe emissions performances
of BEVs and FCEVs inherently provides the opportunity for manufacturers to generate more
credits from these vehicles relative to conventional engines that produce between zero and the
level [of] the standard.'). Ensuring that the FEL cap is appropriately stringent is, consequently,
an especially critical component of any standard that includes credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.54]
Organization: Clean Energy Ventures et al.
In the current Proposal, EPA is providing incentives that reward BEVs and FCEVs that are not
available to other technologies or strategies that can achieve the same - or even greater - NOx or
GHG emissions benefits when upstream and other indirect emissions are considered. Such an
approach is likely to send market signals that will stifle innovation by companies that are
developing non-BEV and non-FCEV decarbonization technologies, as well as reduce
opportunities to increase the use of low-carbon, renewable, American-produced biofuels as part
of the Clean Truck Plan's decarbonization strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2339-A2, p.2]
1015
-------
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air
In addition, we are concerned that the Zero Emission Vehicle credits as proposed could inhibit
reductions of diesel emissions. ZEVs should not be allowed to generate NOx credits, because
those credits will be used to allow higher NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1139-A1,
p.2]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
In the rule, EPA is proposing to continue to use averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) of credits
generated against heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant standards; provide incentives for early
adoption of technologies to meet the standards; and allow manufacturers to generate NOx
emission credits for hybrid electric (HEV), battery-electric (BEV), and fuel-cell-electric (FCEV)
vehicles. 52 While credits can be useful to encourage early adoption of technology, and to
encourage adoption of low- or zero-emission technologies, they can also serve to disincentivize
further improvements to internal combustion engine technology by allowing manufacturers to
average out high-emitting internal-combustion engines (ICE) with ZEV and other credits.53 CR
supports EPA's proposal to generate credits for early adoption of technologies prior to MY 2027.
However, NOx credits from HEV, BEVs and FCEVs will ultimately limit the effectiveness of
the proposed rule by generating too many credits. Manufacturers will be able to sell non-
compliant polluting vehicles for many years and would lack incentive to adopt improved ICE
technology. To prevent this outcome, EPA should not offer ZEV credits after 2027. Instead, EPA
should set stringent standards that would drive adoption of the EPA HDV rule. However, if EPA
ultimately decides to finalize the rule allowing ZEVs to generate NOx credits, EPA should not
include any multipliers and should limit the use of NOx credits by sunsetting their use after five
years or less, by limiting credit life to five years, and by lowering the family emission limit
(FEL) cap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, pp.8-9]
52 87F.R. 17426.
53 Sara Kelly and Ben Sharpe, Impacts of crediting zero-emission vehicles in the
upcoming federal regulation for criteria pollutants from heavy-duty engines and vehicles,
International Counsel on Clean Transportation, International Counsel on Clean
Transportation, (January 2022). Available at: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/us-ze-hdvs-pollutant-credits-feb22.pdf.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA should allow ZEVs to generate NOx credits, in recognition of their significant emission
reduction benefits and the need to help manufacturers manage their investments. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.80]
131 We request that EPA keep in mind its statutory directive to ensure that criteria
pollutant emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles reflect the 'greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable' through the application of technology that EPA
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
1016
-------
'appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.' 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Compliance flexibilities
such as the NOx credit program are essential to the achievability of the very stringent
NOx standards that EPA has proposed, thus the considerations in CAA Section
202(a)(3)(A)(i) are relevant to appropriateness of the requirements that EPA has
proposed for credit-generating ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 117-118]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
However, NOx emissions are in fact local in nature in terms of harmful effects and they are also
a powertrain attribute, not a vehicle attribute. The entire NOx rule (both the existing 2020
regulations and the proposed in the NPRM) treat NOx as an engine attribute and regulate engine
performance. Thus, it does not make sense to average an engine performance attribute (NOx
tested on FTP, LLC etc.) with a vehicle attribute (zero emissions in the absence of an engine).
NOx emissions averaging with such high variance could have negative and unpredictable effects:
1. It can artificially maintain high NOx emissions in industrial areas such as around ports,
distribution centers and freight corridors, which raises environmental justice concerns.
2. It can move the NOx emissions from the communities with high electrical vehicle
penetration to those that live around fossil fuel or natural gas energy plants, where real
NOx emissions will be emitted.
3. It makes it difficult for planners to achieve ozone attainment as the actual NOx emissions
in any particular area does not match the commercial vehicle activity in that area. Thus,
our recommendation is to not average engine NOx emissions with zero-emissions
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.7]
Agency Request / Topic: We are also interested in stakeholder input on our proposed
requirements for manufacturers choosing to generate NOx emission credits from BEVs or
FCEVs, as well as whether EPA should consider for this final rule, or other future rules,
restrictions for NOx emission credits in the longer term (e.g., beyond MY 2031) (See Section
IV.I for details). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.9]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: Due to the local effects of NOx emissions, we believe NOx
standards should be achieved on 100% of diesel-powered vehicles to ensure clean air around
highways, urban centers, underserved communities regardless of fleet-level BEV/FCEV sales.
This ensures environmental justice and allows planners to put in place effective ozone attainment
strategies. As explained, BEV in fact move NOx emissions to the power plant; thus averaging
can in fact increase NOx emissions in other regions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.9]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
As we discuss above, EPA should adopt multipollutant standards that consider the availability of
ZEVs in establishing both NOx and greenhouse gas standards. EPA's proposal, however, does
not consider ZEV technologies in setting NOx standards but does provide NOx credits for ZEVs
in demonstrating compliance. In particular, NOx credits earned in MYs 2024-2026 can be
carried over to MY 2027 and beyond if the credit earning vehicles meet the 'other' requirements
1017
-------
(useful life, warranty, low load NOx standard, etc.), which would begin in MY 2027. As a result
of this approach, instead of delivering additional air pollution benefits, ZEVs will instead
significantly dilute the efficacy of the standard and allow for higher-polluting diesel vehicles to
be sold. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.22]
EDF analyzed the impacts of these crediting provisions, including the number of MY 2027 and
later heavy-duty vehicles that could be certified to the maximum family emission level (FEL)
under EPA's proposal, as well as the total tons of additional NOx emissions allowed by the BEV
averaging. (See Attachment H for the full analysis). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
Our analysis used ERM BEV sales Scenario 2b (reflecting existing and reasonably foreseeable
ACT adoption) to project baseline nationwide BEV sales likely to generate NOx credits. To
calculate NOx credits earned by these BEVs, we used EPA's NOx credit calculation from the
proposal, assuming a NOx standard of 200 mg/bhp-hr in MY 2024-2026 and EPA's Option 1
NOx standards of 35 mg/bhp-hr for MY 2027-2030 and 20 mg/bhp-hr for MYs 2031 and
beyond. Applying the equation for NOx credits to the BEV sales, we estimated that the
cumulative NOx credits earned by all BEVs through 2035 are 190,000 megagrams (metric
tons). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
In order to put these levels of NOx credits in perspective, we calculated the number of vehicles
that can be certified to the FEL cap and the increase in NOx emissions. We assumed
manufacturers would use the credits to allow some of their heavy-duty vehicles to avoid as much
of the increased stringency of the MY 2027 and MY 2031 NOx standards as possible. We
assumed that manufacturers would utilize their credits within the same vehicle type and
regulatory class in which they were earned to avoid proposed limitations on the transfer of
credits between classes. We also assumed credits earned in MYs 2024-2026 would be banked for
use in MYs 2027-2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
We calculated the number of vehicles that could be certified to the FEL cap of 115 mg/bhp-hr
NOx and the percentage of national sales of vehicles in each category. By 2030, nearly 90
percent of school buses, 80 percent of transit buses, 35 percent of single unit trucks and a quarter
of all tractors could be certified to a level of 115 mg/bhp-hr instead of meeting the proposed
NOx standard of 35 mg/bhp-hr. And by 2035, nearly half of all school buses, 45 percent of Class
4-8 single unit trucks and a quarter of all tractors would still be emitting NOx at 115 mg/bhp-hr -
nearly six times higher than the emissions standard of 20 mg/bhp-hr for 2031 and beyond. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
The ability to certify vehicles at the FEL cap instead of the 35 or 20 mg/bhp-hr level increases
onroad NOx emissions until all of these vehicles are retired. We estimate the impact of certifying
to the FEL caps using lifetime NOx emissions from EPA's MOVES3. The increase in lifetime
NOx emissions from FEL cap certified engines (in metric tons) would be 174,000-213,000
metric tons through 2035. This increase is over 33 percent of the 559,000 ton reduction in NOx
emissions that EPA projects for the Option 1 standards in 2045. Appendix G describes the results
of this analysis and the methodology we used to conduct it in more detail. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1265-A1, p.23]
1018
-------
As these results demonstrate, EPA's proposal to allow ZEVs to generate NOx credits is
damaging and would substantially erode the NOx benefits of the proposal. Accordingly, if EPA
continues to establish NOx standards in a manner that does not consider ZEV technologies, EDF
urges EPA to sunset the BEV and FCEV credits that are proposed at 87 Fed. Reg. 17561.
However, if EPA retains these credits in any form, it is critically important that the agency not
adopt any credit multipliers and that EPA substantially strengthen the FEL cap to help ensure
remaining diesel vehicles are not able to certify to higher emission levels based on the
availability of ZEV credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
Accordingly, if EPA continues to establish NOx standards in a manner that does not consider
ZEV technologies, EDF urges EPA to sunset the BEV and FCEV credits that are proposed at 87
Fed. Reg. 17561. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
Allowing EVs to generate NOx credits used by manufacturers of internal combustion (IC)
engines is a major change in the HD program. The NOx standard currently applies to the
manufacturers of IC engines that are used in HD vehicles. Unlike the program for light-duty
vehicles, EVs in the HD sector are not included in the demonstration a manufacturer makes to
show compliance with the NOx standard for IC engines. Manufacturers upgrade and improve
their IC engines and use the resulting reduction in NOx emissions to demonstrate compliance
with the HD engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
EVs clearly reduce emissions of NOx, along with other pollutants such as particulate matter
(PM) and GHGs. A critical reason to promote the transition to EVs is their tremendous potential
to reduce harmful emissions from HD vehicles. The importance of promoting EVs as a critical
multi-pollutant control strategy does not mean EVs should be used in a way that undercuts
emission control from IC-powered vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 2]
Unfortunately, EPA's proposed allowance for EV NOx credits does just that. EPN believes it is
highly likely that most, if not all, of the EVs used to generate NOx credits would be produced
with or without the proposed NOx credits. The NOx credits would not appear to incentivize any
real increase in production of EVs, given the current market transition already underway. Since
the NOx reductions from these EVs would occur without the allowance for credits, allowing the
credits produces no greater NOx reductions than would otherwise occur. However, allowing the
credits will lead to greater NOx emissions from IC engines, especially diesel engines, than would
occur without the credits. This means EPA's proposed Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) NOx
credits could cause a substantial increase in NOx emissions from IC engines compared to what
could and should occur with no offsetting reductions. It runs counter to the core goal of
achieving major reductions in NOx emissions, and EPA fails to justify the need to allow this
increase in emissions. EPN opposes the proposed allowance for NOx credits from EVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 2]
If EPA decides to adopt some form of NOx credits for EVs, EPN recommends that EPA severely
limit their allowance. For example, no credits should be allowed for MYs prior to MY 2027, the
first year that more stringent NOx standards would apply. The amount of such early credits could
1019
-------
be very large, based on the difference between zero emissions and the current NOx standard,
which is approximately 10 times higher than the proposed standards. Allowing EVs to generate
very large numbers of credits against the current standard would be a windfall that could
seriously undercut the future, more stringent NOx standards. EPN recommends that at most,
EPA allow any credits generated prior to MY 2027 to be based on the difference between zero
and the level of the NOx standards that would apply in MYs 2027 and later. EPN also suggests
that EPA not allow EVs to both show compliance with the revised GHG standards and generate
NOx credits. A manufacturer should use EVs to either generate NOx credits or use the EV in its
compliance demonstration for the revised GHG standards, but not both. This would mean the
volume of EVs generating NOx credits are above and beyond those produced to meet the GHG
standards. This would at least move in the direction of reducing the risk that NOx credits are
from EVs that would have been produced in any case. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p.
2]
EPN is not suggesting these options because we believe they are a reasonable or appropriate
approach, but only as options to reduce the adverse emissions impact if EPA decides to allow
NOx credits for EVs. EPN believes that EPA would have to clearly and robustly justify the
technological or other need to provide manufacturers with this relaxation in the stringency of the
NOx standard. EPN feels that EPA should not lightly decide to allow NOx credits for EVs given
the transition already occurring without the credits and the great need for NOx reductions. It
would take a clear and strong case to justify any allowance for NOx credits for EVs, and EPA's
proposal fails to provide one. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We support the regulatory provisions to generate NOx credits from ZEVs. However, given the
uncertainty in the heavy-duty commercial truck segment about the durability of ZEV high-
voltage batteries and fuel cells, we recommend that partial NOx credits be available for ZEVs
with a declared full useful life below the designated full-useful life of the particular engine
service class. This regulatory flexibility is appropriate in light of the emissions reductions
achieved and will be vital to ensuring broader deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) will help GM achieve zero
emissions. Including ZEVs in an averaging, banking, and trading program appropriately
recognizes the role of zero emissions technologies in reducing real world emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.6]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
EPA proposes to allow manufacturers to generate credits towards compliance with NOx engine
standards through the sale of zero-emission powertrains. Our view is that allowing ZEVs to
count toward the NOx standards will not increase ZEV adoption and will only reduce the NOx
emission benefits of the rule for diesel engines. We view these credits as creating an
1020
-------
inappropriate trade-off between public health and climate change. We also see a risk that these
higher-emitting internal combustion engines could be concentrated in and around disadvantaged
communities, undermining the administration's goal of addressing racial inequities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA eliminate ZEV crediting towards compliance with
NOx engine standards in 2027 and eliminate early generation credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 3]
ZEV crediting as currently proposed under EPA Option 1 will permit manufacturers to produce
higher polluting diesel engines in return for greater ZEV sales. The implicit trade-off between
climate and health implied in this regulatory design goes against international best practices for
motor vehicle regulation first defined by the ICCT in 2001.21 We think such an incentive
structure actually undermines progress towards NOx control, particularly during the proposed
interim period between MY2027-2030. We explain below the basis for our recommendation to
remove these credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 18]
21. The Energy Foundation (2001). Bellagio memorandum on motor vehicle policy:
Principles for vehicles and fuels in response to global environmental and health
imperatives. Bellagio, Italy, 19-21 June
The reason for our concern is the following: ZEV crediting has the potential to turn the NOx
FEL cap, the maximum allowable emissions level to which a family of engines can be certified,
into the de facto standard for diesel engines. Table 5 shows the percentage of diesel engines in
the U.S. that could be certified at the FEL cap using only ZEV credits under EPA Option 1 for
different ZEV uptake scenarios. Under likely state actions on ZEV deployment (MOU), 8% of
diesel HDVs could be certified at the FEL cap using ZEV credits in 2031, and this share could
increase to 11% by 2035 without further ZEV policies. Assuming accelerated ZEV uptake, the
need to phase out ZEV crediting toward the NOx standards would be much greater: allowing
ZEV crediting after 2031 could result in 76% (Alternative 1) to 85% (Alternative 3) of diesel
HDVs being certified at the FEL cap in 2035 using ZEV credits alone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 18]
Table 6 gives average zero-mile emission rates (ZMERs) under various scenarios. (See
Attachment 1 - Appendix A for a description of scenarios.) ZEV crediting under EPA Option 1
could lead to ICE emission rates up to 4 times as high as no crediting in MY 2027-2030 and up
to 2.25 times as high in 2031. Under scenarios of rapid ZEV uptake (Alt 1-3), ZEV crediting
after 2031 could allow new diesel engines sold after 2031 to emit more than those sold prior to
2031, despite the tightening of certification limits. Strengthening EPA's Option 1 to match state
HDV Omnibus requirements starting in 2027 would ensure that diesel engines entering the fleet
emit 89% less NOx than those certified to current EPA 2010 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 19]
We recommend EPA remove ZEV crediting towards compliance with NOx engine standards in
MY2027. If EPA does not adopt this recommendation, we recommend EPA reduce the FEL cap
for MY2027-2030 from 150 mg/bbhp-hr to 65 mg/bhp-hr, which would lead to a maximum
1021
-------
average zero-mile emission rate of 23 in model years 2027-2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, pp. 19-20]
Figure 8 illustrates the benefits of increased ZEV deployment on total NOx emissions from
model year 2027- 2030 vehicles. Because of ZEV crediting, higher levels of ZEV deployment in
these early years leads to fewer emissions benefits across the heavy-duty sector. Removing ZEV
crediting from the proposal reverses this trend, ensuring that higher ZEV deployment leads to
more benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 20]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
To encourage OEMs to meet these standards, we strongly support providing opportunities for
manufacturers to generate NOx emission credits, along with the use of credit multipliers, at least
in the first few years of the proposed changes. This is an excellent way to encourage more OEMs
to manufacture ZEVs, bringing the electric vehicle market closer to cost parity with ICE vehicles
and accelerate long-term ZEV adoption. Lion believes that these credit allowances will boost
ZEV production and adoption, and can always be revisited in future rulemaking once the market
has advanced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Using the CARB Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation as a bellwether, the Department requests the
following revisions to the federal proposal: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, p.6]
• Unfortunately, EPA is proposing to continue to allow averaging banking and trading of
NOx credits generated against applicable heavy-duty diesel engine NOx standards. As
part of this proposal, manufacturers could certify battery electric and fuel cell vehicles to
generate NOx emissions credits and offset higher NOx emission rates, which could
unintentionally erode the stringency of the heavy-duty NOx standards if heavy-duty ZEV
sales exceed those assumed in the NPRM. 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, pp.7-
8]
18 The EPA used data from 2016 (and earlier) in its heavy-duty ZEV forecasts, which
significantly underestimate the market penetration of ZEV technology. Significant technical
and policy developments have occurred since those studies were published, including
reductions in battery cell and pack costs, improvements in range, and reductions in battery
weight. In addition, the policy landscape has changed with the finalization of the CARB
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) and Advanced Clean Fleets regulations and the adoption of
ACT in five Clean Air Act Section 177 states.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA is concerned with the credit mechanisms proposed for zero-emission trucks for both NOx
and GHGs. First, we recommend a reduction in the FEL cap down to 0.05 g/bhp-hr at 435,000
miles that scales with FUL, which harmonizes with CARB's Omnibus. A higher FEL cap, such
as the proposed 0.15 g/bhp-hr, would result in a loss in NOx emissions benefits that could
1022
-------
disproportionately impact disadvantaged communities. Second, we support the exclusion of
ZEVs from earning NOx credits. CARB originally proposed to allow ZEVs to earn NOx credits
until MY 2030. However, after analyzing the impacts and considering the high anticipated
uptake of electric vehicles over the next decade, CARB revised its proposal and will end ZEV
NOx credits in MY 2026. MECA calculated that CARB's original proposal would lead to 12,000
higher emitting diesel trucks with service lifetimes of 10-15 years that could be sold in California
alone, generating an additional 523 tons of NOx over their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, p.28]
We believe that the NOx inventory impact from direct NOx credit averaging and banking is a
conservative estimate because ZEV NOx credits fail to take into account the upstream NOx
emissions from the electrical grid that will be used to charge electric trucks. Lifecycle emissions
analysis is becoming the established methodology for understanding the upstream and
downstream impacts of the transportation sector and can be used to predict the overall
environmental impact of policy decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.28]
To illustrate the relative NOx inventory contribution of battery electric trucks compared to their
near-zero combustion counterparts, we relied on U.S. EPA's eGrid average annual NOx
emission values for in-state electricity production. We took into account renewable energy
targets (e.g., California has renewable energy targets of 44% in 2024 to 60% in 2030) and
manufacturer claimed electric efficiencies from marketing materials. In our
conservative approach, transmission and charging losses were not included, nor were smart
charging strategies. Furthermore, fuel economy values of 7 mpg were approximated for Class 8
trucks using U.S. DOE and industry publications for diesel vehicles, even though these are lower
than required by HD Phase 2 GHG regulations. Upstream fuel related NOx emissions from
refining of 20% were also added. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.28-29]
On a gram-per-mile basis, a MY 2027 and later class 8 low NOx diesel truck will emit
approximately 0.1 g/mile at full useful life. The grid emissions from the same weight class
battery electric truck will lead to upstream emissions of 0.25 g/mile in 2024 and 0.18 g/mile in
2030 as the grid continues to incorporate higher percentages of renewable sources of energy.
This analysis is not meant to suggest that one truck technology is cleaner than another since only
NOx emissions were considered. It simply illustrates that crediting battery electric trucks as zero
NOx in the ABT program is not warranted. Since EPA's Clean Trucks Rule starts in MY 2027,
we encourage the agency to follow CARB and remove the ability for ZEV to generate NOx
credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.29]
EPA staff should reconsider the generous credit provisions with respect to NOx credits and ZEV
credit multipliers in light of the numerous OEM announcements of market introductions of EV
trucks. Furthermore, stringent C02 standards being adopted in other global markets, such as
Europe, will drive electric truck technology in the US into the market. All of these factors should
be considered when revising the Phase 2 vehicle GHG limits and credit considerations. An
underestimation of the EV penetration in light of generous credits could significantly increase
emissions of NOx and C02 from combustion powered trucks. Our industry is prepared to do its
part and deliver cost-effective and durable advanced emission control and efficiency
technologies to the heavy-duty sector to assist in simultaneously achieving lower GHG and NOx
1023
-------
emissions, while also meeting other criterial pollutant standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, p.34]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA encourages EPA to not issue NOx credits for battery electric vehicles or fuel cell electric
vehicles to avoid unintended backsliding and lowering of technology deployment on internal
combustion engine heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Given the myriad risks posed by EPA's proposed averaging scheme, if EPA refuses to adopt
more stringent standards that reflect the feasibility of achieving significant emissions reductions
through the application of ZE truck technologies, EPA must remove ZEV credits from the NOx
compliance calculations. The current proposal fails to properly account for the on-going
transition to ZEVs and the feasibility of ZEVs as NOx reduction technology, while allowing
ZEV to undermine an already weak combustion engine standard. Consequently, the combustion
engine standard will weaken over time as more ZEV are sold due to state policies and market
economics. EPA cannot defend the inclusion of these credits with either Option 1 or Option 2 as
meeting the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA intends to accelerate ZEV adoption, ZEV
credits must be excluded from the NOx compliance calculation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 21]
As noted in Section II, zero-emission trucks are projected to reach a much greater degree of
market penetration than EPA's projections. However, the best way of driving the adoption of
these vehicles is to require their sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 46]
By crediting the sale of these zero-emission solutions without considering them when setting the
average requirements, EPA has created a perverse situation where the sale of a zero-emission
truck results in the sale of a dirtier diesel vehicle. This is untenable for the communities suffering
from freight pollution, particularly when the dirtiest vehicles on the road are likely to end up in
those overburdened communities. 178 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 46]
178. See Chernova 2018
(https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=gguelj)
and references contained therein.
EPA's best option is to consider and drive the sale of these vehicles separately, as outlined in
Section II. A. If EPA insists on retaining zero-emission trucks in a vehicle NOx standard, EPA
must lower the NOx standard to reflect the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable
across the entire truck fleet based on the feasibility of widespread transition to zero-emission
trucks, as outlined in Section II.B. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 46]
ZEV credits from Omnibus states were considered in the 2024-2026 timeframe under the
Omnibus average stringency, since manufacturers can earn ZEV credits toward their
requirements in that timeframe. However, nationwide sales in the 2024-2026 period still yield
1024
-------
ZEV credits. As zero-emission trucks approach even just an 11 percent marketshare in 2030,
credits from these vehicles surpass 13,000 metric tons—by 2035, at a projected share of just 17
percent this is doubled to 26,000 owing to increased FUL as well as marketshare. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 55]
Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
NACWA supports EPA's efforts to incentivize zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) and near-zero
emission vehicle (NZEV) development while reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter,
and greenhouse gas emissions. This is important for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
that are major stationary sources and located in nonattainment air basins, since these utilities may
face significant penalties. POTWs have no option to reduce or stop their operations - they must
operate continuously to provide reliable wastewater treatment and protect public health and the
environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1343-A1, p.l]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
In particular, if heavy-duty ZEV sales exceed the sales projections that EPA assumed in the
NPRM, substantial heavy-duty engine NOx credits would be available in the ABT program. The
projections for heavy-duty ZEV sales in the NPRM relied on data from 2016 or earlier and
significant technical and policy developments have occurred since those studies were published.
Examples are reductions in battery cell and pack costs, improvements in range, and reductions in
battery weight. In addition, the policy landscape has changed with the finalization of the CARB
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) and Advanced Clean Fleets regulations and the adoption of ACT
in five Clean Air Act Section 177 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 14 - 15]
44. 87 Fed. Reg. 17414 (March 28, 2022), at 17550.
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Oshkosh supports EPA's proposal to allow all heavy-duty EVs (including BEVs and FCEVs) to
generate NOx credits. See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,556. EPA requests comment on its
proposed approach to limit the use of NOx emission credits generated from BEVs or FCEVs to
the averaging sets in which they are generated. Id. at 17,558. In response to this request, Oshkosh
submits that EPA should encourage maximum penetration of heavy-duty EVs by adopting an
approach that would allow BEV-generated credits to be used in any heavy-duty engine or vehicle
family. Not only would this approach provide crucial incentives for heavy-duty EV production at
an important stage of market and technological development, but the approach is warranted
given the high bar that EPA proposes to set through new testing, useful life, warranty, and
durability requirements for credit generating BEVs and FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1226-A1, p. 5]
To provide further incentives for EV development, Oshkosh also requests that EPA ensure
harmonization of NOx and C02 credit programs for heavy-duty vehicles. In general, we request
that EPA modify existing credit ABT programs to (1) allow credit transport across all heavy-duty
engine/vehicle families; (2) allow a credit life of 10 years for credits generated by EV, FCEV
1025
-------
and hybrid technologies; and (3) guard existing credit banks to enable carry over of legacy
credits to future programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
In addition, if heavy-duty ZEV sales exceed EPA's projections, substantial heavy-duty engine
NOx credits would be available in the ABT program. The projections for heavy-duty ZEV sales
in the NPRM rely on data from 2016 or earlier. Significant technical and policy developments
have occurred since those studies were published. Because of this, we believe heavy-duty ZEV
sales will be significantly greater than the 1.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicle sales in 2027 and
subsequent model years that EPA assumed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 16]
40 87 Fed. Reg. 17414 (March 28, 2022), at 17550.
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports EPA's initiative to offer NOx credits to incentivize ZEV adoption. See
proposed 1037.616 (NOx credits for electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles). Promulgating a
NOx ABT program provides manufacturers with the needed flexibility to plan investments and
manage product costs, while also providing time to overcome technical or lead-time challenges.
Although we support starting the NOx credit bank for ZEVs and early credit in MY 2024, we do
not support using NOx credits from earlier technology engines (i.e., pre-MY 2024) because EPA
should further incentivize producing new low NOx and ZEV technologies. PACCAR also
supports establishing a NOx FEL cap to avoid backsliding if ZEVs proliferate, and a reasonable
NOx cap would support manufacturers' technological investments and provide manufacturers
additional product planning flexibility to meet the NOx standard, while allowing them to focus
research and development engineering resources toward future products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.35]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking: PACCAR supports EPA's initiative to allow NOx credit
generation from ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.60]
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
Because of the important and growing role of ZEV technology in reducing NOx emissions,
Rivian generally supports EPA's proposal to allow ZEVs to earn credits toward NOx standard
compliance. Even if the agency finds that the standards are feasible using conventional engine
technologies alone, recognizing the development and sale of zero-emission trucks and buses on a
one-for-one basis with their emissions abatement is valuable for accelerating the growth of the
MHD ZEV industry to the point of economical and profitable scale. To the extent that concerns
arise about the potential for backsliding on individual conventional engine performance due to
the salutary effects of including ZEVs in the averaging set, Rivian encourages EPA to explore a
more stringent emissions standard that expressly accounts for ZEV technology in its
1026
-------
development. Rivian supports ZEVs earning NOx credits that recognize the zero tailpipe
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.4]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Moreover, to advance these goals, the credit systems used in the nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
GHG emissions standards must be properly tailored to ensure the regulations result in cleaner
internal combustion engines and meaningful deployment of ZEV technology beyond the
forecasted baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.1-2]
EPA notes that proposed Option 1 is feasible without the use of credits.41 Yet the agency
proposes to maintain the averaging, banking, and trading of credits and early adoption incentives
to offer compliance flexibility for manufacturers. If these flexibilities are retained, it is critical
that they do not unnecessarily dilute the effectiveness of the standards. Getting ZEVs on the road
should be a priority, but efforts to incentivize their deployment cannot erode improvements
intended for the internal combustion engines that will be sold during the period of the proposed
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.7]
41 Id. at 17550.
For this reason, EPA should reconsider whether NOx emissions credits should be provided for
ZEVs at all.42 If ZEVs are permitted to offset NOx emissions from other vehicles in
manufacturers' fleets, manufacturers will be able to continue to sell highly polluting internal
combustion vehicles that contribute to the significant public health and environmental impacts in
communities. This is especially true given the fact that ZEV technology is not currently included
in baseline compliance modeling due to EPA's artificially low ZEV market penetration
projection discussed above. If EPA maintains the use of NOx credits, we support the agency's
efforts to minimize backsliding of emissions reductions from internal combustion engine
vehicles through credit restrictions and caps. EPA's proposed early incentive credit multipliers,
however, should be scaled back or eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.7]
42 Additionally, the elimination of ZEV credits would better align the standards with the
Omnibus Regulation, which phases out ZEV credits after model year 2026. Id. at 17557.
EPA should also adjust the NOx and C02 emissions credit systems to ensure that these
compliance flexibilities do not unnecessarily dilute the stringency of the standards. [This
comment can also be found in section 28.2 of this comment summary.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1247-A1, p.8]
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Further, South Coast AQMD supports rapid deployment of HD ZEVs, but opposes NOx
crediting for ZEV beyond MY 2026. A recent report issued by the International Council on
Clean Transportation, which echoes information found in the Omnibus Final Statement of
Reasons, analyzed the emissions impact from ZEV NOx credits and concluded that overly
generous NOx crediting for ZEVs is less likely to incentivize additional ZEV deployment but
1027
-------
rather would lead to a small NOx dis-benefit from engines with higher NOx emissions.44 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p. 11]
44 International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), Impacts of Crediting Zero-
Emission Vehicles in the Upcoming Federal Regulation for Criteria Pollutants from
Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (January 2022), available at https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/us-ze-hdvs-pollutant-credits-feb22.pdf, pgs. 7-8; FSORat 197.
We also support not permitting HD ZEV credits to be transferred to other vehicle weight classes.
This might permit manufacturers to opt to produce lighter weight class ZEVs (Class 4-6) and use
the credits to sell higher emitting HD diesel engine families which could result in further delay of
the development and deployment of low NOx technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-
Al, p.l 1]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States are enthusiastic about the significant potential of HD ZEVs to reduce NOx emissions
and fully support rewarding early market entry of HD ZEVs. But conventional heavy-duty diesel
engines and HD ZEVs will coexist on roads for a significant transition period.92 Thus, stringent
federal emission limits must continue to control conventional engines' emissions effectively
even as the market share of HD ZEVs grows. While the States support the generation of NOx
credits from HD ZEVs, EPA should carefully calibrate this feature so that NOx standards for
conventional diesel engines remain binding. In particular, the States urge EPA to:
• Limit the credit life to at most five years
• Sunset the generation of NOx credits from HD ZEVs in model year 2026
• Set FEL caps to match those in California's Omnibus Rule93 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1255-A1, p. 21]
92. The most recent projections by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) for HD
ZEV adoption, modeling only economic factors, show 42 percent adoption by 2030, but
greater than 99 percent adoption only after 2035 (for light- to medium-duty trucks), 2046 (for
medium-duty trucks), and 2042 (for heavy-duty trucks). C. Ledna et al., NREL,
Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost
Analysis, at 2, 20-22, 25 (Mar. 2022), https://doi.org/10.2172/1854583, attached as Exhibit 9
("NREL Cost Analysis").
93. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,552 (discussing FEL caps in Omnibus Rule); 17,561 (discussing
five-year credit life and sunset of credit generation).
First, because credits are best used to facilitate the transition to current, more effective NOx
control technologies, a limited credit life commensurate with this transition period is appropriate.
A five-year credit life, or even a shorter life such as three years, ensures credits are available to
ease the transition to model year 2027 and later standards and reward early adoption of the most
current NOx aftertreatment systems and HD ZEVs, without reducing or delaying widespread
implementation of the standards in later years. Second, as EPA discusses, battery-electric
1028
-------
trucks are expected to reach cost parity with conventional engines between 2025 and 2030.94
Sunsetting HD ZEV credit generation in model year 2026 would therefore incentivize early
adoption and simultaneously prevent excess credit generation once market factors start to make
them unnecessary. Third, lowering FEL caps prevents a surplus of credits from undermining the
stringency of the proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
94. Id. at 17,562.
The above limits on the ABT program ensure that early adoption of HD ZEVs remains attractive
for manufacturers and operators, without compromising the environmental benefits expected
under the proposed standards. Notably, States and the federal government alike already
undertake numerous other incentives for HD ZEVs that are both more meaningful and less
environmentally costly, including initiatives to deploy charging infrastructure for HD ZEVs,
alternative fuel corridors, purchase rebate programs, and government fleet electrification.95
These initiatives enhance the market conditions that are projected to make HD ZEVs more
attractive purchases than conventional trucks within the next decade.96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1255-A1, p. 22]
95. Meyer & Dallmann, Air quality and health impacts of diesel truck emissions, supra
note 13, at pp. iii, 16-17; Or. Dept. of Transp., Climate Action Plan 2021-26, at pp. 17-18
(Jul. 2021), attached as Exhibit 10; Gov. Jay Inslee, Policy Brief: Responding to the
climate crisis and building Washington's clean energy future, at 6-8 (Dec. 2021),
attached as Exhibit 11.
96. Id.; see also Jane Culkin & Dana Lowell, MJ Bradley & Assoc., Medium- & Heavy-
Duty Vehicles: Market structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness, at pp. 23-24
(Jul. 2021) (projecting cost parity for 76 percent of medium- and heavy-duty fleet by
2025-30), attached as Exhibit 12; D. Hall & N. Lutsey, International Council on Clean
Transportation, Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the Launch of Zero-
Emission Trucks, at pp. 20-23, 25 (Aug. 2019) (predicting cost advantage for most HD
ZEVs by 2030), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0148.
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
In 2021, Tesla generated almost $1.5 billion in revenue selling zero-emission regulatory credits
to other manufacturers. 133 Proceeds from such sales go towards building new factories to
produce BEVs - including in the heavy-duty sector - that will continue to displace ICE vehicles
and their tailpipe emissions. For the U.S. to meet its decarbonization goals and to mitigate the
public health and welfare impacts from climate change and criteria air pollutant emissions,
EPA's proposal should allow heavy duty BEVs to generate NOx credits and be amended to meet
increasingly more stringent regulatory requirements that support medium and heavy-duty
manufacturers rapidly scaling up delivery of high-quality BEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1219-A1, p.15]
133 Tesla, SEC Form 10-K (Jan. 26, 2022) at 37.
1029
-------
In Tesla's view, agency proposals that would prevent or reduce the role of BEVs in compliance
are misguided, as heavy-duty BEVs represent the best NOx mitigation strategy, and should be
recognized as such through the crediting provisions. NOx credits generated by BEVs under the
NOx rule can also help further deploy BEVs by creating additional value that can be passed onto
prospective buyers in the form of lower prices. While it is common practice today for internal
combustion engine vehicle manufacturers to purchase regulatory credits from other companies
(such as Tesla) to offset their total C02 and other emissions, Tesla recognizes that in the long-
term it is not a sustainable strategy. Accordingly, providing NOx crediting should be time limited
to provide some near-term compliance flexibility while supporting much more stringent
regulations and a full transition to BEV technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
P 15]
Finally, Tesla supports sunsetting the use of NOx credits generated by ZEVs beyond MY
2031.139 This sunset provision would ensure that many of the credits generated in the program
will have only a limited timeframe within which they can be generated, traded, and used to offset
emissions deficits. As BEV penetration will grow rapidly Tesla supports a sunset date that will
prevent overall emissions backsliding and ensure complete electrification of the medium- and
heavy-duty sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 16]
139 87 Fed. Reg. at 17561
Organization: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
Toyota appreciates EPA's concerns of credits impeding deployment of cleaner technologies on
certain classes of vehicles. However, we think limiting the use of NOx emission credits
generated from BEV or FCEV to the class, or "primary intended service," to which they were
generated is unnecessarily inflexible. We believe credits should be transferable across vehicle
classes, with appropriate adjustments to account for differences in annual mileage and other
factors to ensure emission tons-equivalence. This would allow flexibility to heavy HD vehicles
as cleaner, longer-range technologies in the HD space are introduced to the fleet. Additionally, it
would encourage HD vehicle OEMs to use BEV and FCEV powertrains when feasible across the
classes that can be electrified more rapidly, leading to lower emissions overall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1224-A1, p.2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
As discussed above, ZEVs are beginning to emerge in the medium- and heavy-duty trucking
industry, yet many significant challenges remain for manufacturers, fleets, utilities, governments,
and other stakeholders before we can point to the beginning of a broad-based transition of the
industry to ZEVs. While aspirations are quite high right now, a great deal of work remains before
trucking fleets will be willing to make the significant and long-term investments needed to begin
transitioning to ZEVs in a meaningful way. At this time, most medium- and heavy duty ZEVs in
service are prototypes or demonstration units that are a long way from providing trucking
businesses with the competitive total cost of ownership that they need to justify beginning the
process of converting to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
1030
-------
The NPRM proposes to reduce the barriers to ZEV adoption by allowing BEVs and FCEVs to
generate NOx credits beginning in model year 2024. EMA endorses that strategy as a way not
only to incentivize ZEVs, but also to provide manufacturers additional product planning
flexibility to meet the NOx standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
The current HD engine and vehicle regulations do not allow electric HD vehicles to generate
NOx or particulate matter ('PM') emission credits.7 Ignoring upstream emissions associated with
electricity generation based on the rationale that these emissions are subject to regulation at the
source of generation, EPA now proposes to allow BEVs and FCEVs to generate tailpipe NOx
emission credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
7 40 CFR 86.016-l(d)(4)
EPA does not describe how allowing EVs to generate NOx emission credits for the first time is
consistent with its statutory authority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
Organization: Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
As policymakers create frameworks to both encourage and support the deployment of new
technologies, RNG and Hydrogen ICEs should be given equal footing to Fuel Cell Electric
Trucks and battery electric trucks. [This comment can also be found in section 3.10 of this
comment summary.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Incentivizing accelerated adoption of heavy-duty ZEV's will have a positive impact on air
quality; however, it is also important to ensure that combustion engines, which will remain a
significant portion of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet for many years, are also required to reduce
emissions. EPA's NOx credit trading program in the proposal allows NOx credits generated by
ZEVs to be traded with those generated by combustion engines with no backstop. If the market
share of ZEVs accelerates more quickly than EPA estimates in this proposal, it is possible that
high emitting internal combustion engines will continue to be produced without stringent
emission controls. EPA should adopt a reasonable sunset date for NOx credits to ensure internal
combustion engines are required to include technically feasible emission controls. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, pp. 3 -4]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
ZETA supports EPA's proposal to allow manufacturers to earn credits for achieving lower NOx
emissions than EPA sets as the standard via HDEV deployment. Because HDEVs do not have
tailpipe emissions and therefore do not emit NOx or any other tailpipe pollution, it stands to
reason that HDEVs should be counted as vehicles that emit 0 grams of NOx per mile. HDEVs
are the best available technological mechanism for mitigating NOx emissions, and
1031
-------
manufacturers should receive credits for increasing their production share of
HDEVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.8]
We appreciate the arguments that giving credits for HDEV deployments could obscure the true
NOx emissions of HDVs with tailpipes and, therefore, 'dilute' the standard. We contend that
EPA should mitigate this problem by both increasing the baseline MY2027 NOx standard
and increasing its ratcheting process through MY2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1,
p.8]
EPA Summary and Response
As described in preamble Section IV.G, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers
to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs). Numerous
commenters provided feedback on EPA's proposal to allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits from ZEVs. The majority of commenters oppose allowing manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs. Several additional commenters oppose ZEV NOx emissions credits unless
there were restrictions on the credits (e.g., shorter credit life, sunsetting credit generation in 2026).
Other commenters support allowing manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from electric
vehicles. Arguments from each of these commenter groups are summarized immediately below.
Further below in this Section 12.6, we discuss EPA's response to those comments, which includes our
rationale for our approach to ZEVs NOx credits in the final rule.
Summary of Comments Opposing NOx emissions credits for ZEVs:
Commenters opposing NOx emissions credits for ZEVs present several lines of argument,
including the potential environmental impacts of NOx emissions credits for ZEVs, impacts
on improvements in conventional engine technologies, impacts on ZEVs and other
technologies, and legal authority. Each of these topic areas is discussed further immediately
below in this Section 12.6.1. Stakeholders opposing NOx emissions credits from ZEVs were
generally environmental or state organizations, or suppliers of heavy-duty engine and vehicle
components.
Environmental Impacts and Legal Authority
Commenters state that NOx emissions credits for ZEVs would diminish the environmental benefits
expected from the rule. Some of these commenters argued that the credits would result in standards
that fail to "achieve the statute's requirement for the greatest emissions reductions achievable." One
commenter further stated that EPA did not describe how allowing manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs is consistent with its statutory authority.
Commenters stated that EPA underestimated ZEV adoption rates, and that higher ZEV adoption rates
would result in larger impacts on the expected emissions reductions than EPA estimated in the
proposal. One commenter provided an extensive list of references to information suggesting higher
ZEV adoption rates would be likely (e.g., number of models available today, number of state regulatory
and non-regulatory actions). Several of these commenters provided analyses showing the potential
emissions impacts of higher ZEV adoption rates than assumed in EPA's proposal analysis; commenters
used different metrics (e.g., tons of NOx reduced in 2045, emission rates of internal combustion
engines, increase in tons of NOx emitted) but results consistently showed substantial impacts on the
1032
-------
emissions reductions expected from the proposed rule due to higher ZEV adoption rates, leading to
greater magnitudes of NOx emissions credits than projected in the proposal. Other commenters also
argued that EPA should consider emissions of criteria pollutants that occur upstream of the vehicle
(e.g., from power plants providing electricity to ZEVs). One commenter estimated gram-per-mile NOx
emissions rates of a MY2027 diesel-fueled truck compared to a BEV when accounting for upstream
emissions; results of their analysis suggested a diesel truck meeting MY 2027 and later requirements
could produce slightly lower g/mile NOx in 2030 than a battery-electric truck from same weight class.
The commenter stated that the analysis is not intended to suggest that one truck technology is cleaner
than another since only NOx emissions were considered, but rather that NOx credits for ZEVs is not
warranted.
Numerous commenters also stated that the higher NOx emissions resulting from ZEV NOx emissions
credits would lead to higher emissions in some communities (e.g., those located near power plants)
than others (e.g., those with higher numbers of ZEVs), which could result in disproportionate impacts in
disadvantaged communities already overburdened with pollution. Commenters argue that EPA has not
justified the need to allow the increased emissions that would result from allowing ZEVs to generate
NOx emissions credits. At least one commenter further argues that the credits do not support NOx
emissions reductions, and thus are misaligned with the environmental goals of the rule.
Impacts on ICE improvements
Commenters further state that the credits would result in a lack of improvement in conventional
engine technologies. Commenters argue that cost-effective technologies exist to reduce
emissions from heavy-duty engines and that the standards should be achieved with
conventionally-fueled vehicles.
Impacts on ZEVs and other technologies
Several commenters argue that ZEVs will be cost-competitive with internal combustion engine
technologies in the 2025 timeframe and thus emissions credits are not needed as incentives.
Commenters state that ZEVs already planned for production would be used to generate NOx emissions
credits, and thus the credits would not incentivize additional ZEV production. Rather, commenters
argue, the credits would only serve to allow higher emissions from internal combustion engines. At
least one commenter noted that other State and federal actions are providing more meaningful and
less environmentally costly HD ZEV incentives (e.g., deploying charging infrastructure, purchase rebate
programs). Some commenters further argue that the allowing ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits
favors one technological approach over another; commenters state that the credits would stifle
innovation and use of non-ZEV decarbonization technologies.
Restrictions on NOx Emissions Credits for ZEVs
Many commenters provided input on the types of restrictions that would be necessary, in their view, if
EPA were to allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs. First, several
commenters stated that EPA should include ZEVs when setting the level of the numeric standard. Other
commenters urged EPA not to allow ZEVs sold to meet state policies such as the California Advanced
Clean Trucks (ACT) rule, to generate federal NOx emissions credits. Many of these commenters urged
EPA not to allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits beyond 2026; other commenters suggested
1033
-------
different sunset dates for ZEV N0X emissions credits (e.g., 2030). In contrast, one commenter stated
that EPA should only allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits starting in 2027 in order to avoid
large credit values that would result from the current standard and zero; the commenter stated if EPA
allowed ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits prior to 2027, then the value of the credits should be
calculated based on the difference between zero and the 2027 and later standards.
Numerous commenters also stated that the Family Emission Limit (FEL) cap should be lower than
proposed; several commenters suggested a FEL cap of 0.05 g/hp-hr, which would be consistent with
the CARB Omnibus program NOx emissions standard for MYs 2024 - 2026. Some commenters
supported EPA's proposed credit life of five years, while others urged EPA to shorten the credit life for
ZEVs to three years based on data suggesting that BEVs will reach cost parity with internal combustion
engines in the 2025 to 2030 timeframe. At least one commenter supported EPA's proposed restriction
not to allow ZEV NOx credits to be transferred between vehicle weight classes; however, another
commenter, who supports allowing ZEVs to generate credits, argued ZEV NOx credits should be allowed
to be used in any vehicle weight class as a way to incentivize ZEV production. Finally, one commenter
urged EPA to only allow ZEVs to generate NOx or GHG credits, not both; the commenter stated this
approach would only credit ZEVs produced beyond the volume of ZEVs needed to show compliance
with revised GHG standards.
Summary of Comments Supporting NOx emissions credits for ZEVs:
In contrast, several commenters support allowing manufacturers to generate these credits. Many of
these commenters are heavy-duty engine and vehicle manufacturers. These comments are
summarized immediately below as they relate to: 1) environmental impacts, 2) impacts on ICE
improvements, and 3) Impacts on ZEVs and other technologies.
Environmental Impacts
Some commenters state that it is appropriate for EPA to allow manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs because doing so recognizes the zero-emissions tailpipe performance of
the technologies, and because these technologies help meet emissions reductions and air quality goals.
One commenter stated that incentivizing ZEVs and near-zero emissions vehicles is important for
stationary sources that must operate in nonattainment areas.
Impacts on ICE improvements
Several commenters stated that concerns about NOx emissions credits from ZEVs resulting in higher
emissions from internal combustion engines were not warranted because FEL caps would prevent ICE
backsliding. One commenter noted that the difference between MY2027 and later standards and the
proposed FEL would mean only a small fraction of manufacturers' fleets could certify near the FEL cap.
Other commenters argued that the FEL cap combined with a stringent standard would prevent
backsliding of internal combustion engines. One commenter agreed with commenters opposing ZEV
emissions credits and stated that EPA could address concerns about backsliding by considering ZEVs
when setting the NOx emissions standards. Finally, one commenter argued that compliance flexibilities
such as the NOx credit program would be essential to the achievability of the standards.
Impacts on ZEVs and other technologies
1034
-------
Some commenters further argue that NOx emissions credits for ZEVs would allow manufacturers to
manage investments across different products and ultimately result in increased ZEV deployment. One
commenter noted that using credits to incentivize ZEV production is warranted based on the proposed
requirements for ZEVs (e.g., testing, useful life, warranty). Another commenter stated that EPA should
allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits in this final rule, and then could revisit that decision in a
later rulemaking. One commenter stated that allowing a credit life of 10 years for ZEV credits would
further incentivize EV development. Finally, one commenter stated that President Biden encouraged
the EPA Administrator to consider ZEVs when setting emissions standards for 2027 and later.
In Section 12.6.1 of this document, we discuss our responses to the comments summarized in this
Section and our decision not to finalize at this time the allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs. See Sections 12.6.2 through 12.6.6 of this document for
additional details on comments received and EPA responses to comments on the proposal to allow
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from and ZEVs, including: emission credit multipliers
for ZEV credits, vehicle certification for ZEVs, testing requirements for ZEVs generating NOx emissions
credits, and useful life and warranty requirements for ZEVs generating NOx emissions credits.
Response to Comments and Rationale for Approach to ZEV Credits in Final Rule:
As discussed in preamble Section IV.G, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs. In this Section 12.6 of
this document, we provide additional discussion of the three considerations on which we based
our decision not to finalize the allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits
from ZEVs.
First, the standards in the final rule are technology forcing, yet achievable for MY2027 and later
engines without the flexibility for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs.
CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set emission standards for NOx, PM, HC, and CO
that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of
technology that the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such
standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated
with the application of such technology. As described in preamble Section III, after further
consideration, including consideration of public comments, we are finalizing standards that our
assessment and data show are feasible in the MY 2027 timeframe. We therefore disagree with
the commenter who stated that compliance flexibilities such as the ability for manufactures to
generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs would be essential to the achievability of the
proposed standards. Nevertheless, as described in preamble Section IV.G, the ABT program in
the final rule balances providing manufacturers with flexibility in their product planning and
encouraging the early introduction of emissions control technologies with maintaining the
expected emissions reductions from the program. We expect that the final standards, including
the final ABT program, will result in meaningful emissions reductions in all communities,
including in disadvantaged communities already overburdened with pollution.
Second, since the final standards are not based on projected utilization of ZEV technology, and
given that we believe there will be increased penetration of ZEVs in the HD fleet by MY 2027
and later, we are concerned that allowing NOx emissions credits from ZEVs would result in
1035
-------
fewer emissions reductions than intended from this rule. We therefore generally agree with
commenters who provided analyses suggesting that rapid growth in ZEV penetration rates could
result in NOx credits from ZEVs impacting the emissions reductions expected from the final
standards. This is particularly true in light of other, recent Federal programs that may result in
additional HD ZEVs leading up to and following MY 2027.36 Thus, while we agree with some
commenters that ZEV technologies can provide zero-emissions tailpipe performance, and
accordingly proposed an allowance to generate NOx credits from ZEVs as compliance
flexibility, we have determined that the potential for the flexibility to reduce the expected
emissions reductions from the rule outweighs the potential benefits of additional flexibility to
meet the standards.37
Third, we continue to believe that testing requirements to ensure battery and fuel cell
performance over the useful life of a ZEV are important to ensure the zero-emissions tailpipe
performance for which they are generating NOx credits; however, after further consideration,
including consideration of public comments, we also believe it may be appropriate to take
additional time to work through specific test procedures and other specifications for ZEV battery
and fuel cell performance over the useful life period of the ZEV. These three considerations,
including the relationship between the second and third considerations, supports our decision not
to allow manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs in this final action (see
Sections 12.6.4 and 12.6.5 of this document for additional detail on comments and EPA
responses to comments on the proposed ZEV testing and useful life and warranty
requirements).38
We note that one commenter stated that EPA had not described how our proposal to allow EVs to
generate NOx emission credits is consistent with our statutory authority. While we are choosing not to
finalize at this time the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
ZEVs, doing so would be consistent with our statutory authority.
36 For example, the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has many incentives for promoting zero-emission
vehicles, see Sections 13403 (Qualified Clean Vehicles), 13404 (Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit), 60101
(Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles), 60102 (Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports), and 70002 (United States Postal
Service Clean Fleets) of H. R. 5376.
37 One commenter suggested that EPA could ensure only ZEVs produced beyond the volumes required to meet
GHG standards would generate NOx emissions credits by allowing ZEVs to generate NOx or GHG credits, but not
both. EPA did not propose or ask for comment on this approach and since we are not allowing NOx ZEV credits we
are not including this approach in the final rule. We also note that if we were to include an approach that allowed
ZEVs to generate NOx or GHG credits but not both, then that approach may lessen the potential concerns of the
second consideration, but it would not fully address the three considerations on which we based our decision not to
allow NOx ZEV credits.
38 We note that our approach for ZEV NOx credits differs from our approach to hybrid engines and hybrid
powertrains in the final rule. While the first consideration discussed in this response is the same for any emission
control technology that can comply with the final standards, the second consideration is more pronounced for ZEVs
than for hybrids given the greater number of potential credits that could be generated by ZEVs. This difference is
then compounded by the third consideration for ZEVs, whereas our approach for hybrid engines and hybrid
powertrains relies on an accurate test procedure for quantifying NOx emissions (see preamble Section III. A for
details). The uncertainty in appropriate test procedures to validate the NOx emission credits generated for ZEVs
combined with additional uncertainty in the potential for allowing ZEV NOx emissions credits to result in fewer
emissions reductions than intended from this rule, leads us to finalize a different approach for ZEVs than hybrids at
this time.
1036
-------
Finally, as noted at the start of this Section 12.6, many commenters provided input on the types of
restrictions that would be necessary, in their view, if EPA were to allow manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs. Since we are not allowing NOx ZEV credits, we are not including the
suggested restrictions in the final rule.
12.6.2 Multipliers for NOx Emissions Credits Generated by Electric Vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Commenters also agree that EPA should not adopt any emission credit multipliers, 87 Fed. Reg
at 17,562 (requesting comments on whether emission credit multipliers should be included in the
final rule). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.54]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17562 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA asks for comments regarding the applicability of NOx
credit multipliers for BEVs and FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.21]
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's position for not allowing credit multipliers for electric vehicles.
It should be noted that these vehicles are currently unable to generate any NOx credits. The
proposed rule introduces a new incentive to this market segment by allowing these vehicles to
accrue credits. Addition of multipliers would lead to double counting of these credits and would
be detrimental to the overall program benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.21]
CARB staff also agrees with U.S. EPA that the current state of technology development and
implementation of electric vehicles, while still relatively nascent compared to combustion
engines, are mature enough not to warrant emission credit multipliers. It should also be noted
that in addition to California, the ACT regulation has also been adopted by five other states
(Washington, Massachusetts, Oregon, New Jersey, New York). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.21]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
As noted above in Section II. A, incentivizing ZEV market penetration should be a guiding
principle for EPA in this and all other Agency rulemakings related to vehicle emission standard-
setting. While EPA correctly determines in the Proposed Rule that ZEVs should generate NOx
credits, the Agency does not go far enough to incentivize them in its proposal. A simple analysis
shows that ZEVs contribute to the NOx inventory reductions and can balance out NOx emissions
from higher-emitting diesel vehicles. Offering credit multipliers for ZEVs would only serve
to enhance production incentivizes for these vehicles, which in turn would increase their
emission reduction benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.80-81]
EPA notes that in developing the proposal, it considered whether to provide NOx credit
multipliers for ZEVs, but ultimately decided against it 'due to the potential emission impacts of
1037
-------
the use of credit multipliers.'105 Paradoxically, however, EPA does propose to apply credit
multipliers (and accordingly, enhance incentives) for early adoption of new low-NOx diesel
engines. 106 In this manner, EPA proposes to incentivize low-NOx diesel vehicles, which do
emit NOx, over ZEVs, which do not emit NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.81]
105 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,557.
106 See id. at 17,554.
EPA's logic on credit incentives should be applied consistently; ZEVs are a nascent technology,
and EPA should seek to spur ZEV adoption wherever possible. Increased ZEV adoption today
has a carry-on effect far greater than its direct effect to the NOx inventory implies, as widespread
ZEV adoption will drive increased market acceptance. This increased demand will enable further
manufacturer investment and new technologies, and it will drive demand for ZEV infrastructure,
which, in turn, enables further ZEV penetration later on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P 81]
We recommend that EPA apply emission credit multipliers for ZEVs of at least 2.0; since the
Agency proposes to grant this credit to low-emission diesels that meet the MY 2031 emissions
standards early. ZEVs, by comparison, are even cleaner than diesel engines that meet the
proposed MY 2031 emission standards, and should be entitled to at least as much credit: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.81]
EPA requests comments on whether the Agency should limit ZEV emission credits to particular
vehicle classes or categories. Daimler Truck believes that all ZEVs are equally deserving of
incentive programs, as penetration rates are not guaranteed for any class. However, if EPA must
limit NOx multiplier eligibility to any particular category, we believe that ZEVs that replace
heavy-heavy duty conventional vehicles are the least likely to have significant adoption rates of
mature technology without proper incentives. EPA could thus limit these credits to Class 6-8
trucks and tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 81]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
However, if EPA retains these credits in any form, it is critically important that the agency not
adopt any credit multipliers and that EPA substantially strengthen the FEL cap to help ensure
remaining diesel vehicles are not able to certify to higher emission levels based on the
availability of ZEV credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.23]
Organization: Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA)
The hydrogen and fuel cell industry supports the proposal to provide early adopter incentives, as
well as credit multipliers for longer-range FCEVs able to travel 300 miles between fuelings and
ability to fuel in less than twenty minutes. This would provide greater incentive for adoption of
these zero-emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1187-A2, p. 2]
1038
-------
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
To encourage OEMs to meet these standards, we strongly support providing opportunities for
manufacturers to generate NOx emission credits, along with the use of credit multipliers, at least
in the first few years of the proposed changes. This is an excellent way to encourage more OEMs
to manufacture ZEVs, bringing the electric vehicle market closer to cost parity with ICE vehicles
and accelerate long-term ZEV adoption. Lion believes that these credit allowances will boost
ZEV production and adoption, and can always be revisited in future rulemaking once the market
has advanced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
We disagree with the proposal to "provide a multiplier for longer-range BEVs" as many of the
market segments that most need ZEVs have the lowest range needs. This accounts for school
buses, refuse trucks, and delivery trucks, which may not travel long distances, but have multiple
stops in neighborhoods and communities that may already be overburdened by air pollution.
Also, while Lion does not oppose the generation of credits for hybrid vehicles, we encourage the
EPA to offer higher credits to manufacturers of all-electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1151-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
2) Adopt the regulatory safeguards EPA has proposed with respect to electric vehicle credits
since electric vehicles are already heavily subsidized and benefit from recently adopted sales
mandates in California and other states; this includes support for the safeguards proposed for the
use of credits to limit emissions from engines and vehicles that rely on credits for compliance,
and the decision not to extend sale credit multipliers to electric vehicles; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1330-A1, pp.12-13]
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
At the same time, consistent with our position in GHG programs, Rivian opposes ZEV credit
multipliers in the criteria emissions program and finds EPA's initial proposal in this regard
appropriate. Generally, multipliers are intended to encourage the development and use of
advanced technologies that otherwise face substantial barriers to market entry and proliferation.
While EPA offers certain narrow HD segments as examples of where this might still be the case,
Rivian believes that industry has amply demonstrated its ability to develop and commercialize
advanced technology vehicles in all classes. 11 Rivian supports NOx credits commensurate with
zero tailpipe emissions but not credit multipliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.4]
11 Baha Al-Alawi, Owen MacDonnell, Ross McLane, and Kevin Walkowicz,
CALSTART, Zeroing in On Zero-Emission Trucks: The Advanced Technology Truck
Index: A U.S. ZET Inventory Report (January 2022), available at
www.calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zero-emission-trucks/.
1039
-------
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
EPA should not issue multipliers for these NOx credits. As more HDEVs become available,
auto manufacturers will no longer need external incentives baked into these emissions standards
to build more HDEVs. Manufacturers should be encouraged to maximize their HDEV
production; credit multipliers would have the adverse effect of encouraging manufacturers to
produce a limited number of HDEVs in order to inequitably write off the emissions of their most
polluting vehicles. Multipliers would undermine the intention of this rulemaking. Once HDEVs
make up the majority of the market, these credits should be removed to more stringently regulate
the emissions of remaining fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Similarly, EPA should eliminate all
credit multipliers for vehicles in the current draft. We are agnostic to the mechanism for
removing these credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, pp.8-9]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
A subset of commenters opposing the proposal to allow manufacturers to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs also stated that they opposed providing emissions credits
multipliers for ZEV emissions credits. Commenters stated that multipliers would lead to double
counting of the credits and would be detrimental to the program benefits. Commenters further
stated that ZEV technologies are mature enough that they do not need multipliers; this rationale
is consistent with one commenter who supported the proposal to allow manufacturers to generate
NOx emissions credits from ZEVs but opposed credit multipliers. Another commenter stated that
the multipliers would encourage manufacturers to produce a limited number of ZEVs.
In contrast, a subset of commenters support emissions credit multipliers for ZEVs emissions
credits; these commenters are a subset of those who supported the proposal to allow
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs. One commenter stated that EPA
should apply emissions credit multipliers of at least 2.0 to incentivize ZEVs and provide level
playing field with low-emissions diesel products that meet MY 2031 standards early; the
commenter noted that, if needed, EPA could restrict multipliers to Class 6-8 trucks and tractors.
Another commenter stated that EPA should incentivize adoption of FCEVs by providing
multipliers for FCEVs with a range of 300 miles and ability to fuel in less than 20 minutes.
Response:
As discussed in Section 12.6.1, EPA is not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers
to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs. Since we are not allowing NOx emissions credits
from ZEVs, we are also not allowing emissions credits multipliers for ZEV emissions credits. As
described in preamble Section IV.G, we are also not finalizing the proposed Early Adoption
Incentive Program, and in turn we are not including emissions credit multipliers in the final
program. Rather, we are finalizing a revised version of the transitional credit program under the
ABT program that provides four pathways to generate straight NOx emissions credits (i.e., no
credit multipliers) that are valued based on the extent to which the engines generating credits
comply with the requirements we are finalizing for MY 2027 and later (e.g., credits discounted at
a rate of 40% for engines meeting a lower numeric standard but none of the other MY 2027 and
1040
-------
later requirements) (see Section 12.4 of this document and preamble Section IV.G.7 for more
details).
12.6.3 Vehicle Certification for ZEVs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EPA has proposed that HEVs, BEVs and FCEVs be allowed to generate NOx emission credits
starting in MY 2024.57 In doing so, EPA is proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to generate
the credits using certification pathways that have already been established pursuant to the Phase
2 rule. Given existing CARB rules in this area concerning powertrain certification, however, it is
probable that EPA will receive comments advocating broader use of powertrain certification
method and/or targeted use in vehicle categories that EPA believes will move more rapidly
towards electrification. Again, Allison's view is that EPA should explore and utilize simpler
methods for certification. Allison comments regarding the generation of NOx emission credits
are contained below in Section XVII. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.27-28]
57 Id. at 17,556-7.
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes to allow vehicle manufacturers, rather than powertrain manufacturers, to generate
NOx credits from battery electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV). EPA
proposed this approach "because the vehicle certification pathway is already utilized for
certifying BEV and FCEV to GHG standards, and thus would require fewer resources to
implement and carry out for both manufacturers and EPA's certification program" (87 FR
17557). However, it is unclear how the resources and burden are reduced with EPA's proposed
approach. The default procedures in §1037.552 and §1037.554 for determining inputs for
calculating ZEV NOx credits and for determining initial useable battery energy (UBE) for a BEV
or initial fuel cell voltage (FCV) for a FCEV are powertrain tests. It is unclear how a zero
emission powertrain manufacturer would experience more burden in completing a test of their
own powertrain compared to a vehicle manufacturer completing a test of a powertrain which
may or may not be their own. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 10]
As proposed, a zero emission powertrain manufacturer such as Cummins who does not
manufacture vehicles would be prevented from generating ZEV credits of their own. Since
EPA's rule sets new NOx standards and other requirements for engine (powertrain) certification
applicable to the engine (powertrain) manufacturer, it is more appropriate for zero emission
credits brought into the engine program to be earned by the zero emission powertrain
manufacturer, rather than the zero emission vehicle manufacturer. This change would provide
consistency with NOx and greenhouse gas credit ownership in existing engine regulations,
continue to foster a level playing field among manufacturers, and provide incentive for
powertrain manufacturers, including vertically-integrated manufacturers who manufacture both
the powertrain and the vehicle, to invest in and develop zero emission powertrain technology. If
1041
-------
EPA chooses to finalize provisions that allow the generation of ZEV NOx credits, those credits
should belong to the zero emission powertrain manufacturer. Note too that CARB recently
finalized MY 2024 regulations that prescribe that ZEV NOx credits are generated by the
certifying powertrain manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
Daimler Truck supports EPA's proposal that such NOx credits should accrue to the vehicle
manufacturer. While CARB grants NOx credits from ZEVs to the manufacturer of the 'Zero
Emissions Powertrain,' Daimler Truck has argued that the concept of a 'powertrain
manufacturer' does not apply well to ZEVs. For example, Daimler Truck currently manufactures
ZEVs whose 'powertrains' have one manufacturer for the battery, another manufacturer for the
electric motor, and many other manufacturers for other components that CARB considers part of
the 'zero emissions powertrain.' Ultimately, Daimler Truck is responsible for the system
integration, validation of the system, and service and warranty of the vehicle, and the Company
is the face of the ZEV experience to the customer. Therefore, the Company believes it is
appropriate for the credits generated to accrue to the vehicle manufacturer. Most importantly, it
is Daimler Truck that must take on the financial obligation of making the ZEV attractive for
customers to buy, and is therefore the only organization in the production chain that needs to be
incentivized to market these products. Suppliers are incentivized to develop and market the
components because vehicle manufacturers will buy them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P-80]
Any rule that EPA adopts to set ZEV certification standards should:
1. Minimize added cost and manufacturer uncertainty for ZEVs, which will serve only to slow
their adoption.
2. Seek opportunities to incentivize ZEV adoption wherever possible by allowing judicious use
of credits, etc.
3. Ensure a level playing field for manufacturers regardless of their NOx credit status, to avoid
creating a splintered market with two tiers of products.
4. Limit useful life, warranty, and durability standards to those in the vehicle GHG standards in
40 CFR 1037 today.
5. Base useful life, warranty, and durability requirements on total system energy throughput to
recognize non-motive forms of operation that age ZEVs.
6. Set clear requirements for useful life, a concept which does not neatly apply to ZEVs. ZEVs
will emit zero emissions forever, so EPA must directly identify what requirements manufacturers
are certifying their products to for the defined useful life period.
7. Study the effect of infrastructure and charging, especially high charge-rate systems, on ZEV
durability and longevity, and account for it during standard setting.
1042
-------
8. Develop test procedures in concert with OEMs to ensure repeatability, practicality, and
effectiveness; if EPA must test battery capacity, it should be done at the battery pack or fuel cell
level, and not at the vehicle or powertrain level, which is expensive and impractical, and does not
provide additional information about the battery or fuel cell. DTNA recommends the Static
Capacity Test (Constant Current Method)' set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
J1798, 'Recommended Practice for Performance Rating of Electric Vehicle Battery Modules.'
9. Avoid adding unnecessary requirements that do not serve EPA's mission to reduce emissions.
EPA requests comments on various aspects of potential standards for ZEVs, including diagnostic
requirements from CARB's Zero Emission's Powertrain procedure, communication
requirements, proposed signals manufacturers would need to make available, and more. None of
these requirements have any effect on emissions, and serve only to add development cost and
burden to manufacturers, delaying ZEV introduction and increasing prices.
10. Ensure that manufacturers have adequate lead-time to develop systems, and the market can
develop organically, by delaying new standards for ZEVs to at least MY 2031. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 124-125]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA encourages EPA to not issue NOx credits for battery electric vehicles or fuel cell electric
vehicles to avoid unintended backsliding and lowering of technology deployment on internal
combustion engine heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, NOx credits have traditionally only gone to
engine certifiers. Opening this up to additional parties could result in a fundamental change to
the NOx credit program with significant unintended consequences. Not many companies make
both batteries and internal combustion engines to be able to transfer credits within one company.
This generates more questions than answers and may open the door to backsliding. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
We request that the EPA allow manufacturers of HD ZEV powertrains (such as HD-BEV and
HD-FCEV) to generate credits, rather than only allowing credit generation by vehicle
manufacturers. Toyota appreciates the ability of vehicle manufacturers to generate NOx credits
from ZEV HD vehicles and believes this is an important incentive for wider adoption of ZEV
technologies that lead to emissions benefits. However, development of ZEV powertrain
technologies for HD vehicles requires significant investments and risks. Allowing powertrain
manufacturers to generate credits would be a powerful incentive to encourage more widespread
investment from manufacturers in the development of ZEV technologies. We suggest EPA
establish a credit allowance for the ZEV powertrain manufacturers to generate credits for the
powertrain. The powertrain credits would be a portion of the total credits the vehicle generates,
split between the vehicle and powertrain manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1224-A1,
p.2]
1043
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters provided perspectives on EPA's proposal for manufacturers to certify ZEVs
through a vehicle certification pathway, and therefore generate vehicle credits when choosing to
participate in the NOx ABT program with ZEVs. One commenter opposes the proposal and
urged EPA to allow powertrain manufacturers, not vehicle manufacturers, to generate NOx
emissions credits from ZEVs; this commenter stated that vehicle certification would prohibit
powertrain manufacturers who do not manufacturer vehicles from generating ZEV credits on
their own. Another commenter supported EPA's proposal and argued vehicle manufacturers
were the more appropriate owner of ZEV NOx emissions credits because the vehicle
manufacturer is responsible for integrating and validating systems from multiple component
manufacturers (e.g., battery, electric motor). Another commenter stated that EPA should allow
both vehicle and powertrain manufacturers to own credits from ZEVs, with the powertrain
manufacturer owning a portion of the vehicle credits. The remaining two commenters did not
clearly support or oppose the proposed vehicle certification approach; one commenter urged
EPA to simplify the process without providing specific suggestions, and the other commenter
stated that allowing parties other than engine manufacturers to generate NOx credits could lead
to backsliding and uncertainty since not many companies make both batteries and internal
combustion engines to transfer credits within one company.
Response:
As discussed in Section 12.6.1 of this document, and Section IV.G of the preamble, EPA is not
finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
ZEVs. However, as proposed, we are finalizing requirements for ZEVs to certify to criteria
pollutant standards under 40 CFR 1037. We are finalizing the vehicle certification pathway as
proposed, which allows manufacturers to use the same compliance pathway for certifying ZEVs
to both criteria and GHG standards. We believe this approach also minimizes added costs for
manufacturers and provides manufacturers with certainty on a criteria pollutant certification
pathway for ZEVs, which address additional factors that one commenter raised. EPA agrees with
the commenter who stated that the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for system integration and
validation, as well as vehicle service and warranty; therefore, we continue to believe the vehicle
certification pathway is the most appropriate.
The remaining considerations that the commenters provide pertain to ownership of ZEV NOx
emissions credits and the proposed requirements for ZEVs that generate NOx emissions credits,
which are not at issue in this rule as finalized.
12.6.4 Testing Requirements for Electric Vehicles Generating NOx Emissions Credits
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 1037.552 Multicycle powertrain test for battery electric vehicles.
1044
-------
We request that the requirement to measure DC energy during AC recharge be removed from the
test procedure requirements. DC energy measured during the AC recharge is not required for the
test result calculations and introduces additional test burden to laboratories. AC recharge energy
is measured upstream of the charger and includes any charger losses. Measurement of DC energy
during AC recharge may require modification of charge monitoring systems and additional
intrusive current sensor(s) on the vehicle/powertrain if the recharge cable is separate from the
drive cables. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, pp.4-5]
Subsection (c)
Auto Innovators proposes that 'Charge the powertrain for the duration of the soak period
measuring the DC recharge energy, EDCRC , and do not end the soak period prior to reaching
full charge' be revised to 'Charge the powertrain for the duration of the soak period and do not
end the soak period prior to reaching full charge.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.5]
Subsection (j)(ii)
Regarding the statement 'Immediately apply the brake and decelerate the powertrain to a stop
within 15 seconds once the test termination criteria have been met[,]' Auto Innovators suggests
that EPA consider increasing the time requirement for HD vehicles from 15 seconds to 20 or 30
seconds. Decelerating high mass vehicles from 55 mi/hr to 0 mi/hr in 15 seconds can be
challenging given the lower coefficient of friction on a dynamometer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1303-A1, p.5]
Subsection (g)
Auto Innovators proposes that 'Place the powertrain on-charge within 3 hours of completing the
MCT and charge the battery to full capacity to measure the total AC recharge energy, EACRC,
and DC recharge current per hour, CRC' be revised to 'Place the powertrain on-charge within 3
hours of completing the MCT and charge the battery to full capacity to measure the total AC
recharge energy and EACRC.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.5]
Auto Innovators recommends that EPA remove section (g)(6) referring to Charge Recovery.
Charge recovery verification is not typically an issue for BEV vehicles. Significant issues with
charge recovery can be detected from the AC recharge energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1303-A1, p.5]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA modify the greenhouse gas emission model to include
the ability to calculate work performed by electric motors. Such an approach would establish an
industry-wide, standardized procedure for calculating the electric vehicle credits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.22]
The HD electric vehicle market is quite diverse and includes small volume manufacturers and
large, vertically integrated manufacturers. Given such a landscape, establishing a simple tool to
1045
-------
standardize the calculations could lead to the establishment of a level playing field for estimating
electric vehicle credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.22]
In response to U.S. EPA's request for comment on the proposed approach to BEV and FCEV
powertrain testing, CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposal to require manufacturers to
measure work produced as well as usable battery energy and fuel-cell voltage for BEV and
FCEV powertrains, respectively, via the multicycle test (MCT) because it better reflects real-
world operation compared to other common battery and fuel-cell test methodologies (e.g., bench
testing). Requiring such testing would provide reliable information about a powertrain's work
capabilities when new as well as a verifiable baseline value for either usable battery energy or
fuel-cell voltage, as applicable, to facilitate the implementation of the proposed durability
requirements for BEVs and FCEVs. Furthermore, because of the value of the information
provided by this testing to potential purchasers of BEVs and FCEVs, CARB staff recommends
that all BEV and FCEV powertrains, regardless of whether or not they generate NOx emission
credit, be subject to the same testing requirements. [This comment can also be found in sections
15.1 and 15.2 of this comment summary.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.22]
However, CARB staff recommends that in later model years, manufacturers be required, as part
of the durability demonstration, to age/cycle the batteries and/or fuel cells to simulate real-world
operation prior to performing the MCT. In addition, CARB staff recommends that the durability
of BEV and FCEV powertrains be demonstrated through the same process, regardless of whether
these vehicles generate NOx credits. Durable BEVs and FCEVs will be needed to provide a
viable secondary market. A robust secondary market is necessary to ensure success of these new
technologies because many fleets only operate new vehicles for a few years and rely on vehicle
asset residual value in the secondary market to fund future new vehicle purchase. Also, some
fleets only buy reliable second market vehicles to reduce upfront costs and so BEVs and FCEVs
success requires them to be reliable through their useful lives. This aspect is critically important
because purchasers of used vehicles tend to be small businesses and owner-operators who often
reside in historically underserved communities. CARB staff believes the success of the
secondary market will depend on transparency to understand the status of a used vehicle and its
battery health or fuel stack voltage performance when purchasing these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.23]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins manufactures a broad range of technologies for on-highway vehicles - from internal
combustion engines to hybrids to zero emission powertrains. We strive to provide durable and
reliable products to our customers who rely on them for their livelihood. In principle, we support
durability testing for zero emission powertrains, along with appropriate useful life and warranty
requirements that are on par with requirements for other types of powertrains. Those
requirements are important to ensure acceptance by customers, so that adoption increases, and to
provide a level-playing field for manufacturers of competing technologies. However, just as with
conventional powertrains, any test procedures for durability demonstration should not create
undue cost or a lengthy test burden for the manufacturer. Similarly, useful life and warranty
requirements should not be so extreme as to significantly increase the cost of the zero emission
1046
-------
powertrains further and inhibit their adoption. EPA should work with manufacturers to strike the
right balance in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 10]
1036.510(d)-(e)
When the CD mode is covered in EV and the charge sustaining mode has one FTP/SET cycle,
the GHG emission will be elevated based on the current calculation approach. Cummins suggests
running more than one CS cycle to account for cold warm operations:
• The current method defined in NPRM can be used to calculate GHG emission in CD mode.
• The first cycle in CS mode should be treated as cold cycle and the next cycle as warm.
Calculate composite CS mode emission using 1/7 and 6/7 weighting factors for cold and warm
cycles.
• Then apply UF based calculation to get the combined C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-
Al, p. 25]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA's proposed method for calculating ZEV NOx credits is overly onerous and not
practical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.82]
Under the Proposed Rule, manufacturers would calculate vehicle emission credits using a
powertrain test cycle that measures work produced over a defined duty-cycle test, and either
useable battery energy for battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) or fuel cell voltage for fuel cell
electric vehicles (FCEVs). EPA proposes to use the measured work to define the number of
credits a ZEV would generate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.82]
EPA has not, however, considered the feasibility of performing such a test for all electric vehicle
configurations. Issues related to the technical feasibility of this test are elaborated in Section VI
of these comments, but in short, each powertrain configuration will require approximately 40
hours of chassis-dyno testing to complete this test procedure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.82]
Since EPA envisions this testing will be performed on a powertrain level, it is not clear how
many configurations a manufacturer must test—but the work produced over the defined duty-
cycle test will vary based on number of factors not related to the NOx emissions emitted by these
vehicles (which is, of course, zero). These factors include, among others:
• Axle ratio of the drivetrain
• Vehicle transmission characteristics
• Control strategies and driver-selectable options
• Battery capacity, configuration, controls
• Power rating of the powertrain
• Power consuming accessories [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.82]
1047
-------
As EPA does not specify how powertrains should be categorized for this testing, we assume that
EPA expects manufacturers to run this test for each configuration that could result in a different
cycle power measurement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.82]
Each of these factors will have an effect on the measured cycle power, and therefore
manufacturers could be expected to test many configurations. Even with a
reasonable categorization strategy—per vehicle family as defined in Part 1037, for example—
manufacturers could be required to demonstrate many configurations at great expense, and
vehicle families already contain several different ZEV architectures today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.82-83]
Ultimately, this test intends to measure how much NOx credit a vehicle should generate— but by
definition, a ZEV generates no NOx at all. The amount of work that a powertrain outputs on a
cycle test is not indicative of the NOx savings that vehicle will accrue over its life, and it is not
reasonable to assume that the vehicle it replaces would output the same amount of work. Diesel
engine credits are not affected, today, by the axle ratio, gearing, shift strategies, or control
strategies of the vehicles they are installed in; nor is the work done by those engines reduced by
the losses in their associated powertrains. By extension, ZEV NOx credits should not be affected
by these factors either. This is very significant expense and an impractical amount of testing with
no tangible benefit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.83]
Lastly, this is a new test procedure that EPA proposes - manufacturers have little experience
performing the testing, few accessible test cell facilities that can perform the test, and no time
with which to develop these capabilities. It is impractical to expect manufacturers to certify new
products, with which we have little experience, to a new test cycle, with which we have no
experience, and to complete that testing in less than one year from the time the rule is
finalized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.83]
Daimler Truck recommends that EPA assign a specific NOx credit value for each ZEV, based on
vehicle weight class. Credits could be assigned without cycle work testing, since the amount of
NOx the vehicle will emit is known (it is zero), and the amount of NOx the vehicle will offset
cannot be determined from this testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.83]
EPA could set the credits so that a Class 8 ZEV would offset the typical NOx credits consumed
by a typical conventional Class 8 vehicle. EPA could similarly categorize credits for Class 6-7
vehicles, and other categories that the EPA could reasonably bin together. Such an approach
would drastically reduce manufacturers' test burdens, EPA's certification review load, and
credit-related unpredictability and risk—all without any trade-offs in emission reductions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.83]
While the Proposed Rule contains new test standards for both battery electric vehicles and
hydrogen fuel cells in this rule, before finalizing its proposal EPA must work with manufacturers
and testing experts to determine practical testing procedures that make sense. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 121]
1048
-------
Daimler Truck has analyzed EPA's proposed Multicycle Test (MCT) from proposed 40
C.F.R. 1037.552 and believes it is not a practical or reasonable test for the following reasons:
• EPA's test procedure takes approximately 40 hours of testing to complete, per
configuration
• EPA's test procedure will not be able to be completed as envisioned by some
configurations (particularly with high power ratings relative to their battery size) since
the vehicles will be left with <10% of their battery capacity after the second
HDTC/LLC/SET test sequence. In fact, it is likely the test will only be able to be
completed by vehicles with the largest battery capacities relative to their power outputs.
• EPA's abrupt speed/grade/load changes in the HDTC/LLC/SET test sequence are
unsafe— the high torque and instant torque capability of ZEVs cause extreme stresses to
the dyno couplings and test equipment. This is a real safety risk and could damage the
powertrain, the dyno, or any couplings in the system.
• Truck control strategies (such as low-power derates) might cause the test to end earlier
than battery capacity alone would dictate.
• EPA's test procedure would require production high-voltage cabling to be removed, since
shielded high voltage cables cannot be adequately measured with current probes. This
will mean that to perform EPA's proposed testing, manufacturers will have to modify the
high voltage cabling in a potentially unsafe manner.
• Very few test facilities in the U.S. are even capable of performing the test EPA proposes,
as complete powertrain testing that meets EPA's testing requirements has not typically
been used by manufacturers to any great degree. Manufacturers will have to build up this
test equipment and the expertise needed to use it.
• EPA's test procedure requires ambient temperatures to be maintained throughout the
cycle, but most existing powertrain test facilities may not be conditioned with enough
capability to hold temperature throughout the entire test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.121]
Daimler Truck would be happy to review its analysis of the MCT in a confidential setting, but
firmly believes that the EPA must develop any test procedure with adequate input from
manufacturers and test facilities before incorporating it into the federal regulations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 122]
Additionally, as discussed in Section III of these comments, EPA's test procedure represents an
inappropriate burden for manufacturers. Since EPA envisions this testing will be performed on a
powertrain level, it is not clear how many powertrain configurations a manufacturer must test,
but the test results will vary based on number of factors not related to the energy capacity or
durability of the powertrain. These factors include, among many others:
• Axle ratio of the drivetrain
• Vehicle transmission characteristics
• Control strategies and driver-selectable options
• Battery capacity, configuration, controls
• Power rating of the powertrain
• Power-consuming accessories [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.122]
1049
-------
Since EPA does not specify how powertrains should be categorized for this testing, we assume
that the Agency expects manufacturers to run this test for each configuration that could result in
a different outcome; therefore manufacturers could be expected to test many configurations.
Even employing a reasonable categorization strategy—per vehicle family as defined in Part
1037, for example—manufacturers could be required to demonstrate many configurations at
great expense, particularly given that today's typical vehicle families already contain several
different ZEV architectures. 136 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 122]
136 This increased expense and the attendant compliance burden should be weighed
heavily in OMB's review and decision whether to approve the information collection
components of the Proposed Rule, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Each test takes about 40 hours to run (per vehicle). Given the many configurations that
manufacturers may have to test, it is difficult to approximate exactly how much cost and
how many personnel hours would be involved, but Daimler Truck expects that the burden
would be significant.
Ultimately, EPA's proposed test is intended to measure how much capacity is available in the
battery pack. It is unclear why factors outside of the battery should be part of the test. While the
drive motor, accessories, control strategies, etc. might change the rate at which power is
consumed from the battery, they have no effect on the total amount of energy stored in the
battery pack (and by extension, the total amount of energy expended during the MCT, since the
test ends when the battery is depleted). The proposed test will need to be repeated many times—
one for each configuration that affects the test—with no significant additional information to be
gained about the capacity of the battery pack. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 122]
Daimler Truck recommends that EPA consider a battery-only test to determine battery capacity.
Such a test reduces the number of configurations a manufacturer must test, and provides detailed
information about the capacity of the battery in a useable, repeatable manner. The industry
already uses such a test for this purpose—the 'Static Capacity Test (Constant Current Method)'
set forth in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1798, 'Recommended Practice for
Performance Rating of Electric Vehicle Battery Modules,' which is incorporated by reference in
CARB's 'California Standards and Test Procedures for New 2021 and Subsequent Model
Heavy- Duty Zero Emission Powertrains.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 122]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference regulations and test procedures in many cases that are
unclear, duplicative, or are not yet final. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
In " § 1037.102 Exhaust emission standards for NOx, HC, PM, and CO", EPA proposes that, for
battery electric vehicles to qualify for averaging, banking, and trading programs, "Useable
battery energy must remain at or above 70 percent throughout the useful life." with the Initial
capacity determined by "§ 1037.552 Multicycle powertrain test for battery electric vehicles."
These proposed test procedures are new, and duplicative with and distinct from United Nations
and CARB proposals to estimate and regulate battery capacity over the useful life of the vehicle.
1050
-------
None of the procedures are yet finalized with final regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1246-A1, p.6]
Incorporating standards by reference that are not finalized, unclear, or duplicative adds
uncertainty to what is expected in a finalized regulation, and often increases the burden to
industry to comply with standards. GM encourages EPA to not incorporate by reference
regulations and test procedures that are unclear, potentially duplicative, or not finalized. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.6] [[This comment can also be found in section 7.5 of the
comment summary]]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
However, the NPRM also proposes to impose on credit-generating ZEVs a suite of excessively
complex, burdensome, and expensive certification, durability, useful life, and warranty
requirements. In that regard, the NPRM includes entirely new certification and compliance
requirements that, as written, appear to be impossible to implement. Even if a manufacturer
could meet all the proposed regulatory requirements, the certified ZEV would be so expensive
that no fleet would be willing to invest in it. The proposed requirements are likely to end up
creating two distinct classes of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs. Credit-generating ZEVs would
be burdened with excessive certification, durability, useful life, and warranty provisions, making
them commercially non-viable. Conversely, manufacturers would be free to customize non-credit
generating ZEVs to meet their customers' needs most efficiently. That unlevel competitive
playing field would splinter and hamstring the nascent medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market,
rather than promote ZEV sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
EPA has developed the proposed new ZEV certification, durability, useful life, and warranty
provisions without any consultation with the manufacturers that are expected to implement them.
History has shown that such unilateral development of complex vehicle certification procedures
rarely leads to implementable and successful regulatory requirements. Although it is unfortunate
that industry would be starting with the unilateral proposal included in the NPRM, we request
that EPA commit to collaborating with manufacturers to identify a workable path forward for the
certification and compliance requirements for credit-generating ZEVs. Considering the limited
time before a final rule, and the complexity and novelty of ZEV certification and compliance
requirements, we believe an interim approach may be the only realistic path forward. An interim
solution could be fashioned to meet EPA's needs while not burdening ZEVs with excessive costs
and regulatory requirements. If we can identify an appropriate interim approach, a long-term
solution could then be developed as part of the Phase 3 GHG rulemaking. That rulemaking is a
more appropriate forum for the in-depth data analyses and technical discussions needed to
establish workable and effective long-term ZEV certification and compliance
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
In medium- and heavy-duty applications, BEVs and FCVs can be used in emissions reducing
applications that do not accumulate mileage. For instance, a vehicle may be used as a source of
electricity in remote applications, or at a job site, replacing a generator and powering job site
equipment. A zero-emission vehicle may be used to temporarily power a building, replacing a
generator. In advanced applications, a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles may be used to supplement
1051
-------
electricity grid services, such as through load-leveling. These example applications have the
potential to create societal value using advanced transportation technologies to reduce
emissions traditionally associated with other sectors. NESCAUM19, Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS)20, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)21, International Council on Clean
Transportation (ICCT)22, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)23, Sierra Club24, the State of
California, and the United States Department of Energy25 have all recognized the potential value
from zero-emissions vehicles, and especially from medium-duty and-heavy duty zero emissions
vehicles, through their deployment in innovative applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, pp. 135 - 136]
19. "Providing V2G services benefits school districts and utility ratepayers by generating
revenue that improves the economics of fleet electrification while reducing electricity
distribution system costs for ratepayers." (page 15-16, pages 31-35), Multi-State
Medium- and Heavy-duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan.
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhd-zev-action-plan-public-draft-03-10-2022.pdf/
20. "Flexible loads and V2G can provide many of the same benefits as dedicated storage,
such as enabling increased market penetration by renewables." (page 4), Charging Smart.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/05/Charging-Smart-executive-
summary.pdf
21. EDF supported research through the NC Clean Energy Technology Center
(NCCETC) in coordination with Roanoke Electric Cooperative (REC) to demonstrate
vehicle-to-grid smart chargers. "Preliminary findings from a demonstration of two-way,
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology in North Carolina show the economic potential for
using bidirectional charging technologies to feed energy stored in electric vehicle
batteries back to charging sites, especially when the grid is experiencing high demand.",
NC Cooperative Demonstration of Vehicle-to-Grid Smart Charger Shows Economic
Value, https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/2021/09/21/nc-cooperative-demonstration-of-
vehicleto-grid-smart-charger-shows-economic-value/
22. "EVs could potentially benefit the grid through additional services that help utilities
manage load. For example, an EV that is plugged in all day could be used to store excess
electricity during off-peak hours; he utility could later withdraw that electricity from the
EV battery to supply peak load, avoiding some inefficient cycling of generators." ICCT
recommends that policy makers "Create or amend rules to allow participation by EVs in
electricity markets, so EVs can provide and be compensated for ancillary services."
(pages 3-4), Electric Vehicle Grid Integration in the U.S., Europe, and China.
https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/202 l/06/ICCT_Briefing_EVgrid_integration_20130923 .pdf
23. "Actions on the demand side, such as improved energy efficiency (and appliance
efficiency), demand response, community scale RE and battery storage systems, vehicle-
grid systems, etc. can benefit the system by smoothening peak loads, mitigating grid
power shortfalls, and sustaining critical services during power outages." (page 19)
1052
-------
Powering Through: A Climate Resilient Future, https://rmi.org/insight/powering-through-
a-climate-resilient-future/
24. "Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology allows EVs to absorb electricity from the grid
when it's plentiful, and then provide electricity back to the grid when - and where - it's
needed most. Heavy-duty electric vehicle fleets are particularly attractive energy
resources." Electric Vehicles are Indispensable for California's Climate Resiliency, Even
During a Power Outage, https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2020/09/electric-vehicles-
are-indispensable-forcalifornias-climate-resiliency-even-during
25. "The current availability of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), and their projected
penetration of the private transportation market in the coming years, introduces the
possibility of feeding the energy stored in the vehicle batteries back to the electric grid."
(page 1), Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Power Flow Regulations and Building Codes Review by
the AVTA. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/v2g_power_flow_rpt.pdf
CARB, EPA, and the United Nations are all proposing regulations requiring manufacturers to
report on or meet battery durability, UL, and warranty requirements, as measured by different
test and certification procedures. Those multiple requirements are duplicative, and burdensome,
and possibly counter-productive to accelerating the deployment of zero-emissions vehicles, and
the realization of the attendant emissions reductions. CARB is proposing to regulate battery
durability through Advanced Clean Cars 1126; EPA has proposed new test procedures for energy
storage devices in this NPRM27; and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe has
finalized a Global Technical Requirement (UN GTR) for light-duty vehicle battery durability28
(Heavy-Duty in-vehicle battery durability development was started in 2022). EPA should work
with those regulating bodies to coalesce around a single harmonized standard. The UN GTR
process has incorporated feedback from manufacturers, more so than the CARB or EPA
rulemakings. The Society of Automotive Engineers J1979 and J1939 standards may be excellent
references as the topic matures as well. Complying with multiple regulations, having different
requirements and test procedures, has the potential to slow manufacturers' ability to bring zero
emissions vehicles into the market and could prevent the realization of economies of scale. As
with any emerging market, regulations can have unintended consequences. For example, mileage
based warranties and ULs could preclude zero-emission vehicles from participating in innovative
applications, such as electricity grid services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 136 -
137]
26. Advanced Clean Cars 2, Proposed Regulation Order.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/appa8.pdf
27. § 1037.552 Multicycle powertrain test for battery electric vehicles. (Pages 310-319.)
https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-03/hd2027-nprm-reg-redline-memo-
2020-02.pdf
28. Final Light-Duty UN GTR #22 for In-Vehicle Battery Durability.
https://unece.org/transport/documents/2022/04/standards/un-gtr-no22-vehicle-battery-
durability-electrified-vehicles
1053
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters provided perspectives on EPA's proposed testing requirements for ZEVs
that manufacturers were choosing to generate NOx emissions credits from. One commenter
(CARB) suggested that EPA modify GEM to calculate work performed by electric motors; the
commenter stated that doing so would allow a standardized approach to calculate credits and
create a level playing field for manufacturers to calculate NOx emissions credits. One
commenter (CARB) supports proposed approach to use the multicycle test (MCT) to measure
work produced since it better reflects real-world operation compared to other test methods (e.g.,
battery bench testing). The commenter recommends that EPA require the same testing for all
ZEVs, regardless of whether or not they generate NOx emissions credits because the information
would be valuable. They further recommend that in later program years EPA require
manufacturers to age the batteries or fuel cells prior to conducting MCT, and again that, the same
requirement should apply to all ZEVs regardless of if they generate NOx emissions credits. The
commenter asserted that testing information is critical to support durability and transparency on
the state of battery or fuel cell stack performance when purchasing vehicles in the secondary
market, and noted that secondary market users can often be those who live in underserved
communities. Finally, the commenter stated that test procedures should not create undue costs or
lengthy test burden for manufacturers.
One commenter (DTNA) opposing the proposed test requirements stated that EPA hasn't
considered the feasibility of performing MCT for all electric vehicle configurations. They noted
that each powertrain configuration will require approximately 40 hours of chassis-dyno testing
based on their evaluation and stated that the considerable test burden should be considered
relevant to Paperwork Reduction Act. They further stated that it is unclear how many
configurations would need to be tested and that the work produced will vary based on factors
unrelated to NOx emissions (e.g., axle ratio of drivetrain, battery capacity). They also noted that
diesel credits are not affected by factors that impact work produced by ZEV powertrain. They
further stated that manufacturers don't have experience with the test procedure, and it is
impracticable for them to complete the testing in less than one year from when rule is finalized.
The commenter (DTNA) recommends that EPA assign a specific NOx credit value for each ZEV
based on vehicle weight class with no testing required (e.g., set Class 8 ZEV credits equal to
typical NOx credits consumed by Class 8 vehicle). The commenter provided a list of specific
concerns with the test procedure (e.g., some vehicles would be unable to complete the test due to
insufficient battery energy) and suggested EPA consider a battery-only test to determine battery
capacity; they noted that industry is already using SAE J1798.
Other commenters opposing the proposed test procedures state that the test procedures are new
and duplicative with and distinct from UN and CARB proposals to estimate and regulate battery
capacity over useful life of a vehicle. Commenters stated that incorporating standards by
reference that are not finalized, unclear, or duplicative adds uncertainty regarding what to expect
in the final rule and can increase industry burden to comply with standards. Commenters
encouraged EPA not to incorporate by reference regulations and test procedures that are unclear,
potentially duplicative, or not finalized. Commenters stated that mileage-based useful life and
warranty requirements could discourage the use of HD ZEVs in applications that don't
1054
-------
accumulate mileage, such as supplying energy back to the grid. Finally, commenters stated that
EPA should work with other entities such as the United Nations, CARB, and SAE to develop a
harmonized test procedure(s) and set of requirements.
Response:
Since we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits from ZEVs (see Section 12.6.1 of this document and preamble Section IV.G), we are also
not finalizing the testing requirements we proposed for ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits.
We recognize that one commenter urged EPA to require the same durability demonstration
process for all ZEVs, regardless of whether they generate NOx emissions credits; however, we
did not propose that the testing and performance requirements for battery and fuel cells over the
useful life would apply to all ZEVs and thus are not finalizing such an approach at this time. We
note that the final requirements result in consistent requirements for manufacturers certifying
ZEVs to criteria and GHG emissions standards. We intend to continue to consider the
perspectives included in this comment and the other comments in this Section 12.6.4 when
developing future rulemakings relevant to heavy-duty ZEVs.
12.6.5 Useful Life and Warranty Requirements for Electric Vehicles Generating NOx
Emissions Credits
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
Given the early stage of commercialization of zero emissions vehicles in medium- and heavy-
duty applications, it is appropriate for EPA to collect battery data as the market develops prior to
regulating a useful life. EPA should consider exempting ZEVs from useful life requirements in
the 2027-2030 timeframe until more real-world battery data is available to inform rulemaking.
When EPA does choose to regulate the useful life of ZEVs, EPA should reconsider the restrictive
definition of useful life that has been proposed. EPA "mileage or years" based useful life
standards should be updated to include, "mileage or year or hours or kWh delivered" to better
consider ZEV emissions reducing applications. For instance, hours could accumulate any time
the battery is productively discharging. The "kWh delivered" metric would consider wear and
tear batteries frequently discharged at high rates and provide some incentive to install packs with
larger capacity. Alternatively, the "kWh delivered" metric could be normalized to initial battery
pack capacity to effectively sum discharge cycles, without biasing the regulation away from
smaller capacity battery packs in affordable applications. EPA should consider harmonizing the
"hours or kWh delivered" metrics between classes (for instance light-heavy, and medium-heavy)
to ease certification burdens. BEVs and FCVs are technologies that can reduce criteria emissions
and GHG emissions; including ZEVs in an ABT program appropriately recognizes how these
vehicles can contribute to meeting ambitious air quality goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-
Al, p. 3]
Additionally, we recommend including a provision that partial NOx credits be available for
Zero-Emission Vehicles with a declared full useful life below the designated full-useful of the
1055
-------
particular engine service class. EPA should consider updates to the Warranty and Useful Life
requirements for the final rule to recognize innovative applications for battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). For instance, BEVs and FCVs may be used in emissions
reducing applications that do not accumulate mileage. Identical BEV and FCV powertrains may
be installed in different vehicle classes and would therefore be subject to different, conflicting
warranty and useful life requirements. With some simple changes that align the Warranty and
Useful Life requirements, EPA could increase the likelihood that zero emissions vehicles will
qualify for NOx ABT without precluding innovative applications. Including zero emissions
vehicles in the NOx ABT program appropriately recognizes the potential of these vehicles to
reduce emissions and improve air quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, pp. 3-4]
In medium- and heavy-duty applications, BEVs and FCVs add significant new use capabilities
that will be used in emissions reducing applications that do not accumulate mileage. For
instance, a vehicle can be used as a source of electricity in remote applications, or at a job site,
replacing a generator and powering job site equipment. The vehicle could be used to power a
building for a time, replacing a generator. In advanced applications, the vehicle, or a fleet of
vehicles may be used for electricity grid services, such as load leveling. These example
applications have the potential to create societal value and use transportation technology to
reduce stationary emissions traditionally associated with other sectors. NESCAUM,4 Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS),5 Environmental Defense Fund (EDF),6 International Council on
Clean Transportation (ICCT),7 Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI),8 Sierra Club,9 the State of
California, and the United States Department of Energy 10 have all recognized the potential value
zero emissions vehicles, and especially medium duty and heavy-duty zero emissions vehicles, to
be used in innovative applications. The referenced U.S. Department of Energy report correctly
states that, "V2G adds uncertainty related to battery life and capacity", which is particularly
relevant for useful life requirements measured in mileage or years, as EPA proposes. In
innovative zero emissions vehicle applications, battery packs may accumulate cycles unrelated to
mileage, and the EPA should consider this when finalizing standards for useful life and warranty.
Considering age of the equipment, in years, is also insufficient. Battery cycles, and wear and tear
for innovative applications may be unrelated to mileage or years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1293-Al,pp. 4-5]
4 "Providing V2G services benefits school districts and utility ratepayers by generating
revenue that improves the economics of fleet electrification while reducing electricity
distribution system costs for ratepayers." (page 15-16, pages 31-35), Multi-State
Medium- and Heavy-duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan.
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhd-zev-action-plan-public-draft-03-10-2022.pdf/
5 "Flexible loads and V2G can provide many of the same benefits as dedicated storage,
such as enabling increased market penetration by renewables." (page 4), Charging Smart.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/05/Charging-Smart-executive-
summary.pdf
6 EDF supported research through the NC Clean Energy Technology Center (NCCETC)
in coordination with Roanoke Electric Cooperative (REC) to demonstrate vehicle-to-grid
smart chargers. "Preliminary findings from a demonstration of two-way, vehicle-to-grid
1056
-------
(V2G) technology in North Carolina show the economic potential for using bidirectional
charging technologies to feed energy stored in electric vehicle batteries back to charging
sites, especially when the grid is experiencing high demand.", NC Cooperative
Demonstration of Vehicle-to-Grid Smart Charger Shows Economic Value.
https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/2021/09/21/nc-cooperative-demonstration-of-vehicle-to-
gri d- smart-charger- shows-economi c-value/
7 "EVs could potentially benefit the grid through additional services that help utilities
manage load. For example, an EV that is plugged in all day could be used to store excess
electricity during off-peak hours; the utility could later withdraw that electricity from the
EV battery to supply peak load, avoiding some inefficient cycling of generators." ICCT
recommends that policy makers "Create or amend rules to allow participation by EVs in
electricity markets, so EVs can provide and be compensated for ancillary services."
(pages 3-4), Electric Vehicle Grid Integration in the U.S., Europe, and China.
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICCT_Briefing_EV-
grid_integration_2013 0923 .pdf
8 "Actions on the demand side, such as improved energy efficiency (and appliance
efficiency), demand response, community scale RE and battery storage systems, vehicle-
grid systems, etc. can benefit the system by smoothening peak loads, mitigating grid
power shortfalls, and sustaining critical services during power outages." (page 19)
Powering Through: A Climate Resilient Future, https://rmi.org/insight/powering-through-
a-climate-resilient-future/
9 "Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology allows EVs to absorb electricity from the grid when
it's plentiful, and then provide electricity back to the grid when - and where - it's needed
most. Heavy-duty electric vehicle fleets are particularly attractive energy resources."
Electric Vehicles are Indispensable for California's Climate Resiliency, Even During a
Power Outage, https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2020/09/electric-vehicles-are-
indispensable-for-californias-climate-resiliency-even-during
10 "The current availability of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), and their projected
penetration of the private transportation market in the coming years, introduces the
possibility of feeding the energy stored in the vehicle batteries back to the electric grid."
(page 1), Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Power Flow Regulations and Building Codes Review by
the AVTA. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/v2g_power_flow_rpt.pdf
The EPA proposal includes warranty and useful life requirements that vary by regulatory class,
and this unnecessarily complicates certification, especially for zero emissions vehicles. For
instance, the proposed mileage requirement for useful life of medium heavy- duty is nearly 1.5
times that of light heavy-duty, in 2027-2030. Ideally, requirements would be similar for similarly
equipped powertrains, or similarly capable vehicles. The additional weight of batteries on zero
emissions vehicles often increases curb weight, and subsequently gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR). As a result, zero emissions vehicles with high-capacity batteries, designed for lighter
applications, may be subject to warranty and useful life regulations that historically were tailored
1057
-------
for internal combustion engine vehicles with higher capabilities and uses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1293-A1, p. 5]
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), EPA, and the United Nations are all proposing
regulations requiring manufacturers to report on or meet battery durability, useful life, and
warranty requirements, as measured by different test and certification procedures. Knowing that
OEMs are ultimately responsible for customer satisfaction, these requirements are duplicative
and burdensome, and possibly counter-productive to accelerating the adoption of zero emissions
vehicles, and their emissions reductions. Durability and warranty requirements for ICE vehicles
have developed over many years, but the knowledge of how ZEV technology works in numerous
heavy-duty use cases requires further analysis and more time to mature. CARB is proposing to
regulate battery durability through Advanced Clean Cars II, 11 EPA has proposed new test
procedures for energy storage devices in this notice, 12 and United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe has finalized Global Technical Requirement (UN GTR) for light-duty
vehicle battery durability 13(Heavy-Duty in-vehicle battery durability development started in
202214). EPA should work with these regulating bodies to form one national standard for the
U.S. The UN GTR incorporates significantly more feedback from manufacturers than the current
drafts of other proposals. Society of Automotive Engineers J1979 and J1939 standards may be
excellent references as the topic matures, as well. Many different regulations, with different
requirements and test procedures, has the potential to slow manufacturers' ability to bring zero
emissions vehicles to market and reduce economies of scale. As with any emerging market,
regulations may have unintended consequences; for instance, a mileage based standard alone
may preclude participation in innovative zero emissions vehicles applications, like supplying
electricity grid services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, pp. 5-6]
11 Advanced Clean Cars 2, Proposed Regulation Order.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2022/accii/appa8.pdf
12 § 1037.552 Multicycle powertrain test for battery electric vehicles, (page 310-319)
https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-03/hd2027-nprm-reg-redline-memo-
2020-02.pdf
13 Final Light-Duty UN GTR #22 for In-Vehicle Battery Durability.
https://unece.org/transport/documents/2022/04/standards/un-gtr-no22-vehicle-battery-
durability-electrified-vehicles
14 (EVE) Latest EVE #54 Meeting including Heavy-Duty UN GTR development on
battery durability. https://wiki.unece.org/display/trans/EVE+54th+Session
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposal to require manufacturers of BEVs and FCEVs that
choose to generate NOx credits certify their configurations to the same useful life (UL)
requirements as conventional engines and powertrains. This would provide assurance to owners
and operators that BEVs and FCEVs are designed to be as durable as their conventional vehicle
counterparts. Such requirements would ensure that real-world emission reductions resulting from
1058
-------
the use of BEVs and FCEVs are realized and would align with the level of NOx emission credits
generated. Additionally, CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA's proposal to use a phased in
approach for earlier model years to allow adequate time for BEV and FCEV manufacturers to
transition to these more stringent requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.22-23]
In response to U.S. EPA's request for comment on the proposed approach for warranty
requirements applicable to BEVs or FCEVs that generate NOx emission credits, CARB staff
supports U.S. EPA's proposal to subject said BEVs and FCEVs to the warranty periods
corresponding to an engine-based primary intended service class, as specified in the proposed
1037.120(b). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.23]
CARB staff appreciates U.S. EPA's acknowledgement of the work to develop the Zero-Emission
Powertrain (ZEP) certification procedure for medium and HD vehicles. In response to U.S.
EPA's request for comments on the proposed approach that only batteries and fuel cells in BEVs
and FCEVs, respectively, are covered under warranty for manufacturers choosing to generate
NOx emission credits, CARB staff recommends that covered components include, at minimum,
not only the battery or fuel cell, but all powertrain components. In ZEP Certification,44,45,46 a
ZEP includes (as applicable) the electric traction motor, system controller, generator, on-board
charger, battery management system, thermal management systems, energy storage system
(batteries, capacitors, and flywheels), inverter, fuel-cell stack, and the interface at which
electrical power is converted to (or from) tractive mechanical power. System design and
component selection are both critical in ensuring the function of a ZEP, and inappropriate design
or components could cause catastrophic failure along the driveline. Therefore, CARB staff does
not believe that the current proposal would adequately protect purchasers from the potential
problems that could occur in BEVs and FCEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.23-24]
44 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/fsoraddendum.pdf
45 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/fsor.pdf
46 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/zepcert/isor.pdf
Additionally, the proposed warranties for battery and fuel-cell powered HD vehicles are already
being offered by several companies commercially,47,48,49 and the performance of some of the
early fuel cell buses deployed in transit operations in California are exceeding 30,000 hours of
operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.24]
47 https://www.masstransitmag.com/home/press-release/12058920/byd-motors-llc-byd-
announces-12-year-battery-warranty
48 https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/261695/Battery_System_Warrant
y_E2_V3.pdf
49 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2020-
07/FTA_Report_No._0169%20%28002%29.pdf
1059
-------
CARB staff is providing several references50,51,52,53 to similar efforts under the Advanced
Clean Cars II rule making development proposals to require robust warranties, service
information, and recycling labels for light-duty vehicles. [This comment can also be found in
section 5.3 of this comment summary.] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 25]
50 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
10/accII_october_202 l_workshop_presentation_ac.pdf
51 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20zev%20battery%201abel%201962.6%20posted.pdf
52 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20zev%20warranty%201962.8 .pdf
53 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
12/draft%20service%20information%201969.pdf
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Durability, useful life, and warranty are especially important in the context of ABT. EPA
proposes to allow the generation of ZEV NOx credits that can be used by diesel engines to
comply with the engine NOx standards and to require ZEV to meet the same useful life
requirements as diesel engines. This parity in useful life is needed to ensure that the ZEV is fully
offsetting the higher emissions of the credit-using diesel engine. EPA further proposes to require
that UBE and FCV must remain at least 70% and 80%, respectively, throughout UL.
Alternatively, EPA should consider allowing manufacturers to calculate ZEV credits based on
reduced UL periods if the UBE and FCV minimums can't be met for the full UL. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, pp. 10-11]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
EPA has not adequately demonstrated feasibility of their proposed ZEV durability standards,
especially in the timelines EPA proposes. We believe that it is impossible for manufacturers to
validate and certify their vehicles to durability standards for MY 2024, when such certification
would need to start less than one year from now. Any ZEV requirements that increase
uncertainty, cost, or risk will serve to dis-incentivize their production and adoption, which is the
opposite of EPA's intention. Requiring different standards for ZEVs that generate NOx credit, as
compared to those that do not, could create a splintered ZEV market, with two tiers of ZEVs at
different price points, creating an unlevel playing field and confusing or misleading customers—
ultimately dissuading further adoption of ZEVs. Each of these issues is discussed in more detail
in Section VI of these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 81-82]
Further, the emissions benefits of ZEVs—and the knock-on effects of incentivizing ZEVs now—
outweighs the small risk that ZEVs will not offset as much NOx as their credits enable. The same
risk exists for clean diesels, which may not generate as much credit as predicted (particularly if
they are not used as much as their statutory useful lives imply, or are damaged in an accident or
1060
-------
otherwise removed from service). The public benefit is best served by an aggressive and
dramatic shift towards ZEVs as soon as possible. We urge EPA not to slow the adoption of ZEVs
with unnecessary requirements tied to the generation of NOx credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p. 82]
EPA proposes useful life and durability requirements for credit-generating HD ZEVs far in
excess of what the Agency has demonstrated to be feasible. 131 The only materials that EPA
presents in support of feasibility are several press articles claiming 'transit buses show BEVs are
capable of operating more than 10 million miles and over 30 years of normal service,' and that
the Department of Energy has set a durability target for HD FCEVs as part of DOE-sponsored
research program to develop a one-off demonstrator vehicles. 132 The sources do not adequately
support the Agency's claims that its proposed ZEV useful life and durability requirements are
feasible for the following reasons:
1. The articles that EPA cites are not controlled studies. Rather, EPA provides a collection of
press releases from manufacturers and magazine articles, which are intended to sell vehicles.
2. The cited articles only focus on city buses, which are prime candidates for electrification in
light of their controlled and predictable charging practices. These vehicles should be expected to
have better durability than other ZEV applications, since their loads are light, their total energy
throughput is small in comparison to Class 8 vehicles, and they will not be exposed to aging
factors like high charge rates.
3. The cited articles mostly focus on the length of the warranty: 12 years in these cases.
However, since they are press pieces, they are presented in brief and do not focus on the
limitations of the warrantees. Many warrantees expressly limit the number of cycles or the total
energy throughput the battery is guaranteed for, and these limits are often not in line with EPA's
proposals. The articles do not even provide a mileage limit— which, in any case, would not
translate from city buses to other ZEV applications that target much higher mileage.
4. One of EPA's cited articles even explicitly states that the battery will need to be replaced at
mid-life, specifically because it will not meet durability targets. 133 As the most expensive
component of a ZEV, the cost of a battery pack must be accounted for in the purchase price of
the ZEV if a replacement is required.
5. The DOE target that EPA cites is a development target for the Super Truck 3 program. This
program is intended to research the feasibility and develop demonstrator vehicles. While the
value of government investment in ZEV research cannot be understated, a research program
target should not be assumed as evidence of feasibility for production vehicles. In addition, no
products have been completed or demonstrated to meet the targets of Super Truck 3 to date; it is
an in-progress research program, but EPA uses it to justify a requirement which will take effect
in MY2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.117-118]
131 We request that EPA keep in mind its statutory directive to ensure that criteria
pollutant emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles reflect the 'greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable' through the application of technology that EPA
1061
-------
determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving
'appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.' 42 U.S.C. §7521(a)(3)(A)(i). Compliance flexibilities
such as the NOx credit program are essential to the achievability of the very stringent
NOx standards that EPA has proposed, thus the considerations in CAA Section
202(a)(3)(A)(i) are relevant to appropriateness of the requirements that EPA has
proposed for credit-generating ZEVs.
132 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,502.
133 See id. (citing 'Idaho's YRT to add Proterra battery-electric buses, charging
infrastructure,' Metro Magazine, (Oct. 25, 2019) ('The performance warranty also
includes a requirement for Proterra to install new batteries on the buses at mid-life to help
ensure the batteries always have plenty of energy to meet their route needs and hedge
against future replacement battery costs.')).
EPA's own sources in fact support the /^feasibility of the Agency's proposals. City bus
manufacturers are offering warrantees, which are limited in terms of cycles, energy throughput,
or mileage—and even in these cases, may require battery pack replacements. It can be inferred
that other applications may struggle even more with EPA's proposed requirements, with higher
loads, greater energy throughput, large accessory loads, and potential exposure to higher charge
rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 118]
The ZEV market is still developing, and factors will emerge bearing on feasibility that EPA has
not considered during its assessment. For example, high-speed charging (megawatt charging or
more) will almost certainly become a market necessity, which will enable further penetration of
ZEVs, but will likely have some effect on battery life that manufacturers cannot predict at the
time of certification. Similarly, the state of hydrogen infrastructure and the quality and purity of
the supplied hydrogen could affect fuel cells in ways that are not well understood today. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 118]
Additionally, EPA's proposal does not consider the widespread adoption of Vehicle-to- Grid
operations (which Daimler Truck has already successfully deployed today) or for auxiliary
power draws in the form of so-called 'ePTO' applications. Both of these technologies could
draw as much or more power from the vehicle as driving will, but EPA's proposals do not
account for them in their calculation of useful life. Any useful life requirement should be based
on total energy throughput, which accurately represents the work done by the powertrain over its
life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.118-119]
Daimler Truck's experience as one of the leaders in ZEV deployment suggests that ZEV
equipment specifications for battery and fuel cells may not match EPA's proposed useful life
targets for credit-generating ZEVs. The Company will share further relevant technical details on
the state of development of BEVs and FCEVs with the EPA in a confidential setting. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 119]
1062
-------
Finally, it would be impossible for manufacturers to validate products to the useful life values
that EPA proposes, especially in the timeframe EPA proposes. Traditional diesel vehicles are
operated twenty-four hours a day, for years ahead of production, to ensure their performance
over EPA's useful life targets. ZEVs cannot be operated as aggressively, since they need
downtime for charging. Using Daimler Truck's most aggressive validation programs, it takes
about twice as long to validate a ZEV to full useful life than it does for a conventional vehicle. It
would take more than 4 years to even accumulate the mileage necessary to validate a single truck
to EPA's proposed useful life, given the charging requirements. EPA proposes its requirements
would take effect as early as MY 2024; products for that year have already been developed and
validated, and there is about one year between now and when certification efforts begin for those
products. Thus, certifying these products to the proposed useful life values in the timeframe
given is not practical or reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 119]
All of these factors must be considered by EPA when it determines whether or not its proposed
durability and useful life requirements for NOx credit-generating ZEVs are in fact
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 119]
Our customers are aware that ZEV products are ideal for some applications, but not appropriate
for others. In their current forms, ZEVs are not well-suited for long-haul, sleeper applications
that have extremely high energy usage, high mileage, and little downtime. Daimler Truck works
with its customers to determine appropriate applications for their needs, and customers'
expectations regarding range, durability, and longevity are well-defined before they invest in the
technology. Typical use cases involve regional pick-up and delivery, short-haul tractors, trucks,
school buses, walk-in-vans, and other applications that generally accumulate fewer miles over
their life. However, EPA is proposing to set 'one size fits all' useful life and durability targets for
manufacturers to generate NOx emission credits from these vehicles, on the assumption that
there will be adequate ZEV replacements for all types of diesel vehicles on the road today. This
assumption fails to account for the wide variety of applications and duty cycles that customers
demand. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.l 19]
It is likely true that an average ZEV will accumulate fewer miles over its life than a diesel-
powered, long-haul truck. EPA argues that therefore it might not be appropriate for it to generate
the same number of NOx credits. EPA makes no attempt, however, to rationalize the same
inconsistency in the diesel market today—namely, that a manufacturer may generate NOx
credits for producing a HD engine used in a short-haul vehicle, and use them to meet emissions
compliance obligations for a HD engine that powers a long-haul vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, pp. 119-120]
Customers will adopt ZEVs in the applications that make business and technical sense for them.
In these applications, ZEVs will replace trucks that would have been conventionally diesel
powered—and therefore, these vehicles deserve to generate NOx credit because their adoption
will lead to actual NOx emissions reductions. Even if a ZEV is not destined to be used in the
most extreme applications that its diesel counterpart would be, it is still being used as a
replacement for a diesel-powered vehicle, and this should be reflected in the crediting provisions
of EPA's regulatory program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 120]
1063
-------
Instead, EPA proposes to impose durability targets that would make ZEVs capable of meeting
the durability of the longest-lived, highest mileage diesels in order to generate NOx emission
credits; this will necessarily add cost. EPA admits as much in the Proposed Rule, explicitly
recommending approaches for meeting battery and fuel cell durability requirements that would
add significant cost to these vehicles: 'For instance, manufacturers could choose to design the
battery or fuel cell in their product to have a larger capacity at the start of the vehicle life and
limit the extent to which the initial capacity is available for use [...] Alternatively, a
manufacturer could choose to include battery or fuel cell maintenance or replacement as part of
critical emission-scheduled maintenance.'134 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.120]
134 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,559.
In other words, EPA's proposal would amount to a requirement that manufacturers:
1. Install a larger battery or fuel cell;
2. Limit the capability of the vehicle by restricting its available energy; and/or
3. Replace the battery or fuel cell during its useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.120]
Each of these actions would necessarily add very significant cost, or reduce the effectiveness of
the vehicle at a given cost point. EPA's proposal is geared towards guaranteeing capability that
fleets might not need, by adding very significant cost or reducing product capability. This serves
to undermine the principles of variability in use and customer needs discussed above, and will
directly reduce the adoption of ZEVs in the market place. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.120]
Regarding EPA's request for comment on whether manufacturers should be required to pay for
battery / fuel cell replacement, 135 ultimately, that cost will be passed on to the customer, either
as a maintenance replacement that they pay for, or an up front cost reflected in the purchase cost
of the vehicle. If manufacturers are obligated to take on liability for replacements, this will add
further uncertainty and risk, making manufacturers less likely to aggressively pursue new
technologies and increase ZEV penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.120]
135 See id. at 17,560.
Ultimately, manufacturers want to build products that customers want to buy. EPA's proposal
threatens to disrupt the supply-demand dynamics of the ZEV marketplace by
effectively impeding manufacturers' ability to design and build products with the capacity,
range, and durability that fleets demand. EPA's proposal, if finalized, would mandate the
optimum product that manufacturers must produce to the detriment of customers' ability to
choose. The likely outcome would be to dampen the ZEV market and impose significant and
unnecessary costs, serving to slow ZEV adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 120-
121]
1064
-------
EPA states its belief that the proposed battery and fuel cell durability requirements for BEVs and
FCEVs would 'help to ensure consistency in product quality as these technologies become
increasingly available in larger portions of the heavy-duty fleet.' 137 As noted above,
manufacturers are sufficiently motivated to ensure product quality. Manufacturers want to sell
the products that fleets want to buy—and with ZEVs, fleet motivations are already well-aligned
with environmental benefits. The requirements of the Proposed Rule would only serve to stifle
market forces, add cost, and ultimately slow adoption of these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.123]
137 Id. at 17,559.
EPA's proposed requirements for generating NOx credits would in fact undermine the notion of
consistency in the ZEV market by specifically creating two different 'classes' of ZEVs. ZEVs
that are produced to generate NOx credits will be subject to much stricter requirements for
longer periods of time, while non-credit-producing ZEVs will be subject to no durability
requirements, and be held to much shorter useful life and warranty periods. This will create two
tiers of ZEVs:
• Credit-producing ZEVs with long, expensive warranty periods, long certified useful lives,
and (as discussed above) oversized batteries which are intentionally capacity-limited
• Non-credit-producing ZEVs with shorter warrantees, shorter useful life periods, and
much more freedom and flexibility regarding their power source—and no EPA-
guaranteed durability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 123]
This will necessarily lead to market confusion and uncertainty. Fleets will not be aware or, nor
be interested in, the certification strategies that manufacturers used to generate credits or not, but
they will know that they can buy cheaper products, or more expensive, less-flexible
products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 123]
Not only will this lead to inconsistency in the marketplace for ZEVs, it will create an uneven
playing field for manufacturers. Manufacturers that produce a significant legacy portfolio of
conventionally-powered vehicles will need to generate NOx credits—since, as we have
demonstrated, EPA's proposed diesel regulations are not feasible. Smaller manufacturers, who
can afford to sell only ZEVs in targeted markets where ZEVs are most likely to be successful,
will not face such challenges and will offer ZEVs without these expensive EPA
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 123]
The upshot will be that manufacturers who are best positioned to develop the long-term solutions
for difficult ZEV applications will be forced to significantly reduce sales in markets that are not
technically ripe for ZEV adoption. Meanwhile, smaller ZEV-only manufacturers will have an
advantage in ZEV-ripe applications, since they won't be burdened by onerous EPA requirements
for longevity, warranty, and useful life. The market impacts of such a situation are dramatic.
EPA will not realize its goals of consistent product quality, and may disrupt the entire market as
no legacy products will be available. Such an uneven approach, which gives so much advantage
to non-traditional OEMs, cannot be tolerated. While Daimler Truck is aggressively pursuing a
1065
-------
ZEV future, we cannot do so competing against companies playing by different rules. EPA must
assure a level playing field. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 123-124]
Daimler Truck has also investigated EPA's proposed test procedure for hydrogen fuel cells and
discussed this proposed test with our fuel cell suppliers, and find similar concerns with the
proposed test procedures. EPA's test procedures must be developed in concert with truck,
battery, and fuel cell manufacturers to adequately capture the degradation modes of these
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 123]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
However, given the uncertainty in the heavy-duty commercial truck segment about the durability
of ZEV high-voltage batteries and fuel cells, we recommend that partial NOx credits be available
for ZEVs with a declared full useful life below the designated full-useful life of the particular
engine service class. This regulatory flexibility is appropriate in light of the emissions reductions
achieved and will be vital to ensuring broader deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
In medium- and heavy-duty applications, BEVs and FCVs may be used in emissions reducing
applications that do not accumulate mileage, such as providing electricity to a job site. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1246-A1, p.6]
GM encourages EPA to exempt ZEVs from the useful life requirement to participate in the ABT
program, or to reform the useful life metrics to better account for innovative emissions reducing
applications of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.6]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
A well-structured credit system is critical to providing compliance flexibility for manufacturers,
and can be accomplished without sacrificing emission reductions or causing backsliding. In the
proposed rule, EPA is seeking to impose battery life requirements in order for NOx credits to
issue. Specifically, for vehicles generating NOx credits, EPA would require that for electric
vehicles ("EVs") useable battery energy must remain at or above 70 percent throughout the
useful life, and for fuel cell vehicles ("FCVs") fuel cell voltage must remain at or above 80
percent throughout the useful life as a requirement of the NOx emission credit calculation. 87
Fed. Reg. at 17814. These remaining useful life percentages are based on the engine useful life
warranty requirements in 40 CFR §§ 1037.102 and .120. EPA should not use the engine useful
life requirements as the basis for battery and fuel cell durability requirements. The modes of
operation of batteries and fuel cells are much different from engines. For example, batteries and
fuel cells will likely be used as back-up power or for peak shaving. These modes of operation are
unique to EVs and FCVs, and the durability of batteries and fuel cells should not be subjected to
the same requirements as engines for purposes of generating NOx credits. Indeed, EPA has
acknowledged that EV and FCV technologies "are in relatively nascent periods of development."
87 Fed. Reg. at 17559. Navistar urges EPA to adopt lower percentages than 70 and 80 percent,
1066
-------
respectively, for the required percentage of battery energy and fuel cell voltage remaining at the
end of the useful life period in order to generate NOx credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-
Al, p. 5]
Organization: NC Commerce
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty, and
useful life requirements to zero-emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment to the business community. Nearly half (49 percent) of U.S. commercial trucks are
now powered by the newest generation, near-zero emissions diesel technology. It is imperative
we do not impede continued progress on this front. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1434]
Organization: North Carolina Assembly House of Representatives, John Faircloth
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty and
useful life requirements to zero emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p. 1]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Under EPA's proposal, to participate in the NOx trading provisions, manufacturers face an
eligibility threshold whereby manufacturers must attest that their vehicles retain 70% useable
battery energy (UBE) for a useful life of 10 years and/or 435,000 miles (and greater after MY
2027), whichever comes first. 140 For reasons elaborated below, the durability requirements
should be removed or substantially amended. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 16]
140 87 Fed. Reg. at 17557-17559.
Tesla shares EPA's interest in building BEV customer assurance and increasing BEV adoption.
Indeed, Tesla maintains overwhelming customer satisfaction with all its vehicles. 141 As drafted,
the durability requirements, however, provide no NOx emission reduction benefit, encourage a
lack of customer transparency, and will harm electric vehicle uptake by imposing substantial new
costs by inviting designs with hidden battery capacity. EPA should eliminate the threshold and
defer any such requirement until at least the Phase 3 GHG regulations when manufacturers have
adequately acquired data from the deployed BEV fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
P-17]
141 J.D. Power, Making Electric Vehicle Leap of Faith is Highly Satisfactory to New
Owners, J.D. Power Finds (Jan . 27, 2022) (Tesla Model 3 and Model Y rank highest);
Consumer Reports, The Most and Least Liked Car Brands: Rankings based on Consumer
Reports' owner satisfaction survey (Feb. 1, 2022) ('This year Tesla again tops our brand-
level satisfaction ranking.')
First, as a threshold to participation the durability requirement provides no additional emissions
benefit. Under potential BEV inclusion in the NOx program, a heavy-duty vehicle would be able
to generate early action credits from MY 2024-27 and post-MY 2027 program credits through
1067
-------
MY 2031. Manufacturers have only a short credit generation window and are incentivized to
ensure a good initial customer experience. Indeed, the entire seven-year crediting period is far
shorter than a proposed BEV useful life period. In other words, when manufacturers cease to
able to generate credits the first deployed BEVs in the program will still not have reached useful
life and data as to durability performance will still be sparse. Furthermore, whatever the retained
UBE in any of these vehicles after 10 years/435,000 miles these deployed heavy-duty BEVs will
still have emitted no NOx over their useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 17]
Second, Tesla is not aware of evidence from any OEM that heavy duty BEV battery packs can
maintain the proposed 70% UBE retention over 10 years for all customer use cases. In the heavy-
duty space, BEVs will borrow directly from light-duty battery chemistry (unlike moving from a
gas light duty vehicle to a heavy- duty diesel). On the light-duty side, few Tesla vehicles (or any
EVs) have been on the road for 10 years (Tesla's oldest Model S vehicles are just reaching such
an age) and/or 435,000 miles. Furthermore, the heavy-duty cycling use case is substantially more
aggressive than the light duty use case (more throughput/day, more fast charging, etc.). Allowing
greater BEV deployment now via NOx program participation without requiring a durability pre-
requisite would empower manufacturers to begin to deploy BEVs without regulatory risk,
accumulate significant durability data, and as noted above, do so without any direct NOx
emission implications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.17]
Third, EPA suggests that manufacturers can overcome the durability threshold by either creating
larger batteries with hidden capacity that can slowly be accessed 142 or by declaring a lower
UBE during testing and certification than is present. 143 Encouraging either of these approached
is fundamentally flawed. BEV customers, just like other heavy-duty customers, will have
guarantees of performance from the manufacturer. In adding new product specifications, the
agency is just adding cost for more performance than what the customer/company wanted in the
vehicle. Further, compelling oversized battery packs will also significantly and unnecessarily
raise BEV prices and dampen deployment of the best NOx reduction technology currently
available. In addition to cost and range, the hidden capacity approach negatively impacts other
product performance metrics (such as range recovered during a fast-charging event), which may
be more important for the heavy-duty application than battery lifetime. To that end, hiding
capacity does not actually change much about the battery itself. All it does it take away utility,
and further NOx emission reductions, at the beginning of life to give customers a manufactured
sense of stability. Allowing full access to the battery (with reliable energy estimation) allows for
maximum utility of deployed products over the entire life - something that is fundamental to the
Tesla customer experience and should be present in good public policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1219-A1, p.17]
142 87 Fed. Reg. at 17559.
143 Id. at fn. 695 (allowing manufacturer to declare UBE lower than measured value in
order account for degradation over useful life.).
1068
-------
Organization: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
Growing the market for HD ZEV is crucial as these emerging technologies, particularly FCEVs,
have promising uses in long distance transportation. However, further study is needed to
determine the long-term performance of these powertrains under the new operating conditions
they will encounter in heavy-duty service. Toyota supports EPA's incorporation of UNECE
durability requirements of 70% usable battery energy (UBE) for BEV and 80% for fuel cell
voltage (FCV) for FCEV. However, Toyota disagrees with the proposal to align BEV and FCEV
useful life periods with those for an engine-based service class to generate NOx emission credits.
BEV and FCEV powertrain durability is impacted by multiple factors, including duty cycles.
Variations in duty cycles are likely to result in variations in ZEV powertrain performance and
longevity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1224-A1, p.2]
We request EPA specify a limited set of duty cycles and/or vehicle use cases, such as drayage,
long haul, regional haul, local delivery, etc., and establish an appropriate durability requirement
for each duty cycle to generate credits. Additionally, while early data from ZEV HD applications
show good durability, and we expect future trends to be similar, the technology is still evolving.
Therefore, we propose EPA begin with a lower durability requirement for the various duty cycles
and reassess in three to five years' time. This will allow both EPA and manufacturers to collect
data on the appropriate durability for ZEV powertrains as the technology evolves and improves.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1224-A1, p.2]
Toyota also finds EPA's potential requirement to provide maintenance free-of-charge as part of
emission-related maintenance to be extremely burdensome. As EPA has stated, the battery or
fuel cell is guaranteed to be one of the highest-cost components as part of a BEV/FCEV.
Powertrain manufacturers and HD OEMs have contractual agreements and warranty
coverage [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1224-A1, p.3] which includes certain parts, performance
standards, and maintenance arrangements. This proposal exceeds those agreements and would be
extremely costly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1224-A1, p.2]
Organization: Volvo Group
EPA should not apply useful life and emissions warranty requirements to ZEVs
The Volvo Group supports the EM A comments regarding useful life and warranty requirements
for ZEVs generating NOx credits ("11. The Proposed Certification and Compliance Provisions
Would be a Barrier to the Adoption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty ZEVs", EMA comments, pg.
106). Further, we are opposed to any application of useful life or emissions warranty to zero-
emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 8]
Battery and fuel cell durability is highly dependent on loading of the power source, depth of
discharge, operation, and environmental factors. Thus, warranty and durability will be highly
variable and may change dependent on a specific application, or even from customer to customer
within an application, based on average load, daily mileage, terrain, climate, etc. As a result, a
standardized determination of durability is not feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p.
8]
1069
-------
Additionally, the Volvo Group does not have sufficient in-use data to determine what battery or
fuel cell state of health (SOH) is achievable at the current 435,000-mile useful life, let alone at
the increased 600,000- and 800,000-mile proposed values. Nor do we expect to have this data
available for approximately five to eight years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 8]
As a result, we urge EPA not to apply useful life criteria to zero-emission vehicles. Barring
EPA's acceptance of this request, EPA must work with manufacturers to evaluate actual in-use
durability achievements prior to setting any level of useful life or required emissions
warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Several commenters provided perspectives on the proposed useful and warranty periods, as well
as the proposed requirements for battery and fuel cell performance over the useful life period
(referred to as "durability requirements" in the proposal).39 Commenters supporting the
proposed requirements stated that the proposal would provide assurance to owners and operators
that ZEVs are designed to be as durable as conventional vehicles, as well as ensure real-world
emissions reductions. They further stated that durable ZEVs are necessary to ensure success of
the technologies and support robust secondary market since some fleets only buy second market
vehicles. Commenters suggested that EPA require the same durability demonstration process for
all ZEVs, regardless of whether they generate NOx emissions credits, and, in later years of
program, require manufacturers to age/cycle the batteries and/or fuel cells prior to conducting the
proposed multicycle test procedure. One commenter supports EPA adopting the UNCE
percentages for remaining battery useable energy and fuel cell voltage, as proposed, but would
like EPA to start with lower requirements and reassess in three to five years. Other commenters
who didn't specifically support or oppose the proposed requirements suggested simply that EPA
adopt percentages lower than the proposed 70 and 80 for remaining battery useable energy and
fuel cell voltage, respectively. Commenters also stated that EPA should not use engine useful life
periods as the basis for battery or fuel cell useful life since ZEVs are used in different
applications than conventionally fueled vehicles (e.g., supplying power to the grid) and therefore
shouldn't be held to the same requirements as engines for the proposes of generating credits.
Some commenters opposing the proposed useful life and warranty requirements stated that they
are unreasonable. They further argued that EPA should not apply useful life and warranty
requirements to ZEVs, while other commenters suggested that EPA allow partial NOx credits for
useful life less than what's required for particular engine service class. Commenters urged EPA
to consider ZEV applications that do not accumulate mileage when setting useful life
requirements. They noted that the same ZEV powertrain may be used in different vehicle classes,
39 We proposed that manufacturers who choose to generate NOx emission credits from BEVs or FCEVs would
certify to the emission standards, useful life values, and warranty periods of an engine-based primary intended
service class, as specified in proposed 40 CFR 1037.102(b). We further proposed that manufacturers choosing to
generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs would be required to meet battery or fuel cell performance requirements
over the useful life of the vehicle, where throughout useful life, useable battery energy (UBE) would remain at 70
percent or greater and fuel cell voltage (FCV) would remain at 80 percent or greater of the initial value of a BEV or
FCEV, respectively, that was used to generate NOx emissions credits.
1070
-------
and therefore subject to different useful life and warranty requirements. Commenters were
generally concerned with the variety of duty-cycles that HD ZEVs could be used in and how
those different duty-cycles would impact battery and fuel cell durability, or performance over the
useful life period. Commenters opposing the proposed requirements for battery and fuel cell
performance over useful life further argued that the requirements do not provide NOx emission
reduction benefit and could encourage a lack of customer transparency. They also stated that the
proposed requirements could result in larger batteries or hidden battery capacity, these and other
commenters expressed concerns about the proposed requirements adding costs to ZEVs, which
they stated would then decrease ZEV purchases. They noted that based on the variety of use
cases in heavy-duty industry, manufacturers prioritize different characteristics (e.g., ability to
charge quickly vs. longer range driving) and customers should have full access to the battery
with reliable energy estimation. Commenters also argued that there is insufficient data available
to set performance requirements for battery useable energy and fuel cell voltage, and therefore
EPA should allow manufacturers to deploy HD ZEVs without regulatory requirements to acquire
durability data. Finally, commenters stated that EPA's proposal for manufacturers to provide
battery or fuel cell maintenance free of charge as part of emissions-related maintenance is overly
burdensome and would be extremely costly because it would exceed current contracts and
warranty coverage between powertrain manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers.
Response:
As discussed in Section 12.6.1, EPA is not finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers
to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs. Since we are not allowing NOx emissions credits
from ZEVs, we are also not finalizing the proposed useful life and warranty periods, or the
proposed durability requirements for battery and fuel cells to meet certain performance
requirements over the useful life, for ZEVs used to generate NOx emissions credits.
We recognize that one commenter urged EPA to require the same durability demonstration
process for all ZEVs, regardless of whether they generate NOx emissions credits; however, we
did not propose that the testing and performance requirements for battery and fuel cells over the
useful life would apply to all ZEVs and thus are not finalizing such an approach at this time. We
note that the final requirements provide consistent requirements for manufacturers certifying
ZEVs to criteria and GHG emissions standards. We intend to continue to consider the
perspectives included in this comment and the other comments in this Section 12.6.5 when
developing future rulemakings relevant to heavy-duty ZEVs.
12.7 Production volume allowance
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
In the Proposal, EPA discusses "Other Flexibilities Under Consideration" 12 Here, EPA is
considering providing additional flexibilities that will allow for the production of engines with
much higher in-use emissions through the year 2032. These flexibilities would allow over 5% of
heavy-duty trucks to emit NOx and PM at levels 10 times higher than what Option 1 proposes to
1071
-------
take effect in 2031. This flexibility will unnecessarily subject the public, particularly those in
high-risk areas, to additional decades of high NOx emissions and related adverse health effects.
AVE asks EPA to reconsider the offering of these flexibilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1280-A1, p. 6]
12. Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 59 / Monday, March 28, 2022, at 17563
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
As proposed, beginning with MY 2027, more stringent GHG and NOx standards would apply for
all heavy-duty vehicle OEMs. Limited exceptions apply, but most heavy-duty vehicles are
addressed in this rulemaking.65 EPA, however, indicates that they will consider flexibility for
engine manufacturers to certify up to 5 percent of their total production volume to pre-MY 2027
standards where the vehicles involved would be low-volume specialty vocational vehicles such
as fire trucks.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.31]
65 Proposed 40 C.F.R. §1036.5.
66 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,565.
• In addition to such flexibility, EPA should consider additional means to ease regulatory
burdens for smaller OEMs. For example, the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks Low
Volume Exemption allows small OEMs with fewer than 500 average annual vehicle sales
in the state over the past three model to be able to generate ZEV credits, but vehicle sales
do not generate the accompanying ZEV deficits.67
67 13 CCR §§1963- 1963.5(c). See also Definitions 21(e).
• CARB also allowed for exemptions within the Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule for certain
vocations such as for transit agencies, motorcoach, refuse and heavy-haul given the need
for specialized capabilities, along with lower volumes. EPA should consider allowing for
similar, specialized exemptions or extensions in the context of this rulemaking for
applications which will require additional time to cost-effectively control
emissions.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.31]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
• CARB opposes the provisions for 'Other flexibilities under consideration' and
'Production volume allowance for model years 2027 through 2029' as described in pages
17563 through 17565 of the Federal Register. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.2]
U.S. EPA is seeking comments on considering providing additional flexibilities that would allow
manufacturers to certify up to 5 percent of their total production volume of 2027 through 2029
MY medium and heavy HDEs to the current federal pre-MY 2027 engine provisions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.56]
1072
-------
Again, CARB staff opposes U.S. EPA finalizing a flexibility that would allow engine
manufacturers to certify up to 5 percent of their production volume in a given MY in MY 2027
through 2029 medium and heavy HDEs to the current federal standards for the MY. The
justification provided for considering this flexibility is to provide engine and vehicle
manufacturers additional lead time to redesign low sales volume products to accommodate the
technologies needed to meet the proposed more stringent engine emission standards. CARB staff
does not agree with the justification provided by U.S. EPA. CARB staff believes there is enough
lead time between now and 2027 to develop the technologies and overcome any packaging
challenges. Since HDEs last for many years before they are scrapped, these flexibilities together
with the other flexibilities mentioned above could result in significant emissions impacts for
many years to follow creating extreme difficulty for California and other impacted states to
achieve air quality goals. If U.S. EPA decides to move forward with this flexibility, and with the
described restrictions, then CARB staff recommends that those engines emissions should be
offset with ABT emission credits to protect our vulnerable impacted communities. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.56]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA has requested comment on exempting a portion of engines from compliance with its
updated emissions standards by allowing them to instead comply with pre-MY 2027
requirements through MY 2029. Id. at 17,565. That exemption is unnecessary, and EPA should
not adopt it. The Proposal states that EPA is considering an allowance for up to 5% of a
manufacturer's production volume within the Medium HDE or HHDE families that
manufacturers show would be used in low volume, specialty vocational vehicles. Id. The
purported reason for such an allowance would be to provide 'lead time and flexibility to redesign'
those vehicles. Id. EPA's Proposal provides more than adequate lead time to meet requirements
in MY 2027. See Comments of CARB, to be filed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019- 0055 on May
16, 2022. And to the extent that some vehicles present unique design difficulties, manufacturers
can and should generate cleaner engines to compensate for those few nonconforming engines
through the standards' ABT provisions. See Section IV.E, supra (noting likely excess of credits).
But if EPA does adopt an exemption, it should identify the specific vocational categories for
which redesigns will be infeasible, and limit any exemption to those categories alone. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.63]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins also recommends a low-volume legacy engine flexibility for the most challenging
applications. EPA requested comment on a 5% annual sales flexibility to address specialty
vehicle applications. Specifically, Cummins recommends EPA's suggested 5% annual sales cap
for current NOx level engines. Cummins recommends further constraining this flexibility to the
following engines and vehicles: >525 hp engine family sales into any vehicle application or any
engine sales that are directed for installation in the following Part 1037 vehicle categories:
heavy-haul tractors and custom chassis motor homes, concrete mixers, and emergency vehicles.
All those engine and vehicle categories have clear EPA definitions, and most have very low
average annual vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, a 5% of sales cap would be enforceable and
1073
-------
constrained and would lead to a much lower percentage of additional emissions inventory. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
The credit program that EPA proposes is not, however, sufficiently flexible to allow
manufacturers to spread their investments and their limited development resources adequately.
Under EPA's proposal (and in concert with EPA's other proposals), regardless of a
manufacturer's credit balance, they will be required to implement, in MY 2027:
• Emissions systems with a maximum family emission limit (FEL) cap of 0.15 g/hp-hr
NOx. o It should be assumed most engines today, regardless of their certification values,
could not be certified with an FEL cap of 0.15 g/hp-hr NOx, or manufacturers would do
so to generate credit under the existing programs.
• New closed crankcase ventilation systems.
o This will require, in some cases, dramatic and expensive redesign efforts, up to
and including changes to the casting of the engine blocks
• New OBD and inducement requirements.
o This will require significant software development, and may include changes to
vehicle to display signals that EPA envisions.
• New useful life requirements.
o This could require the redesign of critical emissions relevant components for
greater longevity.
• New standards for criteria pollutants besides NOx.
• Many other requirements that could require development beyond the proposed low-NOx
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.84]
So while manufacturers may use NOx credits to reduce the NOx FELs that they must certify to
in later model years, they are still required to engage in expensive and time-consuming engine
development programs to meet all of the other, non-NOx requirements. In fact, developing new
engines that meet all of the above standards—and then, some years later, developing again to
further reduce NOx—is very likely to be more expensive than a single development step without
any NOx credits. In effect, such an approach creates an 'extra step,' which Daimler Truck
believes is not cost effective or beneficial to the manufacturers or the environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.84]
What manufacturers need is a program that will enable them to carry over some of their existing
MY 2026 engines and vehicles entirely into MY 2027 and beyond, at least for a few years. This
is necessary so that manufacturers can adequately manage their investments, and prioritize
technology adoption in the applications that make the most sense—during the transition to new
UL NOx technologies, but more importantly, during the transition to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.84]
For example, manufacturers may decide that certain classes are ripe for ZEV adoption: school
buses, walk-in vans, etc. A manufacturer may wish to subsidize small volumes of existing diesel
engines using NOx credits to support these applications with the intention to never develop a
1074
-------
next-generation UL NOx engine for these applications, but rather, to ramp up ZEV penetration in
these applications and obviate the need for diesels in these categories altogether. EPA's proposal
does not allow this approach, since manufacturers would be required to develop new engines,
with new reduced emissions, new closed-crankcase architectures, longer useful life periods, etc.
Under EPA's proposal, manufacturers would be required to engage in a significant, expensive
development program regardless of their NOx credit positions. This is money that could be better
spent on enabling those ZEV platforms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.84-85]
Similarly, EPA's proposal prevents manufacturers from delaying engine development programs
for the purposes of spreading development costs, and managing their human and capital
resources. If a manufacturer wished to delay development for a high-horsepower, low-volume,
vocational application to manage this R&D investment wisely, he may have sufficient NOx
credits to do so, but EPA's other rules prevent such a strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.85]
Effectively, EPA's proposed NOx credit strategy only serves to manage risk associated with very
low NOx levels. It does not allow a manufacturer to adequately manage its investment, or to
prioritize technology adoption—since manufacturers will have to engage in costly development
and validation for all platforms for MY2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.85]
EPA should consider alternate credit program options that can be used to truly manage
investment and to prioritize appropriate applications by allowing manufacturers to leverage
credits to stage development programs. CARB has developed similar (although overly
complicated) provisions in its Omnibus rule by providing a certification path for so called
'legacy engines,' and additionally by providing an alternative certification path for emergency
vehicles and for low-volume high horsepower engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
p.85]
To enable manufacturer flexibility, EPA must delay the implementation of the other standards in
the Proposed Rule for engines that are certified using NOx credits, at least for a transitional
period. Delaying such standards to MY 2031 for engines that use NOx credits would be a
reasonable compromise and would allow manufacturers to plan to transition all of their products
to UL NOx in a manageable and affordable fashion, or, where possible, transition some of them
straight to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.85]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
The current program has not resulted in the emissions reductions originally promised, owing in
large part to shortcomings in the certification procedures on the books today. These are detailed
extensively in the NPRM in the agency's justifications for the low-load cycle, increases in
warranty and useful life, and updates to the off-cycle program, and more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 33]
As detailed in the section on credit provisions (Section IV.D), particularly the transitional credit
program, there is no need for additional flexibility for the dirty diesel engines held to today's
weak standards. In fact, there is already far too much flexibility in the proposal which
1075
-------
undermines the standards and will eat away at the proposed reductions in damaging NOx
emissions this rule is purported to target. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 33]
It is abhorrent that EPA would consider further weakening the rule by giving credits to legacy
engines certified to 20-year-old standards. Furthermore, the engines found in these vehicles are
generally produced by the same large-volume manufacturers that are found in the highest
mileage vehicles, Class 8 tractors. In fact, the largest engine manufacturer, Cummins, boasts of
one of the identified applications that "more firefighting and EMS professionals depend on
Cummins than any other diesel engine." 137 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 33 - 34]
137. https://www.cummins.com/engine-applications/fire-and-emergency
The proposed 5 percent exemption is patently absurd—from Cummins alone, such a target could
mean that over 10,000 vehicles could be exempted from the proposed standards. Factor in
Detroit Diesel and Ford engines, two other high-volume vocational engine manufacturers, and
that would mean 20,000 vehicles in 2027-2029 could be exempted at standards that emit nearly 6
times more NOx emissions on the FTP cycle than the already-weak proposed Option 1, a number
that is larger when you consider the differences in off-cycle certification and other protections
which strengthen real-world emissions reductions compared to the current program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 34]
The proposed exemption is so large that these vehicles could easily represent 20-25 percent of
the total NOx emissions from 2027-2029 vehicles. This proposal is as though EPA were creating
a loophole comparable to the glider vehicle provisions it limited in the Phase 2 regulations.
Moreover, because these vehicles are certified to a different crediting process, whose credits are
not eligible to be transferred according to the proposal (87 FR 17553), it is not even clear that
these vehicles will be credited against a manufacturer's annual average requirements, which
means those emissions will not be made up for in gains elsewhere. At least if such engines were
credited against EPA's already too-high FELs, there would be some attempt at recovering those
lost emissions! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 34]
Finally, 100 percent of diesel engines certified since 2019 have been certified at or below the
current average requirement. There is no indication that manufacturers need the added flexibility
provided, and the Omnibus standards in effect in 15 percent of the market for new vehicles
already require engines below the current standard. This argument is further detailed in Section
III.B.6.1 above, in the technical justification opposing a high FEL. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 34]
Even under the limited low-volume constraints supposed by EPA, it is possible to achieve a
standard much reduced from the current levels, and EPA should eliminate any exemption to such
reductions in its finalization of the rule, particularly those that would further the unprotective
standards currently on the books. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 34]
1076
-------
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
NACAA does not support the inclusion of manufacturer production volume allowances for
specialty vocational products or any other engine categories.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1232-
Al, p. 14]
Another flexibility on which EPA seeks comment is production volume allowances for MY 2027
through 2029 medium HD engines and heavy HD engines. Based on EPA's description of this
option manufacturers would be allowed to continue to certify up to 5 percent of their total
production volume of medium and heavy HD diesel engines in each of MYs 2027 through 2029
to "pre-MY 2027 engine provisions"; that is, these engines would be exempt from the new
emission standards and allowed to continue to comply with the 21-year-old 200-mg NOx
standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 14]
EPA says this exemption from the new emission standards for the first three MYs "may" be
necessary to allow manufacturers lead time and flexibility to redesign some low sales volume
specialty vocational products to accommodate the technologies needed to meet the new emission
standards. EPA offers as its only example fire trucks, for which, the agency contends, not being
subject to the new emission standards during the first three MYs would be "appropriate" because
of potential challenges to engine, chassis and body manufacturers of packaging new emission
controls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 14]
Not only is this flexibility unwarranted, it would undermine the effectiveness of the rule to
reduce emissions and protect public health. Allowing 5 percent of a manufacturers' total
production volume of HD engines to meet a 200-mg/hp-hr NOx standard means that one in every
20 engines would be allowed to emit NOx at a level that is an order of magnitude higher than the
standard NACAA recommends for MYs 2027-2029, with excess emissions of 180 mg/hp-hr, and
to do so with no requirement for mitigating the increased emissions. The result would be an
inventory increase of up to 45 percent for each applicable model year's production from a
manufacturer with products in a single useful life and power rating category. However the excess
NOx inventory could be even greater if a manufacturer elects to satisfy the 95 percent of
production with low-rated power and short-useful-life engines while using the 5-percent
allowance for engines with a much longer useful life and higher rated power output (such as the
large engines that are typically used in EPA's own example). Useful life can vary by a factor of
three or four and power rating by a factor of two or three, depending on the details of the engine
models involved, but could multiply the excess NOx inventory beyond the 45-percent simplest
case above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 14]
The agency also asks whether an exemption from the new emission standards for an interim
period should be "limited to specific vocational vehicle regulatory subcategories and the engines
used in them" or allowed for others as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 14]
The only fair evaluation of the emissions impact of this "flexibility" is one based on the
assumption that manufacturers will use their full 5-percent allowance and apply the allowance to
an engine mix of the largest, longest-lived engines. Assuming actual sales will be less than the
1077
-------
allowed 5 percent would be highly imprudent and imperil the NOx reduction program. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 14]
EPA should not exempt any engines from complying with the adopted new emission standards
for any amount of time and, therefore, should not adopt a production volume allowance
option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 15]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR supports the following EMA comment: EPA has also requested comment on a 5%
annual sales flexibility to address specialty vehicle applications. In that regard, EMA
recommends a low-volume 'legacy engine' flexibility provision that a manufacturer could utilize
for the most challenging applications. Specifically, EMA recommends that the final rule provide
that a manufacturer may sell US 10-compliant engines in volumes up to 5% of their total annual
sales volume in the same primary intended service class for a period of 3 years. EMA
recommends further limiting this flexibility provision to include only engines that have low
annual average miles traveled, thereby minimizing the emissions inventory consequences of this
flexibility allowance. This can be achieved by allowing legacy engine sales only from the
following engine and vehicle applications:
1) >525 hp engine family sales into any vehicle application [PACCAR respectfully submits that
this lower threshold should be 510 hp]; and
2) any engine sales that are directed for installation in the following 40 CFR Part 1037 vehicle
categories: heavy-haul tractors, custom chassis motor homes, concrete mixers, and emergency
vehicles. All those engine and vehicle categories have very low average annual vehicle miles
traveled. EMA supports EPA's proposal to allow for limited sales of previous-Tier engines
according to the limitations as described. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.39]
EMA Comments at 132. PACCAR also proposes to add the following provision to those above:
3) Low Volume highly specialized vocational applications that will not support the installation of
these Low NOx systems due to severe packaging constraints. These applications are to be
reviewed and approved by EPA on a case by case basis.' This would protect manufacturers from
unforeseen issues that might arise with very specialized products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.39]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA also has requested comment on a 5% annual sales flexibility to address specialty vehicle
applications. In that regard, EMA recommends a low-volume "legacy engine" flexibility
provision that a manufacturer could utilize for the most challenging applications. Specifically,
EMA recommends that the final rule provide that a manufacturer may sell US 10-compliant
engines in volumes up to 5% of their total annual sales volume in the same primary intended
service class for a period of 3 years. EMA recommends further limiting this flexibility provision
to include only engines that have low annual average miles traveled, thereby minimizing the
1078
-------
emissions inventory consequences of this flexibility allowance. This can be achieved by allowing
legacy engine sales only from the following engine and vehicle applications: 1) >525 hp engine
family sales into any vehicle application; and 2) any engine sales that are directed for installation
in the following 40 CFR Part 1037 vehicle categories: heavy-haul tractors, custom chassis motor
homes, concrete mixers, and emergency vehicles. All of those engine and vehicle categories have
very low average annual vehicle miles traveled. EMA also supports EPA's proposal to allow for
limited sales of previous-Tier engines according to the limitations as described. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 135]
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group appreciates the following EPA specialty vocational comments and requests
that EPA consider a specialty vehicle definition that considers applications where aftertreatment
is mounted off the frame rails. "We are considering a flexibility allowing engine manufacturers,
for model years 2027 through 2029 only, to certify up to 5 percent of their total production
volume of heavy-duty highway compression-ignition (CI) engines in a given model year to the
current, pre-MY 2027 engine provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A. The allowance we are
considering would be limited to Medium HDE (Heavy Duty Engine) or Heavy HDE engine
families that manufacturers show would be used in low volume, specialty vocational vehicles."
(87 FR at p. 17563.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
In addition to the technical program elements included in Options 1 and 2 of the proposal, EPA
is taking comment on several "other flexibilities under consideration", including production
volume allowances. As described in the proposed rule, this provision would allow engine
manufacturers, for model years 2027 through 2029 only, to certify up to 5 percent of their total
production volume at pre-MY 2027 engine standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p.
4]
EPA should not finalize the production volume allowance described in this proposal without
further justification. Finalizing this provision would allow manufacturers to produce engines that
emit significantly more NOx (as much as five times more) for MY's 2027 through 2029, greatly
reducing the benefits of the proposed standards. These provisions are intended to allow
manufacturers time to understand and address in-use deterioration of engines; however, due to
the importance of the NOx emission reductions from this rulemaking, EPA should work with
manufactures to ensure these issues are analyzed and addressed prior to the implementation of
this rule in MY 2027 wherever possible. If EPA intends to finalize any volume allowance
provision, it must provide strong technical justification for each engine category subject to the
provision. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 4]
EPA Summary and Response
See preamble Section IV.G for EPA's summary and response to comments on the request for
comment on a potential flexibility to allow engine manufacturers, for model years 2027 through
2029 only, to certify up to 5 percent of their total production volume of heavy-duty highway CI
1079
-------
engines in a given model year to the currently existing, pre-MY 2027 engine provisions of 40
CFR part 86, subpart A.
13 This section is Blank
14 This Section is Blank
15 This Section is Blank
16 General engine and vehicle testing provisions under 40
CFR parts 1065 and 1066
16.1 Measuring catalyst temperature for vanadium-based SCR
systems
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA is proposing to codify EPA Guidance CD-16-09 "Certification of Diesel Engines Equipped
with Vanadium-Based SCR Catalyst" by adding requirements to the standard-setting parts for
on- and off-highway engines to prevent vanadium sublimation and to protect the catalyst from
high temperatures. The proposal also adds a procedure for identifying the sublimation threshold
temperature, specified in §§1065.1113 through 1065.1121. Cummins supports the intent of those
proposed additions, but we recommend the following improvements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 18]
First, it is possible for vanadium-based catalyst wash-coat materials to mechanically shear from
the substrate and result in a false-positive detection of sublimated vanadium, when in fact it was
only physically transported in the solid phase within the experimental setup. Cummins
recommends that the test procedures should be modified to either prevent such a false-positive
detection, or EPA should allow for such false-positive results to be voided if physical transport
of solid phase vanadium is known to have occurred. To minimize shear stress differences
between different lab-to-lab experimental setups, EPA should restrict the allowable sample
length to be 2 - 3 inches, instead of EPA's proposed 1-3 inches. At a constant space velocity,
restricting the sample length to 2 - 3 inches decreases the shear stress differences by a factor of
two, versus EPA's proposed 1-3 inch specification. Cummins supports EPA's prescribed test
procedure space velocity of 35 k/h, but Cummins recommends that the detection limit unit of
measure should be a gaseous sample volume normalized concentration, in (J,g/m3, not a solid
sample mass normalized concentration (e.g., pg/g) that includes the mass of the recovered
alumina, a portion of the ground quartz tube and the quartz wool. Combining the constant space
1080
-------
velocity requirement with Cummins' recommended [J,g/m3 limit of detection unit of measure
unambiguously specifies the procedure and detection limit. In contrast, the total mass-based
approach could lead to false negatives if the denominator is sufficiently large, due to a large
fraction of the mass merely being part of the experimental setup. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 18]
Cummins also requests the addition of an option in Part 1065 for manufacturers to request EPA
approval of alternative vanadium sublimation test procedures that involve a system-level test
with the complete aftertreatment system and potentially involve higher exhaust temperatures to
demonstrate durability and feasibility under representative conditions. We request EPA
clarification on whether §1065.10(c)(1) already clearly provides that option, or whether it would
be more appropriate for EPA to specify that alternative test procedures may be approved by EPA
in advance, in the chapeau paragraph of §1065.1113. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.
18]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In particular, we support: EPA's continued support of innovation and flexibility regarding the
potential use of different catalysts in SCR processes, including vanadium-based SCR catalysts;
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 3]
In the proposed rule, EPA is proposing to codify the vanadium SCR requirements currently
included in EPA's 2016 guidance (CD 1609). The 2016 guidance clarified EPA's expectations
for manufacturers using vanadium-based SCR catalysts and summarized EPA's
recommendations on steps manufacturers could take to protect against excessive loss of
vanadium from these SCR systems. Navistar supports EPA's proposal to codify the 2016
guidance as regulatory requirements for using vanadium-based SCR catalysts. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17626. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA is proposing to codify the Vanadium SCR requirements currently included in Guidance CD
1609. The proposed provisions of §§ 1065.1113 through 1065.1121 are reflective of that long-
standing guidance, and provide reasonable requirements related to the determination of
sublimation temperatures for the catalyst formulations proposed for certification. Manufacturers
would be required to demonstrate that exhaust gas temperatures would not exceed the critical
threshold temperatures, and that the system has the capability to detect upstream failures that
might lead to high exhaust temperature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 118]
EMA supports the proposed Vanadium SCR provisions, as applicable to HDOH, non-road and
other market sectors. Those catalysts have been shown to be effective for NOx reduction and
may be a key part of OEM strategies to comply with stringent tailpipe emissions requirements.
The proposal provides clear methodologies to validate and certify a highly effective SCR
catalyst. That said, EMA requests the addition of a provision in Part 1065 that would allow
manufacturers to request EPA approval for alternative test procedures. For example, a
manufacturer could propose a system-level test with the complete aftertreatment assembly, and
1081
-------
potentially include higher exhaust temperatures to demonstrate representative durability and
feasibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 118]
EPA Summary and Response
Three commenters provided perspectives on the proposed requirements to prevent vanadium
sublimation and to protect the catalyst from high temperatures, as well as the proposed procedure
to identify the sublimation threshold temperature for vanadium catalysts. Commenters were
supportive of the proposed requirements, but two commenters suggested some adjustments for
EPA to consider.
Specifically, one commenter suggested that EPA modify the measurement procedure to prevent
detection of vanadium-based catalyst wash-coat materials that are physically transported in the
solid phase within the experimental setup, or allow for results to be voided if physical transport
of solid phase vanadium is known to have occurred. The commenter further stated that EPA
should restrict the allowable sample length to be 2 - 3 inches, instead of 1 - 3 inches as
proposed; the commenter stated that doing so would minimize sheer stress differences between
lab environments. The commenter also stated that the detection limit unit of measure should be a
gaseous sample volume normalized concentration, in (J,g/m3, not a solid sample mass normalized
concentration (e.g., pg/g); they stated that the total mass-based approach could lead to false
negatives if the denominator is sufficiently large. Finally, two commenters asked EPA to clarify
whether the proposal allows manufacturers to request EPA approval of alternative vanadium
sublimation test procedures.
EPA agrees with commenters that the proposed requirements for vanadium-based SCR catalysts
provide important clarity for manufacturers who wish to use this type of SCR catalyst. We agree
that physical transport of solid phase vanadium should be discarded from test results as it is
likely that any solid vanadium present in the capture bed is a result of the test method. While the
loss of vanadium catalyst could result in environmental concerns whether it is due to physical
transport of solid phase or sublimated, any solid vanadium present as a result of the 1065 test
procedure is very likely due to the test method itself. We do note, however, this means that when
EPA is evaluating an ambient air sample of vanadium (e.g., near a construction site where V-
SCR catalysts could be in use), we would collect all inhalable vanadium and consider it relevant
for human health evaluation, regardless of size or indication of whether it was sublimated or
abraded from the catalyst surface. EPA agrees that a 2- to 3-inch sample may help minimize
shear stress differences between lab-to-lab environments; however, loss of sample due to
abrasion or sheer stress is already accounted for in the procedure by measuring titanium in 40
CFR 1065.1115(f). The presence of titanium would be an indication of solid vanadium loss. The
vanadium correction then takes into account the vanadium-to-titanium ratio of the catalyst. We
are also aware that many labs have been testing 1-inch samples for many years and have built up
a database of sample and blank test results based on this sample size. While we understand the
possibility of loss of sample from the core due to sheer stress, we have not received concerns
regarding this from other labs carrying out this testing as abrasion is already accounted for as
described above. Therefore, we are not revising the length from what was proposed in the final
test procedure. EPA agrees that the detection limit unit of measure should be a gaseous sample
volume normalized concentration, rather than solid mass volume, as this will address concerns
with the variable impact of dilution effect based on sample size. We are finalizing a
1082
-------
recommended method detection limit of 15 [j,g/m3 based on a target mass-based method detection
limit of 2 ppm, a 60 g capture bed mass, a 0.0129 L (1" long x 1" diameter core) catalyst volume,
an SV of 35,000, and an 18-hour test duration. We also agree that the units in EPA guidance
document CD-16-09 have been inaccurate and that the units should be in jag instead of pg to
reflect a detection limit of ppm. As described in preamble Section XII, we have clarified that
manufacturers can request EPA approval of alternative vanadium sublimation test procedures as
described in existing 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7) for test procedures in part 1065. Therefore, no
clarification in 40 CFR 1065.1113 is needed.
16.2 Real-time PM corrections based on gravimetric PM filter
measurement
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 1065.190 PM-stabilization and weighing environments for gravimetric analysis.
We support these proposed changes remove the recommendation to measure the static change of
the filter. This test is not typically performed and also not required. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1303-A1, p.5]
EPA Summary and Response
Thank you for your comment.
16.3 NIST-traceability
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 1065.301 Overview and general provisions.
Auto Innovators also supports the proposed changes to this section as they appear to be in line
with revisions previously requested by Auto Innovators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1,
p.5]
EPA Summary and Response
Thank you for your comment.
16.4 Engine mapping
1083
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Numerous revisions are proposed for GEM modeling in Part 1037. GEM powertrain mapping is
an incredibly complex process. To improve the understanding for all, the Agency should provide
step-by-step flow charts of the powertrain mapping procedure for ICE, PHEV, and BEV
powertrains. Flowcharts would greatly clarify the process, reducing confusion, avoiding wasteful
errors, and saving time for both manufactures and the Agency. Similarly, we support the added
regulatory flexibility to test hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles on either an engine dynamometer
or a powertrain dynamometer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 116]
One additional recommendation concerns the engine mapping procedures under
§ 1065.510(b)(5)(ii). The preamble reads: Specifically, our proposed update to 40 CFR
1065.510(b)(5)(ii) would require manufacturers to disable any electronic controls that they report
to EPA as an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that would impact peak torque during
the engine mapping procedure. Yet, in proposed § 1065.510(b)(5)(ii), there is no such revision.
EPA should correct this omission in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 116]
EPA Summary and Response
EPA agrees with the commentor that the addition of a flow chart to 40 CFR 1037.550 will be
useful, but not a necessity at this time, thus we will propose a flow chart in a future rulemaking.
Regarding the requirement to disable any electronic controls reported as AECDs that would
impact peak torque during the engine mapping procedure, the preamble inadvertently cited the
wrong paragraph in 1065.510. This update was added to proposed 40 CFR 1065.510(a), not
proposed 40 CFR 1065.510(b)(5)(ii) and is included in the final rule.
16.5 Miscellaneous engine testing amendments
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the proposal to add requirements of zero and span verification frequency,
and range, zero, and span verification and following actions for 'PEMS gas analyzers used to
determine bin emission values' in 1065.935(d)(4)(ii) and 1065.935(g)(5), respectively. However,
CARB staff strongly recommends U.S. EPA to add language requiring email notification to the
agencies (U.S. EPA and CARB) prior to any retests due to range, zero, and/or span invalidation,
so that CARB and U.S. EPA staff know about the retest, including the reasons for the retest.
With that notification, U.S. EPA and CARB staff can decide to ask for data of the invalidated
test and the retest in a timely manner. Otherwise, we would not see any data of the invalidated
test, which are not needed to be submitted unless U.S. EPA or CARB staff asks, and would only
have the retest results when they submit their in-use testing report and data for their assigned
engine families, which could be more than a year before U.S. EPA or CARB staff would even
know about it as it should be described that a retest had to be done in the comment field of the
1084
-------
report as in 1036.430, Reporting requirements. In addition, regarding zero- and span-drift
verification in 1065.935(g)(5)(iii), CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA to clarify the
consequences when PEMS gas analyzers (used to determine bin emission values) do not meet
zero- and/or span-drift criteria. CARB staff assumes all the test data would be considered invalid
while drift criteria are not met, but it is not clearly stated in paragraph 1065.935(g)(5)(iii). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 129-130]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
1065.93 5(g)(4)(ii)
Invalidation criteria should be as follows: Invalidate any data that does not meet the drift
criterion in § 1065.550. For HC, invalidate any data if the difference the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific HC emission values are not within ±10 % of the
uncorrected results or the applicable standard, whichever is greater. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p.24]
1065.93 5(g)(5)(ii)
Invalidation criteria should be as follows: For HC, invalidate data if the difference between the
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific HC emission values are not within ±10 % of the
uncorrected results or the applicable standard, whichever is greater. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p.24]
Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
Section 1065.650 - Emission calculations OPEI is seeking clarification, if the new parts will also
affect the sub calculations before reaching the reporting value. Additionally, if a reporting value
is negative will it be set to zero? (E.g. this can happen during the THC correction on CH4 - Sub
calculation.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.4]
EPA Summary and Response
40 CFR 1065.935
One commentor supports the proposal to add requirements of zero and span verification
frequency, and range, zero, and span verification and following actions for 'PEMS gas analyzers
used to determine bin emission values' in 1065.935(d)(4)(ii) and 1065.935(g)(5), respectively.
EPA thanks you for your comment.
One commentor strongly recommends EPA add language requiring email notification to the
agencies (EPA and CARB) prior to any retests due to range, zero, and/or span invalidation, so
that CARB and EPA staff know about the retest, including the reasons for the retest. EPA does
not agree with the commentor. Tests are occasionally voided due to equipment issues and EPA
does not need the manufacturer to notify EPA of a voided test prior to receiving the data from the
1085
-------
"official" in-use test; EPA receiving information about the voided tests at the same time as
receiving the "official" in-use test data is sufficient.
One commentor recommends EPA to clarify in 40 CFR 1065.935(g)(5)(iii) the consequences
when PEMS gas analyzers (used to determine bin emission values) do not meet zero- and/or
span-drift criteria. The commentor assumes all the test data would be considered invalid while
drift criteria are not met. EPA agrees with the commentor and has revised 40 CFR
1065.93 5(g)(5)(iii) to invalidate data for the entire shift-day if any of the NOx analyzer drift
limits in paragraphs 1065.935(g)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) are exceeded. This intent was implied in the
changes proposed to 40 CFR 1065.935(g)(5)(iii) and the revision for the final rule makes this
clear.
1065.93 5(g)(4)(ii)
One commentor stated that the invalidation criteria should be "... not within ±10 % of the
uncorrected results or the applicable standard, whichever is greater." EPA agrees with the
commentor as the intent is to invalidate the data where the difference between the corrected and
uncorrected result is greater than 10 %. Therefore, we have added "not" to 40 CFR
1065.93 5(g)(4)(ii).
1065.93 5(g)(5)(ii)
One commentor stated that the invalidation criteria should be "... not within ±10 % of the
uncorrected results or the applicable standard, whichever is greater." EPA agrees with the
commentor as the intent is to invalidate the data where the difference between the corrected and
uncorrected result is greater than 10 %. Therefore, we have added "not" to 40 CFR
1065.93 5(g)(5)(ii).
40 CFR 1065.650(a)
One commentor requested clarification on if the new sentences added to paragraph (a) of
1065.650 will affect the sub calculated value prior to calculating the reporting value. EPA would
note that negative values resulting from sub calculations should never be set to zero unless
specified elsewhere in 40 CFR part 1065 or the standard setting parts. The additional language
added to paragraph (a) of 40 CFR 1065.650(a) makes it clear that negative values should be
carried forward until the final emission calculation, with the exception of the chemical balance
where values may need to be set to zero to obtain convergence. 40 CFR 1065.650(g) then make
it clear that any negative mass or mass rates should be set to zero for calculating brake-specific
emissions, but should be left negative for drift validation.
One commentor asked: If a reporting value is negative, will it be set to zero? (e.g., this can
happen during the THC correction on CFU - Sub calculation). EPA is not clear on exactly what
the commentor's example is intending to cover. In regards to a reporting value for compliance
with an emission standard, this is governed by 40 CFR 1065.650(g) where it states "If a
measured mass (or mass rate) is negative, set it to zero for calculating composite brake-specific
emissions, but leave it unchanged for drift validation."
1086
-------
16.6 Other comments on general engine and vehicle testing
provisions under 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066
Comments by Organizations
Organization: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education & Research
Council (PERC)
We suggest the following modifications to the Proposed Option 1:
• 4. Fuel Quality Changes to Propane: We urge the agency to modify the butanes
standard for propane as detailed at Part 1065.720.12 Table 1 includes a butanes standard
at a maximum value of 0.05 m3/m3 as per ASTM D2163.13 We ask that the maximum
value for butanes is revised to 0.1 m3/m3. There are multiple advantages presented with a
modified butanes maximum. First, it slightly lowers the vapor pressure for propane,
which makes it more conducive to direct liquid injection. Additionally, butane has a
lower light off temperature and therefore this will further aid in mitigating Carbon
Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbon (HC) emissions from propane vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1263-A1, p.3]
12 40 C.F.R. 1065.720(a) (2022); see also supra note 1, at 17867.
13 40 C.F.R. 1065.720(a) (2022).
EPA Summary and Response
EPA disagrees with NPGA and PERC. We did not propose a change to the butane value in 40
CFR 1065.720. While the commentor states that there are multiple advantages to increasing the
maximum butane limit on the certification fuel, NPGA and PERC did not provide any data on
what effect this change would have on the stringency of the emission standards other than stating
it would help lower CO and HC emissions. Further, they did not provide any data showing what
the typical butane values are of "in-use" fuels and how these values compare to the current
certification fuel butane content and their requesting new butane maximum. If the intent of their
change is to help reduce CO and HC, then the change in certification fuels also needs to translate
to real world butane values at the pump to ensure real world emission reductions.
Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
Section 1065.720 - Liquefied petroleum gas Today's Section 1065.720 is named 'Liquefied
petroleum gas'. With the Amendment package, it is intended to rename the section to 'Data
requirements'. Section 1065.695 is currently also named 'Data requirements'. OPEI believes the
renaming of Section 1065.720 may be an oversight (same as 1065.695) and recommends no
change to Section 1065.720 title - 'Liquefied petroleum gas'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-
Al, p.4]
1087
-------
EPA Summary and Response
EPA agrees with the commentor. We did not intend to propose to change the title of section
1065.720 to "Data Requirements". This was a publication error in the proposed rule amendatory
text and we are not finalizing a change to the title in the final rule. Section 1065.720 will
continue to be titled "Liquefied petroleum gas."
17 Rulemaking process, analysis, and legal requirements
17.1 Rulemaking Procedures for Small Businesses
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic and related supply-chain shortages, inflation, and strong
freight volumes have resulted in high new and used CMV prices for now and the foreseeable
future. 11 Given that the majority of ATD members are small businesses and that almost all
(98%) of U.S. fleet owners are small businesses, current and foreseeable market conditions are
especially concerning. Thus, when evaluating the potentially dramatic market impacts of its NOx
proposal, it is incumbent upon EPA to fully evaluate potential impacts on small business
dealerships and their small business customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 4]
11. Equipment Radar, New & Used Medium & Heavy-Duty Truck Prices Will Likely Continue
Rising Amid Components Shortages (Sept.2021); Fleet Equipment, Commercial Vehicle
Industry Faces An 'Everything' Shortage (Dec. 2021).
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• Impacts on the 97% of trucking companies classified as small business must be
considered. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Moreover, it can be reasonably inferred that the EPA's estimated economic impact
underestimates how the rule will affect small businesses. ... Also, while the proposed rule did
not predict a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, this analysis only
considered manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles to be affected. There are a wide range of other
entities, a substantial number of them small businesses, that will also be impacted. Nearly all
stakeholders in the supply chain use heavy-duty trucks to deliver their products to their
customers, be it from ports, rail yards, warehouses, or intermodal transportation facilities. The
1088
-------
EPA's economic analysis in its final rule should reflect the entire universe of affected entities so
the full economic impact of this regulation can be appreciated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1279-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
Furthermore, OOIDA disagrees with EPA's certification that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
As currently proposed, both option 1 and option 2 introduced in the NPRM fail to provide
adequate production timelines to ensure vehicle affordability for motor carriers or other truck
buyers. During an EPA Virtual Public Hearing on the NPRM held in April, the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association stated, "EPA's proposed rule is not technologically feasible, cost-
effective or customer acceptable."2 This and other initial responses from heavy-duty truck
manufacturers indicate that EPA has not learned from previous rulemakings and that this
proposal will undoubtedly lead to higher costs for truckers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-
Al, p.3]
2 https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-04/hd-2027-stds-public-hearing-transcript-
2022-04-12-dayl.pdf
In recent years, the trucking industry has been subjected to numerous federal and state
regulations relating to environmental emissions. Some of these standards were necessary and
have been helpful in reducing NOx vehicle emissions by as much as 98%. However, many were
short-sighted and have been difficult to implement, especially for smaller motor carriers. The
influx of regulations has contributed to higher costs for new trucks with the average price
increasing almost 49 percent since 2001.3 Meanwhile, the cost of used trucks has remained
relatively the same. In some cases, these dramatic cost increases can limit the environmental
benefits of the regulations by forcing truckers to maintain older vehicles longer than they
otherwise would or compelling truckers to purchase used vehicles. On average, OOIDA
members have stated that emissions and environmental equipment represented approximately
$5,700 of their annual maintenance costs.4 53 percent of OOIDA members indicated they did not
get a return on investment for installing and using environmental/emissions technologies such as
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) / selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems and diesel
particulate filters (DPF).5 For small carriers operating on the slimmest of margins, these costs
can be a major deterrent to purchasing newer, cleaner trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-
Al, pp.3-4]
3 Owner-Operator Member Profile Survey 2020, OOIDA Foundation (2020).
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
1089
-------
Small-business truckers also remember EPA's track record from previous emissions
rulemakings. Dating back to the 1970's, the agency has a history of well-intentioned attempts at
reducing air pollutants and increasing fuel efficiency. However, the unrealistic expectations of
engine manufacturers' capabilities, the underestimation of costs, the failure to anticipate risk
aversion from buyers, and a lack of understanding about the trucking industry have undermined
the environmental goals of the agency as well as intensified the mistrust of the agency.6 In order
to avoid similar results, the NOx proposal must be amended to achieve the desired reduction in
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.4]
6 EPA's Myopic Cost Benefit Analysis, OOIDA Foundation (2014).
Any final rulemaking must better prioritize affordability for owner-operators drivers who will be
required to purchase and install new equipment. This rulemaking must ensure that drivers and
carriers who are investing in new vehicles are getting a fair deal and will not be constantly
sidelined from their profession due to costly and repeated breakdowns. OOIDA members have
encountered various problems with emissions systems which have had a dramatic impact on their
business. These challenges include expensive visits to dealers, lost productivity, poor efficiency,
and towing costs that can quickly escalate into the tens of thousands of dollars. For small
carriers, hefty maintenance expenses coupled with the loss of income resulting from downed
trucks, can severely jeopardize their ability to remain viable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-
Al, p.4]
For these reasons, EPA must conduct a more comprehensive RFA analysis that addresses the
impact the Rule would have upon small-business vehicle purchasers, including OOIDA
members, whom EPA has acknowledged are integral stakeholders in this rulemaking
proceeding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
While EPA has included a Regulatory Flexibility Act certification in the NPRM (id. at 17640), it
has only addressed the impact the Rule would have on certain small-business manufacturers. The
certification did not address the impact the Rule would have on small-business truckers or
owner-operators such as OOIDA's members. Therefore, OOIDA requests that the EPA comply
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-611, by alleviating the detrimental impact the
Rule will have on OOIDA's small-business independent owner-operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1266-A1, p.8]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. § 601, et seq. (1980), requires an agency issuing
a final rule to either conduct "an analysis of the rule's impact on small businesses," Nat'l Tel.
Co-op. Ass'n v. F.C.C., 563 F.3d 536, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2009), or to "certify" that there will be "no
impact for those small businesses that are subject to the regulation," Cement Kiln Recycling
Coal. v. E.P.A., 255 F.3d 855, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). See 5
U.S.C. § 605. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.8]
In addition to, and separate and apart from, EPA's obligation to consider costs of compliance
under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to consider the impact of regulations to small
businesses under the RFA. Here, EPA has published an RFA certification in the NPRM, but the
certification only referenced the impact on "heavy-duty alternative fuel engine converters,
1090
-------
heavy- duty electric vehicle manufacturers, a heavy-duty conventional vehicle manufacturer, and
heavy-duty secondary vehicle manufacturers." Id. at 17640. EPA should conduct a complete
RFA analysis and certification with respect to OOIDA owner-operators whom EPA has
forthrightly acknowledged to be integral stakeholders in this rulemaking proceeding. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.9]
OOIDA's members meet the definition of small businesses under the RFA. The RFA defines
"small entities" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction," as defined in the RFA. 5 U.S.C. § 601(6). Section 601(3),
"Definitions" provides:
(3) the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under
section 3 of the Small Business Act, unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1266-A1, p.9]
Section 3 of the Small Business Act states that such a concern is "one which is independently
owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." 15 U.S.C. §
632(a)(1). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1266-A1, pp.9-10]
It should be noted that EPA has separately defined small businesses as follows: A small business
is a person, corporation, partnership, or other entity that employs 100 or less individuals (across
all facilities and operations owned by the small business). Small Business Compliance Policy, 65
Fed. Reg. No.70 at 19632 (EPA April 11, 2000). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p. 10]
OOIDA members readily satisfy each of the foregoing "small business" definitions for purposes
of the RFA. A majority of OOIDA's 150,000 members are small trucking businesses with one to
five trucks that are "independently owned and operated and which [are] not dominant in [their]
field of operation." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p. 10]
Again, the Regulatory Flexibility Act certification only addressed small-business manufacturers.
However, EPA has separately recognized OOIDA's importance as a stakeholder in this
proceeding in responding to OOIDA's prior ANPRM comments as follows:
• EPA received comments from trade organizations representing very large trucking fleets
(e.g., the American Trucking Associations, "ATA"), small fleets (e.g., National
Association of Small Trucking Companies, "NASTC"), and owner operators (e.g.,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, "OOIDA"), as well as from
independent commenters, indicating that serviceability issues are one of the top concerns
when operating trucks with advanced emission control systems. See NPRM at 17514.
• OOIDA commented that their members have encountered various problems with
emissions systems which have had a dramatic impact on their businesses including
expensive visits to dealers, lost productivity, poor efficiency, and towing costs. See
NPRM at 17514.
1091
-------
• We are keenly aware of significant discontent expressed by owners concerning their
experiences with emission systems on engines compliant with EPA 2010 standards. ...
OOIDA commented that some of its members have experienced emission technology
failures that caused their engines to quickly derate, placing truckers and other motorists in
unsafe situations. See NPRM at 17515.
• In response to the ANPRM, EPA received numerous comments on difficulties associated
with repairs of emission control systems. ... OOIDA commented that according to a 2018
survey, 73 percent of their members perform repairs and maintenance on their own
trucks. OOIDA added that being able to diagnose problems and repair equipment outside
of dealerships is important for owner-operators and allows them to save time, avoid
downtime, and reduce operating costs; however, they believe that restrictions built into
existing trucks are preventing this practice. OOIDA supported an emphasis on
serviceability improvements so that professional drivers can independently identify and
repair problems with their engines and after treatment as much as possible. See NPRM at
17515.
• Commenters stated that, despite their continued diligence to use high-quality DEF, they
have repeated experiences with inducements resulting in very onerous costs. Some
commenters noted they were subject to the most severe restrictions multiple times per
year even though DEF tanks were properly filled. OOIDA commented that inducement
related costs can severely jeopardize owner-operators' ability to stay in business, citing
costs that included towing and lost income from downtime in addition to diagnosis and
repair. See NPRM at 17538-39. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, pp.10-11]
While OOIDA appreciates that EPA has acknowledged its concerns in the NPRM, the response
is simply insufficient in alleviating the detrimental impact the Rule will have on OOIDA's small-
business truck owner-operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.11]
Based on the foregoing, OOIDA requests that EPA comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
including, but not limited to, the following requirement in 5 U.S.C.A. § 604 (a)(6):
(~) *** Each final regulatory flexibility analysis shall contain—
***
(~) a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement
of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and
why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which
affect the impact on small entities was rejected;
Id. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.ll]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis required under this rule related to small-business truck
owners and purchasers would include an examination of:
1092
-------
• the costs of the proposed equipment (and installation where required) to truck owners; i, •
the new costs of ongoing maintenance of the proposed equipment,
• the reduction in truck efficiency caused by the proposed equipment,
• the predictable costs of new equipment unreliability caused by more frequent
breakdowns, costly towing to the locations qualified to do such repairs, lengthy shop time
(due to mechanics' unfamiliarity with new equipment and the wait for scarce parts
delivery) and the loss of business and productivity each day the truck is in the shop, and
• the cost of equipment failures on the highway that create the opportunity for collisions
and damage to roads and property. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p. 12]
The analysis must also consider the regulatory options that may reduce the economic burden of
the new equipment:
• the requirement that purchasers of the new equipment are given the ability to diagnose
problems with and maintenance needs of equipment,
• the provision of adequate manuals, diagrams, instructions, troubleshooting guides and
QR codes for truck owners to be able to repair the new equipment, and
• the requirement for adequate warranties to protect small businesses from the cost of
repairs (labor and parts) of new equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p. 12]
The economic analysis of these and other issues is critical for EPA to perform an adequate
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to determine how EPA may be able to achieve its goals in a
way that reduces the burdens on small-business truck owners to the greatest extent
possible. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p. 12]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The four comments reproduced above, from ATD, ATA, NACD, and OOIDA, each of which
represent the owners and/or operators of regulated equipment (trucks), note that most (97%,
according to ATA) owner/operators are small companies that should be included in EPA's
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis for this rule. ATA referred to the recent COVID-19
pandemic and several other economic factors as contributing to higher commercial motor vehicle
prices, and noted those higher prices are especially concerning for small businesses. NACD also
noted that many other small entities in the supply chain will be impacted, and they should also be
considered. OOIDA commented that EPA's recognition of the concerns of owner/operators in
the NPRM is insufficient, and EPA must consider the economic burden on these entities in the
RFA analysis. The commenter stated that this would include the costs to truck owners of the
equipment itself, its maintenance, any reduction in efficiency and reliability, and equipment
failures including costs of collisions and damage to roads and property. The commenter stated
that, pursuant to the RFA, EPA must also consider regulatory options to reduce those burdens
including giving the purchasers the ability to diagnose maintenance and repair issues, adequate
manuals to be able to repair those issues, and adequate warranties to protect small businesses
from the cost of repairs.
Response:
1093
-------
Our assessment of small business impacts prepared to support EPA's certification that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities was
appropriately limited to small entities that would be regulated under the proposed rulemaking
(i.e., engine and vehicle manufacturers). Other than those entities discussed in the final RIA
Chapter 11, the rule does not impose any requirements on small businesses (for example, small
trucking firms are not regulated entities under the final rule's requirements). The impacts on
small businesses to which the commenters refer would not be effects of the rule on regulated
entities, and thus are not impacts that we are required to analyze. See Cement Kiln Recycling
Coal. v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (noting that "this court has consistently
rejected the contention that the RFA applies to small businesses indirectly affected by the
regulation of other entities" and citing cases), Mid-Tex like. Coop. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342-
43 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("An agency may properly certify that no regulatory flexibility analysis is
necessary when it determines that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities that are subject to the requirements of the rule. . . . Congress
did not intend to require that every agency consider every indirect effect that any regulation
might have on small businesses in any stratum of the national economy."); see also Coalition for
Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Even though EPA is not required to include owner/operators in our Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis since they are not regulated entities under the rule, the Agency considered concerns
from owner/operators in developing both our proposed program, as noted by OOIDA, and this
final rule. As explained in the final rule preamble, including Sections IV and V, we expect that
all truck owner/operators will benefit from several provisions being adopted in this rule,
including longer useful life, longer warranty periods, and improved serviceability. These
provisions are expected to lead to improved engine durability, reduced repair costs, and more
consistent maintenance over the life of the engines. Our technology demonstration shows that
the final standards can be achieved without a reduction in truck efficiency (see RIA chapter 3).
Further, manufacturers have the option of meeting the standards using technologies that differ
from our demonstrated technology package and that may have less costs than the technology
pathway we anticipated. Overall, the final regulations being adopted in this rule will be helpful
toward ensuring that new MY 2027 and later HD trucks purchased and used by all
owner/operators, including small owner/operators, will perform more reliably while reducing
their emission impacts on human health and the environment. As noted in our response to the
American Farm Bureau in section 18.9 of this Response to Comments document, we hope, as
everyone does that the current economic conditions - inflation, the pandemic, etc. - and any
associated impact on businesses, including small businesses, are alleviated by the time the new
standards are being implemented.
17.2 Request for Extension of Comment Period
1094
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
As a preliminary matter, EPA has not provided sufficient time for the public or stakeholder
community to review the Proposal. As ABA is small organization, it has limited resources and
this is especially true in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020 and throughout the
period, nearly a quarter of the motorcoach businesses in operation closed, with industry revenue
losses exceeding $8.4 billion in 2020 alone (https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-
releases/jy0395). In turn, as the industry representative, ABA has also suffered economic losses
and downsized to fit the needs of the industry it serves. ABA's abilities to review the highly
complex, technical and lengthy Proposal are severely constrained, particularly given the short
amount of time provided for the comment period. Because ABA lacks both in-house technical
expertise and the capacity to obtain such assistance in a short time span, it has placed the
motorcoach industry at a distinct disadvantage in responding to the Proposal. This benefits
neither EPA or the motorcoach industry in terms of meeting the goal to better control air
pollution from heavy duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-Al,pp.l-2]
On behalf of the motorcoach industry, ABA, along with many other stakeholders, petitioned
EPA for a reasonable extension of time to appropriately review the Proposal, as done on prior
occasions with similarly complex rulemakings (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-082, Sept. 2015; 80 FR
53756). Considering the Notice is 475 pages in length, including various complex tables and
formulas, along with a docket of additional supplemental materials ranging in the thousands of
pages, it is unrealistic for small stakeholders to properly review and prepare comments in
response to the Agency's proposed action. The EPA's grant of a 3-day extension, particularly
after being forced to extend the public hearing schedule and conduct additional
outreach/briefings, appears misguided, in terms of providing sufficient opportunity for public
participation in a significant rulemaking. Proposed rules of this size and scope require, and the
public is generally afforded, a minimum of 60 to 120 days to review and formulate comments. It
is unfortunate EPA is limiting the process for a rulemaking proposal of this scope as it will result
in costly, unintended consequences that will diminish anticipated benefits and hinder future
cooperation between the public and private sectors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.2]
We do appreciate the letter sent to ABA from Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Joseph
Goffman regarding our request for an extension of time for the comment period and explaining
the Agency's position in denying the request for additional time. We do find it hard to
understand how the Agency could consider an issuance of the pre-publication version of the
proposal as part of the review timetable, when it is well known that those pre-publication
versions can change (and in this case did change, as additional dates were added to the
announced public hearing), and in this specific case between March 15 and May 4, nearly 450
new supplementary materials were added to the docket. That is a tremendous amount of material
to review, consider and digest in addition to the lengthy proposal. As stated in the response letter,
it is very clear that the EPA is committed to their timeline in getting a final rule out before the
end of the year, and very few suggestions for modifications to this rule proposal will be
evaluated or considered very seriously. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.2]
1095
-------
Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring EPA is aware of the interest, and to the best of our
abilities, the concerns of the motorcoach industry in relation to this rulemaking, ABA submits
the following comments for the record. Please be advised, however, ABA will file
supplementary comments, as appropriate, as we continue to work through the Proposal.[EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.2]
The EPA is moving far too quickly with this technically complex rulemaking and ABA again
requests the agency extend its comment period deadline to allow for necessary and appropriate
input. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p. 12]
On behalf of the American Bus Association (ABA), I petition the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to request a 60-day extension of time for filing comments on the notice published
in the Federal Register on March 28, entitled Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-005] (Notice).
Currently, the comment period is set to close on May 16, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1070-A1, p.l]
ABA's request for a 60-day extension is based on the following: 1) the length and complexity of
responding to the proposed rule; 2) the need to review and obtain technical assistance as part of
the review; and 3) the hinderance of limited public outreach and engagement. The ABA requests
this action to ensure the public has a fair opportunity to provide meaningful comment. As
precedent, we note an extension was requested and granted for the similarly complex
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 proposed rule in 2015 (EP A-HQ-0 AR-2014-082, Sept. 2015;
80 FR 53756). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.l]
The Notice, as published in the Federal Register, is over 450 pages long and the docket, which
continues to expand, includes a number of supplementary documents. In order to fairly analyze
and address the Notice and the supplementary material, even just the materials added to the
docket between March 15 and the present, totaling thousands of pages, more time is needed. As
of today, there are at least 445 documents in the docket related to this proceeding, which requires
review and analysis, if not even just a cursory review - this equates to thousands of pages.
Although there may be some nonrelevant or unrelated supplementary materials within the whole,
there is insufficient time to even make this distinction and to focus only on the relevant material
necessary to prepare comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.l]
Further, much of the Notice and supplementary materials are of a highly technical nature,
requiring technical expertise and resources to interpret, understand and assess. These type of
resources are not readily available to small industries such as the motorcoach industry,
particularly in the wake of the unprecedented economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Additionally, as referenced and relied upon by EPA in this rulemaking proceeding, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) recently completed a similar rulemaking effort. Based on the close
nexus between these two respective proceedings, we need additional time to review the materials
and supporting documentation from the CARB proceeding. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1070-
Al, p.2]
1096
-------
It is unreasonable for a federal agency to expect businesses affected, both directly and indirectly,
by a sweeping, complex rule to be in a position of providing thoughtful and accurate comments
within this short of a time period, particularly if these businesses have not been included in prior
discussions. In fact, based on an initial cursory review of the Notice, it appears EPA only
minimally considered motorcoaches, if at all, in this proceeding. Significant rulemakings such as
this, involving a high level of complexity, depth and length, and affecting such a broad swath of
operating industries, at a minimum provide a 120-day comment period. Even if the original
proposed period was only 60 days, it is not unusual or unreasonable for agencies to grant
extensions well beyond the original proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.2]
The motorcoach industry is a relatively small industry, in terms of the entire surface
transportation sector. However, motorcoach vehicles use the same engines used by the
commercial property-carrying industry. The motorcoach industry is not subsidized on any
significant scale by the Federal Government. Of the approximately 1800 motorcoach companies
currently in operation in the U.S. following the COVID pandemic, over 90% are small fleets or
operating 10 vehicles or less. The pandemic hit the industry considerably hard, and its effects
continue to plague the industry. More than 40% of the operating companies went out of business
and vehicle development and sales came to a complete standstill. Recovery to pre-COVID levels
is not projected to until late 2023, or longer. While various public transportation modes (e.g.,
Amtrak, transit and aviation) received significant federal support to sustain their operations
through the pandemic, this is not the case for the motorcoach industry. The industry is currently
struggling to recover, and resources are in short supply. As a result, the industry is at a distinct
disadvantage to participate in this rulemaking, as access to resources to assist in reviewing the
complex rule proposal is limited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.2]
Further, motorcoach manufacturers are in one of the best positions to provide technical
assistance to the motorcoach industry in evaluating this rulemaking and identifying the unique
operational impacts on motorcoach operations. Yet, these equipment manufacturers are a step
removed from engine manufacturers, who design and produce engines universally for trucks,
buses and other heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Based on the size of the motorcoach industry, in
comparison to the truck industry, the motorcoach manufacturers do not have the same amount of
contact, bearing or input into the engine manufacturing process. However, there is only a limited
number of motorcoach manufacturers, and they also are struggling with resources in the wake of
the pandemic. The motorcoach industry needs more time to obtain their assistance on this
proceeding. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.2]
The preamble of the proposal includes numerous statements regarding the close working
relationship of EPA and CARB in developing this proposal. However, there is little mention of
EPA's interaction with stakeholders beyond the public hearing. The public hearing, which
occurred after the publication of the Notice, limited EPA's ability to engage and provide a proper
briefing to the public on a very complex rule. This in turn resulted in a hearing where, with very
little time to prepare, speakers scrambled to read the lengthy, complex proposal and had even
less time to understand it and develop thoughtful feedback for the hearing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1070-A1, p.3]
1097
-------
Although there may very well be a limited number of stakeholders better versed and more
engaged with EPA, who were in a better position to participate, this is not the case for a vast
majority of the stakeholders will be affected by this proceeding. It is unclear what efforts EPA
engaged in to ensure stakeholders, including not only the engine manufacturers, but all those
who use and rely on these engines, were provided sufficient time to digest the complex Notice in
advance of a public hearing. It is only at this late breaking stage of this comment period that EPA
is now undertaking outreach in the nature of a briefing to these constituencies, many of whom
are small industries like the motorcoach industry. There should be better and broader outreach
and recognition that the stakeholder community for this rulemaking goes far beyond engine
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, p.3]
Further, it appears EPA has not given much consideration, if at all, to the motorcoach or coach
bus industry. In the fact sheet posted to the website related to this rulemaking, motorcoaches do
not even appear in the graph categorizing mobile source GHG, unless being swept up in
descriptions like "other transportation sources". The Notice, as currently written, mentions trucks
over 300 times, whereas coach bus or motorcoach are mentioned less than 10 times, in terms of
the NOx standards. Even worse, there is no recognition of the positive environmental benefits
that motorcoach operations provide in removing cars from the road, serving socially and
economically disadvantaged communities, reducing congestion, and conveying essential as well
as emergency services. One plausible outcome of this reading is to deduce the Notice or parts of
it do not apply to bus operations, which also illustrates the need for time to dive deep enough
into the proposal to make the appropriate connections. Also, although we do appreciate the
outreach efforts at this late stage, many stakeholders are not prepared or are ill-equipped to
participate meaningfully in the comment period now due to the abbreviated time frame of the
comment period. While these stakeholders could provide meaningful input to assist EPA in
reaching its goals, because of the short comment period they instead risk the imposition of
significant, costly requirements that will end up impeding their business operations. This is not
the intended outcome of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) for significant rulemakings. If
EPA wishes this rulemaking to be successful in meeting its goals, it will provide more time and
opportunity for all stakeholders to be fully apprised and knowledgeable of this federal action and
provide sufficient opportunity to provide meaningful input. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-
Al, p.3]
For these reasons, ABA urges EPA to extend the comment period deadline, for at least 60 days.
The Notice repeatedly notes that it is EPA's goal to "work with stakeholders," therefore we urge
the agency to provide sufficient time, and conduct and engage in broad stakeholder outreach,
to accommodate the needs of all affected stakeholders and particularly smaller businesses. It is
not simply engine manufacturers who will bear the burden of the changes proposed in the Notice,
and this should be taken into consideration by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1070-A1, pp.3-
4]
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
The relatively short comment period allowed for the EPA's massive (475-page) and technically-
complex proposed rules was grossly insufficient to allow Coach USA to adequately analyze all
1098
-------
of the implications of the proposed rules on its business and its customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
As an initial matter, the 49-day public comment period, which currently ends on May 16, 2022,
does not provide sufficient time to stakeholders to meaningfully evaluate the regulatory
intricacies to provide comprehensive comments on the proposed rule. We respectfully urge EPA
to extend the public comment period on this important rulemaking, in which EPA's actions will
have profound ramifications on the future development of the next generation of low-NOx
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and zero-emission commercial trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1318-A1, p. 1]
Organization: New Flyer of America Inc. (New Flyer) and Motor Coach Industries, Ltd. (MCI)
To allow for complete review of the detailed rule, and in order to fully understand what impact
the new standards would have on our suppliers, New Flyer / MCI requests for the EPA to extend
the NPRM comment period by an additional 30 days beyond the current May 16th deadline.
Such an extension would afford us a chance for proper analysis and provide more meaningful
feedback. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1064-A1, p.l]
Organization: Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association (PMTA)
Finally, we believe it important to point out that 34 business days is a wholly inadequate public
comment period for a highly technical, 475-page proposed regulation, especially for these small
businesses who struggle every day to manage the challenges of a supply chain crisis, record
high-diesel prices, and a workforce shortage to deliver freight for their customers and keep the
American economy afloat. Understanding the impact of this regulation on their business is itself
a challenge, much less putting it into words in time to meet the May 13 deadline. We would ask
that EPA consider these limitations as it assesses the comments (or lack thereof) that are
submitted within the timeframe given. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1202; this is an additional
comment provided by PMTA included with their State Trucker Associations (2) letter.]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The five entities listed above stated that the comment period for this rule was too short. Two of
these entities, American Bus Association (ABA) and New Flyer of America, sent letters
specifically requesting EPA Administrator Regan to extend the comment period. In addition,
Coach USA and Navistar, as well as ABA and PMTA, mentioned the length of the comment
period in their written comments, and Navistar urged EPA to extend the comment period.
In their formal request letter, ABA noted that an extension was needed for three reasons:
1. The length and complexity of responding to the proposal;
2. The need to review and obtain technical assistance as part of the review; and
1099
-------
3. The hinderance of limited outreach to the public.
ABA reminded the Administrator that an extension was granted for EPA's Phase 2 GHG rule.
They also stated that significant rules often provide a 60-120-day comment period and that
extensions are often granted even when the original comment period was 60 days. Finally, they
noted their concern that the Agency did not give much attention to the motorcoach industry when
preparing the rule.
In their subsequent written comments, ABA expressed disappointment in EPA's formal response
to their request for an extension of the comment period. While the Agency noted that a pre-
publication version of the proposal had been available since March 7, ABA observed that pre-
publication versions of rules often change, that additional materials were added to the docket
after March 7 (nearly 450 documents), and they would also need to review the materials
associated with CARB's actions that were added to the docket. ABA noted their concern about
"limiting the process for a rulemaking proposal of this scope as it will result in costly,
unintended consequences that will diminish anticipated benefits and hinder future cooperation
between the public and private sectors." ABA also commented that their organization and the
motorcoach industry are experiencing resource limitations as they recover from economic
impacts of the recent pandemic.
Response:
EPA responded to the two formal requests for extension of the comment period by letter dated
May 13, 2022, denying the requests (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1152 and 1153). As we
explained in that response, we continue to believe that the comment period length was
appropriate and provided a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking.
Four of these commenters joined hundreds of others in submitting detailed comments on the rule
before the end of the comment period. In addition, we posted a copy of the pre-Federal Register
publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking on the EPA website on March 7th, when we
issued the press release for the proposed rule. Finally, we conducted three days of public
hearings (April 12, 13, 14, 2022) for stakeholders to provide oral presentation of data, views, and
arguments. Because we held a third day of public hearing for the proposed rule, we also
extended the public comment period to 49 days.
Our response letter to the request for extension of comment period indicated that we intended to
issue a final rule later in 2022, and that further extending the comment period would likely
preclude that timeline. We did not say that "very few suggestions for modifications to this rule
proposal will be evaluated or considered very seriously" as indicated by ABA in their comment
above. The Agency has been, is, and will continue to be committed to considering timely
comments received on proposed rules. The compressed final rule schedule is necessary to
finalize the standards this year to ensure that these important emission reductions occur as soon
as possible. However, EPA still fully considered timely submitted comments in this final action.
Finally, the vast majority of the provisions contained in the pre-publication version of the notice
of proposed rulemaking were not changed in the publication version, and the commenters failed
1100
-------
to indicate any significant changes apart from the addition of another day for the public hearing
and an extension of the comment period.
We agree that the motorcoach industry plays an important role. As noted in our response to the
American Farm Bureau in section 18.9 of this Response to Comments, we understand ABA's
concerns regarding the economic factors impacting their industry, but we are acting on our
authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(A). We hope, as everyone does, that the current
economic conditions - inflation, the pandemic, etc. - are alleviated by the time the new standards
are being implemented.
17.3 Information Collection Request (ICR)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA)
This is to inform you that Daimler Truck North America ("DTNA") is developing
comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") "Control of Air
Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards;
Proposed Rule," 87 Fed. Reg. 17,414 (March 28, 2022) (the "Proposed Rule"). DTNA's
comments will address in detail EPA's burden and cost estimates for the Proposed Rule,
including some of the information requested in the Information Collection Request
("ICR") that is under review by the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB"). DTNA
notes that the ICR for the Proposed Rule (EPA ICR Number 2621.01) has not been
posted to the regulatory docket and that EPA's "Supporting Statement" for the ICR was
only posted to the OMB ICR Dashboard on April 19, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1045, p.l]
Under these circumstances, there has not been sufficient time for review and meaningful
comment on the ICR in advance of the April 27, 2022 OMB comment deadline. DTNA
thus plans to address EPA's cost and burden estimates in its comments on the Proposed
Rule and will submit a copy of these comments to OMB in addition to EPA. We
appreciate your consideration of these comments, which DTNA plans to submit on or
before the EPA deadline of May 13, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1045, p.l]
[Daimler Truck North America LLC subsequently provided a comment in a footnote to their
main comments; see EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.11]
9 While Daimler Truck focuses primarily here on increased incremental
technology, warranty, and other direct/indirect compliance costs, we also note that
paperwork burdens would increase under EPA's proposal. The Proposed Rule
implicates a number of information collection activities, all of which will
significantly increase compliance burdens and costs for manufacturers. Daimler
Truck has reviewed EPA's 'Supporting Statement for Information Collection
Request' (EPA ICR Number 2621.01) (April 19, 2022) and notes that EPA's
summary—in particular the respondent burden and cost estimates in Table 3 of
1101
-------
the 'Supporting Statement'—captures some but perhaps not all of the information
collection burdens and costs accompanying implementation of the Proposed Rule.
These costs should not only be factored in to OMB's consideration of the
Proposed Rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, but should also be accounted
for in evaluating whether EPA's proposal reflects adequate consideration of costs
as required under CAA Section 202.
Since EPA does not specify how powertrains should be categorized for this testing, we assume
that the Agency expects manufacturers to run this test for each configuration that could result in
a different outcome; therefore manufacturers could be expected to test many configurations.
Even employing a reasonable categorization strategy—per vehicle family as defined in Part
1037, for example—manufacturers could be required to demonstrate many configurations at
great expense, particularly given that today's typical vehicle families already contain several
different ZEV architectures. 136 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 122]
136 This increased expense and the attendant compliance burden should be weighed
heavily in OMB's review and decision whether to approve the information collection
components of the Proposed Rule, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Each test takes about 40 hours to run (per vehicle). Given the many configurations that
manufacturers may have to test, it is difficult to approximate exactly how much cost and
how many personnel hours would be involved, but Daimler Truck expects that the burden
would be significant.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
EPA received only one comment pertaining to the draft Supporting Statement for
Information Collection Request, Proposed Changes to Certification and Compliance
Requirements for Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (Proposed Rule) - EPA ICR
Number 2621.01; OMB Control Number 2060-NEW. DTNA indicated in their April 27,
2022, letter that they intended to provide comments to OMB and EPA on EPA's cost and
burden estimates. However, in DTNA's subsequent comments on the proposal (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-055-1045), the cost and burden information they provided was specific to
direct manufacturing costs of the expected technologies or indirect costs of longer
warranty periods; they did not provide additional information related to implementing
test procedures, keeping records, or reporting to EPA.
Response:
We did not revise our ICR burden estimates after consideration of this comment, given
that DTNA did not provide detailed comments about their concerns. However, some of
the data used to calculate the burden were revised for the final ICR to reflect the
Agency's current knowledge with respect to the number of respondents, adjustments due
to changes in the final requirements as compared to the proposal, and the number of
hours required to assemble and submit data to EPA.
1102
-------
In addition, DTNA commented that there would be increased expense and compliance
burden for manufacturers choosing to generate NOX emissions credits from ZEVs due to
the proposed test procedures for ZEVs; as discussed in preamble Section IV.G and
section 12 of this Response to Comments document, we are not finalizing the proposal to
allow manufacturers to generate NOX emission credits from ZEVs, and thus have
removed these estimates from the ICR for the final rule.
18 Costs
18.1 Individual technology piece costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA has estimated the projected costs of compliance for the proposed emission standards
associated with both Option 1 and Option 2. Although the incremental technology costs for the
Option 1 emission standards are generally higher than the corresponding technology costs for the
Option 2 emission standards, the difference in such costs is minor (the maximum difference in
technology costs between Options 1 and 2 is $716 in technology costs for a Class 8 heavy heavy-
duty vehicle), and the largest incremental costs associated with the Option 1 standards only
constitute a fraction of the base technology costs of new vehicles,90 thereby falling within the
range of allowable cost increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.38]
90 For example, the incremental cost of the Option 1 2031 MY standards for Class 8 heavy
heavy-duty diesel vehicles is $3931; the base price of a Class 8 heavy heavy-duty diesel vehicle
is $8465 (NPRM at 17570).
Furthermore, it is especially notable that U.S. EPA has also determined that the total technology
and operating costs associated with Option 1 are lower than the costs associated with Option 2.
91 The total technology and operating costs associated with Option 1 and Option 2's criteria
pollutant standards are similar in the early years, but overall (during the 2027 to 2045 time
period) the costs for Option 1 are lower than the costs for Option 2 over the 2027 though 2045
time period by $2 to $3 billion dollars.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.38-39]
91 Compare Table V-16, (Option 1 costs), 17576, with Table V-17 (Option 2 costs), 17577.
92 Discounted at 3 and 7 percent rates, ($2017)
CARB staff believes the following assumption U.S. EPA made is incorrect and should be
amended: 'Note the direct manufacturing costs for proposed Options 1 and 2 are equivalent
because we expect the same technologies would be needed to meet the standards in each
option.'186 Although the type of technology driven by the two options would be similar, as
described in greater detail above in section 5.a.B., Option 2 would not encourage full use of
1103
-------
technically feasible and cost -effective NOx reduction technologies that have been demonstrated.
Indeed, the design and material of technologies would differ in cost due to unique elements
directly related to optimizing for the different target emission standards such as aftertreatment
sizing and catalyst loading. For example, for LHDD, MHDD, and HHDDs through IUL Option 1
has a 60 percent lower emissions limit for NOx when compared to Option 2. The large difference
in the two options would be expected to cause a proportional change in direct manufacturing
costs. For example, CARB's Omnibus regulation has a 2024 MY standard identical to Option 2,
however, with a 435,000 mile UL. The technology package for meeting the 2024 standards did
not include technologies, such as the addition of a light-off SCR or CDA to meet the standard.
Increasing the UL to the Option 2 NPRM UL of 600,000 miles would require consideration for
additional catalyst degradation such as enlarging catalyst size or using improved catalyst
substrate but would not drive the need for adding additional aftertreatment technologies. The
Omnibus regulation did recognize the need for additional aftertreatment technologies to meet the
more stringent 2027 MY 20 mg/bhp-hr NOx standards to assure effective emission control with
significantly improved thermal management. CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA's Option 1
2027 MY 35 mg/bhp-hr NOx standard would require these added technologies, consistent with
the NPRM Option 1 technology cost estimates. Thus, CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA
reevaluate the technology cost for Option 2 and only identify the technology changes need to
meet the 50 mg/bhp-hr NOx standard. In fact, U.S. EPA will be able to obtain more accurate
information from manufacturers designing engines to meet the Omnibus upcoming 2024 MY
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 122]
186 NPRM at 17566.
Organization: Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
EPA estimated the average cost of adding ORVR to HHDGVs at $25 per vehicle for a 70-gallon
fuel tank volume. This average cost was based on an unspecified mix of single and dual fuel
tanks, use of either an enlarged single canister or two existing canisters, and use of either liquid
or mechanical seals. The retail price equivalent (RPE) mark-up in Chapter 7 of EPA's draft RIA
is 1.36, yielding an average per vehicle cost of $34.3 Ingevity believes these estimates are
conservative, as a 70-gallon tank is towards the upper range of the distribution of HHDGV
product offerings4. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 3]
3. See Table 7-10 of US EPA draft RIA "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles:
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022.
4. A review of 2022 HHDGV product offerings on the OEMs commercial and medium-duty
truck web pages indicates that fuel tank volumes fall into two categories. For single tank
HHDGVs, the tank volumes range from 35-40 gallons; for dual tank vehicles the total volume is
nominally 80 gallons. Low production volume school bus chassis may have total fuel tank
volumes of about 100 gallons.
We note that EPA's cost estimate does not include a cost for increased vapor vent hose diameter
between the fuel tank outlet and the canister inlet as was done in previous EPA analyses.5 It may
be that with a Tier 3 HHDGV there is no net vapor line hardware cost increase when going from
1104
-------
a Tier 3 evaporative configuration to a Tier 3 evaporative plus ORVR configuration. It would be
helpful if EPA would clarify this point in any future analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-
Al, p. 3]
5. More detail can be found in Table 5.1, US EPA, "Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Refueling
Emission Regulations for Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks and Heavy-Duty Vehicles," January
1994.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA agrees with EPA's cost analysis conducted to support this rulemaking. Similar to EPA,
our estimates of the incremental technology costs to meet the Proposed Option 1 show that the
technology packages on MY 2027 trucks would yield cost effective NOx reductions. In support
of cost-benefit analyses funded by CARB and conducted by NREL as part of the development of
the Omnibus, MECA estimated the costs (in 2019$) of the technologies employed in current
trucks to meet today's emission standards as well as the technologies projected to be employed
on trucks in future years to meet the requirements proposed in the Omnibus. In our cost analysis,
we first estimated a cost range of current heavy-duty emission controls systems based on meeting
today's FTP-limit of 0.2 g/bhp-hr over a useful life of 435,000 miles. The hardware included the
DOC, DPF and SCR catalysts along with the DEF dosing system and OBD sensors and
controllers necessary to comply with current OBD requirements. We estimated costs for two
engine sizes, 6-7L and 12-13L. The former is often found in Class 4-6 heavy-duty vehicles while
the latter is found in Class 7-8 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.25-26]
The direct hardware cost estimate for a current aftertreatment system on a vehicle with a 6-7L
engine is about $2,600 to $3,500. This is similar to the costs estimated by the ICCT ($2,807) in
their most recent cost analysis [37], For a Class 8 line-haul tractor with a 12-13L engine, we
estimate a direct hardware cost of the engine and aftertreatment hardware to be in the range of
$3,500 to $4,600 per truck. Similar to the 6-7L engine above, our cost is in-line with ICCT's
latest estimate ($4,365) [37], An older ICCT report estimated the cost of a 2015 exhaust
emission control system (not including EGR) in the U.S. or Europe was about $5,068 or 3% of
the cost of the average retail truck price reported as $157,000 [38], It is important to note that the
average price of a heavy-duty line-haul truck has historically increased by about 1% per year
[38] due to safety, operational and other customer demanded enhancements that truck
manufacturers have made to trucks. At the same time, emission control technology suppliers are
typically expected to reduce the costs of their components through manufacturing improvements
and other optimization by about 2-3% per year [37], The year-over-year supply chain reductions
can account for much of the cost difference between recent cost estimates compared to those
reported by ICCT in 2016. Given declining emission control system costs and increases in the
average price of a heavy-duty truck, the emission control system cost has become a smaller
portion of the total truck price. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.26]
[37] F. Posada, A. Isenstadt and H. Badshah, 'Estimated cost of diesel emissions-control
technology to meet the future California low NOx standards in 2024 and 2027,' 2020.
1105
-------
[38] F. Posada, S. Chambliss and K. Blumberg, 'Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles,' International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC,
2016.
The second part of our analysis involved estimating the cost of meeting an FTP certification
standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr and proposed LLC certification standard in 2027 with an emission
control system that includes a close-coupled SCR combined with a traditional aftertreatment
system. To meet these tighter standards, the technology evolution (discussed in our white papers
referenced herein) includes incremental improvements to substrates and catalysts as well as the
addition of a close-coupled SCR and dual dosing system with one heated doser, additional NOx
sensors and an ammonia sensor in an upgraded OBD system. In addition, this analysis assumed
the use of CDA and an EGR cooler bypass system. All of these technologies have been
demonstrated by SwRI. Two cost estimates were prepared - one that assumed today's durability
and warranty requirements, and one assuming one million mile useful life (FUL) and 800,000
mile warranty for class 8 and 550,000 mile FUL and 440,000 mile warranty for Class 4-7 starting
in 2027. These durability and warranty levels were chosen because they were initially proposed
by CARB during the Omnibus rulemaking [39], Given EPA's Proposed Option 1 includes lower
durability and warranty requirements than assumed in our cost analysis, we expect the cost
estimate for longer FUL and warranty provided below to represent a worst-case scenario. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.26]
[39] CARB, 'Heavy-Duty Low NOx Program Workshop: HD UL & Step 2 warranty,' 23
January 2019. [Online], Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190123/04-
HD_UL_&_Step_2_warranty_W SO 1232019.pdf.
For a vehicle with a 6-7L engine, the incremental hardware improvements needed to meet a 0.02
g/bhp-hr certification limit on the FTP cycle and future LLC standard at today's durability and
warranty requirements were estimated to add about $1,300 to $1,800 to the cost of the engine
efficiency and emission control technologies. For a Class 8 tractor with a 12-13L engine similar
incremental improvements were estimated to add about $1,500 to $2,050 (less than 1.2%) to the
cost of a MY 2027 truck, projected to be approximately $177,000, based on a historical 1%
annual rate of MSRP increase reported by ICCT. The estimated incremental costs to meet the
above referenced increased durability and warranty requirements for a 6-7L engine and 12-13L
engine were $1,800 to $2,450 and $2,000 to $2,750, respectively. The estimated total additional
emission control cost in 2027, including a 0.02 g/bhp-hr FTP tailpipe limit, LLC limit, 1-million-
mile durability requirement and 800,000 mile warranty, would be $3,100 to $4,250 for 6-7L
engines and $3,550 to $4,800 for 12-13L engines. If a Class 8 truck with 12-13L engine is
assumed to sell for an average price of $177,000 in 2027, based on the historical 1% annual rate
of increase reported previously, the additional cost of emission controls on this truck will
account for roughly 2-2.7% of the total vehicle price. It is important to reiterate that these cost
estimates are biased high since they are based on more stringent requirements than those
included in Propose Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.26-27]
The ICCT recently conducted an analysis that estimated the cost of diesel emissions control
technology to meet CARB's Omnibus standards [37], Their study included direct manufacturing
1106
-------
costs and indirect costs for two engine sizes, but costs of proposed longer warranty requirements
were excluded. The methodology follows the steps outlined in previous ICCT cost studies where
both in-cylinder technology aftertreatment costs are estimated and scaled to account for engine
size [38], In order to meet the proposed MY 2027 standards (similar to EPA Proposed Option 1),
ICCT estimated both low-cost and high-cost durability cases. The resulting incremental cost
range estimated to meet the Omnibus requirements was $1,800 to $2,500 for a 7L engine and
$2,200 to $3,200 for a 13L engine. The ICCT results are roughly 10-20% lower than those
estimated by MECA, and this may be explained by differences in assumptions for useful life and
baseline year for cost between the two analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.27]
[37] F. Posada, A. Isenstadt and H. Badshah, 'Estimated cost of diesel emissions-control
technology to meet the future California low NOx standards in 2024 and 2027,' 2020.
[38] F. Posada, S. Chambliss and K. Blumberg, 'Costs of Emission Reduction Technologies for
Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles,' International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC,
2016.
It should be noted that the cost estimates developed by NREL included the costs due to the
extended warranty requirements, despite a lack of adequate information available from suppliers
or OEMs to estimate these. Similarly, costs analyses conducted by ACT Research and Ricardo
made assumptions for significant warranty costs due to the new regulation based on confidential
surveys. NREL and CARB acknowledged that the cost estimates for extended warranty are very
uncertain. CARB subsequently conducted its own analysis of costs needed to meet extended
warranty requirements, and these are substantially lower than those estimated in the NREL report
as well as those estimated by ACT Research and Ricardo. After the Omnibus was approved by
its Board, CARB staff convened a working group of OEMs, EMA, and MECA to review
warranty costs. This working group resulted in a final report in which CARB staff concluded that
the methodology used to support the Omnibus Regulation warranty-related cost estimates is
reasonable and defensible and they did not believe changes to those estimates were needed [45],
As stated above, this uncertainty in costs estimated to meet extended durability and warranty
provides an opportunity for future collaborative work in the form of a study that includes fleets,
industry stakeholders, CARB and EPA staff. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.27-28]
[45] CARB, 'California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study for 2022
and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines,' 2021.
Organization: RVIndustry Association (RVIA)
As we understand the proposal, the cost increases that will be realized by gas and diesel
motorhome chassis suppliers in MY27 will be as follows:
Note: The cost shown below are the so-called 'Option 1' costs, not the more expensive 'Option 2
costs.'
Diesel motorhomes
1107
-------
• Class B diesel motorhomes (8501-14000 lbs. GVWR - class 2b/3 trucks): $7,952.3
• Class C diesel motorhomes (14,001-19,500 lbs. GVWR - class 4/5 trucks): $8,032.4
• Class C diesel motorhomes (19,501-33,000 lbs. GVWR - class 6/7 trucks): $8,358.5
• Class A diesel motorhomes (>33,000 lbs. GVWR - class 8 trucks): $13,382.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 2]
3. Table 7-14: MY2027 Technology Costs for LHD2b3 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017
Dollars, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, US EPA, EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022, page
328.
4. Table 7-16: MY2027 Technology Costs for LHD45 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017
Dollars, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, US EPA, EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022, page
328.
5. Table 7-18: MY2027 Technology Costs for HHD67 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017
Dollars, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, US EPA, EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022, page
329.
6. Table 7-20: MY2027 Technology Costs for HHD8 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars,
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards,
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, US EPA, EPA-420-D-22-001, March 2022, page 329.
Gas motorhomes
• Class A and C motorhomes (14,001-19,500 lbs. GVWR - class 4-8 trucks): $1,944.7 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 3]
7. Table 7-24: MY2027 Technology Costs for LHD45, MHD67 & HHD8 Gasoline, Average per
Vehicle, 2017 Dollars, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, US EPA, EPA-420-D-22-001, March
2022, page 330.
Separate from the increased engine costs listed above are the additional costs that would be
directly incurred by manufacturers of gasoline motorhomes. These costs are associated with
changing manufacturing or other process to accommodate compliant refueling emission control
systems. EPA has projected these costs will be $2,528 per company in the first year of the new
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 3]
As indicated above, EPA is projecting that this regulation will add $7,952 to $8,358 per vehicle
for the cost of the diesel engines used in motorhomes < 33,000 lbs. GVWR. For motorhomes >
33,000 lbs. GVWR, the cost increase is projected to be $13,382 per vehicle. As we understand it,
these are cost increases that will be seen by the buyer of the engine (i.e., the motorhome chassis
supplier). Because the chassis supplier must make some profit, the motorhome manufacturer is
1108
-------
likely to see cost increases 1.2 times the cost seen by the chassis supplier. A similar markup
could be seen by the motorhome retailer and then again by the motorhome customer. Thus, an
$8000 cost increase imposed by the engine manufacturer will likely result in a $9600 price
increase for the chassis supplier. This will lead to a $11,520 price increase for the motorhome
manufacturer, a $13,824 price increase for the motorhome retailer, and finally, a $16,588 price
increase to the motorhome customer. In effect, the ultimate end user is likely to see twice the
cost increase levied by the engine manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 3]
EPA Summary and Response
We thank CARB and MECA for their detailed comments on the proposal. In general, MECA's
estimates for emissions control system costs are comparable to the costs used by EPA within our
analyses for the final rule. As explained in preamble Sections III, IV, and V, the final emission
standards and useful life provisions are feasible, giving appropriate consideration to the cost
associated with the application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model
year the final standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the
application of such technology) and other statutory factors. EPA's assessment of the relevant
statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. As explained
in preamble Section IV, the final warranty periods are appropriate. We also evaluated additional
factors, including factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lend further
support to the final rule. See responses in the remainder of this section 18 of this documents for
additional responses regarding our cost estimates, including for warranty.
With respect to specific cost difference issues raised by CARB, EPA believes that the direct
manufacturing costs that we have developed for the final rule based upon the FEV "tear-down"
studies of valvetrain systems and diesel emission control systems provide the most accurate and
up-to-date assessment of direct manufacturing costs for these systems. The FEV "tear-down"
studies used a highly detailed bill-of-materials methodology for determining direct
manufacturing costs that was both completely transparent and independently peer-reviewed. See
RIA Chapter 3.1 for more information on the FEV "tear-down" study.
Ingevity Corporation commented on EPA's costs estimates associated with ORVR stating that
Ingevity considered the estimates to be conservative but that EPA had also failed to consider the
cost for increased vapor vent hose diameter between the fuel tank outlet and the canister inlet as
was done in previous EPA analyses. The previous analysis to which the commenter referred was
a 1994 EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA notes that our ORVR cost estimate was meant to
reflect the "needed" new hardware on a modern system. Many new vehicles have canisters
directly mounted to the tank assembly to minimize the need for extra lines/connections that are
ultimately unnecessary costs and present durability/leakage concerns.
RV Industry Association (RVIA) commented about the costs of engines installed in motor
homes. However, the costs pointed to by RVIA were actually the total technology costs of the
baseline plus the proposed rule, not the incremental increase in technology costs associated with
the proposal. RVIA simply misunderstood the tables presented in the proposed preamble and/or
RIA. One such table is shown below, Table 7-20 from the draft RIA.
1109
-------
Table 7-20 MY2027 Technology Costs for HHD8 Diesel, Average per Vehicle, 2017 Dollars
fiuii iii
DMC
W'.il I alllv
R&D
< Hlit't
Profit
If h Cost
Sum
!krv h"'i
$6,457
$F;1
1323
$1,873
$323
stun 9
U'.H2
Bus- i'.t+Pi.-pLised
i Hiiiuii 1
$8,888
$910'
$648
$2,514
$433
^ I J. 172
i ijilinii 1 inrrrr^p fu m
Iks I..
$2,210
$978
$275
$641
$111
$1,213
l i.iiimt J m. ti'usf :i in
LLiitJus'b
$2,210
$716
$325
$641
$111
$4,003
In their comment, RVIA states that the cost increase of the proposed Option 1 would be "Class A
diesel motorhomes (>33,000 lbs. GVWR - class 8 trucks): $13,382.6." As shown in the second
row of the above, reprinted table, $13,286 is the "Baseline+Proposed Option 1" cost. However,
the increased cost due to the proposed Option 1 was estimated to be $4,213 (see row 4 of the
table above), much lower than the value noted by RVIA. RVIA had this same misunderstanding
with the other values they noted in their comments.
18.2 Direct manufacturing costs and learning effects
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
Each independent and government study of the potential incremental cost of the 2027 standards
have projected hardware and durability costs that are a small fraction (20% or less) of the
$38,000 estimate offered by truck manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
These new federal standards attempt to match those implemented by the state of California last
year. However, the trucking industry and manufacturers have maintained that it is not technically
feasible to meet the new standards and have never demonstrated that to be the case. It has been
reported in December 2021 that the Truck and Engine Manufacturers informed the White House
that no manufacturer has said they can produce a complying product. The result of this mandate
going into effect means equipment manufacturers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars
chasing an impossible standard rather than strategically deploying scarce financial resources on
proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, p. 3]
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
Although ABA has insufficient time to fully analyze the cost data included in the Proposal to
meet the comment deadline, these comments will address cost concerns on a broad basis. From a
fundamental standpoint, the Proposal will increase costs significantly for engine manufacturers,
and in turn for heavy-duty vehicle users. There will be increased costs associated with research
and development necessary to achieve the proposed new standards, costs to produce the new
1110
-------
technology, costs to improve the durability of components to meet the proposed extended useful
life of the engine and to support the proposed extended warranty time period. These costs will in
inevitably be passed on to customers, in other words heavy-duty vehicle purchasers.
EPA suggests these costs will be minor, in terms cost increases, but estimates of the actual costs
associated with the Proposal suggest the cost increases for a heavy-duty engine could exceed
$42,000 per vehicle per other commenters such as the Truck & Engine Manufacturers
Association. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1 ,pp.5-6]
Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
Farm Bureau also believes discrepancies must be addressed regarding the proposal's forecasted
compliance costs. In short, there is an enormous disparity—approximately an order of
magnitude— between EPA's compliance cost estimates and those projected by engine
manufacturers, which are forecast to be up to $35,000 per truck. If EPA's cost estimates are too
low, then other key factors influencing the proposal will be affected in turn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1163-A1, p.l]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
The current average cost of a new MY 2022 Class 8 CMV is $140,826.8 ATD suggests that EPA
has underestimated what the average cost of similar CMVs will be in MYs 2027-2030. Analyses
conducted by Ricardo Strategic Consulting (RSC) found that the incremental costs for Option 1
will be $42,051,9 which contrasts with EPA's prediction that incremental costs will be
$16,750. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321 -A1, p. 4]
8. NAD A, ATD Data 2021 (Midyear Report), p.8 (2021).
9. Includes increased operating costs. Ricardo, Review of EPA NRPM and Compliance
Cost Assessment Study, p.32 (Apr. 25, 2022). An earlier cost study conducted by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on NOx standards being considered by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) reached similar conclusions. NREL, On-
Road Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Technology Cost Study, p. 60 (May 2020).
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Daimler Truck has undertaken its own analysis of incremental compliance costs for Class 8
diesel engines and trucks under the Proposed Rule, and it has consulted the available cost impact
studies for achieving EPA's 'next-tier' standards and the similar requirements of CARB's
Omnibus Low-NOx Regulations. Based upon this review, EPA's cost projections underestimate
both direct and indirect costs that manufacturers would necessarily incur to achieve compliance.
Further, the Agency's estimates differ significantly from the figures published in a number of
recent third-party cost impact studies, without explanation of what factors account for the
differences. Finally, EPA's operator cost estimates do not include the potentially significant
expenditures that vehicle owners would have to make to maintain critical emissions components
after the warranty period expires, which could chill fleet owner investment in next-generation
1111
-------
vehicles produced to comply with the Proposed Rule. These issues are discussed in turn
below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 11]
Direct Manufacturing Costs. Based upon an internal study of direct costs that the Company
would incur on a per-unit basis to comply with the Proposed Rule, Daimler Truck believes that
EPA significantly underestimates per-vehicle direct manufacturing costs (DMC) for Class 8
diesel vehicles. In the Proposed Rule, EPA estimates the incremental DMC increase for such
vehicles in MY 2027 to be $2,210 to achieve compliance with the Agency's proposed Options 1
and 2.11 This estimate is based upon EPA's itemized material cost estimates in the draft RIA. 12
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 11-12]
11 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,566, Table V-l (providing estimated MY 2027
incremental diesel technology package direct manufacturing costs associated with Proposed
Options 1 and 2 in 2017 dollars).
12 See Draft RIA at Tables 3-26 and 3-27. Daimler Truck notes that in certain categories, EPA's
itemized cost estimates align to a certain extent with its 0\¥ 11. For example, EPA estimates the
cost of NOx sensors that would be part of the technology package used to meet the new
standards under Options 1 or 2 at around $170 (or 3 sensors for a total of $510). This is not far
off of Daimler Truck's estimate that the material cost would be around [redacted] per NOx
sensor. Other estimates in the draft RIA rule unrealistically low, however. For instance, EPA
estimates selective catalytic reduction (SCR) canning costs at around $834 for the SCR system,
whereas Daimler Truck's estimate is closer to $ [redacted].
In marked contrast to this figure, Daimler Truck conservatively estimates material costs for Class
8 diesel vehicles at $ [redacted] 13 for the first year of implementation under either Option 1 or
Option 2 for the Proposed Rule, accepting EPA's premise that the same technologies would be
used to meet the standards in each option. 14 Based upon this figure, Daimler Truck believes that
actual per-unit incremental costs of first-year compliance with the Proposed Rule would be
approximately [redactedl % greater than EPA's $2,210 per-vehicle DMC estimate. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 12]
13 Daimler Truck has redacted its material cost estimates from these comments, as they are
based upon confidential business infolmation. The Company will make these estimates available
to EPA in a confidential setting.
14 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,566.
Given the confidential nature of this information, Daimler Truck is not able to specify in these
comments the particular technology package that it believes would be best to achieve the
proposed standards for Class 8 diesel trucks, other than to note that the technology solution under
consideration is based upon a combination of new engine hardware, improved catalyst
formulations and layouts, including close-coupled selective catalytic reduction (CCSCR), and
vehicle-side improvements to accommodate engine and aftertreatment system changes. The
package under consideration would also include a thermal management system to accelerate
warmup of the aftertreatment system for improved emissions performance during cold-start. 15
1112
-------
The above estimate is based upon the technology package that, using sound engineering
judgment, Daimler Truck believes would best achieve the proposed standards without
compromising performance and safety. Notably, the Company's direct cost estimates incorporate
only material costs and do not include labor costs, as EPA's DMC estimates did. 16 Further, they
are in present-day dollars and do not reflect adjustments for inflation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.12]
15 At a high level, Daimler Truck's $ [redacted] DMC cost estimate is comprised of several
categories of material costs, including $ [redacted] for engine upgrades, $ [redacted] for the
thelmal management system, $ [redacted] for ATS improvements, and $ [redacted] for vehicle-
side costs necessaly to incolporate these new systems. As noted above, Daimler Truck will
make the detailed breakdown available to EPA in a confidential setting.
16 See id. at 17,565.
Discussed immediately below are more holistic cost assessments set forth in the numerous
published cost studies prepared in anticipation of EPA's proposed rule and the similar proposal
by CARB in its Omnibus rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 15]
Comparison of EPA Estimates to Other Cost Studies. As EPA notes in the draft RIA, there
are a number of available studies that analyze anticipated incremental cost increases associated
with next-tier NOx compliance and associated regulatory requirements. These studies, based
upon extensive OEM, trade group, and supplier input, are largely consistent with one another as
far as what the main cost drivers will be and what individual program components will cost. Yet
EPA does not fully explain why its DMC and indirect cost assessments diverge—in some cases,
quite significantly—from the estimates in these studies. Below is a summary of the principal
conclusions on estimated compliance costs for Class 8 diesel trucks from four different studies:
(1) the Ricardo Cost Study; (2) the NREL Cost Study; (3) a 2020 Cost Study prepared by ACT
Research (the 'ACT Cost Study'); and (4) a 2020 Cost Study prepared by the International
Council on Clean Technology (the 'ICCT Cost Study'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P 15]
Ricardo Cost Study. The Ricardo Cost Study was prepared for the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association (EMA) in April 2022, in support of EMA's analysis of the Proposed
Rule, and examines the impacts of EPA's proposed Option 1 and Option 2 on the cost of heavy-
duty diesel engines (HDDEs). The Ricardo Cost Study assumed that the Southwest Research
Institute (SWRI) Stage 3 prototype technology package would be sufficient to attain EPA's
proposed low-NOx targets and related requirements, and its estimates encompass incremental
costs associated with new hardware, extended warranty and useful life periods, in-use
compliance, R&D, engineering, and testing.26 Relative to a MY 2021 baseline, the study
estimates that the total incremental cost per HDDE for meeting anticipated regulatory
requirements under Option 1 is approximately $18,650 in MY 2027 and $31,246 in MY 2031,
and under Option 2 is approximately $16,091 starting in MY 2027.27 These figures reflect only
the Ricardo Cost Study estimates of direct and indirect incremental costs to manufacturers (in
2017$) and do not include the significant incremental operating costs that are also provided in
the study.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.15-16]
1113
-------
26 Ricardo Cost Study at 24.
27 Id. at 32, Table 26. The figures provided here were calculated by subtracting the operating
cost estimates in Table 26 from the 'Total' figures provided in 2017$ that table. Using this
calculation method, the corresponding cost estimates in 2021$ would be $20,702 in MY 2027
and $34,682 in MY 2031 under Option 1, and $17,861 starting in MY 2027 under Option 2.
28 Notably, the Ricardo Cost Study estimates incremental per-engine operating costs to be
around $11,993 under Proposed Rule Option 1, and $7,176 under Option 2 (in 2021$). See id.
NREL Cost Study . The NREL Study was commissioned by CARB in support of its Omnibus
rulemaking and was published in May 2020. The study included a review of engine and exhaust
afteltreatment technologies that could achieve 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx on certification test cycles,
including a low-load cycle. 29 For Class 8 diesel applications, NREL surveyed trade
organizations, Tier 1 suppliers, and OEMs, requesting that they provide incremental cost
estimates on two unique diesel engine technology packages (charge air, exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR), and turbine cooler bypass vs. cylinder deactivation) combined with two unique
aftertreatment technology packages. 30 From the responses, NREL constructed proposed low-,
average-, and high-cost combined engine and aftertreatment technology packages, generating
cost ranges for each package.31 The survey assumed 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx regulation beginning
MY 2027 and included FTP and SET-RMC steady-state test cycles, as well as a proposed new
LLC cycle. It also considered an extended full useful life of 1,000,000 miles/15 years, and a
regulatory warranty period of 800,000 miles/12 years. The study encompassed California
production volumes only. The survey responses provide an illustrative range of the low, average,
and high cost estimates for each of the three categories of technology packages considered (i.e.,
low-, average-, and high-cost) and reflect that increased warranty costs are a key driver of
incremental cost increases under CARB's proposed regulatoly framework, as illustrated
below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 16]
29 NREL Cost Study at vii.
30 Id. at 12.
31 Id.
ACT Cost Study . ACT Research prepared an analysis for EMA of costs associated with
CARB's proposed Omnibus rule in March 2020.35 The analysis focused on CARB's proposed
standards and requirements for the Omnibus rule in both 2027 and 2031 , and concluded the
following with respect to incremental costs for heavy HDVs on a per-unit basis: [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 16-17]
35 See ACT Research, Cost Study: Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Emissions
Regulations (March 19, 2020) ('ACT Cost Study').
Adding these incremental cost estimates together, the ACT Cost Study concludes that the total
cost increase per unit to meet CARB's proposed combined MY 2027 and MY 2031 vehicle
1114
-------
standards on a nationwide basis would be $25,963 applying a 7% discount rate and $37,079
applying a 3% discount rate. As found in the other cost studies referenced herein, the ACT Cost
Study concludes that the extended warranty and useful life requirements in the CARB Omnibus
rule were key drivers of incremental cost increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 17]
ICCT Cost Study. Finally, the ICCT Cost Study was published in May 2020 and estimates the
costs of technology required to meet CARB's proposed regulatoly changes for the Omnibus rule
in 2024 and 2027. 38 While the ICCT Cost Study did review the anticipated impact of increased
useful life requirements, the effect of lengthened regulatory warranty periods was outside of the
scope of the analysis. A principal conclusion of the study is that meeting CARB's MY 2027
targets39 'would require significant changes in current technology and costs, driven by 90%
lower FTP NOx targets, LLC requirements, and long use useful life mandates. '40 The ICCT
Cost Study assumes that cylinder deactivation and EGR bypass would need to be added to future
engines to achieve the projected CARB MY 2027 requirements.41 It also assumes that
aftertreatment changes would include the addition of CCSCR and changes to the urea dosing
system, and it assumes changes to catalyst volume and wash coat folmulations, as well as sensor
replacement to meet the extended regulatOly useful life requirement. 42 Based upon these
assumptions, the ICCT Cost Study estimates the total incremental cost of meeting the CARB
MY 2027 standards to be $5,919 - $6,013 as the 'low-cost durability case' and $6,864 - $6,988
as the 'high-cost durability case.'43 While these figures purport to include account for direct and
indirect costs associated with meeting the CARB MY 2027 proposal, they do not include a
number of key cost inputs, including the indirect costs that would be associated with CARB's
extended warranty requirement. Further, it is important to note that ICCT's estimates are based
upon available literature, trade publications, and expert reviews and not actual cost data from
manufacturer or supplier surveys. The absence of these crucial inputs may account for the
relatively low estimates in the ICCT Cost Study as compared to other studies with more robust
data inputs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.17-18]
38 See Posada et al., International Council on Clean Transportation, White Paper, 'Estimated
Cost of Diesel Emissions-Control Technology to Meet Future California Low-NOx Standards in
2024 and 2027' (May 2020) (the 'ICCT Cost Study').
39 The ICCT Cost Study is based upon the following proposed requirements for MY 2027 in the
CARB Omnibus proposed rule (which, except for the NOx limits, closely resemble EPA Option
1 in the Proposed Rule): NOx FTP limit of 0.02 g/bhp-hr, LLC limit of 1-3 times the FTP limit,
600,000 mile useful life in MY 2027 and 800,000 miles by MY 2031. See id. at Table 1.
40 Id. at 2.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id., Table ES-2.
1115
-------
Comparison to EPA Total Technology Cost Per Vehicle Numbers. EPA estimates total per-
vehicle technology costs (in 2017 dollars) for Class 8 diesel trucks as follows:44
• Option 1:
O MY 2027: $4,213
o MY 2031: $3,931
• Option 2:
O MY 2027: $4,003
O MY 2031: $3,215 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 18]
44 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,571, Table V-l 1. As EPA explains in the Proposed
Rule, these figures reflect incremental cost increases over a baseline or 'no action' case consisting
of engine or emission control systems meeting 2019-era criteria emission standards. Id. at
17,565, n. 726.
Considering EPA's total technology cost estimates alongside Daimler Truck's direct material
and warranty cost estimates discussed above, alongside the cost estimates in the Ricardo, NREL,
ACT, and ICCT cost studies, it is clear that EPA underestimates what actual costs of compliance
with its Proposed Rule standards and requirements would likely be.45 EPA's per unit estimate
range of $3,215 - $4,213 (in 2017 dollars) is far lower than even the most conservative ICCT
estimates of $5,919 - $6,988 (in 2019 dollars) and Daimler Truck's partial-cost estimates of $
[redacted] (in today's dollars). EPA's ranges are well off the mark when compared to the more
realistic Ricardo Cost Study range of $16,091 - $31,246 (in 2017 dollars) the NREL Cost Study
range of $10,697 - $50,846 (in 2018 dollars), and the ACT Cost Study range of $25,963 -
$37,079 (in 2019 dollars). The fact that EPA's estimates differ so dramatically from the other
leading cost studies warrant re-visiting its methods and assumptions to account for the vast
disparities, particularly given that EPA has not explained how it can justify such a
departure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.18]
45We note that while the details and assumptions of each of the above-cited cost studies are
slightly different (e.g., 2017$ vs. 2019$, the assumed applicable NOx standard, the assumed
applicable regulatory useful life and warranty periods), these studies generally considered very
similar technology packages and their premises are roughly similar, such that they provide
reasonable benchmarks for the expected program costs on a per-vehicle basis.
EPA cost projections have historically undercounted the effects of its rulemakings, as compared
to sales data and pricing information gathered by analysts working directly with the
manufacturing sector to gather cost data. A 2012 study published by American Truck Dealers
(ATD) examined EPA cost projections for 1997, 2000, and 2001 HD truck rules that phased in
new emission standards between MY 2004 and 2010, specifically the degree to which—and
possible reasons why—EPA's RIA for these standards dramatically underestimated real
world costs of the regulations. 46 The ATD Study concluded that EPA underestimated
compliance costs by a factor of 2-5, and that these higher-than-projected costs resulted in
significantly lower-than projected new truck sales, reducing the environmental benefits
associated with the standards reviewed.47 The figure below, taken from the ATD Study, reflects
that actual manufacturing cost increases for MY 2010-compliant heavy HD trucks were around
1116
-------
three times higher than the costs that EPA had projected during the rulemaking process:48 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 18-19]
46 See Calpin et al., American Truck Dealers, 'A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact
Projections for MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards' (February 13, 2012)
(the 'A.TD Study').
47 Id. at 2.
48 See id. at 9, Figure 3. As explained by A.TD, this figure reflects truck OEMs and year of
invoice on the X-axis, as well as per-vehicle regulatory compliance premiums on the Y-axis.
Dollars are standardized to 2010 with surcharges adjusted for inflation. The EPA estimate is a
MY 2009 projection made in December 2000, inflation adjusted.
EPA should revisit its cost projections made in support of the Proposed Rule, and utilize the
wealth of information available on actual manufacturing cost increases that accompanied
implementation of EPA's previous-generation emission standards, as well as the numerous
available studies on the currently-proposed next-tier standards and requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 19]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The total cost to meet a standard is traditionally split between direct and indirect cost of
manufacturing. Direct manufacturing cost (DMC) covers in broad terms the hardware; indirect
costs (IMC) cover warranty, R&D, profit, and other cost elements that would impact the cost
depending on how many units are sold. Figure 5 shows estimates of the incremental direct
manufacturing costs derived from meeting the standards, including estimates from ARB's Low
NOx Omnibus and EPA's NPRM (Option 1). The deviation is relatively small compared to the
deviation found in the total costs table. The DMC values are close to $2,000 for EPA NPRM and
ICCT costs. ARB's cost for the Low NOx Omnibus rule is based on NREL's OEM survey,
which explains the agreement in values. ARB's values corrected by volume to better represent
national HDV sales reduce DMC by -30% and are close to DMC values reported by Ricardo
under contract for EMA in 2021. However, EMA-Ricardo's values and NREL values were
obtained from surveying vehicle manufacturers and provide few details to explain how the
numbers were derived. Cost surveys among regulated entities tend to generate values well above
those found via bottom-up cost analysis, as detailed by ICCT and EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 13]
Additional sources from the industry also confirm the DMC range. Eaton's analysis shows that
the total incremental cost to meet the proposed regulation while reducing GHG emissions ranges
from $1,700 to $2,900 and includes cylinder deactivation, e-heater, LO-SCR, and a 48V, and
supports a 25-35% full-time NOx compliance margin to 435k miles useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 13]
1117
-------
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
This severe cost to the chemical distribution industry and American economy would not only
harm those directly impacted, but it would also make it more difficult to take future steps to
reduce emissions. This loss in jobs and economic output would also burden manufacturers of
heavy-duty engines and vehicles as there would be fewer purchases of their vehicles. Since the
1970s, the EPA and trucking industry have successfully reduced the emissions of particulate
matter (PM) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 98%. With the emissions of PM and NOx from heavy-
duty trucks already reduced to such a small fraction of where they were previously, pushing for
an even lower amount will be less cost-effective than previous rules and will force manufacturers
to reallocate resources that are currently being dedicated towards the research and development
of zero emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 2]
The proposed rule estimates an increase in each vehicle of only about $4,000; however, research
from the Truck and Engine Manufacturers found that a more realistic increase in the cost of
vehicles is $42,000, roughly ten times that of EPA estimates. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-
Al, p. 2]
1. Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association, 'By the Numbers: Unintended
Consequences of EPA's Proposed Truck Emissions Rule,'
https ://cleantruckfacts. org/, EM A,
https://drive.google.eom/file/d/lXD8yHIgfkoFbCdmXJLM_ZXfgBMxofCcb/vie
w
Organization: New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
NYFB also believes discrepancies must be addressed regarding the proposal's forecasted
compliance costs. In short, there is an enormous disparity—approximately an order of
magnitude— between EPA's compliance cost estimates and those projected by engine
manufacturers, which are forecast to be up to $35,000 per truck. If EPA's cost estimates are too
low, then other key factors influencing the proposal will be affected in turn. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1268-A1, p. 1]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: The proposed
extended useful life (UL), and durability demonstration testing requirements, coupled with the
increased recall liability, could result in manufacturers building-in assumptions regarding the
need to replace the aftertreatment systems at approximately 500,000 miles (or sooner), which
would cause substantial price increases for new HDOH vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA retained Ricardo to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the direct and indirect costs, as
assessed on a per-vehicle basis, that likely will result from EPA's implementation of the low-
1118
-------
NOx regulations, particularly with respect to new regulations centered around Option 1. The
Ricardo compliance cost assessment (Exhibit "B" hereto) is based on its exhaustive review of
public data sources, evaluation of recommended cost-estimation methods, and a detailed survey
and analysis of the HDOH vehicle and engine manufacturing industry, which Ricardo
completed in mid-2021 and then updated in 2022. Table 26 from the Ricardo report, reproduced
below, summarizes Ricardo's findings regarding the aggregated per-vehicle cost impacts from
EPA's Option 1 and Option 2 proposals: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 148 - 149]
As reflected above, Ricardo estimates that the per-vehicle incremental costs for HHD vehicles
under EPA's Option 1 will total $42,051 (in 2017 dollars) as of 2031, including increased
operating costs. When Ricardo's per-vehicle cost number is compared against EPA's estimated
per-vehicle cost number ($3,931 for HHD vehicles in 2031), it is clear (again) that EPA has
understated the per-vehicle costs of its proposed rulemaking by an order of magnitude. The same
conclusion holds when comparing Ricardo's calculation of likely per-vehicle HHD warranty, UL
and component replacement costs in 2031 ($26,376) with EPA's calculation of those indirect
costs ($1,458).32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 149]
32. It is worthy of note that EPA significantly underestimated the costs of its last HDOH
rulemaking by at least a factor of four (4). See ATF Report, Feb. 2012, "A Look Back At EPA's
Cost And Cyber Impact Projections For MY 2004- 2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emission
Standards."
Unlike EPA's cost assessment, Ricardo conducted an actual comprehensive survey of all leading
OEM's to assess the likely direct and indirect cost impacts of the Option 1 standards, and so was
able to make detailed determinations of the per-vehicle direct and indirect cost impacts that will
result from EPA's proposal as of 2027 and 2031. As explained in the Ricardo Report, the cost-
assessment that Ricardo utilized is inherently more reasonable and robust than the assumption
driven and extrapolation-based approach that EPA has taken. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, pp. 149 - 150]
From the foregoing comparisons of cost estimates, it is clear that the main differences between
EPA's estimates and Ricardo's relate to the direct costs for CD A systems, and the indirect costs
associated with the proposed extensions of emissions warranty and UL periods. More
specifically, EPA assumes that the all-in per-vehicle costs associated with the deployment of the
required complex CDA systems will be only $206, a number that EPA derived from assessing
costs at the component-supplier level. Ricardo, on the other hand, based its assessments of all of
the relevant CDA-integration costs at the OEM level, and has calculated those per-vehicle costs
to be $1,512. (See Ricardo Report, p. 20.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 150]
Beyond that, the more significant cost differentials stem from how EPA and Ricardo have
estimated the per-vehicle costs associated with EPA's proposals to extend the regulatory UL and
emissions warranty periods. EPA's estimate of those costs (as adjusted upward by Ricardo) —
based on the Agency's assumption that aftertreatment components will not need to be replaced
during the extended UL period — amounts to just $2,373 per vehicle, a figure that is inherently
unrealistic and that is less even than CARB's much shorter "Step 1" warranty, as discussed
further below. Ricardo, on the other hand, based on real data from OEMs, and on the OEMs'
1119
-------
direct confirmation that ERCs will need to be replaced if an 800,000 mile UL is mandated, has
calculated that the actual incremental per-vehicle UL and warranty costs will be $26,376. Here
too, EPA has under-estimated the actual incremental costs of Option 1 by more than an order of
magnitude. Ricardo's Report explains these critical differences with greater particularity, and
demonstrates that EPA's cost projections are unreasonable, which means that they are an
insufficient basis for this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 150]
A side-by-side comparison of the cost elements of EPA's Option 1 and 2 proposals, as estimated
by EPA and by Ricardo is set forth below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 150]
As already discussed, EPA's order-of magnitude miscalculations of cost are rooted in large part
in the Agency's unsupported assumption that manufacturers will not fully adjust the costs of
their HHD and MHD vehicles to recoup the full projected costs that will result from EPA's
proposals to extend emission warranties and regulated FULs, and from the increased compliance
liabilities that will stem from the substantially expanded list of emissions-related components
that will be covered under the lengthened warranties. But it is fundamentally unreasonable to
assume that manufacturers will choose to absorb the quantumly increased costs and risks of the
low-NOx regulations, and so will not attempt to fully recoup those costs through corollary
vehicle price increases. Based on consistent historical experience, and as a matter of sensible
business practice, manufacturers will calculate and fully recoup those regulatory costs through
corollary per-vehicle price increases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 151]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
In its proposed rule, the EPA has asked the public to comment on two options for reducing
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions. Option 1 would lead to a 90% reduction of NOx from the
current 0.2 g/bhp-hr standard to an ultra-low .02 standard in 2031, which would be in line with
the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation that was finalized on December 22, 2021. The new NOx standard that CARB has set
will lead to a substantial increase in the cost of a new Heavy-Duty vehicle, as well as
significantly disrupt the new truck market. After discussions with several OEMs, TRALA is not
confident this level of NOx reduction is even possible by the target date, and therefore, TRALA
opposes Option 1 as it is currently not technologically feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1180-A1, p. 2]
As noted in the comments of the Truck and Engine Manufacturer Association (EMA) that were
submitted to CARB on August 27, 2020, an independent study was performed by Americas
Commercial Transportation Research Company (ACT Research), which found that CARB's
NOx regulation would result in a $58,000 increase in the cost of a new Model Year 2031 heavy
heavy-duty vehicles and a $51,000 increase for medium heavy-duty vehicles. Since those cost
estimates were made prior to the inflationary period that the economy is going through now,
TRALA believes the actual cost of this regulation on a per-vehicle basis may be higher than
$58,000. These costs cannot simply be absorbed by TRALA members, and a requirement for a
90% reduction in NOx will ultimately result in higher lease payments for TRALA
customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 2]
1120
-------
The majority of TRALA customers are small businesses who need trucks to operate a segment of
their business and they are inclined to lease instead of purchase a fleet of trucks. The typical
customer will lease two or three trucks for a period of four to six years, and at the end of their
lease contract they will turn in their truck to the lessor and enter into a new lease on a new truck.
The lessor will either keep that truck as a part of their rental fleet or sell the truck on the
secondary market. This model has reduced the overall cost of ownership for small businesses,
while also putting new trucks out on the road faster than other segments of the trucking industry.
Increasing the cost of new diesel trucks by a significant amount will lead to customers opting
into longer lease contracts, or in many cases, opting to renew their current vehicle lease instead
of leasing a newer, more environmentally friendly truck. Longer lease terms and renewals of
current leases will significantly slow the velocity of new trucks entering the marketplace once
these new rules go into effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 2]
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
EPA openly acknowledges that the proposed rule's impacts on the cost of new medium- and
heavy-duty trucks, and the impacts of its associated unprecedented and untested useful life and
warranty requirements, are highly uncertain. Indeed, there is an enormous and troubling
disparity—approximately an order of magnitude—between EPA's compliance cost estimates and
those projected by engine manufacturers. Such factual issues merit very careful attention and
consideration by the agency.
Specifically, a detailed April 2022 analysis by Ricardo Strategic Consulting forecasts that EPA's
Option 1 would impose incremental compliance costs of $42,000 per truck. 12 The report
concluded that, based on historical cost data, "most OEMs do not experience the steep cost
reductions that EPA uses in its analysis of the introduction of new emission-control
technologies." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 5]
12. Review of EPANRPM and Compliance Cost Assessment, April 25, 2022. Available
at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/lPdGgvJMGBLNM8pFLd3SXuD8ZS0VcNh-g
EPA Summary and Response
The comments summarized above focus primarily on assertions about:
• EPA's costs being too low, largely because EPA did not consider aftertreatment
replacement costs in its cost analysis; and,
• EPA's cylinder deactivation costs being too low when compared to estimates by
manufacturers generated via surveys; and,
• EPA's cost reductions resulting from the learning-by-doing phenomenon being too
aggressive.
Several commenters stated that costs would be much higher than estimated by EPA, as high as
$42,000 per HHD8 engine (Advanced Engine Systems Institute, American Bus Association,
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Truck Dealers (ATD), Daimler Truck North
America LLC (Daimler), National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD), PACCAR,
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), New York Farm Bureau (NYFB), U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)). The source of these
1121
-------
cost estimates is the EMA comments which included a study done for EMA by Ricardo which
estimated costs as high as $42,000 per engine. The primary difference between EPA's cost
estimates and the higher cost estimates from commenters was a difference in approach associated
with the proposal's Option 1, particularly for the Heavy HDE NOx standards and useful life
values for MY 2031, which the EMA/Ricardo study and comments argued would require
aftertreatment system replacement during the useful life of the vehicle at a cost of as much as
$20,000. As explained in preamble Sections III and IV, the useful life values under the proposal's
Option 1 in MY 2031 for Heavy HDE are not part of the final rule, and the final useful life
values for Heavy HDE are both shorter and associated with higher numeric emission standards
(i.e., less stringent levels of NOx control) than proposed Option 1 in MY 2031. More
specifically, 1) EPA's final rule does not require the longer useful life considered in the
EMA/Ricardo study (800,000 miles), 2) the EPA final numeric NOx standards are not as
stringent as the values considered in the EMA/Ricardo study, and 3) as explained in preamble
Sections III and IV, the EPA final NOx standards for the HHD8 engines explicitly include
consideration of compliance margin, which was one of the primary technical concerns identified
by EMA as driving the asserted need for the projected aftertreatment replacement requirements
in the EMA/Ricardo study. In addition, EPA's final rule does not include the 600,000 mile
emissions warranty for the HHD8 engine class which was considered in the EMA/Ricardo study.
These factors, plus EPA's analysis and determination that the final standards and useful life
values are technically feasible for MY 2027 and later engines, obviate the need to replace
aftertreatment systems to maintain compliance during the useful life and thus make a comparison
of the EPA final cost estimate and the EMA/Ricardo study an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Another area of significant difference, in EPA's view, is EPA's reliance on a very detailed set of
bottom-up cost estimates, including tear-down efforts for CDA system costs. The EPA final rule
cost estimates for the aftertreatment system and the CDA system rely upon peer-reviewed,
externally commissioned, detailed and transparent cost estimates. In contrast, the EMA/Ricardo
study estimates are based on manufacturer surveys with little to no detail behind what survey
respondents may have included or not included in their estimated costs. ICCT noted in their
comments that, "Cost surveys among regulated entities tend to generate values well above those
found via bottom-up cost analysis," and EPA shares that concern. A possible source of difference
between EPA estimates and typical manufacturer survey estimates has to do with assumptions
about how some or all indirect costs are recovered. In the HD2027 analysis, EPA estimates that
indirect costs continue indefinitely at a multiple of the direct manufacturing costs. In contrast, it
is possible that manufacturer respondents, or some respondents, may have assumed that indirect
costs would have to be recovered over a short time frame, amortizing those costs over one or
only a few model years of sales. The limited detail provided in the EMA/Ricardo study estimates
makes it difficult for EPA to evaluate whether that is in fact the case.
EMA also commented on the "substantially expanded list of emissions-related components that
will be covered under the lengthened warranties." As we describe in Section 4.1, we did not
intend to expand the list of components covered under warranty and we are revising the proposed
warranty provisions in the final rule to clarify that emission-related warranty covers components
listed in 40 CFR part 1068, appendix A, consistent with current requirements.
1122
-------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also commented on the rate of cost reductions in the EPA cost
analysis, stating that "most OEMs do not experience the steep cost reductions that EPA uses in
its analysis of the introduction of new emission-control technologies." This appears to be a
reference to the EMA/Ricardo study comments and, specifically, the Ricardo study. In section
5.6 of that Ricardo study, Ricardo mistakenly claims that EPA used certain learning curves that
EPA did not actually use in the proposal (or this final rule). Ricardo did not provide a source for
the learning curves they attribute to EPA.40
Importantly, Ricardo did not make clear that EPA also applies learning effects to the baseline
technology costs, although at an appropriately lower rate. Since EPA's primary focus is on the
incremental costs associated with standards, the costs under the standards versus those under the
baseline is of most relevance. Without learning in the baseline, the baseline cost would not
decrease while the action case cost would continue to decrease downward toward the baseline
cost, thereby decreasing the marginal cost much more rapidly than the approach used by EPA.
Therefore, EPA believes that this claim of EPA having used inappropriately high rates of
learning is simply not accurate, especially when combined with the fact that learning is also
applied in the baseline. EPA is using the same approach to learning in the final analysis (see
Chapter 7.1.1 of the final RIA for all of the learning effects applied in the final analysis).
At least one manufacturer provided more detailed cost estimates but redacted those estimates in
their comments to the public docket. These estimates, while higher than EPA's proposal,
included costs for replacement of parts during the useful life based on the manufacturer's views
of the EPA proposed Option 1. However, as explained further in preamble Sections III and IV,
EPA is not finalizing the complete Option 1 standards, useful life values, and warranty periods as
proposed and, as explained above, the final standards are feasible without replacement of
aftertreatment systems to maintain compliance during the final regulatory useful life values. In
three key drivers of costs (emission standards, emissions warranty, and regulatory useful life) the
EPA final rule has less stringent numeric requirements than considered by this manufacturer and
is thus similarly an apples-to-oranges comparison for the same reasons explained above with
regard to the EMA/Ricardo study cost estimates.
The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) commented that so much has
already been done through the years to clean up heavy-duty trucks that this rule will be less cost-
effective than those prior efforts. NACD also commented, as did the Agricultural Retailers
Association, that this rule is requiring R&D expenditures that could be focused on zero emission
vehicles. In EPA's judgment, despite the evolution of zero emission technology, as discussed in
preamble Sections VII and VIII, the projected emissions and negative impacts on public health
and welfare from internal combustion engine trucks cannot be ignored. Clean Air Act section
202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set emission standards for NOx, PM, HC, and CO for heavy duty
engines that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application
of technology that the Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which
such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors
associated with the application of such technology. CAA section 202(a)(3) neither requires that
EPA consider all the statutory factors equally nor mandates a specific method of cost analysis;
40 The approach used by EPA in estimating learning effects is explained in the final RIA Section 7.1.1 and was
derived from "Cost Reduction through Learning in Manufacturing Industries and in the Manufacture of Mobile
Sources, Final Report and Peer Review Report," EPA-420-R-16-018, November 2016.
1123
-------
rather EPA has discretion in determining the appropriate consideration to give such factors. See,
e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that similar technology
forcing language in CAA section 202(1)(2) "does not resolve how the Administrator should
weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process of finding the 'greatest emission reduction
achievable' "); Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that
under CAA section 213's similar technology-forcing authority that "EPA did not deviate from
its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional will by placing primary significance on the
'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable' " or by considering cost and other statutory
factors as important but secondary). As explained in preamble Sections I, III and V, in setting the
final emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified in CAA
section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the
application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model year the final
standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the application of
such technology). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We also evaluated additional factors, including
factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lend further support to the
final rule. This rule is projected to result in a significant reduction in heavy-duty truck emissions
which, as described in the final rule preamble and final RIA, is projected to reduce air pollution
and improve public health and welfare. In addition, we note that EPA's analysis demonstrates
that the rule is cost beneficial to society in that its benefits outweigh its costs. Given these
considerations, how this rule's cost-effectiveness compares to prior emission control regulatory
programs is not germane.
NACD also commented that loss in jobs and economic output would burden manufacturers of
heavy-duty engines and vehicles, as there would be fewer purchases of their vehicles. We
respond to these comments in sections 25 through 26 of this document.
TRALA also commented with respect to what we call low-buy, where truck purchasers may
decrease purchases of new trucks due the to the final program thereby reducing the benefits of
the program. We respond to such comments in section 25 of this document.
18.3 Indirect costs - Warranty
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
In order to calculate the cost of longer warranty and useful life periods, EPA relied on one
analysis (the Fleet Advantage study) over another (the American Transportation Research
Institute (ATRI) study.30 EPA's rationale for relying on the first study was that it was centered
on "both short-haul and long-haul combination trucks."31 EPA theorized that the ATRI study
would "suggest a higher weighting of older vehicles with higher repair and maintenance
costs/mile relative to the weighting of costs/mile in the Fleet Advantage study."32 For this
reason, EPA apparently chose the Fleet Advantage study over the ATRI study with its
concomitant lower costs (10.48 cents/mile versus 17.1 cents/mile). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.14]
1124
-------
30 Draft RIA at 342.
31 Id.
32 Id.
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
One of the more controversial potential cost increases under HD2027 is the requirement to
significantly extend mandatory warranties paid for by the initial vehicle purchaser. Warranty
pricing is not a stand-alone operational cost line-item. It is wrapped into the category of truck
lease or purchase payments complete with a 12% Federal Excise Tax tacked on. A potential
sixfold increase in warranty coverage will not come cheap. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-
Al, p. 11]
Many factors determine equipment turnover cycles for fleets including the financial health of the
economy and the company, depreciation, type of operation, maintenance levels, and trade-in
values. There is no need for a company that has a short fleet turnover cycle to purchase an
extended warranty package. These fleets already have the lowest emission profiles in the
industry given they routinely purchase the newest equipment on the market. It is these fleets that
will be disproportionally impacted financially if they are required to purchase warranties that
exceed their mileage needs. Requiring the purchase of extended warranties not normally needed
may potentially have the unintended consequence of fleets holding onto their current trucks
longer thereby decreasing the introduction of new ultra-low NOx trucks into the secondary
marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 11]
Fleets have widely varied approaches to their purchase of extended warranties depending on
their business models and financial means. The one common factor that exists is that fleets
purchase extended warranties based upon their specific needs and costs. The following five real
life examples illustrate this point and are based upon today's technologies, not those involving
the next generation of more highly complex and expensive pathways: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1326-A1, p. 11]
Example #1
Fleet A is a large Less-Than-Truckload ("LTL") fleet that purchases new Class 8 trucks and uses
them for the life of the truck which is roughly 1.6 million miles or 15 years. Fleet A has emission
control/maintenance work that typically costs $10,000 at around 400K mile intervals. They
purchase the longest extended warranties available in the market. Emission control equipment
falling outside the warranty period is typically repaired at dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1326-A1, p. 11]
Example #2
Fleet B is a large Truckload ("TL") fleet that purchases new Class 8 trucks and uses them for
around 400-450K miles before reselling their vehicles. Fleet B pays over $4,000 above the
1125
-------
standard 100K mile/5-year warranty for extra emission systems coverage (i.e., they purchase a 5-
year 450K mile aftertreatment extended warranty). Their extended warranty purchases align with
their expected use of their equipment. Fleet B notes that they must purchase an extended engine
warranty package (i.e., 4-year 450K mile engine extended warranty) to purchase the extended
aftertreatment warranty package therefore both costs are reflected in their $4,000+ figure. Both
warranty packages cover different aspects of the emission control system. Fleet B also noted that
given their large volume of orders, they are able to negotiate a substantially lower extended
warranty package per power unit compared to fleets that are not able to leverage economies of
scale. Given Fleet B's consistent fleet turnover cycles, there is no need to purchase warranties
beyond their period of ownership which is the case for all similarly situated fleets. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 12]
Example #3
Fleet C is a small trucking company that conducts LTL, TL, and drayage operations. Fleet C
purchases new Class 8 trucks that include the standard 100K mile/5-year manufacturers'
warranty. They do not purchase extended warranties and they operate their trucks for their entire
operational life. Major repair work outside the standard warranty period is conducted at
dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 12]
Example #4
Fleet D is a medium-sized trucking company that operates flatbeds. Fleet D purchases new Class
8 trucks and they also purchase the extended warranty packages that cover 500k miles including
clutch and towing. Their additional cost beyond the standard 100K mile/5-year warranty
(excluding their clutch and towing warranty cost) costs $7,000 for an additional 500,000 miles of
warranty coverage. They operate their fleet until the end of their equipment operational life,
sometimes as much as 2 million miles. Major repair work outside their warranty periods is
undertaken at dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 12]
Example #5
Fleet D is a small trucking company that operates 10 Class 8 trucks. Their operations include TL,
dry van, temperature-controlled, and flatbed. Fleet D only purchases used trucks and operates
them for the remainder of their operational life, typically 800,000 to 1,000,000 miles. Fleet D
buys used trucks having between 300,000 to 400,000 miles but that may change given the
tremendous escalation in used truck prices that have now exceeded $100,000 per tractor - the
highest prices on record for used Class 8 trucks. 8 They do not normally purchase extended
warranties on their used equipment due to high warranty prices. In addition, they noted that
they are charged between $500 to $1,000 per vehicle up-front per vehicle for pre-inspections for
extended warranty applications whether they decide to buy an extended warranty or not. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
8. "March's Average Used Class 8 Retail Price Breaks $100,000," Transport Topics (April 26,
2022).
1126
-------
There is an exceptionally wide variation in projected warranty cost estimates between CARB, the
U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"), EPA, and the
OEMs - a matter that is creating great concern amongst fleets as they anticipate their future
equipment purchasing paths. Depending on where extended warranties are set, the cost of such
warranties paid for up-front by the initial vehicle purchaser - whether they need such coverage
or not - could potentially cost more than the technology needed to achieve compliance. This
would be a historical first in our industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 13]
As an example, CARB estimated the cost increase of raising the minimum emissions warranty
from 100,000 miles to 350,000 miles would range from $285 - $413 on a per-vehicle basis.9
According to a sampling of ATA member companies, the cost of purchasing a CARB-certified
vehicle with the minimum 350,000 mile warranty added more than $1,000 to the vehicle
purchase price when compared to the same federally-certified vehicle without this added
warranty. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 13]
9. California Air Resources Board, Public Hearing To Consider Proposed Amendments To
California Emission Control System Warranty Regulations and Maintenance Provisions for 2022
and Subsequent Model Year On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles And Heavy-Duty Engines
with Gross Vehicle Weight Ratings Greater Than 14,000 Pounds and Heavy-Duty Diesel
Engines in such Vehicles, p. IX-6 (May 8, 2018).
10. See Appendix A.
These member companies have indicated that, while their minimum manufacturer's emission
warranty is closer to 250,000 miles, on average, many do purchase extended warranties to cover
their expected mileage during their ownership period. The cost of these extended warranties was
reported to be roughly $1,000 per 100,000 miles of warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-
Al, p. 13]
These real-world warranty costs are in sharp contrast to the previous regulatory cost estimates
that have been presented by CARB. EPA should take note of these differences and ensure that
their warranty cost estimates are thoroughly evaluated and vetted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1326-A1, p. 13]
The proposed increases in coverage as well as the complexity of the technologies being covered
have raised concerns within the trucking industry. Cost estimates prepared by truck
manufacturers have consistently projected significantly higher warranty costs for future
increases. These cost disparities, which are as much 8 times higher than the EPA estimates,
highlight the need to get it right. As we have experienced with the CARB 2022 warranties,
adding thousands of dollars to the cost of a new truck, especially when a return-on-investment is
not apparent, will result in fleets reevaluating the purchase decisions and could result in adverse
purchase impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 13]
Additionally, nearly every fleet sampled indicated they did not receive a residual value from any
unused portion of their emissions warranty when they resold a truck. This may partly explain
why fleets that purchase extended warranties attempt to purchase coverage for only the
1127
-------
mileage they accrue under ownership. It should be noted that secondary buyers still have the
ability to purchase additional warranty coverage through the secondary market should they want
such coverage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
Warranties are intended to cover defects in materials and workmanship which cause the failure
of a warranted part to be identical in all material respects to that part as described in the vehicle
or engine manufacturer's application for certification. Warranties are not intended to cover
failure of parts that are not designed properly. In the simplest of terms, CARB contends in its
December 2021 "California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study for
2022 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines" that components fail because
manufacturers are not properly engineering their performance within their useful life - a rather
simplistic and absurd response. Manufacturers invest millions of dollars in research and
development to ensure components function and perform properly. The relationships between
manufacturers and fleets are built over decades with performance, price, and quality tied to
continued brand loyalty. Equipment that continually breaks down or is constantly in service bays
does a fleet no favors. We have a saying in the trucking industry that a non-moving truck is an
un-productive truck. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 14]
Extended warranties, durability, and vehicle downtime are all interconnected. As useful life
increases, the theory is that components will become more durable and in turn lead to fewer
repairs and less downtime for fleets. Extended warranties are not free. They can best be
compared to insurance in guaranteeing different degrees of coverage for repairs. A useful life
figure never guarantees the performance of a part or system. What extended warranties do not
cover are towing fees and downtime after a breakdown. Between hook-up and mileage fees, it is
not unusual for a fleet to receive a $5,000 bill for a 100-mile tow. Once at a repair shop, fleets
will likely experience parts and technician shortages. It is not uncommon for a truck to be out of
circulation for days, weeks, and even more than a month. For these reasons, downtime costs
frequently exceed repair costs - even under different warranty packages. Monthly payments on
equipment not in use remain the same as payments for equipment actively hauling freight.
Extended warranties are not the end-all solution in making timely repairs and keeping the
nation's supply chain connected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 14]
When lower NOx standards take effect and longer useful life and warranty requirements are
phased-in, expect increased repair costs due to higher unit prices for parts due to longer useful
life and the introduction of premature new technologies likely to have elevated failure rates.
Manufacturers have no choice but to substantially increase warranty prices — including extra
margins — to cover cost and frequency of repair uncertainties. Such technologies were aged in
the lab, not under actual on-road operating conditions. Again, the financial burdens fall squarely
on the shoulders of fleets, not manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 14]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Option 2 matches CARB's less stringent Step 1 warranty, which took effect with model year
2022 and which was intended only as an intermediate step to the longer warranty periods in the
Omnibus Regulation (termed Step 2 warranty). Although the small incremental Step 1 represents
was appropriate as an intermediate step toward the longer warranty periods of Omnibus
1128
-------
Regulation, it is inadequate as an endpoint for 2027 MY and later engines. As discussed in
comment b of this section, the voluntarily purchased longer warranties should be considered as
part of the regulatory warranty baseline. Using California State University, Sacramento survey
data and information shared by the manufacturers and third-party warranty providers, CARB
staff more accurately accounted for current warranty buying practices by fleets and
owner/operators, and hence CARB staffs warranty baseline is higher than in the other
analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.109-110]
The incremental change of warranty coverage of Option 2, which is equivalent to CARB's Step 1
warranty, is small especially after voluntarily purchased longer warranties are considered. In
CARB staffs analysis in the Step 1 warranty rulemaking, heavy HD vehicles are estimated to
travel about 316,000 miles on average under warranty in the baseline condition prior to Step 1
warranty because of the significant uptake of voluntary longer warranties beyond the regulatory
100,000 miles. For example, 40 percent of vehicle owners who voluntarily purchased 5
years/500,000 miles warranties already would not be affected by Step 1 warranty, which lowered
CARB staffs estimated incremental costs. The miles covered under warranty was estimated to
increase to 348,100 miles under Step 1 warranty, which means the warranty coverage, on
average, only increased by about 10 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.110]
CARB staff have concerns regarding the 'Vehicle miles traveled based scaling factors' used in
U.S. EPA's calculation of warranty cost. The warranty calculation method assumes the warranty
cost of a HD diesel engine is 3 percent of the direct manufacturing cost of diesel technology
package multiplied by the corresponding scaling factor. For example, the scaling factor of heavy
HD vehicles for MY 2031 and later is assumed to be six because the current mileage of the
regulatory warranty is 100,000 miles, and Option 1 proposes to extend warranty to 600,000
miles. This assumption can overstate the relative cost impact of longer warranty periods for two
reasons:
1. The estimated warranty cost includes the cost of voluntary longer warranties
currently purchased by the majority of vehicle owners. As noted in page 17507 of the
proposed rule, nearly 50 percent of new HD Class 8 vehicles are sold with a 500,000 mile
extended warranty. In California's Step 1 warranty rulemaking, CARB staff estimated
based on survey data that only 15 percent of Class 8 vehicles rely on the 100,000 mile
warranty period, with the remainder having an extended warranty to 250,000 miles (45
percent) or 500,000 miles (40 percent). 173 As specified in 40 CFR 86.004-2 as well as in
the proposed section 1036.120 (b), the emission warranty period should not be less than
the basic mechanical warranty period that the manufacturer provides with or without
additional charge to the purchase of the engine. Therefore, the current purchase practice
of extended warranty should be considered as part of the regulatory baseline to reflect the
average real cost fleets will encounter when purchasing vehicles with the proposed longer
warranty period.
173 Appendix C Economic Impact Analysis / Assessment, page C-3,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/hdwarranty 18/appc.pdf7_ga=2,6562
6670.1089019171.1648488649-859068364.1628622434
1129
-------
2. The warranty cost method overestimates the total mileages accumulated by all the
vehicles because it assumes every vehicle reaches the mileage limit before reaching the
hour or year limit (e.g., reaching 600,000 miles limit before 10 years or 30,000 hours for
HHDD). Although the different usage patterns of different vehicles categories are
accounted for in the calculation of repair costs (section 7.2.3), this difference is not
considered in the warranty cost. In other words, the repair cost analysis accounts for
different usage patterns of different vehicle categories through the vehicle's service life,
but the upfront warranty cost estimate does not. This assumption can exaggerate the
warranty cost increase of low-mileage vehicles that can reach the hour or year limit
before the mileage limit. To account for the different limiting factors of warranty periods,
i.e., mileage, years, or hour limit, CARB staff used the 'miles covered under warranty' in
estimating the incremental change of usage due to the longer warranty periods of Step 1
warranty and Omnibus warranty. A similar analysis using U.S. EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator should be considered to represent the appropriate warranty cost more
accurately for low-mileage vehicle categories. Revising the analysis as recommended
would lower the cost of warranty Option 1, which provides another rationale for
supporting the stronger, more effective Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pp.110-111]
It is important to note that the same factors significantly contributed to the difference in warranty
cost estimates of CARB's Omnibus Regulations presented by CARB staff compared to those
prepared by industry stakeholders. Detailed analysis is available in the final report of the Board-
Directed HD Warranty Cost Study Working Group. 174 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
pill]
174 See section IV.E (page 43-44) of the final report regarding CARB's analysis of the
difference between CARB and other warranty cost estimates,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/warranty_cost_study_final_report.pdf
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Indirect Costs. EPA's indirect cost estimates are similarly inaccurate and are well below what
Daimler Truck estimates will be the actual costs of implementing the Proposed Rule under either
Option 1 or 2. As explained in Section IV. A of these comments, and as acknowledged by EPA in
the Proposed Rule, the proposed extension of useful life and emission warranty periods will be
the main drivers of indirect cost increases for manufacturers. EPA does not acknowledge the
magnitude of these cost increases, while providing estimates that understate the compliance
burdens associated with these aspects of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P-12]
As explained in Section IV. A, it is widely expected that to meet the more stringent numerical
standards for the extended useful life timeframes under Option 1 of the Proposed Rule, it may be
necessary to repair and/or replace the aftertreatment system and related components during the
useful life of the vehicle and likely during the emission warranty period. In the draft RIA, EPA
acknowledges the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) technology cost study conducted in
conjunction with the development of CARB's Low-NOx Omnibus rule, in which NREL factors
1130
-------
in to its cost scenarios the need to replace the aftertreatment system at one or more times during
the useful life of the vehicle to meet the 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard adopted by CARB in the
Omnibus rule. 17 Similarly, a recent Ricardo Strategic Consulting analysis of incremental
increased costs associated with the Proposed Rule assumes replacements of existing and new
emission-related components throughout the extended emission warranty periods and takes these
into account in estimating indirect costs. 18 Both the NREL and Ricardo Cost Studies are based
upon extensive input by manufacturers and reflect a reasonable assumption (which is explained
in more detail in Section IV. A) that aftertreatment system and/or component replacement will
likely be necessary at some point during the extended regulatory useful life and potentially the
warranty period, given the stringent standards that EPA is proposing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, pp.12-13]
17 See NREL, On-Road Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Technology Cost Study (May 2020) at
(the 'NREL Cost Study').
18 See Ricardo Strategic Consulting, Review of EPANPRM and Compliance Cost
Assessment, prepared for Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (April 25, 2022)
at 28-30 (the 'Ricardo Cost Study') (submitted with Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association comments on EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055[-1203]).
Yet EPA rejects this reasonable assumption without full explanation, stating simply that it
assumes 'that manufacturers would not pursue such an approach' (i.e., complete system
replacement at some point during the useful life of the engine/vehicle), pointing to what it
characterizes as industry practice 'by and large since emission controls were introduced in the
1970s and 1980s.' 19 EPA thus rejects a central component of the NREL and Ricardo cost impact
studies and a key driver of indirect costs to manufacturers. This is not reasoned decision-
making20 and reflects that the Agency's proposal does not acknowledge what compliance with
significantly more stringent standards for the increased regulatory useful life periods, as well as
the increased costs associated with longer warranty periods, will actually cost under Option 1.21
Daimler Truck provides a detailed technical explanation for why and how these costs are likely
to be incurred in Section IV.A, which supports the conclusion that EPA's assumption is
unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 13]
19 Draft RIA at 327.
20 Cf. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173
L.Ed.2d 738 (2009) (noting 'the requirement that an agency provide reasoned explanation
for its action').
21 Because the Agency's cost-benefit analysis does not account for the likelihood of
aftertreatment system replacements, it also fails to address the inherent inefficiencies of
such replacements, where a fully-functional emission control system must be traded out
for a marginally more effective one to ensure that EPA's stringent standards are met for
full useful life. For a complete evaluation of costs and benefits associated with the
Proposed Rule, particularly under Option 1, it is recommended that EPA conduct an
1131
-------
assessment of the significant cost of aftertreatment system replacements in comparison to
their marginal environmental benefits.
As noted above, Daimler Truck has undertaken its own internal study of incremental cost
increases associated with the Proposed Rule, including indirect costs attributable to the extended
warranty periods in the proposal. Table 2 below reflects the Daimler Truck's warranty cost
estimates in comparison to EPA's under proposed Option 1 and Option 2: Table 2 reflects the
large disparity between EPA and Daimler Truck warranty cost estimates, the latter of which are
more in line with industry expectations based upon many years of service and emission
warranty experience. As reflected in the table, the most costly phase of EPA's proposal would
start in MY 2031 under Option 1, where manufacturers of Class 8 Trucks would have to meet
very stringent NOx standards for an unprecedented 800,000 mile useful life, including a 600,000
mile emission warranty period. Daimler Truck estimates that during this time, per-vehicle
warranty costs would be upwards of $ [redacted!, many times more than EPA's incremental
cost projection of $1,210 per vehicle.25 EPA's warranty cost estimates under Option 2 ($716 for
MY 2027-2030 and $641 for MY 2031 +) are similarly inaccurate and are well below Daimler
Truck's more realistic $ [redacted] cost estimate. Daimler Truck's cost estimate under Option 2
is suppolied by real-world data from the first phase of implementation of CARB's 'Step 1 '
warranty period extension for Class 8 bucks under the Omnibus rule, which imposed a 350,000
mile/5 year warranty period for MY 2022-2026. Due to Daimler Truck's actual average
production cost increases, vehicle prices in fact increased during CARB's 'Step 1' phase by $
[redactedl (depending upon the vehicle). Notably, this phase has not required the installation of
additional engine or aftelireatment technology as compared to MY 2021 builds, in contrast to
EPA's proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.13-14]
25 The Ricardo Cost Study estimates incremental costs associated with extended emission
warranties as high as $9,942 strut ing in MY 2027 and $16,268 starting in MY 2031 under
Proposed Rule Option 1, and $5,800 under Proposed Rule Option 2. Daimler Truck's figure is
thus reasonably aligned with the warranty costs estimated in the Ricardo Cost Study, which is
based upon industry expelt input and OEM responses to a confidential survey. See Ricardo Cost
Study at 28.
On the basis of the cost estimates presented above, Daimler Truck conservatively estimates that
incremental material and warranty costs alone will total:
• $ [redacted] per MY 2027-2030 Class 8 truck under Option 1.
• $ [redacted] per MY 2031+ Class 8 truck under Option 1.
• $ [redacted] per MY 2027+ Class 8 truck under Option 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.15]
Again, it is important to note that Daimler Truck estimates only direct material costs and indirect
costs associated with extended warranty periods. It has not taken into account other factors such
as markup, R&D, or profit margins for the service centers that perform warranty work. Thus,
Daimler Truck's estimates should be considered a starting point for cost increases that would be
incurred under the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 15]
1132
-------
EPA estimates that, for MY 2031 Class 8 HHD trucks, its proposed warranty periods in Option 1
will add only $1,227 in incremental warranty costs, and that Option 2 would add only $641 in
incremental warranty costs.97 These figures conflict with readily and widely available
information. For instance, CARB's recently enacted 'Step 1 Warranty' standards in the Omnibus
rule extended the warranty period for heavy HDVs to 350,000 miles (as compared to the federal
100,000 mile requirement) but did not require the addition of more complicated emissions
hardware and associated warranty costs. Pricing differences between 'EPA-certified' and
'CARB-certified' vehicles with the exact same powertrains are readily available to the public,
and illustrate the cost of CARB's extended warranty products. As noted in Section II.B.l of these
comments, for Daimler Truck Class 8 trucks, the extended CARB warranty has added as much
as $ [redacted] to the price of a vehicle—and nearly $ [redacted] to the price of a high-volume
on-highway engine like the Detroit DDI5. These increased costs are solely attributable to the
extended warranty terms under the CARB Omnibus rule, thus are a benchmark of the likely cost
increases that will be associated with EPA's warranty period proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.72]
97 See Draft RIA at 330, Table 7-21.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The largest source of cost variability comes from indirect cost assessments. The values reported
on indirect costs from each study are summarized in Figure 6. The root of this wide range of
values are assumptions and methods to evaluate the cost impact of increasing emission control
system useful life (UL) and warranty requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 13
-14]
Two different UL and warranty requirement evaluation methodologies were used by the different
authors of the reports presented here. The first group (EPA, ICCT and ARB) assumed that
suppliers and manufacturers have several years to make production-ready the next generation of
control technology to comply with the CARB proposal for NOx limits, UL and warranties. Most
would increase the size of some components to meet the new requirements. As the cost impact of
the size increases is already accounted for in the DMC values, the impact on IMCs is
minimized. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 14]
In addition, EPA reflected the warranty and UL costs in the IMC by including Retail Price
Equivalent (RPE) multipliers. RPEs are one of the main methods EPA has used to estimate
IMCs. Warranty costs that traditionally have a RPE of 0.02 were increased by a factor derived
from the mileage increase to meet the MY2027 and MY2031 warranty, i.e., a VMT-based
scaling factor. The warranty-RPE scaling factor ranged from 4.5 to 6.0. The UL requirement
costs were accounted for in the R&D component of the IMC. RPEs for R&D were increased by a
VMT-based scaling factor of 1.33 to 1.38. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 14]
The second group relied on surveys of engine and truck manufacturing OEMs. This approach
was adopted by NREL under contract to ARB, and by Ricardo under contract to EMA. The main
assumption these make is that an average truck would experience a complete system replacement
during the warranty period covering the useful life of the vehicle. By oversimplifying, this
1133
-------
approach implies thousands of dollars of additional increased warranty costs per vehicle that
exceed those over other estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 14]
Given that emission control system manufacturers have historically been able to meet their UL
and warranty requirements since the inception of emission standards in the 70's, that the bulk of
the technology required is an incremental improvement on existing technology, and that the
industry still has 8 years to develop durable and reliable technology, it would be wrong to
assume that complete system replacements would be required to meet more ambitious UL and
warranty requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 14]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
It should be noted that the cost estimates developed by NREL included the costs due to the
extended warranty requirements, despite a lack of adequate information available from suppliers
or OEMs to estimate these. Similarly, costs analyses conducted by ACT Research and Ricardo
made assumptions for significant warranty costs due to the new regulation based on confidential
surveys. NREL and CARB acknowledged that the cost estimates for extended warranty are very
uncertain. CARB subsequently conducted its own analysis of costs needed to meet extended
warranty requirements, and these are substantially lower than those estimated in the NREL report
as well as those estimated by ACT Research and Ricardo. After the Omnibus was approved by
its Board, CARB staff convened a working group of OEMs, EMA, and MECA to review
warranty costs. This working group resulted in a final report in which CARB staff concluded that
the methodology used to support the Omnibus Regulation warranty-related cost estimates is
reasonable and defensible and they did not believe changes to those estimates were needed [45],
As stated above, this uncertainty in costs estimated to meet extended durability and warranty
provides an opportunity for future collaborative work in the form of a study that includes fleets,
industry stakeholders, CARB and EPA staff. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.27-28]
[45] CARB, 'California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study
for 2022 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines,' 2021.
Two cost estimates were prepared - one that assumed today's durability and warranty
requirements, and one assuming one million mile useful life (FUL) and 800,000 mile warranty
for class 8 and 550,000 mile FUL and 440,000 mile warranty for Class 4-7 starting in 2027.
These durability and warranty levels were chosen because they were initially proposed by CARB
during the Omnibus rulemaking [39], Given EPA's Proposed Option 1 includes lower durability
and warranty requirements than assumed in our cost analysis, we expect the cost estimate for
longer FUL and warranty provided below to represent a worst-case scenario. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.26]
[39] CARB, 'Heavy-Duty LowNOx Program Workshop: HD UL & Step 2 warranty,' 23
January 2019. [Online], Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190123/04-
HD_UL_&_Step_2_warranty_W SO 1232019.pdf.
1134
-------
For a vehicle with a 6-7L engine, the incremental hardware improvements needed to meet a 0.02
g/bhp-hr certification limit on the FTP cycle and future LLC standard at today's durability and
warranty requirements were estimated to add about $1,300 to $1,800 to the cost of the engine
efficiency and emission control technologies. For a Class 8 tractor with a 12-13L engine similar
incremental improvements were estimated to add about $1,500 to $2,050 (less than 1.2%) to the
cost of a MY 2027 truck, projected to be approximately $177,000, based on a historical 1%
annual rate of MSRP increase reported by ICCT. The estimated incremental costs to meet the
above referenced increased durability and warranty requirements for a 6-7L engine and 12-13L
engine were $1,800 to $2,450 and $2,000 to $2,750, respectively. The estimated total additional
emission control cost in 2027, including a 0.02 g/bhp-hr FTP tailpipe limit, LLC limit, 1-million-
mile durability requirement and 800,000 mile warranty, would be $3,100 to $4,250 for 6-7L
engines and $3,550 to $4,800 for 12-13L engines. If a Class 8 truck with 12-13L engine is
assumed to sell for an average price of $177,000 in 2027, based on the historical 1% annual rate
of increase reported previously, the additional cost of emission controls on this truck will
account for roughly 2-2.7% of the total vehicle price. It is important to reiterate that these cost
estimates are biased high since they are based on more stringent requirements than those
included in Propose Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, pp.26-27]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
The proposed standards will result in increased warranty costs. Some OEMs don't even return
parts to suppliers. Even if parts are returned, they only provide data on failed parts, with little or
no data on surviving components. Different components have dramatically different service
lifetimes. Considering this, MEMA recommends an interim review before the second phase.
Suppliers have real concerns about the longevity of DEF sensors, and other electronic sensors.
EPA should designate certain replaceable parts as maintenance service items rather than as
warranty service items. Having such a long warranty on new vehicles, will drive significant
additional costs into the vehicle purchase price for additional warranty coverage due to the lack
of data as well as known additional costs based on part life. This may result in pre-buys of older
technology or owners keeping their trucks for extended times versus buying new vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1322-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
EPA's extended warranty cost estimates are understated by an order of magnitude. Navistar
provided EMA with actual data regarding the warranty costs incurred when customers purchased
extended warranty packages. We support EMA's comments on this issue, which reflect the cost
data Navistar provided to EMA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 6]
Organization: New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
Specifically, NYFB is concerned that the agency's projection of extremely modest technology
and warranty costs associated with the rule will result in a significant overestimation of future
fleet turnover and underestimation of the negative emissions consequences associated with large-
scale 'pre-buys' prior to compliance deadlines. To its credit, EPA openly admits that its
projections are guesswork, but it does not quantitatively explore how underestimating costs
1135
-------
could drive higher pre-buy behavior that could significantly delay and undermine emissions
reductions benefits that are the central purpose of the rule. So, before finalizing this rule, NYFB
urges EPA to work collaboratively with industry, states, and other affected stakeholders to
resolve discrepancies related to technology costs and achievability, warranty impacts,
corresponding fleet turnover and environmental impacts of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1268-A1, p. 2]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: The increase in
manufacturers' costs to cover the proposed extended warranty requirements will be substantial,
and necessarily will be passed on to purchasers at the point of sale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.2]
Organization: Small, George (OOIDA)
it is my hope that the cost for clean air is affordable for small businesses and that those emissions
components are very reliable and come with a strong warranty in the pass some emissions
components were not under warranty and these systems are very expensive to replace and that
affects my bottom line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The proposed Option 1 requirements also likely would be cost-prohibitive, principally because of
the incremental costs that would result from the proposed mandates for extended emissions
warranty and full useful life ("FUL") periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12.]
One of the consequences of that reality is that the Option 1 proposal cannot be implemented in a
cost-effective manner. In that regard, EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) has not factored-
in manufacturers' anticipated costs of having to replace and pay for the multiple "Stage 3"
catalyst systems. More specifically, at page 327 of the RIA, EPA concedes that its cost estimates
- unlike the detailed cost analyses prepared by Ricardo and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) (discussed infra) - do not include a scheduled replacement of the new
envisioned multi-component aftertreatment systems, notwithstanding that EPA's proposal will,
in effect, extend the useful life requirements for those systems out to 650,000 miles or even to
800,000 miles, for HHD engines. On that point, EPA states as follows: Our understanding is that,
while the costs associated with warranty and useful life are quite high [in the NREL study], they
were estimates associated with complete system replacement at some point during the extended
useful life of the engine/vehicle. We have assumed that manufacturers would not pursue such an
approach and would, instead, include upfront (i.e., at the point of end user purchase) [sic] with
the expectation that the parts would last the full useful life without a mandatory replacement. For
that reason, we have chosen not to use the warranty and useful life cost estimates presented by
NREL [or by Ricardo], and have instead used [our own] approach. (RIA, p. 327.) (Emphasis
added.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 12 - 13]
1136
-------
EPA's assumption in that regard is neither reasonable nor correct. HDOH engine and vehicle
manufacturers have expressly and repeatedly informed EPA that they will be compelled to
include a replacement of aftertreatment systems in their design and cost calculations to ensure
that low-NOx emissions performance can remain stable and compliant out to the significantly
extended useful life periods. EPA's decision to disregard the information provided by
manufacturers has led to the Agency's inaccurate estimates of the overall costs of its proposal.
On that point, the Agency likely has underestimated costs by an order of magnitude. For
example, while EPA estimates that the per-vehicle incremental cost of its Option 1 proposal will
amount to approximately $4,000 for HD vehicles (see 87 FR at p. 17571, Tables V-10 and V-l 1;
RIA, p. 329, Tables 7-19 and 7-20), Ricardo's cost estimate, in line with NREL's, is that those
per-vehicle incremental costs will be closer to $42,000, including increased operating costs. The
net result is that EPA's proposal, as it stands, is not based on sound assumptions and is not cost-
effective. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 13]
Notwithstanding the foregoing, EPA claims that extending the useful life and warranty periods as
proposed actually will lead to lower costs, and that the Option 1 proposal, even though more
stringent than Option 2, will be less costly than Option 2 because the shorter Option 2 warranties
will result in higher net emissions-related repair costs than under the Option 1 proposal. (87 FR
at p. 17428.) That too is not correct. It assumes, incorrectly, that engine and vehicle
manufacturers would not fully account for their increased emissions-related repair obligations
under Option l's extended useful life and warranty requirements in setting their increased
purchase prices for Option 1-compliant products. In fact, EPA itself has rebutted that
assumption: "Manufacturers include warranty repairs in the price of an engine or vehicle." (87
FRatp. 17511.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 13. ]
Independent experts at Ricardo and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have
conducted a comprehensive cost study regarding the proposed low-NOx requirements and have
determined that regulations centered around Option 1 would result in an approximate $42,000
per-vehicle cost increase (in 2017 dollars - the metric EPA has used) for heavy heavy-duty
(HHD) vehicles, when factoring in increased operating costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 144]
EPA's cost assessment, as presented in the RIA, stands in sharp contrast to the detailed cost
assessments that Ricardo and NREL have prepared. The primary difference between EPA's cost
"teardown" assessment, which did not rely on input from HDOH engine and vehicle
manufacturers, and those that Ricardo and NREL developed, which did utilize manufacturers'
input, relates to whether the extended Option 1 UL periods would compel manufacturers to
factor in the costs of a replacement aftertreatment system (or multiple aftertreatment system
components) at or before the 500,000 mile point. Ricardo and NREL, based in part on direct
input from manufacturers, concluded that the replacement of aftertreatment system components
likely would be required within the Option 1 extended UL period. EPA has assumed otherwise.
In the NPRM, EPA offers only the following conclusory statement for its contrary position: We
believe our proposed useful life periods are feasible and would not require manufacturers to
adopt component replacement as part of critical emission-related maintenance strategies. (87 FR
at p. 17496.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 144]
1137
-------
EMA fundamentally disagrees. The known degradation of catalyst substrates and related
components, including as observed with EPA's Stage 3 prototypes, creates material risks of
noncompliance with the proposed Option 1 requirements, especially if the UL period is extended
out to 800,000 miles. Manufacturers will have to account for and mitigate those risks in
developing their compliance and maintenance strategies, and likely will include aftertreatment
component replacements as manufacturer-covered maintenance at or before 500,000 miles. The
risk of recall liability - which liability can amount to several hundred million dollars - is simply
too high to rely on a different strategy. Assuming that all SCR systems can maintain better than
99.5% conversion efficiencies and can maintain steady NOx levels no higher than 0.04 g/bhp-hr
all the way out to 800,000 without aftertreatment component replacement is not
reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 144 - 145]
The cost to the manufacturer to schedule replacement of the aftertreatment system is significant.
If EPA were to misjudge whether manufacturers will have to bear the cost of scheduled
aftertreatment systems within the extended UL periods (and pass that cost on to customers at the
time of purchase), it will have a significant bearing on the benefits-to-costs ratio. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 145]
EMA acquired actual cost data from four manufacturers reflecting what they pay in total to a
dealer when a current HHDDE US10 aftertreatment package is replaced under warranty. Those
costs, including labor, ranged from approximately $6,500 to $17,750.31 Again, those are costs
associated with current aftertreatment configurations. Ricardo estimates the cost of
aftertreatment systems consistent with the Stage 3 solution will further increase by $2,588, with
labor costs potentially impacted significantly due to the additional time required to access,
extract and replace the LO-SCR packaged as close to the turbocharger as physically practical.
Thus, in total, EPA is dismissing as much as $20,000 in costs with its unsupported assumption
that those systems would not require replacement within the extended ULs. That assumption is
wholly incorrect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 145]
31. Labor consistently represented well less than $1,000 within these costs. Costs did not
include ECU's, wiring harnesses, DEF injectors, or pressure or temperature sensors.
In its assessment of this critical cost issue, EPA has acknowledged that its assumption is contrary
to the data-driven assessment that NREL made when it conducted a cost analysis of CARET s
version of Option 1. In its RIA, EPA has offered the following explanation of its disagreement
with NREL: We are aware of a recent study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Lab
(NREL) for the California Air Resources Board (CARB). In that study, NREL surveyed parts
suppliers and engine/vehicle manufacturers regarding estimated costs associated with the [Stage
3] technologies being considered within the context of CARB's Heavy-Duty Low NOx program.
As part of that study, NREL considered costs associated with increased warranties and increased
useful life periods being considered by CARB. Our understanding is that, while the costs
associated with [Option 1] warranty and useful life are quite high, they were in fact estimates
associated with complete system replacement at some point during the extended useful life of the
engine/vehicle. We have assumed that manufacturers would not pursue such an approach and
would, instead, include upfront (i.e., at the point of end user purchase) with the expectation that
the parts would last the full useful life without a mandatory replacement [sic]. For that reason,
1138
-------
we have chosen not to use the warranty and useful life estimates presented by NREL and have
instead used [our own] approach. (RIA, p. 327.) (Emphasis added.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 145]
The foregoing explanation makes it clear that EPA's disagreement with NREL (and Ricardo) is
based more on opinions and assumptions than data. That is not sufficient to support a rulemaking
of this magnitude. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 145]
Notwithstanding EPA's choice, in effect, to disregard NREL's work, the NREL cost study that
CARB commissioned is, in fact, very instructive. As an initial matter, it confirms that, when
attempting to assess indirect costs, such as the potential impacts of expanded warranty and UL
requirements, OEMs are the entities best positioned to estimate those costs, which implicitly
confirms that EPA's indirect "teardown" cost-assessment method - i.e., scaling from previously
established "RPE factors" for warranty costs and R&D (RIA, p. 325) - is not an optimal
approach. NREL's specific conclusions on that point is as follows: "Engine OEM participation
was crucial, as only they could provide estimates for indirect costs that represented a significant
portion of the total cost. Incremental costs are largely driven by indirect costs associated with
engineering research and development costs and warranty costs. Indirect costs are highly
dependent on production volumes over which to amortize research and development costs.
Indirect costs due to warranty are high, reflecting high uncertainty with new technologies and the
introduction timeframes." (NREL Report, p. vii,) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 146]
The NREL Report is most telling, of course, in the bottom-line results it presents. Specifically,
the NREL Report concludes that for HHD vehicles, the per-vehicle cost for compliance with
CARB's version of Option 1 would range from $28,868 to $47,042, with the higher range being
the more likely outcome. That number is an order of magnitude greater than the per-vehicle costs
that EPA has posited (i.e., $4,213 per-vehicle for HHD vehicles; see RIA, p. 329, Tables 7-19
and 7-20), and is consistent with the detailed cost analysis that Ricardo has prepared based on
nationwide HHD sales volumes (discussed infra). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 146]
With respect to the incremental per-vehicle costs associated with Option 1-like extended
emission warranties and ULs, NREL concluded that, on average, those aggregate indirect costs
would range from $23,424 to $38,898. (See NREL Report, pp. vii-viii, 40, and Table 20.) That
too is largely consistent with Ricardo's findings, and confirms that the majority of the
incremental costs that would result from the implementation of Option 1 would stem from the
proposed significant increases in ULs and emission warranties. As discussed in more detail
below, Ricardo concluded that the indirect incremental costs associated with the Option 1 ULs
and warranties would be as high as approximately $27,000 (in 2017 dollars) per-vehicle, within
the range posited by NREL. (See Ricardo Report, Table 26.) In contrast, EPA has posited that
the incremental per vehicle costs stemming from the Option 1 extended UL and emission
warranties will only amount to approximately $1,300 for vehicles. (See RIA, pp. 329-330.) Once
again, the EPA cost estimates differ markedly from NREL's and Ricardo's more reasonable and
data-based conclusions by at least an order of magnitude. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 146]
1139
-------
In addition to dismissing the need to account for aftertreatment replacements, and, as a result,
substantially understating the UL and warranty costs at issue, EPA's cost assessment also relies
on an under-inclusive and inapt estimation method for indirect costs. At pages 323-325 of its
RIA, EPA describes its use of previously established "retail price equivalent (RPE) multipliers"
to calculate the indirect costs that can be derived from the ratio of revenues-to-direct costs. As
EPA explains it, "using RPE multipliers [ranging from 1.28 to 1.5] implicitly assumes that
incremental changes in direct manufacturing costs produce common incremental changes in all
indirect cost contributors as well," including the costs associated with substantially extended UL
and emissions warranty periods. (RIA, p. 323.) EPA applies this proportional methodology
notwithstanding the Agency's recognition that, "[t]he use of RPEs, with their assumption that
all technologies have the same proportion of indirect costs, is likely to overestimate the costs of
less complex technologies and underestimate the costs of more complex technologies." (RIA, p.
323.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 146 - 147]
This rulemaking clearly involves a whole suite of new "more complex" technologies.
Nonetheless, and despite its own admonition, the Agency has proceeded to rely on the implicit
assumption that all of the quantumly increased indirect costs at issue will remain uniformly
proportional to the increased direct costs at issue. Applying this "implicit assumption," EPA then
accounts for the cost of the proposed extended UL and warranty periods by applying additional
"VMT-based scaling factors" to the R&D and Warranty costs derived from the underlying RPE
based calculations of indirect costs. (RIA, p. 325.) For example, when assessing the indirect cost
impacts from extending the current warrant periods from 100,000 miles initially to 450,000
miles, and then to 600,000 miles under Option 1, EPA offers the following explanation of its
VMT-scaled RPE-based methodology: Proposed Option 1 would extend the required warranty
period for a Class 8 diesel to 7 years or 450,000 miles for MYs 2027 through 2030, and then
extend further to 10 years or 600,000 miles for MY 2031 and beyond. As such, in our analysis of
proposed Option 1 for Class 8 diesel trucks we applied a scaling factor of 4.5 (450/100) to the
0.03 [RPE-based] warranty cost contribution factor for MYs 2027 through 2030, and applied a
scaling factor of 6.0 (600/100) for MYs 2031 and later. The same approach is followed for the
other regulatory classes (RIA, p. 325.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 147]
There are multiple concerns with EPA's VMT-based RPE-derived scaling approach to assess UL
and warranty costs. At its core, EPA's analysis assumes that the indirect costs attributable to the
significantly extended UL and warranty periods will increase on a linear VMT weighted basis
from the previously-derived RPEs that the Agency "used in prior rule-makings setting new
greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty trucks." (RIA, p. 324.) That is not a sound assumption,
as detailed in Ricardo's Report. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 147]
EPA's low-NOx proposal will require manufacturers to develop and rely on the types of
innovative highly-complex and multi-component aftertreatment systems that have been used in
EPA's Stage 3 RW prototype. Those advanced and complex integrated systems, including CD A,
are entirely new for HDOH engines, as are the combinations and configurations in which they
are being deployed at SwRI. Manufacturers have no prior experience using or packaging those
new multi-component systems in the field, and do not know how they will age and whether they
can consistently make it out to the substantially extended Option 1 ULs without needing to be
replaced. Thus, using linear VMT-based extrapolations from old RPE-based factors to assess the
1140
-------
indirect costs associated with these entirely new highly-complex systems and configurations,
which will have compliance obligations far beyond any previously proven points of component
durability, is not a sound or reasonable methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
147]
Manufacturers do not have prior experience with these new "Stage 3" systems. Thus, there is no
basis to assume that the resultant indirect costs associated with the extended ULs and emission
warranties will be uniformly proportional to the direct manufacturing costs associated with those
Stage 3 systems. Simply stated, there is not sufficient data to support the Agency's assumption
that future warranty and UL costs will amount to a VMT-based linearly-scaled increase from
previously calculated RPEs, and that no separate considerations need to be given to whether the
magnitude of those indirect costs should include the costs of replacement aftertreatment
components. Consequently, the indirect cost estimates that EPA has derived from its
extrapolation method are not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 147 - 148]
The net result is that EPA's assessment of the aggregate per-vehicle incremental cost impacts
from its Option 1 proposal are significantly understated - most likely by an order of magnitude.
Focusing on Class 8 vehicles, EPA estimates that the total incremental per-vehicle costs from
implementing Option 1 will be $4,213 in MY 2027, and $3,931 in MY 2031. With respect to the
indirect-cost portion of that total incremental cost amount, the Agency estimates that for the
extended ULs (treated as R&D costs) and emission warranties at issue, those indirect costs will
amount to $1,251 per-HHD-vehicle in 2027, and $1,458 per-HHD-vehicle in 2031, as reflected
below in Tables 7-20 and 7-21 from the Agency's RIA (RIA, pp. 329-330): [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 148]
As noted, these per-vehicle incremental cost estimates are more than an order of magnitude
lower than those derived by NREL and Ricardo. They also utilize an unrealistic "learning curve"
to derive even lower estimates for the overall MY 2031 cost projections. In addition, they
assume that the more stringent requirements for 2031 MY products will result in lower
incremental costs than the less stringent requirements for MY 2027 products. Simply stated,
EPA's cost estimates are not reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 148]
As detailed next, Ricardo has developed a far more robust assessment of the cost impacts of
EPA's Option 1 proposal, including the indirect costs attributable to EPA's proposed extended
ULs and emission warranties. The Agency will need to account for Ricardo's detailed analysis
and data-driven conclusions (as well as Ricardo's critique of the Agency's cost assessment)
before finalizing this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 148]
EPA has tied the cost-effectiveness of its Option 1 proposal to the unsupported assumption that
the replacement of aftertreatment components will not be necessary, and that the incremental
indirect costs associated with extending the HHD UL period from 435,000 miles to 800,000
miles, along with extending the emissions warranty period from 100,000 miles to 600,000 miles
as of 2031, will only total $1,458 per-vehicle. (See RIA pp. 329-330.) That is well off the
mark. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 151. ]
1141
-------
Currently available market data and pricing information show that the incremental costs
associated with CARB's "Step 1" extended emission warranties — which went into effect this
year, and which extend those warranties for HHD vehicles from 100,000 miles to just
350,000 miles — amount to approximately $2,500 per-vehicle. That is what the extended "Step
1" warranty requirements actually add to the cost of HHD vehicles that are actually being bought
and sold in the market today. What this shows, therefore — and, in fact, proves — is that EPA is
unreasonably assuming that an emission warranty that is more than 70% longer than CARB's
"Step 1" warranty as of 2031 will cost approximately 25% less than the actual cost of the much
shorter "Step 1" warranty today. EPA's assumption in this regard is obviously and fundamentally
wrong, as further underscored by Ricardo's (and NREL's) analyses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, pp. 151 - 152]
EMA took additional steps to evaluate EPA's emissions warranty cost projections, turning to two
sources of actual warranty cost data for warranties that extend long beyond the current baseline
regulated emission-related component ("ERC") warranties, and also beyond manufacturers'
"base" powertrain warranties (that also cover emissions-related components). The first additional
analysis is based on pricing rates of aftermarket warranty packages, and the second is based on
HHDDE manufacturers' actual warranty costs incurred when customers purchase extended
warranty packages. Both of these additional analyses show (again) that EPA's cost projections
related to the proposed extended emissions warranty coverage requirements are grossly
understated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 152]
EMA consulted with one of the largest aftermarket warranty companies in the U.S. to understand
the warranty products they offer and the pricing structure for them. Those warranty packages
include certain component groupings, such that ERCs (including aftertreatment systems) can be
segregated for comparison against the company's price sheet. Pricing was set up based on the
included component packages, the age and mileage of the vehicle to be covered, and the years
and mileage of extended the warranty coverage. It was therefore possible to estimate the
subscription price to cover an additional warranty period from today's ERC warranty coverage
(which we assumed to be 5 years/250,000 miles to account for the combination of the 5
year/100,000 mile regulated ERC warranty and the typical manufacturer's warranty of 2
years/250,000 miles) to EPA's proposed Option 1 extended warranty period of 10 years/600,000
miles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 152]
The aftermarket warranty provider's business model involves relying on OEM dealer networks
and provider-approved independent repair centers to perform warranty repairs that are
subsequently billed to the provider. This means that the warranty provider does not operate any
vehicle repair centers, and does not employ or train any repair technicians. Instead, the provider
simply reviews repair invoices and pays the OEM dealers and repair centers from the funds
accumulated from the customers' extended warranty subscriptions. Under this model, EMA
assumed a 20% profit margin should be subtracted from the pricing model to estimate the actual
costs of the ERC warranty repairs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 152]
Using this information, it was a relatively straightforward mathematical exercise to draw
parallels between the aftermarket extended emissions component warranty coverage costs, and
EPA's extended warranty costs. The aftermarket warranty costs included in this additional
1142
-------
analysis were limited to the ERCs in current USIO-compliant products. Future warranties,
however, will also be compelled to cover any new emissions-related components deployed by
manufacturers to comply with the proposed 2027 and 2031 emissions standards. To estimate
those warranty costs, EMA multiplied the aftermarket warranty costs by the ratio of future
emissions-related component costs to current emissions-related costs. Current ERC costs were
estimated to be $10,000 for a HHDDE, and future costs were estimated at approximately $4,000
(See Ricardo Report, Table 22). For the new ERC's, the warranty costs from 0 miles to today's
ERC warranty coverage was estimated by the same component cost ratio approach. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 152 - 153]
The resultant warranty cost increase to engine manufacturers calculated from this analysis
process was approximately $11,900 per HHDDE. There are two other factors that should be
considered in this analysis. The first is the impact that the extremely stringent proposed NOx
standards may have on warranty costs of existing (USIO-compliant engine) components. This
factor can manifest itself in the following ways: (1) the cost of various components could
increase to support longer UL requirements, (2) the OBD system may more often trigger the MIL
due to faults of the existing component set due to the overall greater complexity of the Stage 3
system, increasing frequency of repair, (3) EPA's new requirements in §1036.120(c) will expand
the current ERC list to include "all components whose failure would increase emissions," and (4)
the inspection and maintenance programs being implemented by various states will increase
repair frequency. (See Ricardo Report, Tables 22 and 30.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 153]
The second factor that could increase the cost of emissions warranties beyond the estimation
from this analysis stems from the fact that new technologies (e.g., CD A, EGR cooler bypass,
heated DEF doser, and NH3 sensors, which have seen only limited use to date) or new
applications of existing technologies (e.g., close coupled SCR) can experience higher failure
rates in the early years of production than those of more mature components. Recall that the
warranty cost projection for the new (Stage 3-based) ERCs in this analysis was based on the cost
ratio of the new ERCs to the existing ERCs, where the existing ERCs are mature components
with mature failure rates. An adjustment would be required to account for the historical, and
unavoidable, elevated failure rates for new components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
153]
For the purpose of this analysis, if we assume an increase in warranty costs for existing
components of 20% for the first factor described above, and a 20% elevated failure rate for new
technologies and new applications of existing technologies as described for the second factor, the
estimated increase to warranty costs relative to today's products is approximately
$14,900. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 153]
While admittedly a somewhat crude analysis, this estimation has its basis in real-world expenses
that are being incurred today. There may be some elements in the analysis that could be revised,
but the point is not to use the process to get a precise estimation of warranty costs for rulemaking
purposes; rather, it is to check the scale of EPA's estimates against actual data available today. In
that regard, EPA's warranty cost estimates ($976 to $1,227) are, once again, clearly understated
by an order of magnitude. Indeed, if EPA's estimates reflected a more accurate assessment of
1143
-------
extended warranty costs, that would imply that purchasers of aftermarket warranties are paying
multiple times the value they get from those coverages, an outcome highly unlikely given how
astute most trucking companies are when it comes to controlling costs and managing their
businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 153]
The second analysis EMA conducted offers a more direct assessment of extended warranty costs.
EMA obtained from OEMs actual data reflecting the warranty costs that those OEMs have
incurred when customers purchased extended warranty packages. Three manufacturers culled
their warranty expense databases to collate the warranty coverage expenses incurred from the
time a vehicle passed the point of a standard warranty (combination of regulated ERC warranty
and the manufacturer's base warranty) to the end of the purchased extended warranty
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 153 - 154]
The graph below shows the range of extended warranty costs incurred on emissions-related
components by these three HHDDE manufacturers. To be clear, this is a data-capture of actual
costs incurred from extended emissions warranty repairs, not how much the manufacturers
charged the customer for the extended warranty. Most of the data is based on purchased extended
warranties to approximately 5 years and 500,000 miles, though some included longer warranty
coverage periods. Each manufacturer's input is shown in the graph as a shaded area. The analysis
was based on average per-vehicle costs from a population of covered vehicles. The data is
represented as a range through the shaded areas because each manufacturer had his own way of
sharing the data depending on how their tracking systems were structured. (For example, one
OEM provided three consecutive model years of data, while another tracked the figures by low-
HP range and high-HP range within a platform.) In total, data from more than 250,000 engines is
included in the following graph: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 154]
Once again, it is clearly evident from this actual ERC incremental cost data - incremental to base
warranty costs — that EPA's incremental cost estimates attributed to the proposed extended
warranty requirements are significantly understated. Importantly, the data presented above is
based on today's ERCs installed in USIO-compliant engines. Even though the data above does
not include the additional ERCs that will be required to comply with the new low-NOx
emissions standards, the costs as captured are nonetheless significantly greater than EPA's
projections that do include those additional components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 154]
It is instructive to apply the cost ratio techniques used in the aforementioned aftermarket
warranty analysis to these real-world actual cost-data to project what the "all-in" incremental
warranty costs could be. Considering the graph below, we might conservatively assume that the
line indicated by the circled marker "1" is a conservative projection of warranty costs that
would be incurred on today's existing ERCs if subject to a lOy ear/600,000 mile warranty. If we
apply the cost ratio technique of the aftermarket warranty data analysis to estimate the warranty
cost coverage on existing and the new ERCs, that would move the estimation to the level
indicated by the "2" marker as shown. This second estimation includes the estimated cost of the
warranty to cover the new ERCs from mile 0 to today's emissions warranty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 154 - 155]
1144
-------
Also noted on the graph above, for reference, is the Ricardo estimate of incremental ERC
warranty costs resulting from the EPA proposal, which aligns very well with the extrapolated
cost estimation. Finally, the EPA estimate of $1,227, an order of magnitude lower, is
noted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 155]
It is very safe to conclude from these two additional analyses - the aftermarket warranty analysis
and the actual purchased extended warranty costs analysis - both of which are based on real-
world experience, that EPA's projection of incremental ERC warranty costs is grossly
understated. While the detailed underlying cost information used to conduct these analyses is not
included in these comments for confidentiality reasons, EMA is open to discussing these
analyses in more detail with EPA. In that regard, it is imperative for EPA to correct its cost
assessment in order to fashion a final rule that can be implemented in a cost-effective
manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 155]
On top of that, the significant direct and indirect costs that are to be borne by the trucking
industry, and thereby consumers, to meet those new UL standards will be impacted even more by
the additional costs associated with the proposed 6-fold increase in the required emission
warranties. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 171]
Perhaps even more concerning are the necessary data-generation projects that are completely
unplanned at this time. More specifically, EPA intends to complete this rulemaking without
having access to the following: It appears that EPA will not undertake any effort to resolve the
considerable discrepancy between the Agency's cost estimates and those of NREL and Ricardo.
Cost impacts are extremely important to justifying the many onerous requirements included in
this rulemaking. Further, there has been no effort to understand the benefits/cost ratio of any of
the individual elements of this multi-faceted rulemaking package, such as whether the extended
warranty requirements will yield emissions benefits commensurate with the very considerable
costs to be incurred by customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 172]
Organization: Truckload Carriers Association (TCA)
An incremental cost would also reflect manufacturers' added stringency for emissions and an
increase in useful life and warranties for emission-related components. One report found that if
the proposed standards go into effect, the price of heavy-duty diesel engines would increase
between $18,000 to $35,000 per vehicle, depending on the level of requirement^ [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 2]
4. Ricardo Strategic Consulting, "Cost Impact Study for Potential Next-Tier EPA HDOH
Emission Regulations", January 14, 2022,
360b6600755b47/t/625cbec8f7aef559cbc4c9a7/l 650245321849/Ricardo.pdf
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
EPA openly acknowledges that the proposed rule's impacts on the cost of new medium- and
heavy-duty trucks, and the impacts of its associated unprecedented and untested useful life and
warranty requirements, are highly uncertain. Indeed, there is an enormous and troubling
1145
-------
disparity—approximately an order of magnitude—between EPA's compliance cost estimates and
those projected by engine manufacturers. Such factual issues merit very careful attention and
consideration by the agency. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 5.]
Similarly, and as EPA notes in the proposal, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the
feasibility of and cost impacts associated with dramatically extended useful life and warranty
requirements under the rule. As EPA acknowledges, key technical assumptions in the rule
pertain to performance and durability data for engines and emissions control systems that have
yet to be operated on a broad scale for an extended length of time. Without detailed real-world
performance data, such technical assumptions should remain conservative (i.e., they should not
be unduly optimistic) and should be expressed in terms of a range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1245-Al,pp. 5-6.]
Instead, the rule applies extremely aggressive assumptions for these technologies that raise
serious questions about feasibility and practical achievability. For example, the proposal would
nearly double useful life mileage expectations for heavy-heavy duty engines (HDE)—from
435,000 miles to 800,000 miles. The factual basis for proposing such a vast increase seems
unclear. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 6]
The ultimate cost of corresponding warranty requirements is unknown, and while EPA seeks
feedback on "uncertainty in how the emissions control technologies would deteriorate in the field
and across different vehicle applications," even the most informed estimates necessarily involve
a high degree of uncertainty due to the unprecedented and untested nature of the
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 6]
According to the Ricardo report, "EPA's warranty cost estimation methodology grossly
underestimates the expected incremental warranty costs.. .due to fundamental weaknesses in the
Agency's warranty estimation approach." This is in large part because EPA assumes that
warranty costs rise linearly with mileage, when in fact it is commonly accepted that product and
technology failures tend to rise exponentially with increased mileage, particularly in the later
years of a vehicle's operational life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 6]
We also recommend that EPA undertake a sensitivity analysis that considers the potential for
modest variations in cost inputs to influence the overall economic and emissions impacts of the
rule. For example, even if EPA concludes after further analysis that warranty costs would indeed
remain linear throughout an 800,000-mile warranty period, the Agency should undertake a
sensitivity analysis estimating cost impacts under an exponential warranty cost
distribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 6]
EPA Summary and Response
The comments summarized above focus primarily on assertions about:
• EPA's estimated warranty costs being too low in part because EPA failed to consider
necessary emission-control system replacements needed to comply with the long
warranty and useful provisions of proposed Option 1; and,
• EPA failed to consider the number of extended warranties on engines in today's fleet in
its estimates of warranty costs in the baseline; and,
1146
-------
• Longer warranties often fail to benefit second and subsequent purchasers of HD vehicles.
Allison commented on our use of the Fleet Advantage Whitepaper to estimate warranty and
emission-related repair costs. EPA has developed a new approach to estimating warranty costs as
described below and further in Chapter 7.1.2 of the final RIA, after consideration of and in
response to comments from EMA and others. As for use of the Fleet Advantage Whitepaper in
estimating emission-related repair costs, we respond to these comments from Allison in section
18.6 of this response to comments document.
The American Trucking Association (ATA) commented on several aspects of the proposed
longer warranty provisions. First, they raise the issue of upfront warranty costs coming under
the 12 percent Federal Excise Tax. Currently, longer warranties, or extended warranties, are
purchased separately from the new vehicle purchase and, therefore, do not incur the 12 percent
excise tax that is applied to the new vehicle purchase.41 EPA is not accounting for the excise tax
in our cost analyses. Because the tax is paid by purchasers of vehicles, as opposed to
manufacturers, the tax is not part of the manufacturers' costs of compliance. In addition, taxes,
being a transfer payment from one entity to another, are also generally excluded from social cost
analyses.42 EPA thus generally excludes taxes in our cost analyses that are geared toward
estimating social costs, such as those undertaken to comply with E.O. 12866.
ATA also commented that different users/purchasers currently make different decisions
regarding whether to purchase extended warranties depending on their unique business and use
case. ATA provided several examples but, in short, they argued that a purchaser that keeps trucks
for short periods, maybe only 2 to 3 years, is less likely to purchase an extended warranty than
one that purchases a vehicle with the intention of operating for its full operational life and would
be less likely to get the full benefit from paying the increased purchase price of a longer federal
warranty. To the extent that fleets currently base their turnover cycle of 2-3 years on the time at
which today's warranty periods expire, we expect they would consider adjusting their current
business model to accommodate the longer warranties in this final rule. ATA also noted that their
members report to them that they receive very little residual value for extended warranties when
they resell a truck. We think this is understandable when extended warranty contracts vary from
purchaser to purchaser and may be difficult to transfer to subsequent owners, but that would not
be the case with the warranty provisions under the final rule. All second or subsequent
purchasers will know the remaining warranty period and will know whether and to what extent
they would be covered by that remaining warranty.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) suggested that any voluntarily purchased extended
warranties should be considered in the baseline costs. Because many heavy-duty vehicles are
sold with extended warranties, we agree with this suggestion and have done so in our updated
analysis for this final rule. CARB also expressed concerns regarding EPA's use of mileage
scalers applied to the warranty contribution to indirect costs as a means of estimating warranty
41 See IRS form 510: Excise Taxes (July 2021), Chapter 6: Retail Tax on Heavy Trucks, Trailers, and Tractors.
42 See, e.g., Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, U.S. EPA, December 2010, updated March 2016 at page
1-5; Circular A-4 from the Office of Management and Budget, available at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars a004 a-4/#e (providing guidance to Federal agencies in
measuring and reporting benefits and costs of Federal regulatory actions to comply with E.O. 12866).
1147
-------
costs. EPA has moved away from that approach in the updated analysis for this final rule, as
explained in Chapter 7 of the final RIA. CARB also commented that EPA had considered only
the mileage provisions and not the age or hours provisions when estimating warranty duration.
This is not correct for the proposed rule, nor for the approach EPA has used for this final rule.
While EPA did not use the hours provisions in the proposed analysis, the ages were used and
served as the limiting factor for several vehicle types (those with lower mileage accumulations
such as refuse trucks, etc.) For the updated final analysis, EPA has included the hours provisions
in addition to miles and ages.
Daimler, Navistar, PACCAR, EMA, TCA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce commented on
the disconnect between the EMA-sponsored cost study and EPA with respect to warranty costs.
These commenters suggested warranty costs ranging from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on
model year and option, for a Class 8 diesel truck. EPA has reanalyzed the costs for the final rule
and has taken into consideration the data provided by EMA regarding real-world warranty claims
data (see pages 148 through 152 of the EMA comments). For the final rule, EPA has used the
EMA data to estimate warranty costs on a $1,000 per year of coverage basis. There are three
important additional factors applied to that $1,000 per year of warranty coverage: (1) since the
data were specific to heavy heavy-duty engines, EPA has scaled the warranty cost for non-heavy
heavy-duty engines (e.g., light-heavy and medium-heavy engines) by the ratio of the non-heavy
heavy-duty engine's emission control system direct costs to the heavy heavy-duty engine's
emission control system costs; (2) EPA applies the warranty cost per year not to the mandated
length of the warranty but to the estimated length of the warranty based on estimates of the miles
and speeds driven by different vehicles and estimating the age at which warranty would be
reached (the minimum of the 3 possible ages based on required years, required miles or required
hours); and, (3) unlike in the proposal, where EPA calculated warranty costs assuming that
engines were covered only by the mandated warranty period, for the final rule EPA has
considered that many engines are sold today with extended warranty coverage and, therefore, are
already incurring some extended warranty costs. We present a discussion of our updated
methodology in Chapter 7 of the final RIA and we believe that our updated approach is
consistent with the data provided by EMA.
DTNA commented that EPA did not acknowledge the magnitude of the cost increases associated
with longer warranty and useful life provisions. This is not correct. While EPA understands that
most industry commenters found our proposed cost estimates to be low, it is not true that EPA
did not acknowledge their costs. We estimated costs associated with longer useful life as part of
our research and development estimates. Importantly, the EMA/Ricardo study estimates did not
call into question EPA's estimates of R&D costs and actually used the EPA costs in their
summation of costs. The primary difference between industry and EPA, as discussed in Section
18.2 of this document, is with respect to aftertreatment system replacement costs, which EPA
believes will not occur under the final program because, as explained further in preamble
Sections III and IV, EPA is not finalizing the complete Option 1 standards, useful life values,
and warranty periods as proposed. As described in the preamble and RIA for this final rule,
EPA's technical analysis demonstrates that next generation aftertreatment systems can achieve
the EPA final rule NOx standards at the final rule useful life with compliance margins and thus
we do not believe based on the available data and the standards and requirements contained in
1148
-------
this final rule that manufacturers would need to include a full aftertreatment system replacement
as part of their compliance approach.
EMA also commented on additional warranty cost factors associated with a 20 percent increase
in warranty costs for existing components due to the stringent new standards, and a 20 percent
increase in failure rates for new technologies and new applications of existing technologies.
After considering these comments, we do not believe it is appropriate to apply any such factors.
As noted above, EMA provided warranty data showing that warranty costs were roughly $1,000
per year of warranty coverage. Further, EMA showed data extending over an eight-year
timeframe. EPA believes that over an eight-year period certainly some if not many of the engines
reflected in the data included new technology and new applications of existing technology. In
other words, it seems reasonable to assume that the warranty costs of any such increased failure
rates are included in the data and are, therefore, included in the $1,000 per year value. In
addition, because in the final rule's analysis we now apply warranty costs on a cost per year
basis, we carry the increased warranty cost per year for more years relative to the baseline. In the
end, we consider our updated methodology to provide a robust, thorough and reasonable
accounting of the costs associated with the final warranty provisions.
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) commented that having such a
long warranty on new vehicles will drive significant additional costs into the vehicle purchase
price. MEMA was not clear as to whether they meant any warranty longer than the mandated
100,000 miles or if they were referring specifically to the NPRM's Option 1 warranty period of
600,000 miles (for Class 8 diesel engines). Nonetheless, EPA agrees the longer warranty periods
will increase purchase costs and we have estimated those costs for the final warranty periods,
though we note that EPA has not finalized the proposed Option 1 600,000 mile warranty period
for Class 8 heavy-heavy diesel engines.
George Small commented in favor of the longer warranty provisions given that emission control
systems are expensive to replace. EPA expects that, with the final standards, more emission-
control system repairs will be done during the warranty period and will, therefore, be paid by the
OEM. However, it is expected that those costs will be borne at vehicle purchase, so EPA does
not attempt to claim that the longer warranty provisions will result in lower costs overall. As
explained above in this section, EPA does not expect that emission control systems will be
replaced to meet the final new standards.
18.4 Indirect costs - R&D
Comments by Organizations
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
To be effective, the final rule must be: A bridge to a zero-emissions future. The final rule must
not prevent continued progress toward zero-emissions commercial vehicles by forcing excessive,
costly redesigns of traditional combustion engines at the expense of investments in the research
1149
-------
and development of zero emissions vehicles, nor add cost to these new technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, pp. 1-2]
EPA Summary and Response
The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
commented that the final rule must not prevent continued progress toward zero-emission
commercial vehicles by forcing R&D on conventional vehicles. However, EPA must keep in
mind that, despite the evolution of zero emission technology, the projected emissions from
conventional engines cannot be ignored. EPA's final standards, useful life values, and warranty
periods are consistent with EPA's authority under the CAA, as explained in the preamble of the
final rule and sections 3 and 4 of this document, and include appropriate consideration of costs.
In setting the final emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified
in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated
with the application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model year the final
standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the application of
such technology). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We also evaluated additional factors, including
factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lends further support to the
final rule (see, e.g., Section IX of the preamble, which explains that this rule is cost beneficial to
society in that its benefits outweigh its costs).
18.5 Indirect costs - Other
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)
This last category is particularly important, given the rampant price inflation experienced by
consumers over the past year. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 8.5 percent for the
year ended March 2022, the most significant increase since 1981.4 Supply chain difficulties are a
key contributor to this price increase and stringent fuel/pollution controls will have a further
upward pressure on CPI. Manufacturers of compression ignition engines will likely respond to
new, required laboratory tests (i.e., 'a new low- load cycle (LLC) test procedure to demonstrate
that emission controls are meeting proposed LLC standards when the engine is operating under
low-load and idle conditions') by passing costs along to companies further downstream in the
supply chain (e.g., e-commerce companies) who may in turn raise prices on consumers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1102-A1, pp. 1-2]
4 Jeanna Smialek, 'Inflation Hits Fastest Pace Since 1981, at 8.5% Through March,' The New
York Times (Apr. 12, 2022).
These inflationary pressures not only harm consumers, they also pose significant environmental
consequences. The current structure of the supply chain in the U.S. tends to reduce emissions by
reducing the amount of energy required to transport each product unit to reach consumers'
1150
-------
doorstep. 5 The increased integration of the supply chain has resulted in a proliferation of heavy-
duty vehicles willing to take products all (or most) of the way to their final destination. But, if
heavy-duty vehicle deliveries are 'taxed' by an onerous regulatory regime, it may become more
economical for these fleets to travel shorter distances and deliver products at stores rather than
going the last mile to households. This reduction in e-commerce would result in increased
consumer trips to stores to pick up their orders, resulting in increased emissions via roadway
congestion. Given that the EPA's estimated net benefits ($8-9 billion in 2045) are small,
introducing these unintended consequences into the equation could result in large net costs for
the proposed rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1102-A1, p.2]
5 Prologis, Inc., 'Logistics Real Estate and E-Commerce Lower the Carbon Footprint of
Retail' (Jan. 14, 2021).
TPA urges the agency to take all costs into account when promulgating rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1102-A1, p.2]
EPA Summary and Response
The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) commented that inflationary pressures to date, with an
"onerous" regulatory regime on top, will cause costs to increase, fleets to stop delivering to
households, and consumers to make more store trips to pick up orders. EPA agrees that costs will
increase but does not believe it will disrupt the trends of household deliveries, particularly
because the cost increase is only a small part of the overall cost of shipping. TPA has not
provided data on past EPA actions that could shed light on possible outcomes associated with the
final standards.
18.6 Operating costs - Repair
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
Allison first questions EPA's reliance on the Fleet Advantage study in measuring this crucial
element of EPA's cost analysis. For one, it seems inapposite EPA's rationale for extending
useful life and warranty periods to utilize a study based on a seven-year average of costs of
vehicles from 0 to 7 years of age versus a study that utilized vehicles ranging in age from 4.4
years to 8.5 years old. As proposed, EPA would extend useful life and warranty periods for all
vehicles in all weight classes and the time period(s) that extend beyond those currently utilized.
Thus, it would appear more directly relevant to EPA's analysis to use data from a more diverse
fleet of different ages versus a study which averaged out the cost of older vehicles with newer
vehicles when costs for older vehicles sharply increased in later years.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.14]
33 In the first year of operation, costs were 2.07 cents/mile versus 19.82 cents/mile at
year 7.
1151
-------
Second, EPA also appears to have "flat-lined" costs at 8 years.34 EPA's rationale in doing so is
that the vehicles are "beyond useful life." However, this assumes that all vehicles will be beyond
useful life periods based on mileage. While this may be so with long- and short-haul fleet
vehicles, this analysis certainly does not extend to all vehicles, particularly many vocational
vehicles which may not accumulate large amounts of daily mileage or be used daily as is typical
in the freight-hauling sector. See Table 1 below.35 Allison has provided mileage accumulation
data to represent 70% of various vocational application's annual accumulation which shows a
low end of range of 10,800 miles for fire, pumper application to high end of range 72,000 miles
annually for intercity coach application, demonstrating that vocational usage differs significantly
from tractor usage. Many vocational applications vary between 15,600 miles to 48,000 miles
annually. For such vehicles, hours of operation may be the operative factor with respect to the
extent of warranty coverage, not mileage. Again, EPA's assumption tends to slant the cost data
in a direction that is not reflective of the broader HDV sector.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, pp.14-15]
34 Draft RIA, Figure 7-2 at 345.
35 Table values were derived from Allison Transmission, Inc. warranty data.
Third, it is likely that more "stop-and-go" operation of a vehicle and increased transient
operation is likely to put different kinds of demands on vehicle components than the steady-state
operation that appears to dominate the Fleet Advantage data. Solely by the selection of vehicles
involved, the Fleet Advantage data reflects relatively longer periods of time spent on highways,
in high-speed operation. But EPA does not account or adjust this data to account for the
operational characteristics of other vehicles that may not predominantly handle freight, or may
be used in many varied applications. Different demands will be placed on an automobile that
completes a 50-mile commute each day on the interstate versus a 5-10 mile creep through heavy
traffic to a downtown area. These obvious differences are only accentuated in the commercial,
vocational vehicle sector where vehicles are not only used in vastly different ways from line-
haul, but developed and constructed in a manner so as to service discrete commercial needs.
EPA's cost data is inherently biased against such vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
P 15]
Allison has decades of experience serving vocational markets and designing our products to
accommodate the work demanded of such vehicles. To a much greater extent in its cost analysis,
EPA should consider and/or develop additional information for this segment of the heavy-duty
fleet due to its combined market size representing roughly 190,000 vehicles sold annually across
CL6/7/8.36 While vocational markets are fragmented across a variety of applications for specific
customer uses, in aggregate vocational applications including bus and straight truck which may
serve construction, municipal, heavy haul, refuse, emergency response, utility, pick-up and
delivery, etc., account for over 90% of Class 6 & 7 and approximately 25% of Class 8 builds on
an annual basis. See Table 2 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp. 15-16]
Footnote 36 was not included in comment.
1152
-------
As demonstrated by the data presented above, EPA should also consider that in smaller,
fragmented, more diverse market segments in the vocational vehicle sector, the costs that will be
incurred for research and development activities will be different. In general, the relative
research and development costs will be greater to validate the technology needed to serve these
markets if only for the fact that such costs will need to be spread over lesser numbers of vehicles
in discrete sub-categories and markets. Testing that will be required will also vary from that
which we would expect in the short- and long-haul sector. A variety of diverse duty cycles and
operating environments will need to be considered, again likely resulting in greater costs than
vehicles which may be expected to "age out" based on mileage accumulation. For vocational
applications that accumulate miles more gradually, the emissions maintenance cost ratio for
manufacturers to operators is likely higher than what EPA has assumed in the seven-year repair
cost analysis based on 75,000-144,000 annual mileage accumulation on Fleet Advantage data.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, pp. 16-17]
In sum, Allison believes that research and development and indirect costs are undercounted for
Option 1 and should also be better reflected in both Options to consider a more diverse array of
vehicles. Higher costs will lead to higher initial prices for vehicles under Option 1 (as well as for
vehicles under the Alternative) which is likely to result in reduced emissions benefits in the near-
and middle-term since the higher costs will affect the "pre-buy" and "low-buy" impacts than
EPA assumes elsewhere in its analysis.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p. 17]
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
ARA recommends that EPA propose modest and achievable nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions
standards that are affordable, dependable, durable, fuel efficient and meet the needs of
agricultural retailers, trucking companies, and all other impacted industries. It is our
understanding that the current costs for the maintenance and repairs of emissions-related
equipment is at least $5,000 annually. The new proposal will make those average annual
maintenance and repair costs soar even higher. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, pp. 2-3]
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
Additionally, there will also be added costs for vehicle purchasers associated with operating
engines with more complex emissions control systems, such as increased maintenance intervals,
replacement component products, supply chain issues, and ease in diagnosing and facilitating
repair. Although EPA suggests the Proposal would actually lower emission system repair costs,
by extending the useful life of the engine and the warranty period, these changes would still
come at a cost as engine manufacturers will be taking on more liability - and these costs will be
reflected in the purchase price of a new vehicle and some components may end up being in short
supply as censors and chips are currently. Also, EPA makes assumptions on future repair costs in
the Notice; however, the motorcoach industry already bears a costly burden under the current
heavy-duty emissions regulations as a result of EPA's inducement policy and design strategy.
Perhaps unanticipated in the initial emissions control rulemaking, it is a very real and costly
burden to the heavy-duty vehicle industry, and it is not fully addressed in terms of cost analysis
in the Proposal, as it will likely increase even with EPA's proposed inducement provisions. EPA
includes discussion of the cost burden in the Notice under Section IV. D, based on comments
1153
-------
from the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding. These comments identify
a number of real world, burdensome costs to truck and motorcoach operators, including
unnecessary repair expenses for replacing non-faulty parts, towing costs, lost time and schedule
impacts, reimbursement costs for passenger tickets, and cost to reputation as a result of
inducements or derates. However, above and beyond these costs is the largest cost risk for
motorcoach operators: the risk to human life by placing in peril stranded passengers, as a result
of this design strategy. ABA cannot sufficiently underscore the hazard created by EPA's
inducement policy and the fear within the industry because of the increased risk o human life
caused by the Proposal's potential to increase derate occurrences. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1308-Al,p.7]
In sum, ABA believes EPA underestimates the cost impacts of the Proposal, in terms of the cost
to manufacture an engine with an emissions control system to meet the proposed standards and
testing, along with the added cost to extend the useful life and warranty periods. These costs will
lead to an increase in vehicle purchase price and maintenance and repair costs for vehicle
purchasers. ABA also, again, points out that EPA has not fully accounted for or undervalued the
benefits of travel by motorcoach and the importance of encouraging such travel, rather than
making motorcoach operations prohibitively and unreasonably expensive, slowing down fleet
turnover and making motorcoach operations unviable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.8]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Trucking companies meticulously track their business costs. The American Transportation
Research Institute ("ATRI") has prepared and issued annual trucking operational cost reports
since 2008. ATRI's latest report, An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2021
Update, analyzed calendar year 2020 industry data and concludes once again what our industry
already knew - it is becoming more and more costly to own and operate trucking businesses —
especially for the 97% of the industry which are small businesses. 4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1326-A1, p. 9]
4. American Transportation Research Institute. An Analysis of the Operational Costs of
Trucking: 2020 Update, November 2021.
The most recent survey presents data representing 138,930 truck-tractors. Additionally, the data
includes 418,520 trailers of varying types, and represents over 12 billion vehicle miles traveled.
As shown in Figure 2, a majority of respondents (53%) represent fleets of 100 or fewer power
units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 9]
The ATRI survey found that for most trucking companies, labor is again their top operating
expense per mile (45%), followed by fuel (19%), and truck payments (16%). Since 2011,
marginal operating costs per mile for truck/trailer payments have increased 43% while labor
costs per mile have increased by 21% (See Table 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p.
10]
1154
-------
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
Operator Costs. Daimler Truck notes that EPA also underestimates operator costs in the draft
RIA and in the Proposed Rule, in particular the potential costs of critical emissions maintenance
after the warranty period expires. This is particularly so if manufacturers require scheduled
maintenance for replacing after treatment components, which will be covered by the
manufacturer during useful life but not after. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 19]
Further, EPA does not account for higher upfront costs for operators related to the extended
emission warranty. As explained in the NREL Cost Study, 'because aftertreatment package
repair costs are either paid by the vehicle owner or the vehicle manufacturer through the
warranty (if applicable), one may expect the higher upfront cost incurred to the vehicle owner for
an aftertreatment package with extended full useful life and extended warranty.'49 NREL further
explains that while these higher upfront costs may be offset to a certain degree by the
aftertreatment repair cost savings over the life of the vehicle, incremental upfront purchase costs
'would be significantly higher than the repair cost savings that vehicle owners would
realize.'50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 19-20]
49 NREL Cost Study at 50.
50 Id.
Organization: Engine and Truck Organizations
Based on our assessment, EPA's "Option 1" rule as proposed will be:
• Disruptive of business. The additional costs and downtime associated with increased
repairs and maintenance will directly impact our customers' day-to-day operations and
inhibit their ability deliver goods and services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l]
Organization: Esler, Bob (OOIDA)
"A friend of mine bought a new cat engine when all new emissions controls. That engine was in
the shop more than it was on the road. It was a very expensive experience. The EPA was
successful in putting one engine maker out of business. Who are they after next." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EPA is interested in stakeholder input on their approach for estimating emission reductions from
lengthening useful life and warranty periods and on their estimate of repair costs for emission
control system components. MEMA would suggest that the analysis is very mileage focused.
Data from a minimum of 75,000 miles/year and a maximum of 144,000 miles/year was used to
make all repair model estimates. The effects of continued usage outside of that range is
unknown. In addition, significantly more repair is required for many vocational applications
being performed in rough environments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
1155
-------
Organization: Sell, Richard (OOIDA)
I have seen 10 Freightliners of ours go down with one box faults. Every time one goes down it
cost approximately $20,000 to fix. This cost is bad enough, now you want to add a new program
on emissions that manufacturers cannot meet. The deadline you're setting is unacceptable with
the current and in the foreseeable future advances in technology. We now have record high fuel
prices coupled with high truck prices. We cannot afford this. The trucking industry moves this
nation. The cost of this program would need passed onto the consumer. The consumer will not be
able to pay the increase. Most families are struggling just to make ends meet. This is being
caused by high gas prices, grocery prices caused by inflation. These problems need to get
rectified before any new rules are implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.3]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
Currently, a typical new motorcoach will cost $500,000 to $600,000. The cost and maintenance
of these vehicles is amortized over the life of the vehicle, expected to be 20-plus years, through
sales of the various services bus and motorcoach companies offer. Safety technologies, artificial
intelligence, semi-automated driving is rapidly coming to market; however, these safety
technologies are very expensive and any savings from predicted crash reductions may only be
realized many years after the acquisition and implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-
Al, p.2]
Another layer of mandated emissions reductions will add more cost to the bus and motorcoach.
Considering there are limits the consumers of bus and motorcoach services can absorb, providers
will be less likely to adopt safety technologies. EPA must consider the unintended consequences
of displacing safety technologies and the subsequent adverse cost of bodily injury, property
damage, and fatalities when mandating additional engine technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1311-A1, p.2]
EPA Summary and Response
The comments summarized above focus primarily on assertions about:
• EPA's use of a Fleet Advantage Whitepaper to estimate emission-related repair costs
rather than the more established and annual ATRI study; and,
• EPA having underestimated emission-related repair costs; and,
• EPA's focus on miles driven rather than operating hours in estimating emission-related
repair costs.
Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison), commented with respect to EPA's use of the Fleet
Advantage study over the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) study in
developing a repair cost estimate. In short, EPA used the Fleet Advantage study to estimate
emission-related repair costs and how those would change in the event of longer warranty and
useful life periods. That said, the Fleet Advantage and ATRI costs were not dissimilar. The Fleet
Advantage costs ranged from roughly 2.7 cents per mile in the first year of life to 19.6 cents per
mile by age 6 or 7. This increasing cost with age allowed for development of a cost curve as a
function of age. In contrast, the ATRI study developed a cost per mile value, 17.1 cents per mile,
for every age. We used the former in the proposal since it seemed reasonable that repair costs
1156
-------
would increase in some manner with age. That said, the most recent release of the ATRI study
includes data spanning 10 years, making for a nice dataset upon which to base a cost per mile
estimate. Further, the ATRI study includes a repair and maintenance cost per operational hour
value and Allison also argued that certain vehicle types, such as vocational vehicles, tend to have
repair costs more closely aligned with operating hours than with operating miles due to slower
speeds and/or stop-and-go type operation. After careful consideration of these facts, and as
described in Chapter 7.2.3 of the final RIA, the final cost analysis makes use of the ATRI study
and of both its repair and maintenance cost per mile and cost per hour estimates.
Allison also questioned EPA's use of a maximum cost per mile value for vehicles beyond their
useful life. This aspect of Allison's comment seems to be contrary to their prior point in their
comment, just discussed, which seemed to argue for a constant cost per mile value of 17.1 cents
per mile for all ages in a vehicle life. EPA used a maximum cost per mile value beyond useful
life because the Fleet Advantage data did not extend beyond around 7 years of vehicle age. As
noted above, the final cost analysis makes use of the ATRI study, as also suggested by Allison,
and scales upward the emission-related repair cost per unit (mile or hour) value based on the
direct manufacturing costs of the given HDE in the action scenario relative to its baseline. This
scaling approach is described in Chapter 7.2.3.
Allison also commented that vocational vehicles may experience more stop-and-go operation
than do the combination vehicles upon which the Fleet Advantage data were based. This is a
valid point and we agree it is possible that stop and go operation could result in higher annual
repair costs than would otherwise be estimated using a cost per mile approach. However, while
providing good qualitative arguments, Allison did not include a better estimate of emission-
related repair costs for those vehicles. While pointing out what Allison considered to be flaws in
the EPA approach, Allison did not provide sufficient data such as typical hours of operation for
various vehicle types that could be used for an emission-repair cost estimation approach based on
hours of operation. Allison provided estimated miles driven per year for several vocational
vehicle types, but EPA used Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Statistics
series, as well as Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2018), for vehicle miles travelled for both
inventory and cost analyses to maintain internal consistency.43 That being said, EPA has added
to the methodology a check of hours of operation in the estimation of the age at which warranty
and useful life would be reached. That estimation process now considers the required age, the
age at which the miles provision is estimated to be reached, and the age at which the hours
provision is estimated to be reached. The methodology assumes that all vehicles within a
MOVES source type are operated at the average speeds within MOVES (see Chapter 7 of the
final RIA for more detail). Had Allison provided more detail regarding hours of operation for
each vehicle type, we would have considered using it, and we would have considered using
repair costs per hour had such data been provided. Note that the ATRI study provides a repair
and maintenance cost per hour, but that number is simply a conversion from the repair and
maintenance cost per mile value along with an assumed average speed of roughly 40 miles per
hour. We have used that value when determining repair costs for most vocational vehicles,
43 Sonntag, Darrell. Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in MOVESCTINPRM. Attachment to
Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055: "Updates to MOVES for Emissions Analysis of the HD 2027
NPRM." May 2021.
1157
-------
calculating their repair costs based on estimated hours of operation rather than miles of
operation.
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA)
commented that the rule would result in soaring maintenance and repair costs. EPA has
estimated the impact on emission-related repair costs associated with the more costly emission
control systems expected to be employed to comply with the new standards. We present our
methodology and results in Chapter 7 of the final RIA.
The American Bus Association (ABA) commented about the increased costs of emission
controls, the increased repair costs, safety concerns surrounding derates and an assertion that
EPA has not considered the benefits of bus travel. EPA acknowledges that the final program will
result in costs on the regulated industry, and may result in new operating costs and savings for
owner/operators of new MY2027 and later HD vehicles. However, EPA finds those costs are
associated with significant net benefits to society as explained in Sections VIII and IX of the
preamble.
Daimler argued that EPA had underestimated operator costs associated with emission-related
repairs. However, EPA estimated emission-related repairs for a diesel long-haul tractor of over
$40,000 over the first 18 years of the tractor's lifetime. The marginal costs during those 18 years
were over $6,000 for each of the proposed options. EPA is not sure if the commenter considered
those costs as too low, or if the commenter may have been unclear about what costs had been
estimated in the proposed rule's presentation of emission-related repair costs. Note that the EMA
comments and associated Ricardo study failed to properly reflect EPA's estimated emission-
related repair costs, which suggests commenters may have been unclear about the presentation in
the draft RIA. EPA has tried to make the presentation clearer in Chapter 7 of the final RIA.
Daimler also commented on EPA's warranty costs, which have been updated for the final
analysis as discussed in more detail in Section 18.3 of this document.
The Engine and Truck Organizations stated that proposed Option 1 would result in additional
costs and downtime associated with increased repairs and maintenance and will directly impact
our customers' day-to-day operations and inhibit their ability to deliver goods and services. As
explained further in preamble Sections III and IV, EPA is not finalizing the complete Option 1
standards, useful life values, and warranty periods as proposed. We also touch upon how our
final standards do not incorporate some of the provisions of most concern to some commenters
in section 18.2 of this document.
Bob Esler suggested that EPA had put Caterpillar out of business. To the extent that the
commenter is referring to past EPA actions, the comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In any event, EPA has not put Caterpillar out of business, as Caterpillar continues to be a large
manufacturing firm that produces and sells a wide range of construction, mining, marine, power
generation and other industrial equipment. The commenter may be referring to the decision by
Caterpillar to exit the on-highway diesel engine market more than ten years ago in 2010. The
commenter provides no basis for the assertion that Caterpillar made this decision in response to
an EPA action. EPA does not believe this comment is relevant to this rulemaking, and the
commenter does not provide an explanation of why this claim regarding Caterpillar is relevant to
1158
-------
this rulemaking. The commenter implies that EPA standards have the effect of putting an engine
manufacturer out of business. EPA disagrees with this comment, and our detailed feasibility and
cost analysis for this rulemaking demonstrates there are technologies available for the engine
industry to develop and produce that will meet the standards established in this final rule.
MEMA commented on EPA's request for input regarding the emission-related repair cost
estimates in the proposal. MEMA expressed a concern about the EPA methodology, stating that
it was very focused on mileage. MEMA's primary concern appeared to be that data from a
minimum of 75,000 miles/year and a maximum of 144,000 miles/year was used to make all
repair model estimates. MEMA also stated that the effects of continued usage outside of that
range is unknown and that significantly more repair is required for many vocational applications
being performed in rough environments. Regarding the mileage focus, this was true in the
proposed analysis, but EPA has updated the final analysis to use operating hours for vocational
vehicles (rather than miles driven). EPA does not understand MEMA's comment that EPA used
data from 75,000 to 144,000 miles for all repair estimates. A cost per mile approach was used,
but the miles driven (in the proposal) and/or hours operated (in the final analysis) are unique to
each vehicle and do not use a static 75,000 or 144,000 mile per year value. Regarding the costs
for vocational vehicles in rough environments, MEMA did not provide data that EPA could
consider for the final analysis.
Richard Sell suggested that high gas prices and grocery prices due to inflation had to be rectified
before any new rules are implemented. Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set
emission standards for NOx, PM, HC, and CO that reflect the greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable through the application of technology that the Administrator determines
will be available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate
consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of such
technology. EPA is finalizing this rule consistent with this authority. See also our response to
similar comments in section 18.7 of this document.
The United Motorcoach Association (UMA) argues that the rule and its costs may displace the
introduction of safety technologies and that EPA must consider this possibility. EPA does not
believe that the new emission standards would conflict with regulatory safety standards that
apply to any highway vehicle, including motorcoaches. The UMA makes a hypothetical
argument that, because the EPA standards will increase the costs of a motorcoach, which they
acknowledge in their comments can cost $500,000, the final standards would discourage vehicle
purchasers from buying safety equipment. However, UMA failed to provide data or analysis
demonstrating that this effect would occur. EPA does not agree with this hypothetical argument
and believes it is unlikely that the marginal costs are high enough to create this result for a
$500,000 vehicle.
18.7 Operating costs - Fuel
1159
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
Advanced and cellulosic biofuels have been proven to provide low-cost and low emission
alternative based fuel that EPA can help promote by reducing the regulatory backlog stifling fuel
technologies that can allow the nation to harness cleaner, renewable energy available from
agricultural residue, corn fiber, and waste. ARA supports the EP A's lifting of the restrictions on
the sale of E 15 for the 2022 summer driving season, but this policy decision needs to be made
permanent in order to allow consumers access to El 5 on a year-round basis. According to
Growth Energy, the lifting of E 15 restrictions for this summer will save drivers as much as 50 to
60 cents a gallon. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, p. 3]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
Over the past 10 years, both vehicle-based and driver-based costs per mile have fluctuated. Slight
variability of individual cost components year-over-year may appear to be insignificant, but
overall financial impacts on a fleet can be substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p.
10]
For example, fuel costs for one truck travelling 100,000 miles per year in 2020 at $2.56 per
gallon averaging 6.2 miles per gallon would equate to an annual fuel expense increase of
$41,290.5,6 A fleet running 100 vehicles would recognize a $4.1 million annual fuel bill
upcharge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 10]
5. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics
2020.
6. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. On-Highway
Diesel Fuel Prices, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update - U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), (May 9, 2022).
Using today's diesel price of $5.62 per gallon — a 220% increase from the average diesel fuel
price in 2020 — the fuel bill for one truck is now $90,645, an increase of nearly $49,355 per
year.7 That 100 vehicle fleet would expect an annual fuel bill of over $9.1 million a year, a $5
million dollar increase compared to only two years ago. In an industry that operates on razor thin
profit margins, many trucking companies continue to teeter on the edge of insolvency. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 10-11]
7. Id.
While not reflected in Table 2, significant cost increases in 2022 resulting from record inflation,
parts and equipment shortages, historically high fuel and labor costs, and rising insurance
premiums, will likely set new fleet operating expense records in next year's ATRI operational
cost report. These costs, along with the additional financial impacts that will be created under
HD2027, must all be considered in that increased costs associated with any one individual rule
1160
-------
by any state or federal agency may very well lead to trucking companies shuttering their
operations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Booth, Norman (OOIDA)
"I know that this is all a scam I have a 2021 389 Pete my close friend has a 2017 389 Pete glider
We have on several occasions ran together and he will get 2 miles better fuel economy than I do
(loaded) and even better than that empty And we are comparing apples to apples We both pull
tankers and had the same weight of 45000. His truck does not put out no more black smoke that
my new one does. Thanks." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.2]
Organization: Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
On an ORVR-equipped vehicle, refueling emission vapors are captured in the activated carbon
canister, purged during driving, and used as fuel. In the draft RIA, EPA estimated that 1.48 ml of
gasoline would be recovered as fuel for each gram of vapor purged from the canister. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 3]
It is useful to compare the monetary value of this recovered fuel over an HHDGV lifetime period
in miles (e.g., 150,000) to the suggested $34 RPE cost estimate. Four values are needed to
calculate total gallons recovered: the uncontrolled refueling emission rate (g/gal), the control
efficiency of ORVR, the vehicle fuel economy (miles/gal), and the adjustment for energy density
since refueling emissions are mostly butane. Using a 150,000-mile driving lifetime, a 4.1 g/gal
refueling emission rate (assuming a mechanical seal), a 98% control efficiency of ORVR6, 11
miles/gallon fuel economy,7 and a 1.117 energy density adjustment factor (as per the EPA draft
RIA), yields a total fuel recovery of 22.4 gallons over the HHDGV life. In the draft RIA, EPA
used the AEO 2018 $/gal gasoline price projections.8 For the period 2027-2038 this value is
about $3.40, which gives an undiscounted fuel recovery value of about $76 over the vehicle
life. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1213- A 1, p. 4]
6. Passavant G., 2017 Summary and Analysis of 2000-2015 Model Year IUVP Evaporative and
Refueling Emission Data, SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-5008
7 The 11-mpg projection for 2027+ for HHDGV fuel economy is based on information on page
8-8 and Table 5-15 for vocational vehicles as found in EPA's RIA entitled "Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -
Phase 2," EPA-420-R-16-900, August 2016.
8 Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with
Projections to 2050. January, www.eia.gov/aeo.
While the cost of ORVR is incurred at the time of purchase, the recovery credits are accrued over
the years as the vehicle is driven. In previous documents, EPA based its mobile source emission
inventories on annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) with the VMT for any given vehicle
decreasing each year after it enters the fleet.9 Using the "mileage accumulation rate per vehicle"
in Table 1.4.4 of reference 9, a given vehicle will accumulate 150,000 miles in 12 years.
1161
-------
Applying a 3 percent discount rate to the stream of fuel recovery credits in years 1 through 12
(calculated as a function of annual mileage) yields an adjustment factor of 0.888 for a discounted
recovery credit value of about $67 for the 150,000-mile use period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1213-A1, p. 4]
9. See Table 1.4.4 of US EPA "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Highway Mobile
Sources, EPA 460/3-81-005, March 1981. Data for the "mileage accumulation rate per vehicle"
for heavy duty gasoline vehicles used.
This discounted $67 recovery credit is much greater than the $34 RPE price-adjusted estimate.
The VOC cost effectiveness on a $/ton basis is -$550/ton. This analysis does not include the
additional environmental and health benefits that would be realized from the recovery of the fuel
vapor, as evaporated fuel vapors are a precursor to the formation of ozone and secondary
particulate matter (PM 2.5). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Starnes, Elvin (OOIDA)
"I own a 2014 Prostar and I have had numerous problems with the EGR coolers and DPF
problems at a cost of $3,700 to as much of $9,500 at least once a year. The fuel economy is
worse than my older truck that didn't have any emissions on it also I wish that I never got rid of
the older truck." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.l].
Organization: Streenstrup, Hank (OOIDA)
Every Diesel vehicle I have has been negatively affected by updating the emissions systems. My
current heavy truck is a Glider kit with a pre-emissions, re-built engine in order to avoid the
downtime and reduced fuel economy that I experienced with my previous truck. I do not go to
any "emissions regulated" areas in my class 8.1 also own a lton Mercedes Sprinter that had the
emissions update this January. This has resulted in a reduction in fuel economy, resulting in
more fuel expense during these times of very high fuel costs anyway. I'm all for being
"environmental", but it makes no sense to burn 20-40 percent more fuel and this results in
fewer emissions?????? I also operate a HD pickup that is currently consuming excessive fuel
because of the emissions systems. These costs must be passed on through higher rates to my
customers. I am slowly retiring early because of the increased costs. I have become VERY
SELECTIVE with what loads that I contract, because of costs and loss of flexibility in operating
my business." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.2]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
Finally, the economic benefits of electrifying HDVs are significant. The total cost of ownership
of HDEVs is lower than that of fossil fuel-powered HDVs (as explained in detail in the following
section), especially amidst record-high gasoline and diesel prices. A new ZETA report found that
gas-powered vehicles are 3-5 times more expensive to drive per mile than EVs,9 and those
effects are multiplied in low-efficiency gas-powered vehicles like HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1283-A1, p.3]
1162
-------
9 https://www.zeta2030.org/news/electric-vehicles-are-delivering-cost-savings-to-drivers-strong-
electric-vehicle-tax-credits-will-ensure-that-all-americans-benefit-from-clean-transportation
EPA Summary and Response
The Agricultural Retailers Associated (ARA) stated support for a permanent lifting of
restrictions on the sale of E15. This is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The American Trucking Associations (ATA) commented that the recent upswing in fuel costs,
combined with increased costs associated with the new standards, must be considered in
estimating costs of the rule. We understand the concern, but our cost analysis is intended to
estimate the incremental costs on regulated entities. Since there are almost no diesel fuel
consumption impacts associated with the new standards (there is a small fuel savings associated
with captured fuel during refueling events for gasoline vehicles), there is no incremental cost
impact associated with fuel prices since they would be, except for gasoline vehicles, the same in
the no-action and the final rule scenarios. See also our response to a similar comment in section
18.6 of this document.
Norman Booth, Elvin Starnes, and Hank Streenstrup provided anecdotes regarding their truck's
fuel consumption compared to a friend's truck and/or a prior owned truck, but there did not
appear to be a comment with respect to any portion of our proposal in the anecdotes.
Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity) provided a detailed accounting of costs and fuel savings
associated with the ORVR requirements on gasoline engines. The comment was supportive of
the proposal.
The Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA) commented that electrified heavy-duty
vehicles have a more favorable total cost of ownership than fossil fuel-powered heavy-duty
vehicles. EPA has not looked closely at total cost of ownership in the analysis for the proposal or
the final rule because the rule is focused on criteria emission control, not ownership costs. Note
also that we didn't evaluate costs of electric vehicles for the criteria emission standards since the
final standards are not based on projected utilization of electric vehicle technology, as explained
further in preamble Section III, and we are not taking final action at this time on the GHG
standards portion of the proposal.
18.8 Operating costs - Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Champion Auto Carriers
Having been in the transportation industry for over 35 years I have witnessed what the DEF
regulations has cost my business and drivers since 2012. Down time for DEF issues account for
90% of my overall downtime and driver expense. Maybe the EPA should be looking at better
technology or systems to reduce NOx but allow for better performance and uptime. We can't
1163
-------
afford any extra truck costs or maintenance costs and still deliver the goods and services trucking
provides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2733, p.l]
Organization: CSM Trucking
Emission control devices on heavy commercial vehicles are non effective in business use and
environmental use. They cost consumers more money in parts and maintenance, and generate
more waste to public landfills as def jugs contribute tons of plastic containers to landfills
also. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2131, p.l]
Trucks running def are unreliable and not cost effective. More waste is produced using said
emissions control vs not using them. Lastly many trucks get worse mpg than older motors not
using def units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2131, p.l]
Clean burning trucks are can be generated in cleanly or accurately tuned vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2131, p.l]
EPA Summary and Response
Champion Auto Carriers and CSM Trucking commented that EPA should be looking at better
technology or systems to reduce NOx but allow for better performance and uptime. EPA does
not mandate the technology to be used by industry for compliance with EPA emission standards
- the standards are performance standards. EPA does not understand the argument that the SCR
and DEF systems are causing reduced performance (by which EPA assumes the commenter
means fuel consumption performance) for today's heavy-duty vehicles. While we understand
there was some decrease in fuel consumption with the introduction of the model year 2007 diesel
engines which added particulate filters for the first time for majority of the Class 8 truck market,
those impacts were reversed with the introduction of the 2010 SCR-catalyst technologies, and
with the implementation of the EPA GHG standards in 2014, today's highway heavy-duty Class
8 tractors are the most fuel efficient vehicles the industry has ever produced. The EPA GHG
Phase 2 standards in 2024 and 2027 require further reductions in CO2 emissions. As discussed in
Section III of the preamble, EPA expects those products will continue the trend of improved fuel
consumption and lower fuel operating costs while also complying with the final program.
18.9 Other comments on costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
The proposed rule must protect the continued use of the internal combustion engine and promote
the use of low-emission biofuels. The EP As push towards zero-emission vehicles and support
for efforts to ban the internal combustion engine, which this latest proposal is designed to do,
will cause major job losses, decrease farm income, cause a decline in the U.S. GDP, and
adversely impact corn and soybean prices. In October 2020, before the nation's started to see
record high inflation, ARA released a commissioned study that analyzed the impact of increased
1164
-------
electric vehicle penetration on U.S. biofuels, agriculture, and the economy. Proposals to ban
internal combustion engine vehicles, which is a goal of this proposal, by 2035 and 2050 served
as the economic models for the study, along with a base case provided by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook. Key findings of the 'Economic Impacts to
U.S. Bio fuels, Agriculture, and the Economy from Subsidized Electric Vehicle Penetration'1
include the following:
• U.S. light-duty and freight vehicle consumption of ethanol and biodiesel could decline up
to 90 percent to 1.1 billion gallons and up to 61 percent to 0.8 billion gallons,
respectively
• Corn and soybean consumption decrease by up to 2.0 billion bushels and up to 470
million bushels, respectively
• Corn prices fall up to 50 percent to $1.74 per bushel
• Soybean prices fall up to 44 percent to $4.92 per bushel
• U.S. Net Farm Income decreases by up to $27 billion
• U.S. GDP declines by up to $26.4 billion, resulting in cumulative GDP losses of up to
$321 billion
• U.S. job losses could reach up to 255,300 in the year 2050 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1251-A1, p. 2]
1. https://www.aradc.org/news/ag-biofuels-study
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
As EPA notes, costs are imposed both directly (e.g., through the cost of new emission
technology) and indirectly (e.g., through the need of a manufacturer to account for the risks and
potential financial exposure from extended useful life and warranty periods). At least in some
cases, the direct technology costs for new emission control technology to address Options 1 and
2 may be similar due to the need under both options to substantially reduce NOx emissions. In
such an instance, however, the indirect cost of extended useful life and warranty periods may be
substantially different and realistically impact the prices paid by the ultimate purchaser. This is
especially true under Option 1, where manufacturers will need to assess the risks (and
uncertainties) of being financially responsible for recalls and/or warranty repairs for extended
periods, in some cases up to 6 times the length of current periods.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.12]
24 EPA's proposed Option 1 would implement an emissions warranty period of 600,000
miles in MY 2031 for Heavy HDE vehicles as compared with current standards requiring
100,000 miles.
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
However, the Proposal does not really address motorcoach operations, or the benefits derived
from travel by motorcoach. Because of EPA's emphasis on trucks or freight carrying services,
1165
-------
ABA believes the assumptions and analyses EPA relies upon for support are either inaccurate or
incomplete. Passenger carrying transport, and specifically motorcoach operations, differ
significantly from freight transport. For example, the impacts on air quality from bus and
motorcoach operations should not be solely evaluated in the context of engine emissions but
must also take into account the number of the other vehicles removed from the road by virtue of
providing mass transportation. Motorcoach operations can take up to 50 personal vehicles off the
road (MJ Bradley & Associates (Ed.). (2019, June). Updated Comparison of Energy Use &
Emissions from Different Transportation Modes -
https://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/2019%20UPDATE%20Comparative%20F
uel%20C02%20FINAL-July%202019.pdf). When you consider the potential removal of 600
million passengers worth of personal vehicles from our roadways, we believe that the
motorcoach industry should receive some special considerations under this rulemaking and
should certainly be acknowledged for their positive impact on the environment. It is short-
sighted and inaccurate to entirely discount the benefits to air quality from removing other
vehicles from the road in terms of both emissions as well as congestion. At the same time, if
conducting motorcoach operations becomes cost prohibitive or untenable, it will cause the
demise of the motorcoach industry, leading to an increase of vehicles on the road and increased
congestion for urban areas, reversing the strides made to limit pollution and improve air
quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.4]
Further, the proposed rule leaves major open questions about its impact on engine size and
weight. Any significant increase in either the size or weight of engines could counter-
productively serve to potentially reduce the number of passengers that could be transported on a
motorcoach. For example, both under federal and state laws buses are subject to strict weight
limits (23 USC 127). However, the proposed rule contains no useful analysis of its bus weight
implications. Vehicle redesign costs to accommodate any increased weight to the engine or
emissions control system components should have also been considered in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, pp.4-5]
The EPA needs to incorporate more data on the motorcoach industry, motorcoach services and
the role motorcoaches play in the national transportation system, into its analysis and
assumptions for this rulemaking. Motorcoach transportation provides a significant benefit to air
quality by removing other vehicles from the road. If motorcoach operations in this country were
to decline, it will have a negative impact on air quality, and effect the economy through job loss
and by limiting transportation options, particularly for undeserved communities who rely heavily
on motorcoach transportation, in addition to the military and emergency response
network. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-Al,p .5]
As previously noted, the private motorcoach industry suffered consequential economic losses as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Motorcoach operations, overall, were running at 5-10% of
capacity throughout 2020, and only recovered to about 45-50%) in 2021. Many of the motorcoach
operators who survived and continue in operation today were forced to defer payments on their
heavy-duty equipment fleets for months. Even now these operators are still trying to recover
from the financial hole caused by these deferments. As well, the motorcoach equipment market
was flooded with excess equipment from foreclosures and abandonment during this time period,
sinking the value of both equipment and businesses overall. Motorcoach manufacturers were
1166
-------
particularly hard hit, with so much excess capacity as new motorcoach sales plummeted down
from an average of 2,200 units annually (2016-2220) to less than 1,000 in 2021
(https://www.buses.org/aba-foundation/research-summary/quarterly-sales-data). The industry is
experiencing an unprecedented driver shortage, leaving equipment sitting idle. All to say, the
motorcoach industry, economically, remains in an unstable position for the foreseeable future,
and equipment costs plays a major role in business decisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-
Al, pp.7-8]
ABA believes EPA underestimates the cost impacts of the Proposal, in terms of the cost to
manufacture an engine with an emissions control system to meet the proposed standards and
testing, along with the added cost to extend the useful life and warranty periods. These costs will
lead to an increase in vehicle purchase price and maintenance and repair costs for vehicle
purchasers. ABA also, again, points out that EPA has not fully accounted for or undervalued the
benefits of travel by motorcoach and the importance of encouraging such travel, rather than
making motorcoach operations prohibitively and unreasonably expensive, slowing down fleet
turnover and making motorcoach operations unviable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.8]
Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
Finally, heavy-duty trucks are the lifeblood not only of farms and ranches, but also throughout
the entire supply chain. Increasing costs, decreasing availability and potentially encouraging
negative environmental impacts through public policy should always be avoided. Yet, this
proposed rule would multiply the supply chain, inflationary and input pressures American
farmers, ranchers and consumers are already facing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1163-A1, p.2]
Specifically, we are concerned that the agency's projection of extremely modest technology and
warranty costs associated with the rule will result in a significant overestimation of future fleet
turnover and underestimation of the negative emissions consequences associated with large-scale
'pre-buys' prior to compliance deadlines. To its credit, EPA openly admits that its projections are
guesswork, but it does not quantitatively explore how underestimating costs could drive higher
pre-buy behavior that could significantly delay and undermine emissions reductions benefits that
are the central purpose of the rule. So, before finalizing this rule, we urge EPA to work
collaboratively with industry, states, and other affected stakeholders to resolve discrepancies
related to technology costs and achievability, warranty impacts, corresponding fleet turnover and
environmental impacts of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1163-A1, p.2]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• Cost impacts must include warranty upcharges, downtime, operation and maintenance, research
and development recoupment, profit margins, and training expenses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
1167
-------
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
EPA has failed to provide sufficient study or data concerning the safety, operational and cost
implications of its proposed rules on the bus industry, which has been economically devastated
by the COVID pandemic and which can scarcely afford any regulations that will significantly
increase the cost of new buses and possibly impose a significant weight issue that could make
bus travel less efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 3]
Given the economic challenges still facing the motorcoach industry, any rules that will increase
the cost of a new bus by over $40,000, as proposed here (and that will likely also increase
vehicle maintenance and repair costs) will counterproductively encourage the continued use of
older, less emissions-efficient motorcoaches. Such rules could also have the perverse effect of
forcing some motorcoach operators to abandon the business altogether, as many have already
done in recent years. The impact could well be more personal cars on the highway, and higher
emissions. To prevent these results, EPA needs to be more mindful of the role of motorcoaches
in the nation's transportation system and develop emissions rules that balance reasonable
emissions goals with the constraints facing our industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p.
3.]
Finally, Coach USA urges EPA to obtain information from engine manufacturers to assess
implications from the added weight and increased temperatures associated with SCR and derate-
related equipment. As noted above, interstate buses are subject, throughout the country, to
heavily-enforced weight restrictions; any exceedance caused by SCR or derate-related equipment
that causes a bus to be overweight would be unacceptable to sustaining interstate bus operations.
Likewise, any increased temperatures caused by such equipment - which may cause buses to be
less reliable or otherwise potentially impair driver/passenger safety - would also be unacceptable
to Coach USA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p. 7]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The implementation of the proposed standards and new certification and in-use NOx
requirements will require technology changes in HDVs sold in MY2027 and beyond. These
technologies would have an impact on costs. For the past 10 years, the ICCT has been publishing
detailed cost information to ensure that national regulators in countries where we work can have
access to that type of information. EPA's NPRM presents a careful revision and update of
emission control technologies for diesel and gasoline HDVs in the U.S., and the proposal
presents a detailed analysis of the expected cost to meet the proposed targets. The draft RIA
often refers to ICCT's work as the basis for its cost assessment. Our detailed review of the cost
numbers shown in the draft RIA agrees with our own analysis. The RIA provides an even deeper
look into the cost elements that influence the total incremental cost to meet the proposed
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 12]
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently adopted a new rule, referred throughout
this document as the HDV omnibus, to significantly reduce real-world nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions from new on-road heavy-duty engines sold in the state beginning in 2024. The cost
1168
-------
information from that process is relevant in this discussion as the current EPA NPRM is closely
linked to the CARB regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 12]
Six studies were published that analyzed the cost to manufacturers of the low-NOx regulation
between 2019 and 2021: one by the ICCT, one from the Manufacturers of Emissions Control
Association (MECA); one by the California Air Resources Board; one by the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); and two by the Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 12]
The table below shows what each of the six studies found to be the incremental 12L-13L engine
cost to the manufacturer of full compliance with the final step of CARB's regulation and EPA's
NPRM. The estimates range from $2,200 (the lowest, from ICCT's study) to $80,821 (the
highest, from EMA-ACT Research)—a huge difference. These can be compared to EPA's
estimated $3,200 to $3,900 compliance cost to meet the HHDV regulatory requirements for MY
2031, depending on the regulatory option adopted. We find that the highest estimates are
inaccurate largely due to their overestimation of indirect costs, as discussed below. For reference,
the MSRP of a leading MY2022 Class 8 tractor-trailer model, the Freightliner Cascadia, is listed
today at $168,274. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 12]
14. Source: Price Digests https://app.pricedigests.com/login. Accessed 4 May 2022.
Organization: Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS)
The Proposed Rule does not appear to take into account the reality of the independent
contractor/owner operator model and the significant risk of unjustly increasing the costs that
truck drivers will bear as a consequence of its implementation. The Proposed Rule breaks down
the costs associated with getting compliant vehicles on the road into three categories:
Technology Package Costs, Operating Costs, and Program Costs. Without further action by the
EPA, these costs will worsen the already inequitable burdens shouldered by misclassified truck
drivers. As we show more fully below, this omission jeopardizes the efficacies of the Proposed
Rule itself. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.7]
Technology Package Costs, comprise both the direct costs of new technology and the indirect
costs of bringing those technologies to market.31 EPA projects that these costs, 'while first
incurred by manufacturers of new engines, are presumed to be passed on to the consumers of
those engines (i.e., heavy-duty truck manufacturers and, ultimately, their purchasers/owners).'32
Operating Costs are the costs 'associated with the truck and bus operation that are projected to be
impacted by the proposal.'33 EPA acknowledges that these costs will also be 'incurred by truck
and bus purchasers/owners.'34 Program Costs are the sum of the Technology Package Costs and
the Operating Costs taken together representing EPA's best estimate of the Proposed Rule's
'costs to society.'35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.8]
31 EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis 313 (2022),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf
1169
-------
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
At an informational meeting hosted by EPA on April 18th, 2022, EPA officials presented an
overview of the Proposed Rule. When questioned about the regulation's impacts on misclassified
truck drivers, one EPA official answered that EPA estimated a 2% - 3% increase on the purchase
price of a new compliant vehicle. Since the purchase prices of heavy-duty vehicles are already
high (on average $150,000 36), this increase is significant given the major costs that have been
shifted to truck drivers described above. The increased costs of regulation will further push
drivers to the economic edge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.8]
36 Sarah Harris, How Much Does a Semi Truck Cost?, FreightWaves, (Nov. 16, 2021),
https://ratings.freightwaves.com/how-much-does-a-semi-truck-cost/
As EPA expects essentially all of the cost increases associated with the Proposed Rule to be
borne by the end-purchasers, drivers that purchase their own trucks but also drivers that lease
their trucks from trucking firms will likely have these costs passed through to them. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.8]
This is highly inequitable and should and can be addressed. This is not pure speculation.
California has faced this very issue in connection with its heavy-duty regulation. Analysts who
have studied the impact of that regulation have concluded that '[ajdded expenses are truly
company overhead and should not be the responsibility of the driver.'37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1257-A1, p.8]
37 Sears, supra note 23 at 42.
Moreover, we strongly support the comments and recommendations of others, including the
more than 50 organizations that make up the Moving Forward Network (MFN), that the
Proposed Rule inadequately addresses the public health and environmental dangers of continued
use of fossil-fuel powered vehicles; we need to embark sooner and faster on a road to full
electrification of medium and heavy duty vehicles. But, electrification carries with it additional
equity considerations especially to workers who currently manufacture diesel powered trucks
and to communities who rely on the tax income generated by factories that make these
products. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.8]
We support the comments made during the public hearings by UAW representative Josh Nassar
that the cost impacts of greening the transportation sector should not be borne by the workers
least able to afford them. Since our Comments here primarily address the impacts on workers of
the Proposed Rule as currently written, we do not elaborate on the additional implications of full
vehicle electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.9]
1170
-------
Organization: Marathon Cheese Transport
Perhaps our government should subsidize the heavy duty truck cost increases by finally
eliminating the onerous Federal Excise Tax already being added to each piece of equipment
fleets have to purchase. Another example of political parties pushing agendas without proper
research at the expense of trucking companies who are already fighting an uphill battle with
higher labor costs, insurance premiums, fuel costs, shipper detention times, time/cost delays due
to traffic, and safety programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2516, p.l]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
9) Ensure that federal funding provided under the CMAQ Program and the DERA Program and
other programs enacted as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are competitively awarded
for projects that provide the most cost-effective emission reductions and offer increased funding
levels for engines and vehicles that are certified to more demanding standards in advance of
EPA's adoption of such standards; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.14]
13) Work with Congress to amend the federal excise tax on new trucks to reduce the impediment
to fleets and businesses purchasing cleaner new trucks by either eliminating the tax altogether
since it discourages new purchases or amend the tax so that it does not penalize more costly,
lower polluting technologies (i.e., eliminate the excise tax on the incremental cost). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.14]
EPA Summary and Response
The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) commented about the proposal's goals being to
push towards zero-emission vehicles and provide support for efforts to ban the internal
combustion engine. EPA's goal with these standards is to reduce air pollution from highway
heavy-duty engines and vehicles to improve public health and welfare. Congress has given EPA
that responsibility via the Clean Air Act and has directed EPA to promulgate standards that are
technology-forcing and feasible after giving appropriate consideration to certain listed factors.
The standards promulgated are performance-based standards that do not require a specific
technology and are not based on projected utilization of electric vehicle technology. The analyses
that EPA has done show that the final standards fall within EPA's authority under Clean Air Act.
The commenter also focuses on the Annual Energy Outlook's findings of possible economic
impacts to the U.S. biofuels industry associated with a subsidized electric vehicle penetration
without also presenting possible economic benefits. Regardless, a subsidized electric vehicle
penetration program is outside the scope of the proposal or final rule.
Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison) commented that the costs of longer warranty and useful life
periods must be considered. EPA has done so and has provided our best cost estimates for those
new provisions. EPA notes that the final analysis makes use of many suggestions by industry for
improving the final analysis. EPA notes these changes largely in section 18.3 above in this
document and in Chapter 7 of the final RIA.
1171
-------
The American Bus Association (ABA) commented that EPA should have considered weight
impacts on motor coaches associated with the standards. It is true that we have not considered
the very small weight impacts in our cost analysis. The technology teardown work we had done
by FEV suggests that the new aftertreatment systems may weigh from 40 to 80 kilograms more
than current aftertreatment systems. This is the weight of a single passenger or a few suitcases,
and EPA believes these small changes are not sufficient to disrupt the motorcoach industry. ABA
also commented with respect to the motor coach industry and the difficult economic times during
the pandemic. EPA has no desire to limit or discourage motor coach ridership and we do not
believe that this final rule will do so. Regarding economic hardships, EPA understands that the
U.S. economy has experienced such hardships. EPA has updated the cost analysis in the final
rule and believes that the costs are properly characterized, and that the reduction in heavy-duty
emissions and air pollution that will result from this final rule are significant, and that EPA has
given appropriate consideration of the costs of this rulemaking. EPA agrees with ABA that the
motor coach industry provides a valuable service to society and that its emissions per passenger
mile are likely less than would be the case were those passengers to travel by personal vehicle.
EPA disagrees that the costs associated with the final standards are likely to push people out of
motor coach travel and into personal vehicles because travel by motor coach will almost
certainly remain less costly in comparison.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau) also commented with respect to the
challenging economic times brought on by the pandemic. The Farm Bureau argues that
increasing costs and decreasing availability would multiply the supply chain, inflationary and
input pressures American farmers, ranchers and consumers are already facing. EPA understands
the concern, but Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set emission standards for
NOx, PM, HC, and CO that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology that the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety
factors associated with the application of such technology. In other words, the Clean Air Act
requires the criteria pollutant standards for heavy duty engines set by EPA to be technology
forcing and the CAA does not require that EPA consider all the statutory factors equally, rather
EPA has discretion in determining the appropriate consideration to give such factors as costs.44
EPA has updated the cost analysis in the final rule and believes that the costs are properly
characterized, and that the reduction in heavy-duty emissions and air pollution that will result
from this final rule are significant, and that EPA has given appropriate consideration of the costs
of this rulemaking. As explained elsewhere in this document and the final rule preamble, EPA's
final standards were determined after consideration of the required factors and are within EPA's
authority and appropriate. EPA also notes that EPA conducted additional analyses that
demonstrate the impacts of the final program to be cost-beneficial to society (i.e. the benefits
44 See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that similar technology forcing
language in CAA section 202(1)(2) "does not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all [the statutory] factors
in the process of finding the 'greatest emission reduction achievable' ''); Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200
(D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that under CAA section 213's similar technology-forcing authority that "EPA did not
deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate congressional will by placing primary significance on the 'greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable' " or by considering cost and other statutory factors as important but
secondary).
1172
-------
outweigh the costs). EPA hopes, as everyone does, that the current economic conditions -
inflation, the pandemic, etc. - are alleviated by the time the final program is being implemented.
The American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau) and the New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
stated that "EPA openly admits that its projections are guesswork." It is not clear where these
commenters got this impression, but EPA wants to make clear that the EPA proposed costs
projections, as well as the cost projections in this final rule, are not guesswork - and in fact,
EPA's cost estimates are based on detailed engineering studies, modeling work and proven
estimation approaches as we have detailed throughout our regulatory documents (both for the
proposal and this Final Rule). Regarding the Farm Bureau's comments on pre-buy, we respond
to those comments in Section 25 of this document.
Regarding the comments from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), EPA believes that it
has estimated all the costs that should be considered in setting the new standards. EPA has
estimated costs for new technology, including the indirect costs (including profits and R&D) to
be incurred by engine and truck manufacturers (i.e. regulated entities for the new standards).
EPA has also conducted additional analyses, and estimated increased operating costs consisting
of repair, DEF consumption and fuel consumption impacts.
Coach USA expressed concerns regarding the increased weight associated with the new exhaust
aftertreatment systems. As noted above in response to the ABA, EPA believes that weights may
increase from 40 to 80 kilograms, depending on the regulatory class. EPA acknowledges that no
accounting of this weight increase is included in our cost analysis, but EPA believes that the
increase is not large enough for weight restrictions to suddenly become a problem for motor
coach operators. The temperature impacts associated with the new systems are responded to in
Section 3. Coach USA also suggested that a rule that imposes $40,000 in costs is too much for
the motorcoach industry to handle given Covid and its effects on the industry. As noted
throughout this section 18, EPA disagrees with the claims of $40,000 in costs expressed by
Coach USA and other commenters.
EPA appreciates the comments from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
We have updated our analysis for the final rule and present our updated cost analysis in Chapter
7 of the final RIA.
The comments from the Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS) appear to be directed not so
much at the cost estimates or the methodology, but instead on who pays those costs. The concern
is over contracted drivers and those drivers not being treated as employees of the companies that
should bear the burden of the rule (in the commenter's opinion). This issue is outside the scope
of the regulation or the analysis supporting it. EPA has estimated the costs and noted that the
costs will be borne, largely, by purchasers of the engines and vehicles (i.e., the owner/operators).
By whom those owner/operators are employed is outside EPA's scope, as is how some operators
are compensated by the owners of the vehicles.
Marathon Cheese Transport suggests that the Federal Excise Tax be eliminated. This is outside
the scope of this EPA rulemaking.
1173
-------
Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGV America) suggested that EPA ensure that federal
funding under the CMAQ and DERA programs be competitively awarded and that EPA work
with Congress to amend the federal excise tax. Both of these comments are outside the scope of
this action.
19 Inventory impacts
19.1 MOVES model
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
The estimated cost and benefits that are anticipated because of a proposed rule are important to
assess the effectiveness and viability of the changes it contains. Such estimates are typically
based on advanced models that rely on a set of forecasted assumptions. In the case of EPA's
proposed rule focused on heavy-duty engine emissions, forecasted impacts appear to be at least
in part based on an updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model. The
documentation for this analytical model is included in the rulemaking's docket, 1 providing a
detailed view of the depth and breadth that the model encompasses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1189-A2, p.4]
1 'MOVES_CTI_NPRM', May 2021. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-0594
Although the model's soundness is not in question, the published documentation is unclear
regarding some of EPA's modeling assumptions. For example, the model appears to rely on the
data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency's (EIA) 'Annual Energy Outlook 2018' 2
(AEO2018) as an input to its projected vehicle populations (Section 4.2 of MOVES CTI NPRM
documentation, 'Projected Vehicle Populations (2017-2060)'). The AEO2018 document forecasts
a considerable increase in electricity and natural gas as a transportation fuel when forecasting
anticipated fuel mix out to 2050. However, there are several areas within MOVES CTI NPRM
documentation that appear to indicate a forecasted fuel-mix through 2060 that does not include
much (if any) electricity of natural gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, pp.4-5]
2 'Annual Energy Outlook 2018', Feb 6, 2018.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeol8/pdf/AEO2018.pdf
Although EPA's modeling assumptions and inputs will not have a direct impact on the actual
real-world costs and benefits if the proposed rule is implemented, the use of consistent and
accurate assumptions is critical to promote confidence in the proposed rule's projected costs and
benefits. Although such figures are not being questioned here, EPA is urged to include additional
context and transparency around modeled assumptions, especially in areas where the
documentation may appear to indicate inconsistencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2,
p.5]
1174
-------
There are also additional factors that EPA might not have currently incorporated in its
forecasting fuel mix or vehicle quantity. For example, consumer preferences have shifted
recently (over the past 5-10 years) for many products away from as many in-person purchases to
making more purchases online for home delivery. It's therefore possible that EPA's forecasting
assumptions underestimates the magnitude of this increase 'last-mile' delivery truck operations,
which typically happen at low-speed and idle in areas of higher population density. Another
example is the potential shift towards lighter vehicle classes being used more commonly in last-
mile delivery of goods than currently assumed, especially in denser population centers. Such
shifts would likely be too recent or insignificant for inclusion in EPA's modeling, but it is worth
reviewing EPA's assumptions around such trends in future rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1189-A2, p.5]
EPA Summary and Response
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) commented on some of the modeling assumptions
and inputs in the EPA's MOVESCTINPRM model (which was used for the inventory analysis
for the proposed rule). An example they mentioned was a potential inconsistency in EPA's use of
the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2018 data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA),
particularly about the projected numbers of electric and natural gas vehicles. RILA also
commented on the importance of properly accounting for the "shifts" in heavy-duty fleet
characteristics and the activity patterns, such as the increases in "last-mile" delivery truck
operations.
EPA thanks Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) for their comments on the underlying
assumptions in the MOVES model. As described in the MOVES CTI NPRM documentation,
we used AEO 2018 primarily to project future vehicle population for the conventional vehicles
with internal combustion engines.. Since the standards in the proposed rule, as well as the final
rule, are not based on the projected utilization of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), such as battery-
electric/fuel cell-electric vehicles, we assumed no electric vehicles in the heavy-duty fleet for
both the baseline and control scenarios of the inventory analysis. Natural-gas-powered vehicles
are included as part of the MOVES national default heavy-duty vehicle fleet.
EPA agrees with RILA's comment related to the importance of properly accounting for the
"shifts" in heavy-duty fleet characteristics and the activity patterns. For the final rule analysis45,
EPA used an updated version of the MOVES model ("MOVES3") which takes into account
more recent information on the heavy-duty vehicle fleet characteristics and activities (such as
FHWA Highway Statistics Series 1990-2017, AEO 2019 and other supplementary data sources).
MOVES3 also includes updated fuel type and regulatory class distributions for each MOVES
sourcetype based on IHS2014 data.
19.2 Comments presenting emissions inventory analyses
45 For details, refer to Chapter 5 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) document of the final rule.
1175
-------
Organization: Elders Climate Action
The two scenarios tested are the emission reductions achieved by applying the proposed NOx
standards for HDVs in Option 1 to OOS trucks operating in the AQMDs, and a scenario that
reduces emissions from those trucks to zero based on a zero emission standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
Figures 1 and 2 show the portion of the SIP inventory that would benefit from the proposed
federal rule for both the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins. Although the state will
be able to reduce NOx emissions from light and medium duty trucks, heavy duty truck emissions
in both severe nonattainment areas will eventually plateau by 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1218-A1, p. 14]
In calculating baseline emissions benefits, the EMFAC 2021 model was used to identify
emission factors for California vehicles in state and subject to the California Heavy Duty
omnibus rule and other CA regulations. The emission factors for model years 2027+ were used
to develop the emission profile. A baseline modeling run for 2035 was conducted for Class 8
trucks assuming current California regulations were in place for heavy duty trucks and no new
federal NOx regulations were promulgated. The baseline inventory also includes the ZEV
requirements associated with CARB's Advanced Clean Truck Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1218-A1, p. 15]
In developing the adjusted baseline that incorporates the emissions reductions associated with the
federal Heavy Duty Vehicle Low NOx Rule, it was assumed that any vehicle meeting the federal
NOx standard would have an emissions profile similar to a California vehicle meeting the
California Omnibus Standard in that year. Class 8 vehicles are a combination of in-state and out-
of-state purchased vehicles. Out-of-state vehicles are identified by EMFAC Categories T7
NNOOS Class, T7 NOOS Class and T7 CAIRP Class 8 in the EMFAC model. It was assumed
that all NNOOS and NOOS are purchased out of state and that In-State Tractors, Port and
CAIRP vehicles include both in-state purchased vehicles and out-of-state vehicles which vary by
the age of the fleet in the first column of Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
15]
To calculate the adjusted baseline, these "California-specific" low NOx emission factors were
then substituted back into the EMFAC emission inventory for out-of-state Class 8 trucks in
model years 2027 to 2036. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 15]
As shown in Table 2, the baseline NOx inventory for the South Coast and San Joaquin Air
Basins is predicted to 32.2 and 29.6 tons per day, respectively. The Adjusted Baseline Scenario
that adds the promulgation of the federal Heavy Duty Vehicle Low NOx Rule would reduce
daily NOx emissions from Class 8 Long Haul OOS vehicles in the South Coast and San Joaquin
Air Basins to 21.7 and 19.3 tons, respectively. The accelerated implementation of 2027+ ZEV
would further reduce both NOx inventories to 13.4 and 10.8 tons per day, respectively. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 16]
1176
-------
In addition to analyzing the impact of an accelerated Federal ZEV requirement in 2027 (that
would apply to both CA and OOS trucks), the emissions that would be avoided from these 3
model years were also evaluated by isolating a portion of the inventory for the NOx and C02
emissions from trucks from only these 3 model years. The C02 emissions were extrapolated to
2050 assuming that these trucks would remain in service 20 years or until 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 16]
EPA Summary and Response
Elders Climate Action estimated the impact of the EPA's proposed rule on the NOx emissions
from out-of-state Class 8 heavy duty vehicles operating in the State of California using the
EMFAC model. The analysis predicts a significant reduction in NOx inventory for the South
Coast and San Joaquin Air Basins areas with the adoption of EPA's HD2027 standards for the
out-of-state Class 8 fleet in California. Additional analysis showed that an accelerated federal
ZEV requirement would result in further reductions of NOx inventories for the areas studied, as
well as substantial reductions of CO2 emissions.
EPA thanks Elders Climate Action (ECA) for the helpful analysis they provided on the impacts
of the proposed rule on the out-of-state Class 8 vehicle fleet emissions in California. Their
analysis indicates that the proposed Option 1 standards would produce substantial improvements
in controlling mobile source emissions of the areas studied, which is consistent with the findings
from EPA's analyses as documented in the draft RIA. See preamble Section III for discussion on
the technology pathway we evaluated for complying with the final standards, and the ability for
manufacturers to use other technology pathways to comply with the performance-based final
standards (e.g., electrification, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery-electric or fuel
cell electric vehicles).
19.3 Comments related to upstream or other non-tailpipe emissions
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE urges EPA to move beyond tailpipe only definitions for ZEVs and integrate lifecycle
analysis for future standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Defining ZEVs only at the tailpipe distorts the environmental gains of vehicles with known
upstream emissions. Relying on the current definition of ZEVs serves as a barrier to automotive
technologies that can deliver significant real-world emission reductions. For example, hydrogen
combustion engines can deliver significant emission reductions, and when compared to other
vehicles on a lifecycle basis, can match the environmental impact of vehicles currently defined
as ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Continuing to focus solely on tailpipe emissions for future standards also ignores President
Biden's January 25, 2021, Executive Order, in which he stressed the need for environmental
standards to account for all greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p.
5]
1177
-------
"Sec. 5. Accounting for the Benefits of Reducing Climate Pollution, (a) It is essential that
agencies capture the full costs of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including
by taking global damages into account. Doing so facilitates sound decision-making, recognizes
the breadth of climate impacts, and supports the international leadership of the United States on
climate issues." 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
10. 7040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Presidential
Documents
Congress is also encouraging EPA to assess lifecycle emissions when setting future vehicle
standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Vehicle Emissions Lifecycle Analysis. — The Committee believes it is essential that when
setting future standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Agency fully evaluate
emission impacts of vehicle technologies and transportation fuels (including electricity used as a
fuel) from well to wheel, and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal in
order to capture the full impacts of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible. The
Committee encourages the Agency to develop standardized modeling to evaluate the full
lifecycle of vehicle technologies and transportation fuels, as new standards to reduce pollutants
are being developed, and to coordinate as necessary, with other federal agencies that are
conducting similar models for vehicles in an effort to accurately determine the full impact of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and
other actions. 11 (Emphasis added) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
11. See, H. Rept. 117-83 - Dept. of the Interior, Environment, & Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2022 at P. 84.
Organization: BorgWarner
BorgWarner supports lifecycle analysis for all future vehicle regulations. We support the
transition from a tailpipe-based standard (i.e., tank-to-wheel) to a more holistic assessment (e.g.,
well-to-wheel emissions, or more completely, full lifecycle emissions) as the proper metric for
determining the environmental impact of the vehicle as a product. This approach is consistent
with technology neutrality, global carbon neutrality goals, and a holistic environmental impact
assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 3]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
Moreover, the reputed "clean" technologies this rulemaking apparently aims to advantage over
diesel may well fall short. "In a study, the American Transportation Research Institute found the
process of extracting the materials used in lithium-ion batteries for battery electric vehicles
creates a significant amount of emissions. Lithium-ion battery production generates more than
six times the carbon of diesel truck production, ATRI officials said in a press release." 1 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
1178
-------
1. Heavy Duty Trucking Staff, "ATRI: Zero-Emissions Trucks Still Generate Significant
Emissions," Trucking Info, May 4, 2022. https://www.truckinginfo.com/10169798/atri-
zeroemissions- trucks-still-generate-significant-emissions
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
As we have advocated in the past, it would also be beneficial to look at the entire lifecycle rather
than just "tailpipe" emissions. As vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient, both
upstream and downstream emissions become much more important when attempting to truly
compare them. Significant infrastructure requirements would also come along with these rules,
so if EPA were to try to match CARB there would need to be significant coordination with DOE
in terms of planning for the national electric grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
Organization: State Soybean Associations
Additionally, the proposal overemphasizes the benefits of EVs while overlooking their negative
impacts. Specifically, EPA fails to adequately account for the lifecycle emissions associated with
EVs, including the significant upstream emissions resulting from charging batteries. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3] [Also included in Section 28.5 of this document]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Before allowing electric vehicles to generate any emission credits, EPA should consider
upstream emissions of criteria pollutants in its analysis of costs and benefits associated with
allowing BEVs, FCEVs, and HEVs to generate NOx emission credits as zero- or near-zero NOx
generating technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
EPA's eGRID2020 data show the NOx Output Emission Rate for the U.S. Average Grid as 0.509
lb/MWh (equal to 172 mg/hp-hr),8 while EPA is considering 35 mg/hp-hr or 50 mg/hp-hr as the
baseline against which credits would be given for BEVs. EPA should consider the NOx
emissions associated with stationary source emissions at the power plant, and should take into
consideration the losses that occur during electricity transmission and charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
8 https://www.epa.gov/egrid, accessed March 8, 2022
Further, because these emissions will result in localized increases at power plants, these potential
adverse impacts must be considered in EPA's environmental justice analysis. EPA only
accounted for reduced highway emissions; it did not account for increased emissions of all
pollutants from the power plants in the communities where the power is generated. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.6]
In the final LD GHG standards, in response to comments, EPA said that upstream emissions
would be accounted for in standards for MY 2027 and later. EPA should be consistent and
account for upstream emissions for criteria pollutants and GHG emissions in these standards for
MY 2027 and later HD vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.7]
1179
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Several commenters stated that the EPA should account for the lifecycle emissions associated
with heavy-duty vehicles, particularly heavy-duty electric vehicles, when conducting analyses
for the final rule. Many commenters urged EPA to evaluate upstream emissions from charging or
refueling heavy-duty zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs); one commenter pointed to Executive
Order 13990 as, in the commenter's view, supportive of evaluating upstream emissions from
ZEVs. Some commenters further stated that EPA should conduct life cycle analysis (LCA) to
fully understand the emissions and potential exposures from actions related to generating
electricity and mining battery materials. One commenter also urged EPA to move beyond
tailpipe only definitions for ZEVs and integrate lifecycle analysis for future standards; the
commenter pointed to language in a report accompanying a 2022 Appropriations Bill as an
indication that Congress supports the use of LCA when setting GHG standards. A subset of
these commenters focused on the GHG emissions impacts that occur across the vehicle lifecycle.
For instance, one commenter stated that producing lithium-ion batteries creates emissions and
those emissions are greater than the emissions from producing diesel vehicles.
Other commenters argued that EPA should consider emissions of criteria pollutants that occur
upstream of the vehicle (e.g., from power plants providing electricity to ZEVs) when conducting
an analysis of costs and benefits, and that the analysis should be conducted before allowing
HEVs and ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits. Commenters cited data from an EPA
database on NOx emissions rates from power plants across the U.S., as well as a press release
announcing an ARTI study on the carbon emissions impacts of mining lithium for batteries.
EPA acknowledges commenters' suggestions to evaluate upstream emissions or otherwise
conduct lifecycle analysis for the final rule. As an initial matter, the cost and benefit analyses we
conduct evaluate the impacts of the final standards and requirements in a rulemaking. This final
rule does not require the production or use of ZEVs, and the final standards are not premised
upon increased ZEV penetration. As such, lifecycle analysis for GHGs and ZEVs is outside the
scope of this final rule and of the cost and/or benefit-cost analysis of this final rule. We explain
this further in the two points below:
1. As discussed in preamble Section I and Section 28 of this Response to Comments
document, EPA is not taking final action at this time as part of this final rule on any changes to
the HD GHG Phase 2 regulations. It appears that many of the comments regarding upstream
emissions were in response to that aspect of the proposal. Since EPA is not finalizing that aspect
of the proposal in this action, any comments regarding that aspect of the proposal are accordingly
beyond the scope of this final rule.
2. The final standards in this rule are not based on the projected utilization of ZEV
technology, though manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards by using ZEV
technology. Moreover, while we believe there will be increased penetration of ZEVs in the HD
fleet by MY2027 and later,46 we are also not including in the final rule an allowance for
46 For example, the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has many incentives for promoting zero-emission
vehicles, see Sections 13403 (Qualified Clean Vehicles), 13404 (Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit), 60101
1180
-------
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from ZEVs under ABT, see preamble Section
IV.G for details. That is, any actual increased ZEV adoption will not reduce the environmental
benefits associated with this rule.
More generally, EPA also disagrees that it is required to perform a lifecycle analysis of vehicle
and fuel production before setting engine and vehicle emission standards, or to treat emissions of
air pollutants attributable to electricity generation, or the mining, production or disposal of
batteries for electric vehicles, as emissions "from" new motor vehicles under CAA section
202(a). The Clean Air Act's entire structure evidences a clear divide between stationary sources
(regulated under other sections of the Act, especially Title I) and mobile sources (regulated under
Title II). There may be indirect impacts of stationary source regulation on mobile sources and
vice versa, and it may be appropriate to consider those impacts in some circumstances. But it
would be inappropriate and contrary to the plain text of the Clean Air Act to conflate the
consideration of indirect impacts, when appropriate, with actually treating stationary source
emissions as mobile source emissions. Cf. Coal, for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. E.P.A., 684 F.3d
102, 128-29 (D.C. Cir. 2012), affd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. E.P.A.,
573 U.S. 302 (2014), and amended sub nom. Coal, for Responsible Regul., Inc. v. Env't Prot.
Agency, 606 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ("EPA was not arbitrary and capricious by not
considering stationary-source costs in its analyses"). EPA interprets the Clean Air Act as
generally directing EPA to consider regulation of emissions for each sector according to the
applicable statutory requirements for each program. While EPA may also elect to consider
upstream emissions in certain appropriate circumstances, such consideration is not required by
statute. Nor is such consideration appropriate here, for the reasons stated further above.
EPA also disagrees with commenters that we should consider upstream emissions of criteria
pollutants from HEVs as part of our analysis of costs and benefits before allowing HEVs to
generate NOx emission credits.47 We are not projecting an increase in PHEVs in response to the
final standards and the final standards are not based on projected utilization of PHEV
technology; thus, the same number of PHEVs are included in our baseline and control scenarios.
The lack of a delta between baseline and control scenarios precludes including PHEVs in our
analysis of costs or benefits in the final rule (see preamble Section III for additional discussion
on the basis of the final standards). We note that we are not assuming a zero-emissions tailpipe
performance of HEVs in the final rule; as discussed in preamble Section III, manufacturers must
declare their family emissions limit (FEL) for HEVs based on testing both the charge depleting
and charge sustaining operations (see preamble Section III.B.2 for details on testing hybrid
powertrains). As such, the final rule only allows manufacturers to generate NOx emissions
credits from HEVs that are reflective of their tailpipe NOx emissions performance.
(Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles), 60102 (Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports), and 70002 (United States Postal
Service Clean Fleets) of H. R. 5376.
47 Note that the term hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) refers to vehicles that are propelled by both an on-board engine
using a consumable fuel (e.g., diesel internal combustion engine, hydrogen fuel cell) and an energy storage device
(e.g., battery, capacitor). For a subset of HEVs, the energy storage device can be recharged by either the on-board
engine or by plugging a charging cable into an external electrical source (i.e., plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
PHEVs). Since the commenter focuses on upstream emissions from HEVs (i.e., emissions that would occur from
plugging in a PHEV), we focus on PHEVs in this response.
1181
-------
20 Air quality impacts
20.1 Modeling of Inventory and Air Quality Contribution
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
U.S. EPA's March 28, 2022 proposed rule to reduce pollution from highway diesel vehicles
targets a source of pollution that recent work by my organization identifies as a significant
contributor to ground level ozone in the Great Lakes region. The Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) conducted air quality modeling of the year 2016 that used emissions
tracers to quantify the contributions of different air pollution sources to ground level ozone at
receptors in the eastern United Statesl. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1034-A1, p. 2]
1. LADCO 2016 Base and Future Year Modeling Protocol. Available for download at:
https://www.ladco.org/wp-content/uploads/Modeling/2016/CAMx/LADCO_2016-
Platform_Air-Quality-Modeling-Protocol_06May2021 .pdf
The figures on the next page summarize the emissions tracer results of the LADCO 2016 air
quality modeling. Figure 1 shows that the model attributed approximately 10% of the surface
ozone at key monitors in the eastern half of the U.S. to roadway diesel emissions sources
(or diesel). Similarly, Figure 2 illustrates that the model indicates that roadway diesel emissions
contribute 9% of the ozone concentrations on average across all surface ozone monitors in U.S.
EPA Region 5. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1034-A1, p. 2]
LADCO's modeling shows that relative to other source types, emissions from roadway mobile
sources are the largest contributors to surface ozone in the Great Lakes region. Regulatory
actions that result in emissions reductions from roadway mobile sources will impact a major
source of ozone precursor emissions in this region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1034-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA recently co-funded an emission inventory and air quality modeling analysis based on the
emission limit values and durability requirements proposed by CARB to quantify the air quality
benefits if a national standard were set by U.S. EPA under the Clean Trucks Rule to align with
the CARB proposed limits and implementation dates [1] [2], The analysis did not incorporate the
compliance program changes or warranty revisions into our model assumptions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.2]
[1] MECA, 'MOVES Inventory Modeling of a Potential Cleaner Trucks Initiative Scenario,'
2020. Online at https://www.meca.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CTI-
MOVESInventoryModelingProjectSummary-0122Finalrev.pdf.
1182
-------
[2] Alpine Geophysics, 'Air Quality Model Analysis of a Potential Cleaner Trucks Initiative
Scenario,' 2020.
The foundation of the evaluation was the current U.S. EPA inventory projection for 2028. The
2028 inventory projection is that of the 2016vl emissions modeling platform. It is a product from
the agency's National Emissions Inventory Collaborative and includes a full suite of the base
year (2016) and the projection year (2023 & 2028). This part of the analysis is referred to as the
'2028 Base Case' inventory in this study and corresponds closely with a 2027 implementation
date for the Clean Trucks Rule. From that inventory foundation, two new inventory scenarios
were developed as follows.
• The '2035 Base Case' inventory was developed to include an on-road fleet projection to
2035 with no change in the underlying regulatory context.
• The '2035 Control Case' inventory was developed to include both the 2035 fleet
projection and the impacts of adoption of federal FTP standards for heavy-duty trucks of
0.05 g/bhp-hr beginning with MY 2024 and 0.02 g/bhp-hr beginning with MY 2027, as
proposed by CARB, on on-road vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
p.3]
The 2035 on-road fleet projection estimated hours, VMT and vehicle populations at the county,
roadway type, fuel type and vehicle class level. The resources used to create the fleet projection
were U.S. EPA's 2023 and 2028 activity projections (used to capture trends at the desired
resolution by county, roadway type, fuel type and vehicle class level) and the current version of
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (used for national-
level vehicle and VMT projections on which the trends were renormalized to match the national
growth rate estimated by the EIA). The fleet-turnover impacts included in the 2035 inventories -
both with and without the impacts of the Clean Trucks Regulation - were modeled with U.S.
EPA's MOVES2014b model (MOVES2014b-20181203, which includes the December 2018
technical update). Fleet-turnover effects were modeled relative to the 2028 Base Case with
MOVES at the national scale. Inputs into this modeling included U.S. EPA's 2028 age
distribution data aggregated to the national level - assumed unchanged for 2035 - and emission
factor updates to include the impacts of the Clean Trucks Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1. p.3]
Results from the inventory analysis show that the new modeled FTP limits would result in a
nationwide reduction of 330,000 tons per year of NOx in 2035. On a state-by-state level, the
NOx inventory reductions from the heavy-duty fleet are about 60-70% below the 2028 base case.
When taking a more refined look at the location of the NOx benefits at the county level, those
counties currently in nonattainment or maintenance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS will receive
some of the highest NOx reductions (e.g. > 145 tons NOx in 2035) from a 0.02 g/bhp-hr heavy-
duty engine FTP standard. In addition to the modeled NOx reductions, our preliminary analysis
suggests reductions of 2,300 tons of VOCs and 83,000 tons of carbon monoxide in 2035. Both
NOx and VOC contribute to ozone formation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.3]
The modelled 2028 base year 8-hour ozone design values were found to be above the 70 ppb
NAAQS for 75 monitoring locations. Applying the California Omnibus standards to the 2028
1183
-------
base year eliminates ozone nonattainment everywhere east of the Rockies, while several
monitoring sites (mostly in California) are projected to have reduced ozone levels that yet remain
in nonattainment. The greatest ozone reduction impact of the strategy is seen in urban areas and
along highway corridors with reductions of up to 6.5 ppb seen in the west (San Bernardino) and
4.9 ppb seen in the east (Atlanta). It is important to note that even though the 2015 ozone
NAAQS was finalized at 70 ppb, EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
in 2015 supported a range of 60-70 ppb for the 8-hour primary ozone standard. Without a federal
HD lowNOx regulation, nearly 300 monitoring sites are projected to have 8-hour ozone design
values between 60 and 70 ppb, and standards consistent with Proposed Option 1 will reduce
these by an average of 2.35 ppb and up to a max of 5 ppb. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1,
pp.3-4]
Organization: Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
In these comments MOG will not only offer its support for the CTI and relative contribution
findings generated by others, but also offer the results of air quality modeling data performed for
MOG by Alpine Geophysics that assess the contribution that mobile sources make to ozone
concentration at various monitors in the East. This data confirms the significant role that mobile
sources play in determining the quality of our air and the importance of the rule that EPA has
proposed and is consistent with the findings of EPA published with this proposed rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.2]
The air quality analysis prepared by Alpine Geophysics offers ozone source apportionment data
relative contribution calculations for the various source sectors from multiple upwind states to
downwind receptors5 which continues to demonstrate that local source emissions from mobile
categories have the greatest relative contribution to projected ozone concentrations in the
domain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.3]
5
http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/Ozone_Modeling_Results_Supporting_GN_SIP_Obli
gations_Final_Dec_2017_.pdf
Figure 1 provides recent ozone source apportionment results for the Queens County, New York
monitor (360810124) in the 2023 projection year. The figure shows geographic, source category-
based relative contribution to the 2023 ozone design value predicted at the monitor. In the figure,
the height of each bar represents the relative contribution to other geographic (state or region)
sources of category-based emissions (individual colors within each bar). Of importance in this
figure, the bars for New York and adjacent state New Jersey dominate the list of anthropogenic
emission contributions and within that bar, the blue (onroad mobile) and orange (nonroad mobile
+ area + marine/rail/air) are of greatest relative modeled contribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1272-A1, p.3]
When we look at the aggregate of all categories, regardless of geography (Figure 2), we also see
that motor vehicles (15%) and nonroad mobile + area + marine/rail/air (33%) dominate the
relative contribution to projected ozone concentrations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1,
pp.3-4]
1184
-------
Similar results are seen in Figure 3 at the coastal Connecticut site at Fairfield (090010017) with
emissions from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut dominating the geographic
contributions. Again, like the Queens County, New York monitor, emissions from the blue
(onroad mobile) and orange (nonroad mobile + area + marine/rail/air) combine for over 56% of
the modeled ozone concentrations. This is also seen in Figure 4 when geography is removed
from the equation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.4]
This pattern is also seen across most of the eastern U.S. and as seen in Figure 5, motor vehicle
emissions (red piece of each pie) are a significant percentage of relative contribution to 2023
ozone concentration predictions from U.S. anthropogenic sources at most monitors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.5]
Through the sponsorship of MECA, Oak Leaf Environmental Inc. (Oak Leaf) completed a 48-
state emissions impact analysis of a possible CTI scenario that would result from EPA aligning
their final CTI rule to the 90% NOx emission reduction levels as proposed by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and implemented and phased-in through fleet turnover assumed in
MOVES through 2035. This Oak Leaf technical support document is attached to these comments
and identified as Exhibit A. The report is also available on the MOG web site.6 The basis for the
CTI scenario was the most recent information - available at project commencement - from
CARB (September 26, 2019 workshop proposal) with the understanding that EPA and CARB are
working on a nationally uniform regulatory framework. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1,
pp.6-7]
6 Modeling Inventory of Potential Heavy-Duty Cleaner Trucks Initiative Scenario Final Report,
Prepared By: Jeremy G. Heiken Oak Leaf Environmental, Inc, June 2020
(http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/OakLeaf_Report_June_2020.pdf); Appendix A -
National & State CTI Scenario Summary
(http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/Appendix_A_-
_National_State_CTI_Scenario_Summary.xlsx); Appendix B - National & State Activity
Summary (http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/Appendix_B_-
_N ati onal_State_Acti vity_Summary .xl sx).
The foundation of the evaluation was the EPA inventory projection for 2028fh7. The '2035 Base
Case' inventory was developed to include an on-road fleet projection to 2035 with no change in
the underlying regulatory context. The '2035 Control Case' inventory was developed to include
both the 2035 fleet projection and the impacts of the proposed CTI on onroad vehicle emissions.
Accordingly, the emissions impacts of the CTI are defined by the difference between the 2035
Control Case and 2035 Base Case inventories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.7]
7 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016vl-platform
This is a consistent methodology for the development of the modeling platform compared to
EPA's proposal in that both analyses maintain the 2028fh projection for non-mobile categories
and updating projections for mobile sources. EPA's modeling for this proposed rule uses a 2045
projection for mobile sources, whereas Oak Leaf has projected to 2035. The Oak Leaf product
also differs from the EPA proposal in that Oak Leafs estimates assume NOx standards begin in
1185
-------
MY 2024 compared to EPA's action that sets NOx standards beginning in MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.7]
The modeled year of 2035 was chosen to allow as much phase-in of low NOx trucks meeting the
future modeled CTI emission limits while still providing adequate confidence from the air
quality perspective. Given that the new truck regulations begin implementation in 2024 and
heavy-duty trucks last 20-30 years on the road, the 2035 timeframe represents an intermediate
level of CTI truck penetration. It is expected that further NOx reductions will be realized beyond
the 2035 modeled year as the heavy-duty truck fleet continues to turn over to the cleanest
technology vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.7]
Figure 6 presents the relative, annual NOx benefit of the potential CTI scenario in 2035 at a
county-level resolution. The percent benefit is estimated as a reduction in the total on-road NOx
inventory (both light and heavy-duty vehicles). The range in benefit, by county, is between 4 and
60 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.7]
Working with this 2035 scenario, Alpine Geophysics, LLC (Alpine) through the sponsorship of
MOG, merged the onroad emissions data with a 2028 'base case' modeling simulation already
completed The Technical Support Document related to Alpine's 2028 'base case' is attached and
identified as Exhibit B and is available on the MOG web site.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1272-A1, p.8]
8 Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for 12km Modeling of EPA 2028fh Base
Case Technical Support Document Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC, May 2020
(http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/Alpine_Geophysics_-
_CTI_Scenario_Modeling_TSD_-_June_2020.pdf)
Alpine then ran photochemical grid modeling (PGM) with the Comprehensive Air Quality
Model with Extensions (CAMx) model to generate future CTI scenario concentrations of ozone
and PM2.5. This modeling of the CTI scenario is described in a Technical Support Document
that is attached to these comments and identified as Exhibit C and is available on the MOG web
site.9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.8]
9 Cleaner Trucks Initiative Scenario Modeling Using EPA 2028fh Modeling Platform Technical
Support Document Prepared by: Alpine Geophysics, LLC, June 2020
(http://www.midwestozonegroup.com/files/Alpine_Geophysics_-
_CTI_Scenario_Modeling_TSD_-_June_2020.pdf)
Together, this work assesses how the change in mobile source emissions between the 2028 base
case and the CTI scenario would change the ozone and PM2.5 ambient air quality projections at
receptors in the continental United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.8]
As illustrated in Figure 7, the modeled 2028 base year 8-hour ozone design values were found to
be above the 70 ppb NAAQS in the states of California, Utah, Colorado, Texas
and Connecticut. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, pp.8-9]
1186
-------
As shown in Figure 8, applying the 90% NOx emission reduction CTI scenario to the 2028 base
year eliminates ozone nonattainment everywhere east of the Rockies and in Denver and leaves
only the states of California and Utah with 70 ppb 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas.
Multiple monitors in California and in Salt Lake County, Utah also show modeled attainment
with the CTI strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.9]
As shown in Figure 9, the greatest ozone impact of the strategy is seen in urban areas and along
highway corridors with reductions of up to 6.5 ppb seen in the west (San Bernardino) and 4.9
ppb seen in the east (Atlanta). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.9]
The CTI strategy impacts on the annual PM2.5 design value nationwide are shown in Figure 9
with modeled attainment changes occurring at monitors in Madera, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus
counties in California. The greatest annual PM2.5 impacts are reductions of 0.64 [j,g/m3 (4.1%)
seen in the west (Kern County, CA) and 0.21 [j,g/m3 (2.3%) reduction in the east
(Chicago). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p. 10]
From a daily (24-hour) PM2.5 perspective, Figure 11 shows daily PM2.5 design values
nationwide. As with the annual PM2.5 modeling, areas shown to move to modeled attainment as
a result of the CTI strategy include Madera, Merced, and San Joaquin counties in California. The
greatest daily PM2.5 impacts are reductions of 4.5 [j,g/m3 (9.8%) seen in the west (Tulare
County, CA) and 0.9 [j,g/m3 (4.5%) reduction in the east (Chicago). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1272-A1, p.10]
This modeling is consistent with EPA's proposed rule modelinglO of 2045 with the Community
Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model in both geography and magnitude for ozone and PM
concentrations with the implementation of the control program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1272-A1, p.l 1]
10 Air Quality Modeling for the HD 2027 Proposal, Draft Technical Support Document (TSD),
EPA-420-D-22-002, February 2022
(https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10148 IP.pdf)
The modeling data provided in these comments illustrates the need for measurable improvements
to environmental conditions in communities that are heavily impacted by dense traffic. Ambient
improvements to PM, PM2.5, and ozone represented by this proposed rule will serve to facilitate
the development of implementation outcomes of local environmental benefits attributable to
controls on mobile sources like heavy duty trucks. EPA's burden is to effectively implement this
rule per Executive Order 12898, 'Federal agencies must identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1272-A1, p. 11]
Given the technical availability and cost effectiveness of achieving a 90% reduction of NOx
emissions from heavy duty trucks by 2035 as established by MECA and by 2045 as
demonstrated by EPA and given the remarkable improvement in air quality as demonstrated by
1187
-------
the Alpine and EPA modeling, MOG urges that EPA finalize a rule calling for a 90% reduction
in NOx emissions from heavy duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.l 1]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
To address the region's persistent air quality problems, reducing NOx from heavy-duty truck
engines is of the utmost importance due to its role in local and regional ground-level ozone
formation, as well as its contributions to PM2.5 and to winter-time visibility impairment at Class
1 areas. The year-round benefits of measures that reduce heavy-duty vehicle NOx emissions are
substantial. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.4]
An OTC analysis, shown in Figure 2, illustrates that onroad diesel vehicles, including heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs), are projected to be the third largest NOx emissions source in the OTR
in 2023.8 Emissions from highway trucks are estimated to comprise 20 percent of the region's
total NOx emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp.4-5]
8 National Emissions Inventory Collaborative (2019). 2016vl Emissions Modeling
Platform. Retrieved from http://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/wiki/10202.
To estimate the impact of onroad diesel emissions - the lion's share of which is emitted by
HDVs - the OTC modeled the contribution (ppb) of onroad diesel to 8-hour maximum ozone
concentrations at monitors in the OTR. 10 An example is provided in Figure 3, which shows the
modeled contribution to total ozone from onroad diesel vehicles at each monitor in the OTR for
which future-year 2023 photochemical modeling predicts continued nonattainment or
maintenance challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.5]
10 OTC, 'Ozone Transport Commission/Mid Atlantic Northeastern Visibility Union 2011
Based Modeling Platform Support Document - October 2018 Update,' 2nd Version,
October 18, 2018. Available at
https://otcair.org/upload/Documents/Reports/OTC%20MANE-
VU%202011%20Based%20Modeling%20Platform%20Support%20Document%200ctob
er%202018%20-%20Final.pdf. The modeling evaluated the 8-hour maximum ozone on
the 4th highest day, which is the metric EPA uses to evaluate compliance with the ozone
NAAQS.
Table 3 lists the percent contribution to total ozone from onroad diesel emissions at additional
monitors in the OTR. Onroad diesel emissions are projected to contribute up to 10 ppb to total
ozone and the projected contribution makes up between 10 and 17 percent of controllable ozone
contributions on these days. Table 3 also shows the onroad diesel category's ranking in terms of
the top emissions sectors that contribute total ozone at these monitors. Onroad diesel emissions
are consistently projected to be the second, third, or fourth largest contributing sector to ozone,
typically only behind area/nonpoint, onroad gasoline vehicles, and in some cases, electric
generating units. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.6]
1188
-------
The OTR had been making progress for over a decade at addressing its regional ozone problem,
with ozone levels trending downward due to the adoption of measures that reduce emissions of
ozone precursors. In recent years, however, air quality monitoring data no longer show a
declining trend. Figure 5 shows the number of days in Connecticut where maximum 8-hour
ozone was measured above the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS for each year from 1976 to 2018.
After significant improvements in the earlier years, the number of high ozone days in
Connecticut has remained level or has slightly increased since 2011. Similar patterns have been
recorded in other OTC states, as can be seen in Figure 6. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1,
p.9]
Figure 5 also includes an extensive list of requirements that have been adopted in Connecticut
and other OTC states to reduce emission of the ozone precursors from stationary sources, area
sources, fuels, mobile sources, and consumer products. Imposing further control requirements on
many of these source categories would be more costly than controlling heavy-duty engine
emissions and would create disproportionate economic burden for those sources. The OTC
estimated that the cost of additional NOx controls for industrial, commercial, and institutional
boilers (100 million British Thermal Units per hour in size) ranges from $2,700 to $21,000 per
ton of NOx reduced, as compared to a cost range of $1,000 to $5,000 per ton of NOx reduced
from HDVs.18,19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.10]
18 OTC/Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), 'Evaluation of Control
Options for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Boilers,' May 2010.
19 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, 'Technology Feasibility for Heavy-
Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027,' February, 2020.
Available at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MECA_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf. Accessed
May 4, 2022.
As noted previously, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area
consistently fails to meet its attainment deadlines for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.075
ppm), and EPA has now proposed to re-classify this area to severe nonattainment status for the
NAAQS. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 10]
Not only have ozone design value improvements stalled, the region has experienced unusually
high peak ozone concentrations in recent years. In July of 2018, the New York City metropolitan
region saw a 1-hour ozone average of 143 ppb, a peak level not seen in this area in more than 10
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 10]
The satellite imagery in Figure 7 readily shows visible nitrogen dioxide (N02) pollution (a major
component of NOx) along the Northeast Corridor, with the highest concentrations of N02 in the
New York City area. The figure shows the N02 vertical column concentration measured during
daily overpasses by the TROPOMI satellite for weekdays (Monday-Friday) during May through
September in 2018. Much of the N02 pollution is near the surface close to its emission sources.
High density ground level NOx emissions in large urban areas not only react to create
low elevation ozone, but also mix upward into higher altitudes, which is shown in the N02
1189
-------
vertical column measurements. Power plants in some locations enhance the vertical column
measurements as many of them inject their emissions into higher altitudes. As a result, low-level
emissions such as those from HDVs are an important component to local ozone production while
power plant emissions have a greater relative tendency to contribute to downwind ozone
production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, pp. 10-11]
Figure 8 shows satellite imagery of N02 concentrations during the winter in the Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic on February 18, 2019, a day with particularly severe haze. N02 concentrations are
abundant and dominant along the 1-91/95 corridor from Virginia to Massachusetts, suggesting a
strong mobile source NOx contribution. These are major arteries where goods are being
transported by truck from the ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. Note how clearly
defined the area of red is along 1-91 in central Connecticut and Massachusetts. In addition to
region-wide stagnation on this particular day, the strength of the N02 signal also reflects the
longer N02 lifetime in winter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 11]
Because of its role in secondary particulate formation, reducing HDV NOx emissions will
improve visibility in MANE-VU federal Class I areas. There are seven federal Class I areas in
the region that have historically faced some of the worst visibility in the nation. Analyses of
monitoring data from the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE)
network show the increasing importance of nitrate formation on visibility impairment, in
particular at the Brigantine Wilderness Area in the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge
in New Jersey.20 In addition, as was shown in Figure 2, HDVs are the third largest source of
NOx emissions in the region. Because of this, the MANE-VU states, through the MANE-VU
Regional Planning Organization process, requested that EPA implement a program to reduce
NOx emissions from HDVs.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 12]
20 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. 'Mid-Atlantic/Northeast U.S. Visibility Data
2004-2017 (2nd RH SIP Metrics),' December 18, 2018. Available at
https://otcair.org/MANEVU/Upload/Publication/Reports/MANE-VU_Trends_2004-
2017_Report_Plots_2nd_SIP_l 1112018.zip.
21 Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union. 'Statement of the MANE-VU States
Concerning a Course of Action by the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal
Land Managers toward Assuring Reasonable Progress for the Second Regional Haze
Implementation Period (2018-2028),' August 25, 2017. Available at
https://otcair.org/MANEVU/Upload/Publication/Forrnal%20Actions/MANE-
VU%20FLM%20Final%20Ask%208-25-2017.pdf.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenters support the NOx reductions proposed in the rule and provided results of
inventory and air quality modeling analyses that assess the contribution that mobile sources
make to ozone and PM2.5 concentrations and the impact of the proposal on air quality. Further
detail on the assumptions and inputs used in these analyses is included within the comments and
1190
-------
references to the comments. There are some differences from EPA's analysis but overall, the
different analyses all indicate that mobile sources are an important contributor to ozone and
PM2.5 concentrations, and those that represented a hypothetical HD control program are
consistent with EPA's air quality modeling analysis.
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) commented on their modeling analysis
showing that the emissions from roadway mobile sources are leading contributors to the ground
level ozone in the eastern United States. LADCO mentioned that EPA's proposed rule on heavy-
duty vehicle emissions would have a major impact with respect to controlling the future ozone
level in that region.
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) presented an emission inventory and
air quality modeling analysis, also referenced by Midwest Ozone Group (MOG), based on
adoption of federal FTP standards for heavy-duty trucks of 0.05 g/bhp-hr beginning with MY
2024 and 0.02 g/bhp-hr beginning with MY 2027. The analysis showed decreases in ozone and
PM2.5 concentrations in 2035.
Also, OTC and MANE-VU note that NOx reductions from heavy duty trucks are important for
addressing the ozone transport region's (OTR) persistent air quality problems, including ozone
concentrations, PM2.5 concentrations and wintertime visibility at federal Class I areas. The
commenter provides an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) analysis illustrating that onroad
diesel vehicles (including HD vehicles) are projected to be the third largest NOx emissions
source in the OTR in 2023. The commenter conducted modeling to project how much ozone
comes from on-road diesel vehicles at OTR monitors and on-road diesel is one of the largest
contributors. The commenter also mentions that ozone reductions have plateaued in some places
and that in some places peak concentrations have been going up recently. The commenter asserts
that OTC states have adopted lots of requirements for other NOx emissions sources and further
controls would be more costly than controlling HD engines. The commenter states that satellite
data shows average NO2 concentrations during the summer, with maximum concentrations
around the NYC area. The commenter asserts that ground level NO2 emissions (e.g., from HD
vehicles) are more likely to contribute to local ozone while NO2 emissions that are higher aloft
are more likely to contribute to ozone concentrations downwind. The commenter states that
satellite imagery of a day in wintertime also shows higher NO2 along major roadways when NO2
has a longer lifetime. The commenter analyzed IMPROVE data and found that nitrates are
becoming increasingly important for visibility in federal Class I areas in the OTR.
Response:
EPA appreciates this evidence that corroborates the modeling analysis undertaken for the
proposed rule. EPA agrees that emissions from heavy duty trucks are significant contributors to
concentrations of ozone and PM2.5 and reducing NOx from this source will help many areas
improve their air quality. More information on EPA's air quality modeling analysis can be found
in Chapter 6 of the RIA and the AQM TSD.
20.2 Biofuels would be beneficial for air quality
1191
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Soybean Association (ASA)
The growth of the biodiesel industry, and more recently the renewable hydrocarbon diesel
industry, has been spurred by strong federal and state-level policies that promote cleaner, lower-
carbon energy sources. Increased utilization of biomass-based diesel over the past several years
has had a marked impact on the rural economy. Domestic markets use over 2.5 billion gallons of
biomass-based diesel which supports over 65,000 jobs—many in rural America—and creates an
economic impact of $17 billionl. Looking ahead, the biomass-based diesel industry is poised for
significant growth with the expansion of renewable diesel. The EPA has an opportunity to play a
critical role in supporting this industry—not only through the Renewable Fuel Standard, but
through emissions rules that continue to allow a pathway for low carbon liquid fuels. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1, p.l]
1 LMC International, 2019. The Economic Impact of the Biodiesel Industry on the U.S.
Economy. National Biodiesel Board.
Of note, government and corporate entities around the country are already utilizing biomass
based diesel as an opportunity to achieve lower emissions now. For example, New York City
requires all 11,000 city fleet vehicles to use biomass-based diesel—from the police department
and fire department to the department of sanitation and off-road equipment vehicles. Other cities,
like Washington, D.C., are also transitioning their fleets to biomass-based diesel. In 2018, D.C.
used 120,000 gallons of biomass-based diesel in their vehicle fleet, which resulted in 1,000 fewer
tons of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2020, the D.C. Department of Public Works announced that
they would begin running 17 garbage trucks on B100, or 100% biomass-based diesel—an 86%
greenhouse gas emissions reduction from a traditional petroleum-fueled garbage truck. The
results are so clear that the city plans to double the size of its B100 vehicles in the next year.
Through funds granted by EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program, DC Water Authority
is expanding their use of B100 to 31 vehicles where it also benefits worker health. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1, p. 2]
Soy farmers are proud of the success of biomass-based diesel—not only for the new market
opportunities the fuel created for farmers, but also for being able to grow a clean energy solution
right in soybean fields. In fact, many soybean growers are using biomass-based diesel in their
own farming equipment. Soybean oil represents about half of the feedstock used to produce
biomass-based diesel and, according to the analysis of Clean Fuels Alliance America, biomass
based diesel has led to a savings of 143.8 million metric tons of carbon since 2010. Further,
according to the most recent update to the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy
Use in Technologies (GREET) model, it is estimated that the current U.S. biomass-based
diesel feedstock mix reduces emissions by approximately 74% compared to traditional petroleum
diesel.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1, pp. 2-3]
3 Wang, M., A. Elgowainy, U. Lee, A. Bafana, S. Banerjee, P. Benavides, P. Bobba, A.
Burnham, H. Cai, U. Gracida- Alvarez, T. Hawkins, R. Iyer, J. Kelly, T. Kim, K.
Kingsbury, H. Kwon, Y. Li, X. Liu, Z. Lu, L. Ou, N. Siddique, P. Sun, P. Vyawahare, O.
1192
-------
Winjobi, M. Wu, H. Xu, E. Yoo, G. Zaimes, G. Zang, 2021. Summary of Expansions and
Updates in GREET 2021. https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-greet-2021-summary
The rise of renewable diesel in the United States, in addition to our existing biodiesel capacity,
appears poised to help meet the growing need for low-carbon fuels as drivers on our country's
roads move to reduce their environmental footprint. American soybean farmers stand ready to
support the continued growth of biomass-based diesel to meet our nation's carbon reduction
goals. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1309-A1, p. 3]
ASA is eager to continue working with the EPA to support the role of agriculture in diversifying
the fuel supply and supporting cleaner fuel options. On behalf of America's soybean farmers, we
appreciate this opportunity to comment, and look forward to working with EPA, its partner
agencies, and other relevant stakeholders to enact policies that will address climate change while
expanding the use of soy-based biofuels and market opportunities for soybean farmers. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1309-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
These new proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards are an important part of our
country's continued push for cleaner air and a cleaner environment. The new Ultra-Low
Emissions Diesel Engines (ULEDEs) produced under these regulations will be substantially
cleaner than New Technology Diesel Engines (NTDE) in the market today and will approach
near-zero regulated emissions of PM, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, and carbon
monoxide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.3]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
There are several critical deficiencies in the data and analysis on which the proposed rule
revisions rely. In addition to these specific deficiencies identified below, Valero incorporates as
part of these comments a report prepared by Ramboll U.S. Consulting, Inc. for Western States
Petroleum Association that evaluates CARB's Heavy Duty Truck strategyl and concludes that
CARB's approach does not deliver results as early and as cost-effectively as an approach that
incorporates low-nitrogen oxides ('NOx') emission vehicles coupled with increased introduction
of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels. Since EPA's proposal relies heavily on analysis performed
by CARB, the conclusions in the Ramboll study are relevant to EPA's proposal. EPA must not
blindly follow CARB, but should take these comments, including the Ramboll study, into
account. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.3]
1 'Multi-Technology Pathways to Achieve California's Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Goals: Heavy-Heavy-Duty Truck Case Study,' prepared for Western States Petroleum
Association by Ramboll U.S. Consulting, Inc. (February 1, 2021).
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
1193
-------
Commenters note that increased biofuel requirements would bring larger GHG reductions more
quickly than the proposed program. One commenter cites an ATRI life-cycle analysis done using
the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies (GREET) model,
which found that the most realistic approach to decreasing carbon dioxide in ICE vehicles is
through alternative fuels like biofuels. Another commenter points to a recent update to the
GREET model that shows the current U.S. biomass-based diesel feedstock mix reduces
emissions by approximately 74% compared to traditional petroleum diesel. Finally, one
commenter refers to an analysis done by Ramboll focusing on California that indicates emissions
reductions are greater and happen more quickly if biofuel requirements are also included.
Response:
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards). Comments related to additional technology pathways, such as alternative fuels, are
addressed in section 3.10 of this Response to Comments document. Related to the Ramboll
analysis one commenter points to, our response is included in section 3.1 of this document.
20.3 Ozone Transport from Asia
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
A recent study regarding ozone transport from Asia and its impacts on the U.S. found that Asia
contributed as much as 65% of the increase in Western ozone in recent years. 13 China and India,
where many consumer products are manufactured, are the worst offenders. Scientists say that
since Asian NOx emissions have tripled since 1990, they will continue to impact gains in U.S.
air quality. The research, which was conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and EPA, was published in the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The study, which analyzed levels of ground-level ozone between 1980 through 2014, concluded
that the spike in man-made emissions in Asia "is the major driver" of the rise in ozone levels in
the western U.S. for both spring and summer in recent decades. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1326-A1, p. 16]
13. Lin, M., Horowitz, L. W., Payton, R., Fiore, A. M., and Tonnesen, G.: US surface
ozone trends and extremes from 1980 to 2014: quantifying the roles of rising Asian
emissions, domestic controls, wildfires, and climate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2943-
2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2943-2017, 2017.
14. Id. at 2964.
Aside from Asian ozone transport, EPA's 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Ozone projected only 14 counties outside of California will not meet the revised standard of 70
parts per billion (ppb) averaged over 8-hours by 2025 (See Figure 3). 15 Yet every trucking
1194
-------
company in the U.S., regardless of where they operate, is being asked to pay higher prices for
equipment and warranties. IHS Markit data from the end of 2021 indicates that 53% of
commercial vehicles are MY 2011 or newer meaning they are powered by engines meeting
EPA's most stringent NOx engine emission standards. As the 47% of legacy vehicles gets
rotated out of use, the industry's NOx emission profile will continue to decrease. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 16]
15. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone, EPA-452/R-15-007, Page ES-8, September
2015.
Fleets being operated solely in attainment areas question why they will be required to pay such a
high price to improve air quality deemed healthy by EPA. These operations, like many others,
will assess the anticipated technological and financial impacts of HD2027 on their purchase and
operating decisions and adjust accordingly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 17]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
The proposed NOx and GHG reduction goals and the timetable for achieving them in this NPRM
are quite ambitious, especially in light of the remarkable reductions our trucking sector has
already achieved. Effectively, post-2010 heavy-duty trucks release cleaner air into the
atmosphere than they take in. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
The EPA has certainly played a role in the gains that have helped clean our air. Regrettably, the
EPA and other government agencies have been party to increasing a substantial regulatory
burden on American industry and erecting high hurdles to advancements such as building new,
cleaner oil refineries and adequate truck parking. Meanwhile, China continues to use Diesel 2,
the precatalytic converter-grade diesel fuel that has long been in disuse in the United States. We
note that the current, cleaner-grade diesel fuel used in the United States costs trucking roughly $1
more per gallon than would Diesel 2. To be sure, U.S. diesel fuel today is better for the
environment. Presumably, our country's citizens regard the more expensive U.S. diesel fuel and
the costs it adds to their cost of living worth the extra money. Yet, China not only benefits
economically from cheaper, dirtier diesel fuel, its polluted air reaches the West Coast of the
United States. There seems to be a disconnect here. Americans pay dearly to clean our air, which
flows eastward, and China sends back its dirty air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 4]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Two commenters noted that ozone transport from Asia is contributing to U.S. ozone
concentrations, especially in the Western U.S. One commenter specifically questioned why fleets
operating in attainment areas would need to increase their costs to reduce their emissions.
Response:
1195
-------
EPA agrees that ozone and ozone precursors, both from within the U.S. and from outside the
U.S., can be transported and contribute to downwind ozone concentrations in the U.S. and
beyond. Transport of ozone and ozone precursors also means that emissions from trucks
operating in areas attaining the NAAQS can still be impacting downwind areas, and those
downwind areas might not be in attainment. In addition, people experience health effects at
concentrations below the level of the NAAQS, and reductions in NOx emissions will help areas
maintain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and help prevent future nonattainment. Overall, reducing
NOx emissions across the country will result in improved health outcomes attributable to lower
ozone and particulate matter concentrations in communities across the United States.
Our air quality modeling analysis includes emissions within the country and coming in from
outside the country. The air quality results, presented in Chapter 6 of the RIA, indicate that this
rule will help reduce ozone across the U.S., including in areas that are impacted by long range
transport of ozone from outside the country.
20.4 Air Quality Impacts of Buses
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
However, the Proposal does not really address motorcoach operations, or the benefits derived
from travel by motorcoach. Because of EPA's emphasis on trucks or freight carrying services,
ABA believes the assumptions and analyses EPA relies upon for support are either inaccurate or
incomplete. Passenger carrying transport, and specifically motorcoach operations, differ
significantly from freight transport. For example, the impacts on air quality from bus and
motorcoach operations should not be solely evaluated in the context of engine emissions but
must also take into account the number of the other vehicles removed from the road by virtue of
providing mass transportation. Motorcoach operations can take up to 50 personal vehicles off the
road (MJ Bradley & Associates (Ed.). (2019, June). Updated Comparison of Energy Use &
Emissions from Different Transportation Modes -
https://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/2019%20UPDATE%20Comparative%20F
uel%20C02%20FINAL-July%202019.pdf). When you consider the potential removal of 600
million passengers worth of personal vehicles from our roadways, we believe that the
motorcoach industry should receive some special considerations under this rulemaking and
should certainly be acknowledged for their positive impact on the environment. It is short-
sighted and inaccurate to entirely discount the benefits to air quality from removing other
vehicles from the road in terms of both emissions as well as congestion. At the same time, if
conducting motorcoach operations becomes cost prohibitive or untenable, it will cause the
demise of the motorcoach industry, leading to an increase of vehicles on the road and increased
congestion for urban areas, reversing the strides made to limit pollution and improve air
quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.4]
1196
-------
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
Additionally, buses and motorcoaches significantly reduce emissions by removing private
passenger automobiles. Consumers that cannot afford the inevitable fare and charter cost
increases will select less efficient means of travel, counterproductive to EPA's goals of reducing
overall emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
Another consideration is the general havoc mandated by the earlier rounds of NOx emissions
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Two commenters noted that ridership on buses and motorcoaches can reduce emissions from
private passenger automobiles. They also noted that if buses and motorcoaches are not cost-
effective to operate for the operators, or are too expensive for riders, then consumers will select
less efficient means of travel which runs counter to EPA's goal with this rule. The commenters
ask for the positive impact of buses and motorcoaches to be acknowledged and suggest that the
industry should receive special considerations.
Response:
EPA agrees that buses and motorcoaches can decrease the need for individual passenger
vehicles, which can decrease emissions from the light-duty passenger vehicle sector. Emissions
from both light-duty passenger vehicles and heavy-duty buses or motorcoaches contribute to air
pollution and its associated health and environmental effects. EPA believes that the increased
costs due to this rule would not be enough to have a meaningful impact on the industry; more
information on this is provided in Section 25.3 of this document. In addition, responses to
comments on special considerations, including inducements related to motorcoaches, are
addressed in Section 8 of this document.
21 Criteria pollutant health benefits
21.1 EPA's Benefits Methods are Flawed
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Accordingly, and as confirmed by independent expert analyses and reports (see infra at Section
16 of these comments), it is expected that the monetized costs of a program centered around the
Option 1 proposal would exceed the potential monetized health-related benefits. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 12]
1197
-------
On the benefits side, independent experts at NERA Economic Consulting ("NERA") previously
have determined through a "scoping study" that the range of potential monetized health benefits
from the implementation of the proposed low-NOx regulations, when focusing primarily on
potential reductions in secondary PM2.5 and ozone, as EPA is doing in its benefits analysis, and
without accounting for exposure-extrapolation uncertainties, could be as high as approximately
$4,500 per-vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 144]
Turning to the potential health-related benefits from EPA's proposal, NERA's expert reports
(Exhibit "C" hereto) estimate and quantify those potential benefits. In that regard, NERA
conducted a prior "scoping study" to delineate the potential quantitative benefits from the types
of low-NOx regulations at issue, and, as a supplement to that, NERA also has prepared a critical
review of the portions of the RIA that include the Agency's quantitative risk assessment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 159]
NERA's earlier "scoping study" includes two parts: a conceptual summary of methods and
results; and a more detailed technical analysis. As explained in its conceptual summary, NERA
conducted a comprehensive "scoping" analysis to estimate, on a per-vehicle basis, the likely
maximum range of monetized health benefits that could result over time from the
implementation of the envisioned low-NOx standards. The relevant findings and conclusions
from NERA's report as they relate to the monetized benefits potentially attributable to reductions
in NOx-related secondary PM2.5 and ozone are described below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 159]
NERA focused its benefits calculations on the value of projected health-risk reductions from the
projected reductions in ambient ozone and secondary PM2.5 that could result from reduced
HDOH truck NOx emissions due to the implementation of substantially tighter HDOH NOx
standards. Based on a long history of such benefits calculations (by EPA and many other
entities), NERA assumed that approximately 98% of the estimated health benefits from
reductions in ozone and PM2.5 would be due to reductions in mortality risks. Thus, NERA
focused its benefit-per-truck estimates by estimating only mortality risk benefits, having
confidence that this method would have no meaningful impact on any quantified
conclusions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 160]
In order to obtain per-truck benefit estimates, NERA first calculated the tons of NOx emissions
reductions from an average new truck that would be purchased in 2027 meeting the tighter low-
NOx standard, accounting for a potential truck-life of up to 30 years. NERA made that
calculation for each of the 8 truck types covered by the assumed low-NOx standards. That
computation was carried forward for each year of a truck's operational life. NERA also assessed
the average truck's continued operation in each future year based on truck survival rates over
time. The emissions reductions in each future year were then translated into a dollar estimate of
each year's health benefits using a "reduced form" method in which the precursor emissions
changes were multiplied by a "benefit per ton" value. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
160]
NERA's methodology generated a time-line from 2027 through 2057 of annual benefits per-
truck in each year of the average 2027-vintage truck's operating life, varying across time
1198
-------
(generally declining) as the truck ages. NERA discounted that stream of benefits to obtain the
present value of benefits per-truck for each of the 8 truck types. Those 8 values were then
combined into a single sales-weighted average benefit-per-truck estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 160]
The most important input to NERA's benefit-per-ton estimates, and hence the benefit-per truck
estimates, is the assumption about the increase in mortality risk per unit change (reduction) in
ozone and secondary PM2.5 concentrations. That assumption is usually based on a statistically-
derived association between mortality risk and observed pollutant concentrations or exposures,
called a concentration-response (C-R) coefficient. The assumed C-R coefficient typically is
derived from one or more of many existing epidemiological studies and associated peer-reviewed
papers. EPA tends to change the mortality risk assumption as new epidemiology papers are
published and as each NAAQS-review cycle is conducted. NERA reviewed statements in EPA's
Policy Assessments for PM2.5 and ozone (EPA, 2020 and 2019b) to attempt to anticipate which
assumptions EPA might ultimately adopt in the RIA for its rulemaking. Without commenting on
the appropriateness of any such studies, NERA decided it would be reasonable to provide a range
of estimates for the secondary PM2.5 benefits-per-ton at issue. The lower end of the range is
based on a C-R coefficient for all-cause mortality risk derived from the Krewski et al. (2009)
study, and the higher end of the range is based on a C-R coefficient estimate for all-cause
mortality risk from the Di et al. (2017) study. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 160]
There are significant scientific uncertainties when using statistical associations from
epidemiological studies to predict risks for different populations and under different air quality
concentrations and conditions in the future. At the same time, there are methods for identifying
how the uncertainties may be reduced or scaled to derive benefits estimates that have a higher
degree of confidence. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 160]
More specifically, any use of the derived unit risk estimate from an epidemiology study to
predict changes in risks in different locations and under different levels of ambient pollution
exposure necessarily involves extrapolation outside of the original range of the study's data.
Extrapolation always introduces uncertainties that are not included in any of the original study's
statistical measures of confidence. The more extreme is the extrapolation that a risk analysis
requires with respect to exposure and population conditions not representative of the original
study, the less qualitative confidence one would have in the derived risk estimate. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 161]
Such extrapolation can be a particular problem when using studies of associations between
ambient air pollutant and health outcomes, even from the relatively recent past, to predict risk in
a future year because of the steady declines in ambient pollutant concentrations that have taken
place, especially with respect to PM2.5, and that are projected to continue in the future. For
example, the average concentrations of PM2.5 experienced by the individuals studied in Krewski
et al. (2009) fell by 30% during the period from 1980 to 2000, over which their mortality risk
levels were being observed. Furthermore, the EPA dataset that NERA used to project average
PM2.5 levels in 2035 are another 50% lower (before any reductions due to a tightened HDOH
low- NOx standard) than the average exposures occurring at the end of the Krewski et al. study
period (i.e., in 2000). Thus, the uncertainties due to extrapolation issues in this case are
1199
-------
significant. Yet EPA did not take them into account at all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 161]
It is possible to adjust the calculated risk estimates from the relevant epidemiology studies to
exclude the portions of the estimates that involve the most extreme amounts of extrapolation
from the exposure levels at issue in the original studies. As the amount of extrapolation from the
original exposure and health-benefits estimates is reduced, confidence in the resulting estimate is
qualitatively improved. This creates a "sliding-scale" of benefits estimates from least confident
to most confident. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 161]
EPA introduced such a sliding confidence scale for its PM2.5 co-benefits estimates in a recent
RIA (EPA, 2019a), which employed a health risk estimate for all-cause mortality from the
Krewski et al. (2009) epidemiology study. On that sliding scale, the "more confident" end of the
spectrum of mortality risk estimates was calculated by excluding those portions of the underlying
exposure and risk calculations that applied the original study's risk factor to PM2.5 pollutant
exposures below the 25th percentile of the originally-observed range of PM2.5 exposures. The
25th percentile of a data set is generally viewed as the point where sparseness of exposure
observations begins to undercut the ability to determine if an average C-R slope detected over
the entire set of originally-observed exposure levels still remains at those lower and less
frequently experienced exposure levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 161]
NERA applied that sliding-scale approach in the calculation of benefits that could be ascribed to
the type of HDOH low-NOx standards at issue. In doing so, by requiring more confidence in the
benefit-per-truck estimates, the estimates declined somewhat, since they exclude benefits that are
in areas with projected baseline PM2.5 concentrations that are below various percentile levels of
the pollutant observations in the original study (e.g., below the 25th percentile of
exposures). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 161]
There is no way to select a single "best" cut-off point for limiting extrapolation uncertainties. In
its last PM2.5 NAAQS decision (i.e., the 2013 rulemaking), the EPA Administrator discussed
how insufficient confidence in the continued existence of health risk associations would arise
somewhere between the 10th to 25th percentiles of a study's range of observations. She chose to
set the standard near the lowest of the 25th percentiles of available studies. NERA made an even
more conservative choice in its analysis in this instance, and set its "best estimate" values at the
lOth-percentile cut-off point of exposures from the underlying epidemiological studies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 161 - 162]
In addition, in recognition of the significant differences in the projected PM2.5 concentration
distributions that exist between California and the rest of the country, NERA recomputed its
benefits-per-truck for California and for the "Rest of the U.S.," separately. NERA's results,
including the effects of the sliding-scale confidence-adjustments, are provided for PM2.5 in
Tables 4 and 5 of NERA's Report, which are reproduced below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 162]
It should be noted that the benefits estimates in NERA's scoping study reports are conservative
or, stated differently, weighted to the high side. That conservative approach stems from the fact
1200
-------
that in conducting its analyses, NERA assumed, among other things, that: there is no exposure
threshold to PM2.5 or ozone below which mortality effects are no longer evident; the slope of
the relative risk function for mortality is linear all the way down to zero exposure; and (as noted)
it is appropriate to assess quantified benefits values at the 10th percentile of the exposure levels
at issue in the underlying epidemiological studies, as opposed to utilizing a cut-point at the 25th
percentile of exposures. Applying different assumptions regarding any of the foregoing points
would lead to a reduction in the calculated benefits estimates. (NERA Report pp. 3-6, 9, 11, and
14-15.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, pp. 162 - 163]
As noted earlier, if confidence-adjusted values are not used, the potential benefits from the
Agency's low-NOx proposal could be as high as approximately $4,500 per vehicle. On the other
hand, based on NERA's confidence-adjusted analysis, and excluding only up to the 10th-
percentile of the exposure data from the underlying epidemiology studies, and also applying a
3% discount rate as opposed to a 7% discount rate, the national per-truck benefits that could be
derived from the types of HDOH low-NOx regulations at issue range from approximately $4,300
on the high-side to $3,100 on the low-side, for an average per-truck benefit of $3,700.
Comparing that confidence-adjusted average per-truck benefit against the average per-HHD-
truck cost as determined by Ricardo ($42,000) yields a costs-to-benefits ratio for HHD trucks (or
a negative benefits-to-costs ratio) of approximately 10:1, which indicates that the proposed
regulations, if not revised, will be cost-prohibitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 163]
More recently, as a follow-up to its scoping study, NERA has conducted a critical review of the
Agency's methodology for estimating the potential quantitative health benefits associated with
the rulemaking proposal at issue, as spelled out in the Agency's RIA. A copy of NERA's
technical comments on the Agency's benefits estimates is included in Exhibit "C." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 163]
NERA's detailed critique demonstrates that EPA's RIA has a number of significant
methodological flaws leading to a significant over-estimation of potential health-related benefits.
The principal methodological flaws in the Agency's estimation of benefits include the
following: EPA has elected to base its estimates of ozone-related mortality risks on a 2016 study
by Turner, et al. that derived an unrealistic C-R factor for chronic ozone exposures. As a
consequence of its unreasonable reliance on the Turner, et al. C-R factor, EPA has estimated
high-end mortality ozone risks that are higher than the estimated mortality risks for PM2.5, a
result that is completely at odds with the established scientific consensus regarding the relative
magnitude of the potential mortality risks associated with PM2.5 exposures. As NERA explains,
"risk estimates for ozone-related respiratory mortality using the Tuner, et al. (2016) study are
theoretically and technically unreliable." (NERA Critique, p. 22.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 163]
The principal methodological flaws in the Agency's estimation of benefits include the
following: The Turner, et al. (2016) study is flawed principally because it: applies an incorrect
exposure window to the underlying data set, thereby underestimating exposures (which biases
risks upward); applies a year-round exposure metric, as opposed to an ozone-season metric; and
fails to account for the threshold of effects for longterm mortality that emerged from the
underlying data, which threshold for ozone was approximately 56 ppb. The net result from that
1201
-------
flawed analyses is the derivation of a risk ratio for ozone mortality that "has completely upended
the long established history of multi-pollutant air quality benefits assessments in which ozone
mortality benefits are substantially smaller than PM2.5 benefits." (NERA Critique, pp. 6, 14.)
Accordingly, NERA assigns "zero reliability to estimates based on the Turner, et al. C-Rs" (id at
p. 13), and concludes that the study "should be removed from the benefits analysis" (Id. at pp. 9,
17.) NERA further recommends that EPA should "omit long-term respiratory mortality from the
Draft RIA altogether." (NERA Critique, p. 13.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 163 -
164]
The principal methodological flaws in the Agency's estimation of benefits include the following:
Significantly, the Agency's RIA is at odds with the Agency's own 2020 NAAQS review process
where the Agency-drafted Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) found inconsistent associations
between ozone and respiratory mortality, did not ascribe confidence in any quantitative estimates
of ozone respiratory risks, and so included no quantitative estimates of such risks. (See also
NERA Critique, pp. 10- 13.) Thus, the Agency - the same Agency that has issued the draft RIA
for this rulemaking - has expressly concluded that the evidence is suggestive of, but not
sufficient to infer, a causal relationship between long-term ozone exposure and cardiovascular
effects, respiratory mortality or total mortality. (See ISA, Tables 4- 2 and 6-2, pp. 4-65, 6-30, 6-
43), and has specifically stated (citing the Tuner study) that there is "little evidence for an
association between long-term exposure and total mortality." (ISA, p. 6-28.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 164]
Importantly, the scientific consensus on that point has not changed. Indeed, very recently, on
April 29, 2022, and as a part of the pending reconsideration of the 2020 NAAQS, EPA issued a
review draft of its Policy Assessment (PA) for ozone. In that PA, EPA specifically concludes
that the newer available studies "do not materially change the findings of the 2020 ISA or
warrant reopening of the air quality criteria" for ozone. (See EPA Staff Presentation to CAS AC,
slide 6, April 29, 2022.) Significantly, in that just-released PA for ozone, EPA chose not to rely
on Turner, et al. (2016), noting that the "air quality data are not described [in the PA/ISA] for
that study as it relied on estimated 03 concentrations for the years 2002-2004 as surrogates for
study population 03 concentrations during the 1982- 2004 period." (See PA, p. 3B-33.) (See also
NERA Critique, pp. 10-11.) Thus, the EPA staff with the greatest expertise in this area have
actually agreed with NERA that the Turner, et al. (2016) study relies on an incorrect exposure
window, and so should not be used to derive C-Rs. EPA's draft RIA flies in the face of its own
more robust scientific conclusions, and so is patently unreasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 164]
The principal methodological flaws in the Agency's estimation of benefits include the
following: The Agency has failed to provide for any confidence-weighting to its benefits
estimates. That has led to highly overestimated benefits due to the inherent unsupported
assumption that the derived C-R relationships continue to hold fully, well below the ranges of
exposure observations on which those C-R relationships were based. (NERA Critique, pp. 2-3.)
When appropriate confidence-weighting factors are applied, it is clear that the Agency's RIA has
substantially overestimated the health-related benefits at issue, most likely by more than an order
of magnitude. (Id., Tables 1 and 2, pp 2-3, 18-30.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
164]
1202
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The above commenter asserts, for various reasons, that EPA's benefits methodology is flawed. In
the response immediately below we provide some additional information on the comments
included in this section, with additional details available in the comment excerpts above (Section
21.1).
Response:
We disagree with the premise that our benefits methodology is flawed. EPA's analysis is
consistent with applicable guidance and best practices for conducting benefit-cost analyses,
including OMB Circular A-4 and EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. Guidance
in both Circular A-4 and EPA's Guidelines directs the Agency to quantify and monetize all
impacts associated with a particular rulemaking to the extent feasible. We consider our analysis
consistent with the guidance, methodologically rigorous, and a best estimate of the projected
societal benefits and costs associated with the final program. In the proposal, we found that the
benefits of both scenarios we analyzed, Option 1 and Option 2, far outweighed the costs
associated with those same scenarios. We have considered the comments and we have retained
our approach to estimating benefits and have not made any changes to the analysis for the final
rule.
In Chapter 18 of this document, EPA responds to the claim that EPA's cost estimates should be
higher, finding that the primary difference between EPA's cost estimates and the higher Ricardo
cost estimates was a difference in approach associated with the proposal's Option 1. Please refer
to that section for more detail.
Furthermore, and as explained in Sections I and III of the preamble, EPA is promulgating the
final emission standards pursuant to its authority under CAA section 202(a)(3)(A). In setting the
final emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified in CAA
section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the
application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model year the final
standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the application of
such technology). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We also evaluated additional factors, including
factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lends further support to the
final rule, including that the benefits of the proposed options outweigh their costs.
We do not agree with the basis for the commenter's claim that the proposed options are "cost-
prohibitive" based on a comparison of per-truck benefits and costs (as described in the "Scoping
Study"). EPA has based its estimation of the health-related benefits attributable to the proposed
and final program using analytical tools, methods and assumptions that have been peer reviewed
and are consistent with best practices and analytical guidance. EPA has estimated the full suite of
spatially and temporally allocated emissions impacts associated with the multiple components of
the standards (RIA Chapter 5 describes EPA's emissions modeling methods and assumptions).
We have conducted full-scale photochemical air quality modeling that accurately projects levels
1203
-------
of criteria and air toxic pollutants and captures the complex atmospheric chemistry related to
ambient concentrations of PM2.5, ozone, and air toxics (RIA Chapter 6 describes EPA's air
quality modeling methodology and assumptions). Reductions in ambient PM2.5 and ozone
attributable to the standards are used as inputs to the health benefits analysis, which quantifies
and monetizes improvements in human health due to avoided premature deaths and avoided non-
fatal illnesses (RIA Chapter 8 describes EPA's benefits methodology and assumptions). The
Scoping Study assumed a hypothetical emission reduction scenario that was different from the
form of the proposed regulatory program. As the basis for a comparison of the costs and benefits
of the proposed and final program, EPA's analysis is appropriate and its tools and methods peer
reviewed. We also note that many of the responses we provide below, related to the commenter's
critical review of the Agency's methodology for estimating the quantitative health benefits
associated with the NPRM, also apply to methodological critiques we have with the Scoping
Study.
As a first step in quantifying PM2.5- and ozone-related human health impacts, the Agency
consults the most recent Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) for each pollutant.48'49'50 These
documents synthesize the toxicological, clinical and epidemiological evidence to determine
whether PM and ozone are causally related to an array of adverse human health outcomes
associated with either short-term (i.e., hours or days-long) or long-term (i.e., years-long)
exposure; for each outcome, the ISA reports this relationship to be causal, likely to be causal,
suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship or not likely to be a
causal relationship. Historically, the Agency estimates the incidence of air pollution effects for
those health endpoints that the ISA classified as either causal or likely-to-be-causal. The focus on
categories identified as having a "causal" or "likely to be causal" relationship with the pollutant
of interest allows for the estimation of pollutant-attributable human health benefits in which the
Agency is most confident.
Though we begin with studies identified in ISAs, the goals of an ISA differ greatly from those of
benefits assessments. ISAs evaluate the overall state of the science and develop overarching
conclusions regarding the relationship between exposure to the pollutant of interest and adverse
health effects. The ISA considers the potential for some groups of people, such as people with
pre-existing conditions, to experience risks that may not be generalizable to the entire U.S.
population. For a benefits analysis, EPA systematically reviews the body of available
epidemiological studies and risk estimates identified in the ISAs using explicit criteria to identify
which studies and risk estimates are a best fit for use in a benefits analysis. These criteria include
factors such as study design, geographic coverage, demographic populations, and health
48 U.S. EPA (2020). Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-20/012.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-relatedphotochemical-oxidants.
49 U.S. EPA (2019). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA. EPA/600/R-19/188. December 2019. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pmstandards-integrated-science-assessments-current-review.
50 U.S. EPA (2022). Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health and
Environmental Assessment. Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. EPA. EPA/600/R-22/028. May 2022. Available at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=354490.
1204
-------
endpoints. EPA's systematic review process and study selection criteria are presented in its
Technical Support Document, "Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits"
(Benefits TSD).51
The commenter states a principal flaw in the Agency's estimation of benefits is that the
Agency's RIA is at odds with the Agency's own 2020 NAAQS review process where the
Agency-drafted Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) found inconsistent associations between
ozone and respiratory mortality. This is incorrect for both the short- and long-term causality
determination for ozone exposure and respiratory outcomes, including respiratory mortality.
The 2020 Ozone ISA determined that there exists a "causal" relationship between short-term
ozone exposure and respiratory outcomes (U.S. EPA, 2020b). The short-term exposure causality
determination "was made on the basis of a strong body of evidence integrated across controlled
human exposure, animal toxicological, and epidemiologic studies, in addition to established
findings from previous [Air Quality Criteria Documents], demonstrating respiratory effects due
to short-term exposure to ozone." While the ISA found that "recent epidemiological evidence for
respiratory mortality is limited, .. .there remains evidence of consistent, positive associations,
specifically in the summer months." The ISA also found that "when recent evidence is
considered in the context of the larger number of studies evaluated in the 2013 03 ISA, there
remains consistent evidence of an association between short term ozone exposure and respiratory
mortality." Due to the strength of the ISA evidence relating short-term exposures to respiratory
mortality, estimates of respiratory mortality impacts are included in the main benefits assessment
of ozone-attributable health impacts.
Regarding the selection of which study and risk estimate to use to quantify long-term ozone-
related mortality benefits, the 2020 Ozone ISA determined that there exists a "likely to be
causal" relationship between long-term ozone exposure and respiratory outcomes (U.S. EPA,
2020b). The overall "likely to be causal" determination for long-term exposures "was based on
epidemiologic evidence of associations between long-term ozone exposure and asthma
development, respiratory symptoms in children with asthma, and respiratory mortality." More
specifically, the ISA found that "there is strong coherence between animal toxicological studies
of changes in lung morphology and epidemiologic studies reporting positive associations
between long-term ozone exposure and new onset asthma, respiratory symptoms in children with
asthma, and respiratory mortality" and the "several multicity studies and a multi-continent study
reported associations between short-term increases in ozone concentrations and increases in
respiratory mortality." Overall, the 2020 Ozone ISA concluded there was "some evidence that
long-term ozone exposure is associated with respiratory mortality, but the evidence is not
consistent across studies." Due to the strength of the ISA evidence relating long-term exposures
to respiratory mortality, we included estimates of respiratory mortality impacts when estimating
benefits attributable to changes in ozone exposure associated with the proposal.
51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health
Benefits. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone Season NAAQS. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272. March. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-
attributable_health_benefits_tsd_march_2021 .pdf.
1205
-------
The study and risk estimate EPA identified as most suitable to quantify long-term ozone-related
mortality benefits was Turner et al., 2016, which examined the relationship between long-term
ozone exposure and mortality (all-cause, cause-specific) in American Cancer Society Cancer
Prevention Study-II participants (aged 30-99 years). We found that the Turner study provides
strong evidence that demonstrates positive associations between long-term ozone exposure and
respiratory mortality. Compared to alternative long-term ozone mortality studies such as Jerrett
et al., 2009, the Turner study has a larger study size, more U.S. study locations, and a different
exposure estimation technique. EPA's Technical Support Document, "Estimating PM2.5- and
Ozone-Attributable Health Benefits" describes the study and criteria used in its selection in more
detail.52
The commenter took issue with the selection and use of the Turner study in the proposal
claiming several deficiencies: that it applies an incorrect exposure window to the underlying data
set; that it applies a year-round exposure metric, as opposed to an ozone-season metric; and that
it fails to account for a long-term mortality threshold. We address each of these claims in turn.
We acknowledge that there is uncertainty whenever temporal misalignment exists between
pollutant exposure and outcome data in the air pollution health effects literature. That uncertainty
also applies to the exposure window assumptions Turner et al. used to derive the risk estimate we
applied in the proposal's high-end estimate of ozone-related benefits. The Turner study
acknowledged this uncertainty but observed that "[tjhough we lacked historical ozone data, there
was little difference in respiratory mortality HRs in previous work when researchers examined
specific exposure time windows or ozone exposures matched more closely in time. Recent ozone
concentrations are correlated with past estimates. Correlations between 1998-2000
concentrations and those from 1988-1990 and 1978-1980 were 0.80 and 0.58, respectively."
Despite this uncertainty, the rigorous study review and study selection criteria we apply
(described earlier in this response) identified the Turner et al. study as the most suitable to
quantify long-term ozone-related respiratory mortality benefits. We qualitatively address this
source of uncertainty in the Benefits TSD.
Regarding the comment that we erroneously applied a year-round exposure metric instead of an
ozone-season metric, this is incorrect. Turner et al., 2016, provided a warm-season specific
hazard ratio of 1.08 (1.06-1.11) per 10 ppb increase in seasonal average of daily 8-hour
maximum ozone concentrations, which we used with air quality surfaces for the summer season
(April - September). Notably, the study compared annual mortality with warm-season ozone
exposures, so full-year baseline incidence rates were used with risk estimates from this study.
We therefore appropriately quantified annual cases of ozone-related respiratory mortality
attributable to the seasonal average change in ozone associated with proposal.
The commenter also faulted the Agency for failing to account for a threshold of effects in its
estimation of long-term mortality benefits. The 2020 final Ozone ISA evaluated many studies
52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health
Benefits. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone Season NAAQS. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272. March. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-
attributable_health_benefits_tsd_march_2021 .pdf.
1206
-------
examining the shape of the concentration-response relationship for long-term ozone exposure
and mortality using various different statistical techniques, including linear models and restricted
cubic splines, which were used to inform the long-term ozone-attributable respiratory mortality
relationship (U.S. EPA, 2020b). The ISA concluded that:
Generally linear, no-threshold relationships exist down to 35-40 ppb, although the results
were not entirely consistent. Some studies observed a sublinear relationship, indicating
larger changes in risk for higher ozone concentrations compared with lower ozone
concentrations. Several studies also included threshold analyses and support the
possibility of a threshold near 35 to 40 ppb. (U.S. EPA, 2020b, section 6.2.7)
The ozone ISA also found that:
Recent multicity studies continue to support a linear [concentration-response]
relationship with no evidence of a threshold between short term ozone exposure and
mortality over the range of ozone concentrations typically observed in the U.S. Studies
that used different statistical approaches and ozone averaging times (i.e., 24 hour avg and
8 hour max) provide evidence of a linear concentration-response relationship, with less
certainty in the shape of the curve at lower concentrations [i.e., 40 ppb for 24 hour avg
and 30 ppb for 8 hour max]. An examination of whether a threshold exists in the ozone
mortality concentration-response relationship provided no evidence of a concentration
below which mortality effects do not occur when examining 5 [j,g/m3 (-2.55 ppb)
increments across the range of 1 hour max concentrations reported in the U.S. and
Canadian cities included in [a large cohort], (U.S. EPA, 2020b, section 6.1.8)
Collectively, these results continue to support the conclusion of the 2006 Ozone Air Quality
Criteria Document that "if a population threshold level exists in ozone health effects, it is likely
near the lower limit of ambient ozone concentrations in the U.S." and thus we assume linear, no-
threshold relationships exist between ozone and health impacts in the benefits that were
estimated for the proposal.
The Turner study did not provide threshold models or find evidence supporting a threshold
associated with warm-season effects, which is the hazard ratio we selected from the study. The
Turner study did find "some evidence that a threshold model improved model fit for respiratory
mortality at 35 ppb (P = 0.002) compared with a linear model using year-round but not
summertime 03 (HR per 10 ppb using threshold ozone indicator at 35 ppb for respiratory
mortality, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.22)." We believe the no-threshold assumption continues to be
appropriate for both the high-end estimate of long-term ozone mortality benefits (based on
Turner et al.), and the low-end estimate of short-term ozone mortality benefits (based on
Katsouyanni et al., 2009).
The commenter takes issue with the fact that EPA estimates the number and value of respiratory
mortality associated with long-term exposure to ozone as a high-end estimate of ozone-related
benefits, and note that by monetizing those benefits, we have "completely upended the long-
established history of multi-pollutant air quality benefits assessments in which ozone mortality
benefits are substantially smaller than PM2.5 benefits." This statement ignores the possibility that
1207
-------
scientific progress allows for the expansion of benefits quantified and monetized by the Agency
along with the fact that different air quality regulations reduce ambient PM2.5 and ozone
exposures in different scales and proportions. It is not unexpected that a rule predominantly
controlling NOx emissions would yield large ozone-related health benefits.
The commenter also alleges that the Agency substantially overestimated benefits in the proposal
because we did not apply a confidence-weighting approach to account for declining confidence
in the relationship between pollution exposure and health response. We believe this confidence-
weighting approach is not consistent with the approach to estimating benefits recommended by
the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) and the Science Advisory
Board (SAB),53'54 and is not supported by the literature upon which our primary estimate of
benefits for the proposal was based.
EPA has long acknowledged that there are multiple sources of uncertainty present in its benefits
analyses that may bias benefits in either a downward or upward direction. To demonstrate the
uncertainty associated with air pollution exposures observed in health studies compared to
exposures modeled in the proposal, we provided a stylized graphic that makes the point that we
are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we estimate from simulated pollutant
concentrations that coincide with the bulk of the observed concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. The graphic is not meant to convey any certainty
about where along that spectrum a cut-off (or threshold) exists below which there would be no
health benefit from reduced exposure. EPA does not view the lower end of the distribution of
concentration levels reported in the mortality studies as a threshold below which we would not
quantify the health benefits of air quality improvement, nor do we believe that cut-offs exist at
arbitrary percentiles of the distribution or even at the level of the NAAQS. Rather, the benefits
estimates reported in the proposal were the most appropriate estimates because they reflect the
full range of air quality concentrations associated with the emission reduction program that was
evaluated. In fact, as demonstrated in Figure 8-2 of the proposal, the range of baseline PM2.5
pollution concentrations are almost entirely above the lowest recorded PM levels in the studies,
the population-weighted mean concentration of the distribution is between 7 and 8 ug/m3, and
the distribution of concentrations is skewed more toward the level of the NAAQS than the lowest
recorded concentration levels.
Regarding the commenter's specific assertion that EPA has overestimated PM2.5-related benefits
due to "the inherent unsupported assumption that the derived C-R relationships continue to hold
fully, well below the ranges of exposure observations on which those C-R relationships were
based," we reject this premise. As detailed in the 2019 PM ISA and previous assessments in
support of the PM NAAQS, EPA's review of the science has consistently found no evidence of a
threshold below which exposure to PM2.5 yields no health response. Specifically, the 2019 PM
ISA found that "extensive analyses across health effects continues to support a linear, no-
threshold concentration-response (C-R) relationship." This conclusion in the 2019 PM ISA is
53 NRC (2002). Estimating the public health benefits of proposed air pollution regulations. 0309086094. National
Academies Press; NRC (2008). Estimating the Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling
Ozone Air Pollution.
54 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010. Review of EPA's
Draft Health Benefits of the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the CAA.
1208
-------
supported by the more recent evaluation of the health effects evidence detailed in the recently
released Draft Supplement to the PM ISA which found "continued evidence of a linear, no-
threshold concentration-response (C-R) relationship."
Based on the evidence and lack of nonlinear relationships between long-term PM2.5 exposure and
health impacts, we continue to assume a linear, no-threshold relationship and do not
quantitatively assess uncertainties related to the shape of the concentration-response
relationships, either through a so-called "confidence weighting" approach or otherwise. We
instead address this uncertainty qualitatively.
In summary, we believe that the primary estimate of benefits presented in the proposal for both
Option 1 and Option 2 is based on methods and assumptions that are consistent with applicable
guidance and best practices for conducting benefit-cost analyses and reflect a best estimate of the
total health-related benefits from the proposed program that we are able to quantify and
monetize. The benefits of both scenarios, Option 1 and Option 2, far outweigh the costs
associated with those same scenarios. See Preamble Section VIII for the benefits estimates for
the final program and Preamble Section IX for a comparison of benefits and costs of the final
program. Like the proposed options, these estimates are based on methods and assumptions that
are consistent with applicable guidance and best practices for conducting benefit-cost analyses
and reflect a best estimate of the total health-related benefits from the final program that we are
able to quantify and monetize, and the benefits outweigh the costs.
21.2 EPA Should Clarify its Economic Assumptions
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EPA should clarify its economic assumptions to better explain its choices in its methodology. In
particular, EPA should provide additional discussion regarding how the agency incorporates
income changes into the value of a statistical life, considers the cost of illness, and accounts for
learning-by-doing in calculating compliance costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 2]
In the Proposed Rule, EPA has adjusted the value of statistical life ("VSL") over time for an
increase in GDP per capita84 consistent with its own most recent guidelines.85 We applaud the
agency for taking this theoretically and empirically correct choice.86 However, to strengthen the
Final Rule, EPA should further clarify its reasoning and process in adjusting VSL over
time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 15]
84. DRIA, supra note 41, at 379.
85. EPA Guidelines, supra note 35, at App'x B.
86. See W. K. Viscusi & C. J. Masterman, Income Elasticities and Global Values of a
Statistical Life, 8 J. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 226-50 (2017); C. J. Masterman & W.
K. Viscusi, The Income Elasticity of Global Values of a Statistical Life: Stated
Preference Evidence, 9 J. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 407-34 (2018).
1209
-------
Currently, the RIA states that it discusses how "evidence and theory suggest that one's
willingness-to-pay (WTP) for health and environmental improvements should increase as real
income increases" in the accompanying Technical Support Document ("TSD").87
However, Policy Integrity was unable to identify this discussion in the TSD. Critically, as the
quantity of life is limited (i.e., individuals have only one life) in comparison to most
consumption goods, the relative value of a statistical life increases over time as GDP rises over
time. In other words, as consumption goods become less scarce relative to non-market goods
such as the environment and health goods and services, the relative price of these non-market
goods and services rises in contrast to the more abundant market goods.88 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
87. DRIA, supra note 41, at 379 (referencing Sections 5.4 and 6.4.3 of the
TSD)
88. M. Hoel & T. Sterner, Discounting and Relative Prices, 84 CLIMATIC CHANGE
265-80 (2007); T. Sterner & U. M. Persson, An Even Sterner Review: Introducing
Relative Prices into the Discounting Debate, 2 REV. ENV'T ECON. & POL'Y 61
(2008).
EPA should also discuss more clearly its calculation of the VSL in the RIA. EPA lays out the
source for income (i.e., GDP per capita) growth calculations and extends "income growth
adjustment factors out to 2045" as growth is expected to increase into the future leading to a rise
in the VSL.89 However, EPA does not introduce the magnitude of the income elasticity and its
corresponding source. Presumably, it uses the central value of 0.4 given in Appendix B of EPA's
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.90 However, recent research finds a higher value
for the United States between 0.5 to 0.7 with a best estimate of 0.55.91 Accordingly, EPA should
clarify why it selected its current value of 0.4, particularly given that it has previously used a
value of 0.55.92 EPA should conduct a literature review to determine the most appropriate value.
It should also explain its reasoning for not including sensitivity analysis with respect to this
parameter given that EPA's guidelines specify a wide range between 0.08 to 1.0.93 This
empirical question is important because a higher income elasticity will increase the benefits of
reducing air pollution. 94 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 16]
89. DRIA, supra note 41, at 379.
90. EPA Guidelines, supra note 35, at B-4.
91. Viscusi & Masterman (2017), supra note 86; Masterman & Viscusi (2018), supra note
86.
92. 85 Fed. Reg. 24,174, 24,827 (April 30, 2020).
93. EPA Guidelines, supra note 35, at B-4.
94. EPA correctly adjusted VSL for rising GDP per capita, but not individuals or sub-
populations within the United States. This is consistent with Appendix B of EPA's
1210
-------
Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, supra note 35. It is also consistent with the
United States's use of a uniform VSL applied to all individuals equally within the United
States.
EPA should also consider addressing the impact of the rising relative value of statistical life on
household decisions. Specifically, a rise in the real value of a statistical life should lead the
household to take more protective action for air quality. In other words, as households become
richer and place more value on reducing risk, we should see more defensive behavior on the
extensive and intensive margins. For example, households should buy more air purifiers,
cleaners, or filters and run them more frequently, as well as take other actions such as wearing
face masks and staying indoors until their marginal benefit equals their marginal cost.95 Ideally,
the agency would quantitively calculate the impact of rising income on the baseline and
alternative scenarios, as well as the cost of this defensive behavior. As the cost
differences between these scenarios are likely to be small, this could reasonably be addressed
with a qualitative discussion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
95. Ruth Dittrich & Stuart McCallum, How to Measure the Economic Health Cost of
Wildfires—A Systematic Review of the Literature for Northern America, 29 INT'L J.
WILDLAND FIRE 961-73 (2020).
EPA underestimates the true economic value of air pollution reduction as it uses the cost of
illness approach ("COI") instead of society's willingness-to-pay for changes in risk of a given
health effect. EPA should discuss the type of impacts omitted from valuing morbidity impacts
using this approach and the potential magnitude of these omissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1256-A1, p. 17]
For example, a COI approach omits many important impacts of illness, including the lower
quality of life that individuals experience from illness. Beyond the suffering associated with
morbidity, which the EPA briefly mentions,96 the COI approach also excludes lost productivity
from workers facing higher air pollution. At a minimum EPA should address this qualitatively,
ideally in conjunction with a sensitivity analysis using willingness-to-pay estimates from the
existing literature.97 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 17]
96. See DRIA, supra note 41, at 387 ("These cost-of-illness (COI) estimates are typically
a lower bound estimate of the true value of reducing the risk of a health effect because
they reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment, but not the value of avoided pain
and suffering.")
97. Dittrich & McCallum (2020), supra note 95.
In using the COI approach, the EPA does not clearly state whether its estimates include
opportunity costs such as income losses due to absence from work, which a willingness-to-pay
approach is more likely to reflect. This is critical, as the COI approach "only looks at direct costs
from morbidity: it sums the resource and opportunity costs from being sick - the treatment cost
and lost wages - without considering the disutility associated with pain, discomfort, and lower
quality of life... The cost of the preventative action taken to avoid becoming sick is also not taken
1211
-------
into account (e.g. the cost of buying an air cleaner)."98 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p.
17]
98. Id.
EPA states in the RIA that its cost estimates account only for direct treatment costs99—
excluding the lost wages recommended in the literature. If EPA's COI approach does not go
beyond direct treatment costs, the agency is underestimating morbidity costs in its COI
calculations. As the COI approach is already an underestimate as compared to the willingness-to-
pay approach, only accounting for direct treatment costs would represent a significant
underestimation of the morbidity impacts. This is concerning and should be addressed
qualitatively at a minimum. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 17]
99. DRIA, supra note 41, at 398 ("cost-of-illness (COI) estimates.. .reflect the direct
expenditures related to treatment").
Regardless, the EPA's use of the COI approach and its potential underestimation implies that the
net benefits of regulation are potentially significantly higher. EPA should explicitly take this into
account when selecting between alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 17]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenter provided input and recommendations for improving the documentation of
methodological assumptions related to income growth adjustment, the VSL, COI estimates, and
the impact of rising income on household decisions to avert risk.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenter's input and recommendations for improving the
documentation of methodological assumptions related to income growth adjustment, the VSL,
COI estimates, and the impact of rising income on household decisions to avert risk. We may
consider these suggestions in future rulemakings.
For more information on the derivation of income elasticity estimates EPA uses to develop
income growth adjustment factors, please refer to the memorandum available here:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecasl/regdata/Benefits/IncomeElasticityUpdate Recommendationswith
appendices.pdf. We note that a quantitative sensitivity analysis of income growth adjustment
factors is included in the Benefits TSD. We also note that EPA has consistently applied the
central income growth adjustment (or the "mid" value) to the WTP for each corresponding health
endpoint, as referenced in the Benefits TSD. EPA may consider the suggestion to conduct a
literature review for future rulemakings.
For more information on the estimation of the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL), please refer to
Appendix B of EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (Guidelines), which can be
1212
-------
downloaded here: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/guidelines-preparing-
economic-analvses. As stated in RIA Chapter 8, the Agency is committed to using scientifically
sound, appropriately reviewed evidence in valuing changes in the risk of premature death and
continues to engage with the Science Advisory Board to update its mortality risk valuation
estimates.
Chapter 5 of the Benefits TSD provides detail on what is and is not included in the Cost-of-
Illness valuation estimates for each endpoint. Chapter 7 of the Guidelines also describe Cost-of-
Illness (COI) valuation estimates in more detail. We agree that there are additional human health
and environmental benefits associated with reductions in exposure to ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, ozone, and NO2 that EPA has not quantified due to data, resource, or methodological
limitations, including the limitations of the COI approach to capture the value of avoiding non-
fatal health endpoints. The estimated benefits of the proposal and the final rule would be larger if
we were able to monetize all unquantified benefits. We do not expect that the monetization of
unquantified benefits would modify our consideration of alternatives.
The approach used by EPA in estimating learning effects is explained in the final RIA Section
7.1.1 and was derived from, "Cost Reduction through Learning in Manufacturing Industries and
in the Manufacture of Mobile Sources, Final Report and Peer Review Report," EPA-420-R-16-
018, November 2016. See our response in section 21.2 of this document regarding the factors
EPA assessed in setting the final standards and in promulgating the final rule.
21.3 NCh-related Health Benefits
Organization: Various Academic Researchers
NOx emissions are precursors to PM2.5 and ozone, which contribute tens of thousands of
premature deaths each year in the U.S. Heavy-duty trucks and buses are responsible for a
substantial share of PM2.5- and ozone-attributable premature deaths. Traffic-related air pollution
is responsible for an estimated 22,000 premature deaths in the U.S. each year, about 19% of all
PM2.5- and ozone-attributable deaths in the U.S.I On-road diesel vehicles contribute an
estimated 43% of these traffic-related air pollution deaths. The vast majority of diesel vehicles in
the U.S. are the heavy-duty vehicles that would be affected by the proposed emissions
standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 1]
1. Anenberg, S. C.; Miller, J.; Henze, D. K.; Minjares, R.; Achakulwisut, P. The Global
Burden of Transportation Tailpipe Emissions on Air Pollution-Related Mortality in 2010
and 2015. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14 (9), 094012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ab35fc.
Health impacts from N02 pollution were not accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for this proposed rule. Our research has revealed that N02 pollution could be responsible
for a large fraction of new onset of pediatric asthma in U.S. cities.2 For example, we estimated
that N02 was responsible for about 33% of new pediatric asthma cases in Los Angeles and New
York City, and about 25% in Washington, DC.4 The proposed strengthening of NOx emissions
limits for HDVs would substantially reduce N02 pollution, with important benefits
1213
-------
for children's respiratory health and development. These health benefits are not just statistics;
asthma affects children throughout their entire lives. The exclusion of N02-attributable health
impacts leads to underestimated benefits in the RIA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, pp. 1
-2]
2. Khreis, H.; Kelly, C.; Tate, J.; Parslow, R.; Lucas, K.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Exposure
to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Risk of Development of Childhood Asthma: A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environment International 2017, 100, 1-31.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.l 1.012.
4. Achakulwisut, P.; Brauer, M.; Hystad, P.; Anenberg, S. C. Global, National, and Urban
Burdens of Paediatric Asthma Incidence Attributable to Ambient N02 Pollution:
Estimates from Global Datasets. The Lancet Planetary Health 2019, 3 (4), el66-el78.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/S2542-5196( 19)3 0046-4.
Improved methods are needed to estimate health and environmental justice benefits from reduced
N02 concentrations
The RIA for this proposed rule estimates that the emissions standards would avoid up to 2,100
premature deaths and 6,700 hospital admissions and emergency department visits from reduced
PM2.5 and ozone, among other health benefits. The RIA discusses how communities of color
disproportionately live near high-volume roads. It also includes a demographic analysis of air
quality changes resulting from the standards, finding that "the largest predicted improvements in
both ozone and PM2.5 are estimated to occur in areas with the worst baseline air quality, where a
substantially larger number of people of color are expected to reside." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1220-A1, p. 2.]
The Justice40 Initiative is aimed at ensuring that 40% of the benefits of governmental programs
accrue to overburdened communities. The proposed HDVNOx emissions standards are likely to
dramatically narrow the inequities in traffic-related air pollution exposure and associated health
risks across the U.S. and within individual U.S. cities. But the current RIA, as well as traditional
methods EPA uses to estimate health benefits of improved air quality, are unable to capture the
distributional benefits, particularly for rules that have the potential to dramatically narrow
inequities, like rules affecting NOx emissions from vehicle tailpipes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1220-A1, p. 3.]
In particular, several key limitations preclude the RIA for these proposed standards from
revealing which communities could experience the greatest improvements in air quality and
associated health benefits. First, the chemical transport model simulations were conducted at
12km x 12km spatial resolution, too coarse to capture neighborhood-scale impacts. Second, the
RIA did not include a demographic analysis of the health benefits of the rule. Finally, the
analysis focused only on ozone and PM2.5, and did not include N02, a pollutant that is one of
the most inequitably distributed in U.S. cities and that is also most affected by HDV NOx
emissions standards. Thus, while this proposed rule could dramatically narrow inequities in air
pollution-attributable health risks across the U.S., particularly for N02, the demographic
1214
-------
distribution of the rule's air quality and health benefits is currently unknown. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 3.]
Improved methods are therefore needed to estimate health and environmental justice benefits
from reduced PM2.5, ozone, and N02 concentrations resulting from this proposed rule. This
should include high spatial resolution chemical transport modeling to estimate neighborhood-
scale changes in air pollution concentrations; considering N02 concentrations as well as PM2.5,
ozone, and N02 health impacts; and population and disease rates that are spatially
disaggregated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 3.]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenter notes that the proposed standards would bring about substantial health benefits,
including to those who live near roads and to those who live in communities with EJ concerns.
The commenter also suggests that the Agency should consider methods to better estimate the
health and environmental justice benefits from reduced N02 concentrations like those that would
be achieved by the proposed and final program.
The commenter specifically noted three key limitations to our analysis: the spatial resolution of
our photochemical air quality modeling, the absence of a demographic analysis of health
benefits, and the omission of quantified and monetized N02 health impacts.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We agree that the proposed standards would bring about
substantial health benefits, including to those who live near roads and to those who live in
communities with EJ concerns. We also agree that the Agency should consider methods to better
estimate the health and environmental justice benefits from reduced NO2 concentrations like
those that would be achieved by the proposed and final program. EPA intends to continue to
consider how to better reflect NCh-related benefits as well as the overall distributional
implications of future regulatory actions.
The commenter specifically noted three key limitations to our analysis: the spatial resolution of
our photochemical air quality modeling, the absence of a demographic analysis of health
benefits, and the omission of quantified and monetized NO2 health impacts. We will address the
first and third of these limitations here and refer the reader to Section 22 of this document for a
response to comments regarding demographic analyses of health benefits.
We agree that the chemical transport model simulations that were conducted at a 12km x 12km
grid cell spatial resolution are too coarse to capture neighborhood-scale impacts. EPA is
considering how to better estimate the near-roadway air quality impacts of its regulatory actions
and how those impacts are distributed across populations. Because the heavy-duty standards
apply nationally and will be implemented consistently across roadways throughout the U.S., we
can still make useful observations of demographic trends at a national scale using the air quality
modeling data at a 12km x 12km resolution. The Agency continues to research highly resolved
1215
-------
air quality data and intends to incorporate new methods and modeling techniques after they
become available.
Regarding the quantification and monetization of NCh-related health impacts, the Integrated
Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen makes clear that given the current literature, it is
difficult to disentangle the effects of other pollutants, such as PM and ozone, from NO2 to
specifically estimate health effects such as premature mortality.55 There is, however, evidence
that NO2 can be associated with asthma incidence, and the Agency intends to continue to
consider how best to quantify this endpoint in future regulatory actions. Such consideration could
apply the same systematic process for selecting, quantifying, and monetizing NCh-related health
impacts as it has for PM2.5 and ozone. This process includes: applying criteria for identifying and
selecting studies and risk estimates most appropriate to inform a benefits analysis for an RIA;
identifying pollutant-attributable health effects for which the ISA reports strong evidence and
that may be quantified in a benefits assessment; collecting baseline incidence and prevalence
estimates and demographic information; developing appropriate economic unit values; and
characterizing uncertainty with quantified benefits estimates.
21.4 General Comments About the Benefits of the Proposal
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
According to EPA's own analysis, Option 1 would produce at least $11 billion and up to $50
billion more in present-value monetized benefits than Option 2 (depending on the discount rate
and other factors) due to reduced mortality and avoided illnesses. See DRIA at 403-04 & Table
9-1. And those figures do not account for the additional unquantified but valuable human health
and environmental benefits that Option 1 would create. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,428, 17,590. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.50]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The human health costs are high and will increase each year the U.S. fails to reduce pollutants
from the most-polluting vehicles on the road. An ICCT study showed in 2015, the U.S. lost
2,982 lives to premature death caused by on-road diesel vehicle NOx emissions, largely from
heavy-duty vehicles that were shown to have 10 times the impact of light-duty diesel cars.xl
Given that the travelled mileage from heavy-duty trucks in the U.S. is rising - about 13 percent
from 2010 to 2020xli - more stringent NOx standards for HDTs that pollute at disproportionately
high levels are a crucial piece of protecting public health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1,
p.7]
xl ICCT, New Study Quantifies Global Health, Environmental Impacts of Excess
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Diesel Vehicles, May 15, 2017, https://theicct.org/new-
55 U.S. EPA (2016). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen - Health Criteria. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-15/068. Available at:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879.
1216
-------
study-quantifies-global-health-environmental-impacts-of-excess-nitrogen-oxide-
emissions-from-diesel-vehicles/
xli U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Studies, 'Single-Unit 2-
Axle 6-Tire or More Truck Fuel Consumption and Travel (metric),
https://www.bts.gov/content/single-unit-2-axle-6-tire-or-more-truck-fuel-consumption-
and-travel-O.
Previous ICCT research has shown that achieving a 90% NOx reduction for model year 2027
and later diesel engines could avoid more than $1 trillion in air pollution-related health damages
cumulatively from 2027-2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 7]
The EPA analysis shows the adoption of Option 1 will result in substantial air quality benefits.
Annual NOx reductions in 2030 and 2040 are 16.4 and 55.9 percent. PM2.5 emissions are
reduced 3.4 and 23.7 percent. And benzene, an air toxic, is reduced 4.1 and 23.1 percent.
Reducing the health impacts of exposure to these pollutants is especially important to residents
of communities located close to high truck traffic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 14]
EPA's analysis of health benefits indicates the proposed Option 1 standards when fully
implemented in 2045 will reduce premature deaths by about 3,000 per year. The average
monetized value of all health benefits of Option 1 (at a 7 percent discount) is 5.3 times the total
cost of compliance. Option 2 provides lower benefits and higher costs with a less favorable
benefit/cost ratio of 3.8. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
We support the Proposal's inclusion of a health benefits analysis that demonstrates Option l's
significant health savings of $12 to $33 billion (3% discount rate) or $10 to $30 billion (7%
discount rate). Many of these benefits will be delivered to communities that are overburdened by
pollution from sources beyond transportation-related emissions. Some of these communities may
also lack adequate access to health insurance and health care services, so prevention of pollution
and resulting disease could provide much needed relief to those harmed by pollution from heavy-
duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 1]
Our own work shows that vehicle turnover and electrification can reduce health and financial
burdens on the public. In 2017, Public Citizen and our partners at the Healthy Port Communities
Coalition worked with University of Houston researchers to better understand the benefits that
cleaning up transportation-related pollution would have on the greater Houston region in terms
of the amount and distribution of air pollution and health benefits. The study found over $1.5
billion in monetized health benefits from aggressive electrification where 70% of the fleet in
Greater Houston (both light- and heavy-duty vehicles) is electrified in model year 2040. This
scenario would prevent nearly 200 premature deaths per year.l [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1417-A2, pp. 1-2]
1. https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/migration/public-citizen-air-quality-
transportation-houston-report-october-2018.pdf
1217
-------
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
According to the American Lung Association, the widespread transition to zero-emission
transportation by 2050 can annually produce up to $72 billion in avoided health costs, save
approximately 6,300 lives, and prevent more than 93,000 asthma attacks and 416,000 lost
workdays.6 These positive health impacts will be most significant among frontline communities,
whose members are disproportionately likely to live near highways and suffer from poor air
quality.7 This higher exposure burdens underserved residents with negative health outcomes and
higher healthcare costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.2]
6 https://www.lung.org/ getmedia/99cc945c-47f2-4ba9-ba59-14c31 lca332a/electric-vehicle-
report.pdf
7 https://www.smithsonianmag. com/history/how-federal-government-intentionally-racially-
segregated-americancities-180963494
Beyond its negative health impacts, transportation-based pollution damages the environment in
myriad ways. The VOCs and NOx emitted by diesel vehicles react to form dangerous ground-
level ozone, which forms smog and leaves agricultural crops and forests particularly susceptible
to stunted growth and a decreased ability to sequester C02. Likewise, nitric acid, another tailpipe
pollutant, forms acid rain that leaches into the ground and waterways. Perhaps the most dramatic
effect of diesel burning is its emission of global warming-causing GHGs. Global warming, in
turn, causes extreme weather patterns, reductions in air quality, a rise in sea levels, and leads to
widespread species extinction.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.2]
8 https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-aboutimpacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reduction-
act-dera
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenters noted that the health benefits of the regulatory options analyzed in the proposal
are significant and meaningful both to the U.S. population as a whole and to communities
currently overburdened by pollution, and that Option 1 yielded higher benefits than Option 2.
Commenters also noted the potential benefits of electrification.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. EPA agrees that the health benefits of the regulatory options
analyzed in the proposal are significant and meaningful both to the U.S. population as a whole
and to communities currently overburdened by pollution. We also agree that the benefits of the
proposed program outweigh their costs, as they also do for the final program. See RIA Chapter 8
for a complete description of the benefits analysis conducted for the final program. In response to
comments on the potential benefits of electrification, the final standards are not based on the
projected utilization of ZEV technology; however, manufacturers may choose to comply with the
1218
-------
standards by using other technologies, including ZEV technologies (see preamble Section III. A
for discussion).
22 Demographic Analysis of Air Quality
Comments by Organization
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports incentives to accelerate the adoption of technologies that lower NOx and PM to
improve air quality for at-risk communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7]
On-road Heavy Duty trucks account for close to 60% of this country's annual NOx emissions
which serves as the leading factor of ozone. EPA has an opportunity to improve the air quality
and reduce ground level ozone for millions of Americans living in projected Ozone
Nonattainment areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7]
As of December 2020, approximately 50% of all commercial diesel trucks in operation,
nationwide, were purchased after MY 2010 or later, while 50% of the heavy-duty trucks now on
the roads continue to operate without the benefit of NOx and PM emissions control technologies.
New heavy-duty trucks will be operational for decades. Incentives for compliant trucks, not just
ZEVs, purchased prior to the MY 2027 will bring tremendous health benefits to at-risk
communities and the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7] [Also in Section 13.4 of
this document]
Although states are required to develop and follow pathways to comply with National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), NOx emission from on-road heavy duty trucks is a national
problem. As heavy-duty trucks travel long distances and often across state lines, a strong and
robust federal emissions program is vital to meeting Ozone NAAQS while, at the same time,
providing regulatory certainty to the industry and state air regulators across the country. As
shown in the chart below, urban areas across the country suffer from significantly unhealthy
levels of NOx and PM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 7]
13.6 million Americans living in 11 large and small urban areas and rural counties experienced
over 100 days of ozone pollution at levels above what the EPA considers "good" in 2020. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 8]
An additional 57.3 million Americans living in 90 large and small urban areas and rural counties
experienced between 31 and 100 days of elevated ozone pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1280-A1, p. 8]
Air pollution levels are uneven within cities, contributing to persistent health disparities between
neighborhoods and population sub-groups. Highly spatially resolved information on pollution
levels and disease rates is necessary to characterize inequities in air pollution exposure and
related health risks. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 8]
1219
-------
14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3476585l/#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20PM2.5,(betwee
n%202014%20and%202018).
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EPA should revise and expand its distributional analysis to better reflect the impacts of the
Proposed Rule on vulnerable subpopulations. EPA should conduct a more geographically
granular analysis and reconfigure its subpopulation analysis. In addition, EPA should conduct a
distributional analysis of all regulatory alternatives under consideration in order to evaluate
incremental distributional benefits among alternatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p.
1]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters noted that people who live in both urban and rural areas experience elevated
exposures to pollution from the heavy-duty engines that would be regulated by the proposed
standards.
Commenters also suggested that EPA conduct a more "spatially resolved," "geographically
granular" demographic analysis.
The commenter also suggested that EPA conduct a distributional analysis of all regulatory
alternatives under consideration in order to evaluate incremental distributional benefits among
alternatives.
Response:
We agree with the commenter that people who live in both urban and rural areas experience
elevated exposures to pollution from the heavy-duty engines that would be regulated by the
proposed standards. The proposed and final standards would bring about substantial health
benefits, including benefits to those who live near roads and to those who live in communities
with EJ concerns.
The commenters suggest that EPA conduct a more "spatially resolved," "geographically
granular" demographic analysis. For the proposal, we conducted chemical transport model
simulations at a 12km x 12km grid cell spatial resolution. A limitation of this analysis is the
12km x 12km horizontal grid spacing of the air quality modeling domain. Such resolution is
unable to capture the heterogeneity of human exposures to pollutants within that area, especially
pollutant concentration gradients that exist near roads. EPA is considering how to better estimate
the near-roadway air quality impacts of its regulatory actions and how those impacts are
distributed across populations. Because the heavy-duty standards apply nationally and will be
implemented consistently across roadways throughout the U.S., we can still make useful
observations of demographic trends at a national scale using the air quality modeling data at a
12km x 12km resolution.
1220
-------
The commenter also suggested that EPA conduct a distributional analysis of all regulatory
alternatives under consideration in order to evaluate incremental distributional benefits among
alternatives. EPA considers computational efficiency when conducting national analyses of
policy-relevant air quality scenarios. Conducting full-scale photochemical modeling for all
scenarios was not feasible. Furthermore, because the scope of each policy scenario was national,
the reductions in secondarily-formed PM2.5 and ozone were regional, and the form of the
standards did not fundamentally affect the spatial allocation of emissions changes, we believe the
demographic analysis we conducted for the proposal was a representative characterization of the
distribution of air quality impacts. See RIA Chapter 6 for a description of the demographic
analysis of air quality.
23 Environmental Justice
23.1 EPA Needs More Detailed Environmental Justice Analysis
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
The Freight Transportation System Imposes Unacceptable Levels of Cumulative Impacts on
Environmental Justice Communities. People who live near freight hubs or "diesel death
zones"—including ports, highways, warehouses, and rail and intermodal yards—are
disproportionately exposed to high concentrations of pollution from the combined activity of
diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks, equipment, rail, and vessels. 10 Countless studies show that
diesel-powered vehicles emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which
lead to numerous adverse health outcomes and even premature death. Additionally, heavy-duty
trucks and buses are also a major source of climate-warming greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 7]
10. See, e.g., Loma Linda University, Report, Project ENRRICH: A Public Health
Assessment of Residential Proximity to a Goods Movement Railyard, available at
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/clean-communitiesplan/
enrrich_final_report_29may2014.pdf.
Unfortunately, a huge number of people in the U.S. are affected by this pollution every day. For
example, in 2016, EPA estimated that approximately 39 million people in the United States—
mostly low-income people of color—live close to ports and are exposed to elevated levels of
diesel pollution. 11 Another 45 million people live within 300 feet of a highway. 12 People of
color and low-income households are disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of diesel
pollution. 13 Indeed, our health, air pollution, and climate crises are among the most urgent
environmental justice issues of our time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 7]
1221
-------
11. EPA, National Ports Strategy Assessment, at 1, 4 (Sept. 2016) available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100PGK9.pdf.
12. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. "Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health:
Frequently Asked Questions." US EPA, August 2014.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-ll/documents/420fl4044_0.pdf.
13. ICF International, October 2019; Rosenbaum, Arlene, Seth Hartley, and Chris
Holder. "Analysis of Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Disparities in Selected US
Harbor Areas." American Journal of Public Health 101, no. SI (December 1, 2011):
S217- 23. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300190.
Today, a person's zip code remains the most significant predictor of health and wellbeing. In
fact, low income neighborhoods and communities of color breathe in an average of 28 percent
more NOx pollution than higher-income and majority white neighborhoods. 14 For residents of
environmental justice communities, this means that their lives can be 10-20 years shorter because
of environmental pollution, compared to residents in wealthy white communities. 15 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
14. Mary Angelique G. Demetillo et al., Space-Based Observational Constraints onN02
Air Pollution Inequality From Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities, Geophys. Research
Letters, Vol. 48 No. 17 (Aug. 25, 2021) https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094333
15. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/environmental-racism-heartland#read-online-
content; https://www.today.com/specials/howzip- code-affects-health-black-women/
The science behind cumulative impacts is substantial and growing.29 In fact, MFN and its
members have long pressed the federal government to acknowledge the multiple and thus
cumulative environmental threats environmental justice communities face and their heightened
vulnerability to those threats. Specifically, these cumulative impact analyses recognize not only
that some individuals and communities face more pollution than others, but also that the same
amount of pollution can result in more harm to people facing additional and compounded
stressors than to people who do not face such stressors. It also recognizes that these multiple
stressors are too often interrelated in their origins. The results are clear— people of color and
people with low incomes face some of the highest levels of pollution, and are least equipped to
ward off the consequences of this pollution.30 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 10 - 11]
29. Yukyan Lam, Kim Wasserman, Juliana Pino, Olga Bautista, Peggy Salazar and Maria
Lopez-Nunez, "Seeing the Whole: Using Cumulative Impacts to Advance Environmental
Justice," February 2022, at 9-16 (discussing extrinsic and intrinsic factors).
30. Yukyan Lam, Kim Wasserman, Juliana Pino, Olga Bautista, Peggy Salazar and Maria
Lopez-Nunez, "Seeing the Whole: Using Cumulative Impacts to Advance Environmental
Justice," February 2022, at 9-16 (discussing extrinsic and intrinsic factors).
1222
-------
For example, a new study released in March 2022 examines the link between port-related traffic
and hospital visits for respiratory, heart-related, and psychiatric issues, and concludes that people
of color are more vulnerable to health impacts as a result of increased goods movement
operations.31 Adding just one vessel or increasing overall vessel tonnage in a nearby port leads
to more than 3 additional hospital visits per year per thousand Black residents, compared to
about 1 visit per thousand for white residents in the same area.32 Relatedly, the study also found
that reducing fossil fuel use in ports would significantly reduce air pollution concentration, and
have an acute and positive benefit to local Black residents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
p. 11]
31. Kenneth Gillingham and Pei Huang, Racial Disparities in the Health Effects from Air
Pollution: Evidence from Ports (Mar. 15, 2022), available at
https://resources.environment.yale.edu/gillingham/RacialDisparitiesAirPollution.pdf.
32. Kenneth Gillingham and Pei Huang, Racial Disparities in the Health Effects from Air
Pollution: Evidence from Ports (Mar. 15, 2022), at p. 32, available at
https://resources.environment.yale.edu/gillingham/RacialDisparitiesAirPollution.pdf.
Yet, despite all these well-documented harms, the freight industry continues to grow rapidly in
the very communities that are already overburdened, making it more urgent than ever that we
fully and properly address our air pollution and climate crises. In fact, over the last three years,
more people in the U.S. have experienced "very unhealthy" or "hazardous" air quality than in the
last two decades, and people of color are now 3.6 times more likely than white people to live in a
county with failing air quality, according to the American Lung Association.33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 11]
33. American Lung Association, 2022 State of the Air, Key Findings, (last visited May 5,
2022), https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings.
Likewise, truck traffic at ports, railyards, and warehouses is on the rise due to historic levels of
online shopping, e-commerce, and congestion associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), during the second half of 2021, truck
pollution associated with a surge in cargo volumes at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
contributed almost 2 tons of additional NOx pollution every single day, on top of the existing
emissions associated with business-as-usual cargo volumes prior to the pandemic.34 Other
freight-impacted communities have also seen spikes in activity as the e-commerce industry
expands. The American Lung Association found that in the last three years, more US residents
experienced "very unhealthy" or "hazardous" air quality than in the last two decades, with
people of color 3.6 times more likely than white people to live in a county with failing air
quality.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 11]
34. Cal. Air Res. Bd., Emissions Impact of Freight Movement Increases and Congestion
near Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach: Jan. 2022 (Jan. 27, 2022 Update), available
at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/SPBP_Freight_Congestion_Emissions_Jan2022.pdf.
1223
-------
35. American Lung Association, 2022 State of the Air, Key Findings, (last visited May 5,
2022), https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings.
Moreover, critically, the COVID-19 pandemic has escalated the negative consequences from
living in a "diesel death zone" or a region with poor air quality. Numerous studies now show that
long-term exposure to air pollution makes people more vulnerable to complications and death
from COVID-19.36 That neighborhoods with high proportions of Black and Latinx residents
experience disproportionately high levels of air pollution may help explain why these groups
have suffered disproportionately from the COVID-19 pandemic.37 Indeed, a recent study found
that Los Angeles neighborhoods with the worst air pollution have experienced a 60 percent
increase in mortality from COVID-19 compared to Los Angeles neighborhoods with the best air
quality.38 COVID-19 infections have been known to be more severe for people who are already
diagnosed with asthma. A recent study from Harvard University found that a small increase in
long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in the COVID-19 death rate.39 One of the
reasons that BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) communities, are dying at higher
rates from COVID-19 is because of the underlying health conditions like diabetes, heart disease,
and asthma, all of which are linked to the disportionately high levels of air pollution in these
communities. As Dr. Sacoby Wilson says, "Context matters. Place matters."40 For EJ
communities, place matters, and EPA should only be proposing regulations that guarantee health
benefits and emission reductions for overburdened communities, especially as we now have the
increased threat from COVID-19. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 12]
36. Xiao Wu et al., Air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: Strengths
and limitations of an ecological regression analysis, 6 Science Advances 45 (2020),
http s ://proj ects. i q. harvard. edu/covi d-pm.
37. Jonah Lipsitt et al., Spatial analysis of COVID-19 and traffic-related air pollution in
Los Angeles, 153 Env'tlnt'l. 106531 (Aug. 2021),
https ://doi. org/10.1016/j. envint.2021.106531.
38. Id.
39. Fine particulate matter and COVID-19 mortality in the United States, a national study
on long-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United State,
http s ://proj ects. i q. harvard .edu/covi d-pm/home
40. https://e360.yale.edu/features/connecting-the-dots-between-environmental-injustice-
and-the-coronavirus
EPA documented some of the connections between this rulemaking and environmental justice in
the NPRM164, but it needs a more detailed analysis if it is going to actually reduce harms in
environmental justice communities. Environmental racism in the impacts from heavy-duty truck
pollution shows up in multiple ways—not limited to disproportionately high exposure to
pollution, already elevated incidence rates of health risks such as asthma and premature
mortality, and amplified effects of environmental exposures from social vulnerabilities such as
cumulative physiological "wear and tear" and stress. 165 We recommend that EPA further
1224
-------
consider the disparate impacts of the rule and alternatives through analyzing race/ethnicity-
stratified health benefits. This is already being done in other EPA rulemakings, and would more
accurately capture the distribution of health impacts to environmental justice communities and
result in a more accurate total health benefit as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p.
41]
164. 87 FR 17451-54 (Section II.B.8)
165. Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Miriam Zuk, Michael Jerrett, Bhavna Shamasunder, and
Amy D. Kyle. "Understanding The Cumulative Impacts Of Inequalities In Environmental
Health: Implications For Policy." Health Affairs 30, no. 5 (May 2011): 879- 87.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0153.; Payne-Sturges, Devon C., Gilbert C. Gee, and
Deborah A. Cory-Slechta. "Confronting Racism in Environmental Health Sciences:
Moving the Science Forward for Eliminating Racial Inequities." Environmental Health
Perspectives 129, no. 5 (May 2021): EHP8186, 055002.
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8186.; Spiller, Elisheba, Jeremy Proville, AnanyaRoy, and
Nicholas Z. Muller. "Mortality Risk from PM2.5: A Comparison of Modeling
Approaches to Identify Disparities across Racial/Ethnic Groups in Policy Outcomes."
Environmental Health Perspectives 129, no. 12 (December 2021): 127004.
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9001.
Analyzing race/ethnicity-stratified health benefits is the next logical step from the existing
analysis in the RIA. EPA's demographic analysis of air quality impacts of the rule shows that in
the 2045 baseline, nearly double the number of people of color live in areas with the worst air
quality compared with non-Hispanic Whites. These areas are also where the largest PM2.5 and
ozone reductions occur due to Option 1. This is an important analytical step, and it is also
important to outline how the resulting health risks are affected by these changes in exposures. As
noted above, capturing the differences in exposure and exposure reductions from the rule only
captures one part of its environmental justice impacts. A stratified health benefit analysis
provides a view on how these exposure reductions are ultimately felt by different groups. These
disparities in health impacts are often magnified when compared to disparities in exposure
reductions, given the overlay of elevated incidence rates of health risks and the amplified health
effects due to other vulnerabilities in communities of color (i.e., "cumulative impacts" as
discussed elsewhere in these comments). Lastly, stratified health risk analyses can help
communicate the impacts of the rule to stakeholders and promote meaningful
involvement. 166 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 41 - 42]
166. A goal noted in EPA's definition of environmental justice and "Guidance on
Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of a Regulatory Action."
Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/guidance-
considering-environmental-justice-during-development-action
EPA has shown strong documented support for analyzing health impacts by race/ethnicity within
their rulemaking. Most notably, the 2019 PM2.5 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) and draft
supplement cite extensive evidence supporting racial and ethnic differences in PM2.5 exposure
and health effects, especially within Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black populations. 167 EPA's
1225
-------
2016 "Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis"
recommends analysts to "present information on estimated health and environmental risks,
exposures, outcomes, benefits and other relevant effects disaggregated by income and
race/ethnicity", while acknowledging context-specific data limitations, time and resource
constraints, and analytic challenges. 168 EPA has already conducted such an analysis in its Policy
Assessment for the Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter (External Review Draft - October 2021), where it analyzed the effects of
race/ethnicity-stratified health impact functions and baseline incidence data on mortality risk rate
reductions from a number of different NAAQS modeling scenarios. This stratified analysis was
reviewed favorably by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and its methods
can be useful in other air quality rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 42]
167. NRPM at 119. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=347534 and
https://cfpub.epa.gOv/ncea/i sa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=352823
168. "Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis."
Epa.gov, Environmental Protection Agency,
https://www.epa.gOv/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.l.pdf.
(June 2016) at 13.
Showing the distributional effects of the rule is a small additional step in light of the tremendous
amount of work done in the rest of the RIA.169 In this case, the health benefit analysis already
includes spatially distributed modeled health impact results, and matching this to the projected
population distribution by race/ethnicity is a small effort. EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy
and Executive Order 12898 make clear the necessity for distributional analyses to ensure EPA
policies and programs do not exacerbate environmental injustices, but it is also important to
document where policies have the potential to mitigate disparities, and assess to what extent it
does. There are a few caveats when doing this, notably that it is based on modeled exposures and
projected population distributions, where populations in each grid cell are assumed to experience
the same pollution. 170 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 42]
169. Banzhaf, H Spencer. "Regulatory Impact Analyses of Environmental Justice
Effects," National Center for Environmental Economics Working Paper Series, 10-08
(2010). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-
12/documents/regulatory _impact_analyses_of_environmentaljustice_effects.pdf at 17.
170. Post, Ellen S., Anna Belova, and Jin Huang. "Distributional Benefit Analysis of a
National Air Quality Rule." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health 8, no. 6 (June 1, 2011): 1872-92. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8061872.
Including racially-specific health benefits can also more accurately assess the total health
benefits of the rule. Spiller et al. (2021) has shown that including race/ethnicity-specific
mortality incidence rates or health impact functions (HIFs) can both change the distribution of
health benefits as well as increase total premature mortality estimates by 9%. 171 Similarly, in
the case of Proposed Option 1 of this rule, not using race/ethnicity-specific health impact
functions underestimates the total PM2.5 premature mortality reduction by around 16%. This
1226
-------
translates to a $1.2 billion underestimation of health benefits from PM2.5 premature mortality
reduction alone. Notably, benefits to Black populations are underestimated by 64%, benefits to
Hispanic populations are underestimated by 36%, and benefits to White populations are
overestimated by 16%. Table 3 below shows the full distribution of results from an illustrative
stratified analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 42 - 43]
171. Spiller, Elisheba, Jeremy Proville, Ananya Roy, and Nicholas Z. Muller. "Mortality
Risk from PM2.5: A Comparison of Modeling Approaches to Identify Disparities across
Racial/Ethnic Groups in Policy Outcomes." Environmental Health Perspectives 129, no.
12 (December 2021): 127004. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9001.
The benefits in the stratified analysis above are modest compared to the thousands of deaths
from diesel pollution across the country every year. 173 The use of race/ethnicity stratified HIFs
avoids underestimation of total health benefits as well as provides a more accurate portrayal of
health benefits by race/ethnicity. This is just an illustrative analysis, and we encourage EPA to
conduct its own, acknowledging difficulties in data collection, certainty, and health impact
function availability for other health endpoints. Further analysis should situate these policies
within a holistic cumulative impacts framing that guarantees reduction of harms in
environmental justice communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 43]
173. https://www.catf.us/deathsbydiesel/
It is critical that, in this rulemaking, USEPA sends a strong signal to the market and regulators
that longstanding burdens to communities and increasing disparities in burdens from heavy-duty
trucks cannot continue. While Section 202 of the Clean Air Act itself does not on its face address
the spatial/geographic distribution of heavy-duty trucks and other vehicles once manufactured
and sold, USEPA has obligations under the Clean Air Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to
ensure that state agency receiving funds for their air programs address disparities in burdens
from heavy duty trucks through their State Implementation Plans (SIPs).174 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 43 - 44]
174. USEPA also may have civil rights obligations to ensure that localities receiving
federal funds similarly do not create or perpetuate disparities in pollution and/or
cumulative impacts from the logistics sector, as does its federal counterpart the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l and 40 C.F.R.
7.15 ("This part applies to all applicants for, and recipients of, EPA assistance in the
operation of programs or activities receiving such assistance" (emphasis added).)
USEPA can and should help support states doing so by setting a standard under Section 202 that
ensures robust availability of the cleanest trucks across the country, in all states, cities and other
municipalities facing the heavy and disparate toll of the logistics industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 44]
President Biden has directed the entire federal government and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to prioritize protecting and investing in overburdened and underserved
communities across America. EPA plays a leading role in delivering environmental and public
1227
-------
benefits for communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns through our policies,
programs, and activities. 198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 59]
198. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144Y3.pdf
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenter noted that a large portion of the U.S. population is affected by the pollution from
heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The commenter also noted that people of color and low-income
households are disproportionately exposed to elevated levels of diesel pollution.
The commenter specifically requested that the Agency consider the disparate impacts of the rule
through the analysis of race/ethnicity-stratified health benefits. The commenter also noted the
impacts of COVID on underserved communities.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We agree that the proposed standards would bring about
substantial health benefits, including benefits to those who live near roads and to those who live
in communities with EJ concerns. We also agree that the Agency can improve its methods to
better estimate the health and environmental justice benefits associated with pollution reductions
like those that would be achieved by the proposed and final rulemaking. There is considerable
scientific evidence that specific populations and lifestages are at increased risk of PM2.5- and
ozone-related health effects. EPA is working to consider how to better reflect the overall
distributional implications of future regulatory actions to improve air quality and public health.
Nevertheless, we believe that our analysis for the proposed and final rulemaking is appropriate
and informative in the context of the policy decisions being considered in this action
The commenter specifically requested that the Agency consider the disparate impacts of the rule
through the analysis of race/ethnicity-stratified health benefits. In the proposal, the Agency
provided an analysis that examined the racial and ethnic composition, as well as poverty status,
of areas with the worst baseline air quality in 2045 and then considered whether those with the
worst air quality were likely to benefit more from the proposed rule. We found that in the 2045
baseline, nearly double the number of people of color live within areas with the worst ozone and
PM2.5 air pollution compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NH-Whites). We also found that (in
absolute terms) the largest predicted improvements in both ozone and PM2.5 are estimated to
occur in areas with the worst baseline air quality, where a substantially larger number of people
of color are expected to reside. We did not expand this analysis to health benefits for a few
reasons.
For our primary estimate of national-level PM and ozone-related health benefits, EPA
systematically reviews the body of available epidemiological studies and risk estimates using
explicit criteria to identify which studies and risk estimates are a best fit for use in a national
analysis. These criteria include factors such as study design, geographic coverage, demographic
1228
-------
populations, and health endpoints.56 Using these criteria, the Agency selects risk estimates from
epidemiologic studies that may be generalized to the population that is affected by the policy.
Following this approach, EPA found that a risk estimate drawn from a national study of long-
term exposure PM2.5 mortality would more reliably estimate the number of PIvfc.s-attributable
deaths than would risk estimates stratified by individual race.
Furthermore, the Agency does not yet possess the race- or ethnicity-stratified baseline rates of
death and disease for each endpoint it quantifies. Other data limitations include confidence in
projections of population counts and population distribution (out to year 2045 for the proposal
analysis) and the lack of race/ethnicity-stratified baseline health incidence projected into the
future. Given the analytical limitations of the underlying literature and data to support a
race/ethni city stratified benefits analysis, we believe analyzing the distributional impacts of
improvements in air quality is a fair surrogate for how benefits are distributed, while making the
important observation that, qualitatively, there are specific populations and lifestages that may
benefit more or less due to the distribution of pollution reductions projected to be achieved by
the proposal. EPA will continue to work to improve how we characterize the distributional
implications of future regulatory actions to improve air quality.
EPA is committed to taking decisive action to advance environmental justice and civil rights as
part of its FY2022-2026 Strategic Plan. This rulemaking advances that strategic goal by setting
stronger national emission standards for heavy duty engines and vehicles.
EPA acknowledges comments from many stakeholders on the impacts of COVID on
underserved communities. While we were not able to incorporate COVID 19 into our modeling,
we have evaluated the impacts we expect the rule to have on communities overburdened by
pollution; this analysis is included in preamble Section IV.H, with additional discussion on
environmental justice in preamble Sections II and XII.
23.2 General Comments About Environmental Justice
Comments by Organizations
Organization: 350Marin
Air pollution from trucks to date is a major public health problem. According to EPA, more than
45 million people in the U.S. live within 300 feet of a major roadway or transportation facility,
and 72 million people live within 200 meters of a truck freight route. People of color and those
with lower income are most affected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2474, p.l]
56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021. Estimating PM2.5- and Ozone-Attributable Health
Benefits. Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone Season NAAQS. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272. March. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/estimating_pm2.5-_and_ozone-
attributable_health_benefits_tsd_march_2021 .pdf.
1229
-------
Organization: Anne Mellinger-Birdsong
In addition, many vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, and communities of
color are both more exposed to air pollution, and more at risk of health problems caused by air
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244; see also Section 2.1]
6. Ozone causes asthma attacks, is as bad for progression of emphysema as 29 pack-years
of cigarettes(https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.10255). Ozone likely contributes to
children developing asthma, and contributes to heart disease in adults. Ozone causes
excess deaths in Medicare recipients, this effect is more pronounced in black people
(https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoal702747). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
8. Demetillo and colleagues found that diesel traffic is the dominant source of N02
disparities(https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094333). Lane and colleagues found that
historical redlining maps from the 1930s still cause current day disparities in PM2.5 and
NOx, with the placement of highways as one of the main contributing factors
(https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.lc01012). Houston and colleagues found that Black
and Asian-American/Pacific Island people were more exposed to diesel truck traffic near
the Port of Los Angeles (https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301120). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1244]
Because air pollution from trucks and other heavy duty vehicles is so damaging to health, and
especially to vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, pregnant women, and
communities of color, because of the structural inequities in our built environment placing more
highways, ports, and railyards in communities of color, and because climate change is the
biggest health threat we face, I support this rule. I encourage EPA to make it much stronger to
fully protect the health of the most vulnerable populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
Organization: Carreras Tours, LLC (2033)
Improving these standards will improve health outcomes for communities hardest hit by diesel
pollution: communities near ports and freight corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2033, p.l]
Organization: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
Diesel-powered vehicles produce climate-polluting greenhouse gas emissions, as well as harmful
air pollutants including PM2.5 particulate pollution and nitrous oxides (NOx), which produce
smog and are hazardous to human health, especially to children, the elderly, pregnant people, and
others with pre-existing respiratory conditions.3 Yet often the emissions from idling trucks,
delivery vans, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are concentrated in the very
communities with populations most vulnerable to them. Delivery vans travel through
neighborhoods, while highway and urban truck routes often pass through vulnerable
communities and low-income communities. The burdens of pollution are often borne by
communities disproportionately made up of people of color.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-
Al, p.2]
1230
-------
3 WHO global air quality guideline. Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021),
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228.
4 Mary Angelique G. Demetillo et al., 'Space-Based Observational Constraints onN02 Air
Pollution Inequality from Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities,' Geophysical Research Letters 48
(August 2021): https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094333.
Air pollutants, including PM2.5 and NOx, are hazardous to human health; prolonged or
excessive exposure can contribute to conditions like asthma, high blood pressure, chronic stress,
and chronic respiratory diseases. 12 Exposure to poor air quality is also correlated at the
community level with significantly higher rates of COVID-19 infections and poorer health
outcomes following infection. 13 Burdens of air pollution and poor air quality are
disproportionately borne by historically marginalized communities, including majority-Black
communities, majority-immigrant communities, and low income communities, as well as
children, the elderly, and other population with heightened health vulnerability. 14 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.4]
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of
Nitrogen - Health Criteria (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016):
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879; Paolo Giorgini etal., 'Air
Pollution Exposure and Blood Pressure: An Updated Review of the Literature,' Curr Pharm Des.
22 (2016): 28-51, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26548310; Hong Chen and Mark S.
Goldberg, 'The effects of outdoor air pollution on chronic illnesses,' McGill Journal of Medicine
12 (2009): 58-64, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687917.
13 X. Wu et al., 'Air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: Strengths and
limitations of an ecological regression analysis,' Science advances 6:
http s ://proj ects. i q. harvard. edu/covi d-pm.
14 Mary Angelique G. Demetillo et al., 'Space-Based Observational Constraints on N02 Air
Pollution Inequality from Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities,' Geophysical Research Letters 48
(August 2021): https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094333.
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network
Importantly, given that MHDVs are the largest source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the
transportation sector, it is critical to strengthen the proposed NOx standards. Disadvantaged
communities, located near highways, ports and distribution centers, have long borne the brunt of
negative health and air quality impacts from truck pollution, and it is necessary to reduce this
pollution as quickly as possible during the transition to electrification (which in turn, will have
additional health benefits). Accordingly, EPA should adopt a strengthened Option 1, requiring a
90% reduction in NOx by 2027, and phase out advanced technology credit multipliers for NOx
as soon as feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1, p.2]
1231
-------
Further, given that medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are the largest source of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) in the transportation sector, it is critical to strengthen the proposed NOx standards, which
were last updated twenty years ago. Disadvantaged communities have long borne the brunt of
negative health and air quality impacts from truck pollution, and we need to reduce these
pollutants to the maximum extent possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A2, p.l]
Further, given that MHDVs are the largest source of NOx in the transportation sector, it is
critical to strengthen the standards to the maximum extent possible in order to reduce air
pollution from MHDVs during the transition, which disproportionately increases health and air
quality risks in disadvantaged communities located near truck routes, ports, and distribution
centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A3, p.2]
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF)
Emissions from heavy-duty trucks—including NOx and particulate matter—cause numerous,
well-documented negative health impacts, including exacerbation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular conditions, increased asthma attacks and new cases of asthma, difficulty
breathing, inflammation and irritation of the lungs, and decreased cardiac function, among many
others.5 These negative health impacts are particularly damaging for communities and
individuals who live, work, or attend school close to major roadways.6 Many of these
communities are home to lower-income and/or minority populations who are already burdened
by industrial air and water pollution sources located nearby.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-
Al, p.3]
5 See U.S. EPA, Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) For Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria
(Final Report 2016), EPA/600/R-15/068; U.S. EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) For
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report 2013), EPA/600/R-10/076F;
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) For Particulate Matter (Final Report 2009), EPA/600/R-
08/139F.
6 EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 'Near Roadway Air Pollution and Health:
Frequently Asked Questions' EPA-420-F-14-044 (Aug. 2014),
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NFFD.PDF?Dockey=P 100NFFD.PDF.
7 See, e.g., Gregory C. Pratt et al., Traffic, Air Pollution, Minority and Socio-Economic Status:
Addressing Inequities in Exposure and Risk, Int'l Journal of Env. Research and Public Health
12(5): 5355-5372 (May 2015), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4454972/.
One recent study found that communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods are
disproportionately impacted by NOx emissions.8 Communities that are primarily composed of
people of color and lower-income households experience, on average, 28 percent more nitrogen
dioxide pollution than communities that are majority-white and higher income. Furthermore,
millions of U.S. citizens live in areas burdened by high levels of ozone pollution fueled by NOx
emissions,9 and lower-income and minority communities are disproportionately impacted by
ozone pollution. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.3]
1232
-------
8 Mary Angelique G. Demetillo, et al., Space-Based Observation Constraints on N02 Air
Pollution Inequality From Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities, Geophysical Research Letters Vol.
48, Issue 17 (Aug. 2021), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094333.
9 See, e.g., Elizabeth Ridlington, et al., Trouble in the Air: Millions of Americans Breathed
Polluted Air in 2018, at 21 (Winter 2020), available at
https://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/EnvironmentAmerica_TroubleintheAir_scrn.pdf
('Thirty-two large and small urban areas and six rural counties—home to more than 21 million
people—experienced more than 100 days of ozone pollution in 2018'); see also American Lung
Ass'n, State of the Air Report: 2022, https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings.
10 See Miranda M. L. et al., Making the Environmental Justice Grade: The Relative Burden of
Air Pollution Exposure in the United States. Int'l Journal of Envtl. Research and Public Health.
2011; 8(6): 1755-1771, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3137995/.
These trends are seen in communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The
Chesapeake Bay watershed is traversed by major interstate highways running up the Eastern
Seaboard on which heavy-duty trucks regularly operate. Many of these major roadways are
located directly adjacent to or within residential communities. According to 2014 National
Emissions Inventory data, in Maryland and Washington, D.C., 74 and 75 percent of NOx
emissions are due to transportation, respectively. 11 In Virginia, 67 percent of NOx emissions are
due to transportation. 12 The Bay watershed also hosts all or part of three nonattainment areas for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City,
PA-NJ-MD-DE (Marginal Nonattainment); Washington, DC-MD-VA (Marginal
Nonattainment); and Baltimore, MD (Marginal Nonattainment). 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1295-A1, pp.3-4]
11 Elizabeth Ridlington, Trouble in the Air, at 60-61.
12 Id.
13 EPA, Greenbook: '8-Hour Ozone (2015) Designated Area/State Information' (current as of
Apr. 30, 2022), https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/jbtc.html.
Figure 1 uses EJSCREEN, the 2017 National Air Toxics Screening Assessment, and the 2015-
2019 American Community Survey to compare census block groups exposed to the highest
amounts of diesel particulate matter, with those block groups that are largely comprised of
minorities. The communities exposed to large amounts of diesel particulate matter are generally
communities with large numbers of people of color. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.4]
The same study that found communities of color and lower-income neighborhoods experience as
much as 28 percent more NOx pollution also found, of the 52 cities examined, that diesel trucks
contributed up to half the nitrogen oxide emissions despite comprising 5 percent or less of all
traffic. 14 Furthermore, a 60 percent reduction in diesel-related pollution would lead to a 40
percent decline in 'air pollution inequality'. 15 Reducing diesel-related pollution is an incredibly
1233
-------
effective way to ensure all communities, but particularly those that suffer the most, are able to
breathe clean air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1295-A1, p.5]
14 Pollution from Freight Traffic Disproportionately Impacts Communities of Color Across 52
U.S. Cities, American Geophysical Union (Oct. 7, 2021), https://news.agu.org/press-
release/pollution-from-freight-traffic-disproportionately-impacts-communities-of-color-across-
52-u-s-cities.
15 Id.
Since 1990, EPA has repeatedly asserted the objective of addressing environmental justice
concerns through the reduction of air pollution that disproportionately harms or cumulatively
impacts such communities. 16 EPA's Office of General Counsel, the Environmental Law
Institute, and the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council have all observed that the
Clean Air Act gives EPA ample authority to address such concerns through rulemaking. 17 We
therefore urge EPA to swiftly fulfill its mission and reduce heavy duty truck emissions to
decrease negative health impacts to historically disadvantaged communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1295-A1, p.5]
16 See J. Mueller, and T. Lilley, Forty Years of Environmental Justice: Where is the Justice?,
Richmond Public Interest Law Review, Vol. 25, pg. 79- 87, May 5, 2022; Environmental Equity-
Reducing Risk For All Communities, Vol. 1 (1992). Workgroup,
17 National Environmental Justice Advocacy Committee, Memorandum on Integrating
Environmental Justice Authority (1996); Gary S. Guzy, EPA Statutory and Regulatory
Authorities Under Which Environmental Justice Issues May Be Addressed in Permitting, 1
(2000).; Envtl. L. Inst., Opportunities For Advancing Environmental Justice: An Analysis of
U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities, 67-68 (2001) Office of Environmental Justice, EPA Plan EJ
2014 (2011); EPA, Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of
Regulatory Actions (2015); Off. Of Envtl. Just., EPA, Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis in Regulatory Analysis, June 2016 1 (2016).
Organization: Christopher Lish
I am glad that, after 20 years of delay, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally proposed
stronger tailpipe toxic pollution standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks.
However, while these rules are a good start, they don't go far enough. Now is the time to
eliminate toxic tailpipe emissions from trucks. Black, Latino, Asian American, and other
marginalized communities living in highly trafficked areas have suffered the health impacts of
diesel trucks for far too long. To deliver on the Biden Administration's environmental justice,
public health, and climate goals, the Environmental Protection Agency must make the rules
stronger and finalize a strong heavy-duty vehicle rule this year that sets us on a rapid path to
cleaning up and electrifying the most polluting vehicles on the roads—our trucks and buses—by
2035, if not sooner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147; see also Section 1.2/2.4]
1234
-------
Diesel pollution kills. Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the
greatest threats to public health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300
feet of a major roadway or transportation facility. Nearly 10,000 people in the United States die
each year from exposure to diesel emissions from the transportation sector, and hundreds of
thousands of others face heart attacks, asthma, and respiratory conditions that damage their
wellbeing and quality of life. Diesel emissions most severely harm communities of color and
working class communities, and cleaning up dirty diesel pollution helps to create a more just
society. Improving these standards will improve health outcomes for communities hardest hit by
diesel pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency should adopt requirements to address
disproportionate health impacts so that those who are most harmed by diesel pollution can find
relief quickly. Even with strong heavy-duty emissions standards in place, it will take years for
the benefits to reach the people who need them most. That's why we also need a zero-emissions
truck mandate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
Organization: City Council District 8, Pittsburgh, PA, Erika Strassburger
We know that diesel pollution from heavy duty trucks and buses is a massive public health
threat. Diesel pollution worsens asthma and is particularly dangerous to children's developing
lungs. Of course, dangerous nitrogen oxides and other pollution that heavy duty vehicles like
trucks and buses spew into our air hurt communities of color and low wealth communities first
and worst. With more than 13 million people (including 3.5 million children) living near major
marine and inland ports or rail yards, an additional 45 million individuals living within 300 feet
of a highway or close to large distribution centers where diesel emissions are particularly
dangerous, and that these individuals are disproportionately low-income communities of color,
this is truly an environmental justice issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2233, p.l]
We urgently need cleaner heavy-duty vehicles on the road, especially in underserved
communities that are overburdened with truck pollution due to their proximity to highways and
high-traffic corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2233, p.l]
I urge the EPA to adopt these standards as soon as possible. Families in diesel death zones have
suffered long enough. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2233, p.l]
Organization: City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability & Environment
The City of Seattle agrees with the EPA that the current EPA 2010 standards are
inadequate to protect public health from dangerous pollutants like NOx emissions from
Heavy Duty Vehicles. We encourage you to go further with the proposed rule to protect
environmental justice and port-adjacent communities, like Seattle's Beacon Hill and
Duwamish Valley neighborhoods, which are continuously exposed to sources of pollution from
diesel trucks and other transportation emissions. Specifically, Beacon Hill, Georgetown, and
SouthPark rank higher in both air pollution levels and child asthma rates and on average have a
life expectancy that is eight years lower than other neighborhoods in Seattle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1287-A1, p.l]
1235
-------
Please use this opportunity to finalize a rule that puts communities first and aggressively
pursues the targets necessary to address the climate crisis. The public health crisis across the
country, particularly for communities near highways, warehouses, and ports cannot wait.
Together, we can both tackle the climate and air-quality crisis and address the problem of the
price-differential between a typical, used truck ($20-30k), and a new zero-emission electric
vehicle ($300-400k) for those who will most struggle to adopt this critical new technology. By
adopting firm standards that protect communities and incentivizing the transition, the U.S. can
create a stronger, more efficient, and healthier economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1287-A1,
p.2]
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Environmental justice, energy justice, and equity considerations are central to the Proposal,
given the vast history of disproportionate environmental and public-health burdens placed on
communities of color and low-income communities. 19 Communities that are overburdened with
pollution from sources such as major roadways, industrial sites, and agriculture are
predominantly low-income, and a large percentage of residents of these communities are people
of color and non-English speakers.20 With the improvements described later in these comments,
this rulemaking could bring about significant air-quality and health improvements in
communities that are disproportionately burdened with air pollution from trucking and
overburdened from pollution more broadly.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp. 14-15]
19 For more information on the history and definition of the environmental justice movement,
see Initiative for Energy Justice, Section 1—Defining Energy Justice: Connections to
Environmental Justice, Climate Justice, and the Just Transition (Dec. 23, 2019),
https://iejusa.org/section-l-defining-energy-justice/.
20 See Gina M. Solomon et al., Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to
Protect Communities, 37 Annual Review of Public Health (Jan. 6, 2016),
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26735429/.
21 See EPA, ISA for Particulate Matter at Ch. 12: Populations and Lifestages Potentially at
Increased Risk of a Particulate Matter-Related Health Effect; Section 5: Sociodemographic
Factors, https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-particulate-matter.
EPA must set strong emissions standards to meet the obligations established by presidential
directives on environmental justice. Under Executive Order 12,898, EPA 'shall make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.' 59 Fed. Reg. 7,629
(Feb. 11, 1994). And Executive Order 14,008 directs EPA to develop 'programs, policies, and
activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental,
climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the
accompanying economic challenges of such impacts." 86 Fed. Reg. 7,619, 7,629 (Jan. 27, 2021).
It also establishes the Administration's policy "to secure environmental justice and spur
1236
-------
economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized
and overburdened by pollution." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.15]
This rulemaking presents a critical opportunity to mitigate the adverse health impacts plaguing
communities that are overburdened by air pollution from HDVs and other sources. As noted by
the ALA's 2022 State of the Air report, which grades counties on daily and long-term measures
of particle pollution and daily measures of ozone, 'Close to 19.8 million people live in the 14
counties that failed all three measures. Of those, 14.1 million are people of color. People of color
were 61% more likely than white people to live in a county with a failing grade for at least one
pollutant, and 3.6 times as likely to live in a county with failing grades for all three pollutants.'22
As described in Section II.C.l above, all 14 of these counties are located in the vicinity of at least
one major highway that overburdens county residents with pollution from trucks. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 15]
22 See ALA, State of the Air 2022 Key Findings, https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-
findings.
According to the ALA's report, more than 137 million Americans live in places that received
failing grades for unhealthy levels of ozone or PM in their air. In addition to the disproportionate
impact on people of color noted above, ALA outlines other 'high-risk' groups that are impacted
by the pollution in these regions. For example, low-income communities are particularly
vulnerable and at risk of health impacts from pollution. More than 15.9 million people whose
incomes meet the federal definition for living in poverty reside in counties that received a failing
grade on at least one of ALA's pollutant indicators, while over 2.6 million people living in
poverty reside in counties that received failing grades on all three pollutant measures. In
addition, around 31 million children (under age 18) and almost 21 million older adults (age 65 or
older) live in counties that received a failing grade on at least one pollutant.23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.15-16]
23 See ALA, State of the Air 2022 at 18.
A new paper, titled 'Pollution from Freight Trucks in the Contiguous United States: Public
Health Damages and Implications for Environmental Justice' and currently undergoing peer
review, explores the spatial implications of pollution from freight trucks in the United States.24
The authors find evidence that the negative health impacts of emissions from freight trucking are
disproportionately distributed across the country and are disproportionately likely to impact
certain racial and ethnic groups. In particular, they find that pollution from freight trucking is
more likely to occur in counties and census tracts with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic
residents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 16]
24 Priyank Lathwal et al., Pollution from Freight Trucks in the Contiguous United States: Public
Health Damages and Implications for Environmental Justice, arXiv:2204.06588 (2022),
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.06588.
In fact, it is well established that communities of color and economically disadvantaged
communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental burdens from a variety of sources.
1237
-------
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently released a preliminary
Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, which identifies communities around the country
that are 'marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution'25 and would therefore
qualify for Justice4026 investments (President Biden's key environmental justice initiative). The
Screening Tool identifies census tracts as 'disadvantaged' if they are above the threshold for one
or more environmental or climate indicators (e.g., exposure to diesel PM or PM2.5, traffic
proximity and volume, or proximity to hazardous waste sites) and above the threshold for
socioeconomic indicators related to income and education.27 A recent analysis found that 64%
of the population in census tracts the Screening Tool identifies as disadvantaged are
Hispanic/Latino, Black or African American, or American Indian or Alaskan Native. Overall,
50% of Hispanic/Latino, Black or African American, and American Indian or Alaskan Native
individuals in the country reside in disadvantaged communities, compared to just 17% of White,
Non-Hispanic/Latino individuals.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 16]
25 CEQ, Preliminary Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool,
https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gOv/en/#3/33.47/-97.5.
26 The White House, The Path to Achieving Justice40 (July 20, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2021/07/20/the-path-to-achieving-justice40/.
27 CEQ, Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool: Technical Support Document 4-8 (Apr.
2022), https://static-data-screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/data-
pipeline/data/score/downloadable/cejst_technical_support_do
cument.pdf.
28 Emma Rutkowski et al., Justice40 Initiative: Mapping Race and Ethnicity, Rhodium Group
(Feb. 24, 2022), https://rhg.com/research/justice40-initiative-mapping-race-and-ethnicity/.
These findings show the critical need for EPA to minimize the harmful emissions from the HDV
sector. Doing so will not only improve a significant public-health and environmental issue, but
will also decrease air pollution and improve well-being in overburdened communities. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p. 16]
A 2019 study by ICCT found that, on average, trucks traveling at speeds below 25 miles per hour
emitted NOx at more than five times EPA's certification limit.234 That study also found that, on
average, trucks only achieved NOx emissions at or below the certification limit when traveling at
highway speeds above 50 mph.235 For each mile of urban driving, a single 'line-haul' truck used
in long-distance shipping can emit one hundred times the NOx pollution that a car would
emit.236 Even when traveling on highways in populated urban areas, trucks will often be moving
at lower speeds due to congestion. The Federal Highway Administration's 2020 list of 'major
freight highway bottlenecks and congested corridors' shows that many of the most congested
highways in the United States are near densely populated urban areas that are also ozone
nonattainment areas, such as Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, California's Bay Area,
Dallas/Fort Worth, and Denver.237 As EPA's Proposal notes, 72 million Americans live within
200 meters of freight routes, and people of color and those with lower incomes are
disproportionately likely to live near freight truck routes and to live in urban areas. 87 Fed.
1238
-------
Reg. at 17,451. Studies have consistently found that environmental hazards such as air pollution
are more prevalent in areas where people of color and low income populations represent a higher
fraction of the population compared with the general population, and a recent study found that
PM2.5 pollution from HDVs disproportionately impacts people of color. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,452.
It is crucial that these overburdened near-road communities do not continue to experience
disproportionate levels of air pollution due to high levels of emissions from HDVs traveling at
lower speeds. See Section II.C, supra. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.55-56]
234 Id. at i.
235 Id.
236 Id.
237 FHWA, 2020 National List of Major Freight Highway Bottlenecks and Congested
Corridors: FHWA Freight Mobility Trends: Truck Hours of Delay at 11, Map 1 (2020)
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/mobility_trends/national_list_2020.pdf; EPA, 8-
Hour Ozone (2015) Nonattainment Areas (Apr. 30, 2022),
https ://www3. epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/j nc.html.
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
The benefits of accelerating adoption of near-zero vehicles will be most closely felt in
environmental justice communities. These neighborhoods are commonly adjacent to industrial
areas with heavy truck traffic and need relief now. Near-zero trucks provide tangible results
whereas EV heavy-duty trucks are, at the present date, technological speculation. In a 2017
article, Jason Morgan of Fleet Equipment Magazine wrote,'... Tesla unveiled its electric Class 8
truck, dubbed the Semi. Fully loaded, the Tesla Semi consumes less than two kilowatt-hours of
energy per mile and is capable of500 miles of range at GVW and highway speed... Iff But in
2022, five years later, orders for these trucks have not been filled. Conversely, earlier this year,
Amazon deployed its 1,000th near-zero truck running on RNG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1350-A1, p.3]
10 https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/tesla-semi-electric-class-8-truck/
Therefore, in order to address the air quality issues in environmental justice communities today
and in the foreseeable future near-zero trucks, deployable now, must be encouraged. They will
provide the air quality benefits these communities deserve which include not only NOx
reductions of 95 to 98 percent but also virtual elimination of particulate matter emissions.
The new heavy-duty truck rule must support near-term solutions in addition to long-term
strategies and aspirations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, pp.3-4]
Organization: CleanAirNow (CANKC)
CANKC believes the time for purposeful action is now, the Armourdale neighborhood in Kansas
City Kansas is already experiencing a shorter life expectancy by 22 years as compared to other
1239
-------
nearby neighborhoods. KCK is not siloed in this large and impactful discrepancy; our nation has
overburdened environmental justice (EJ) communities by having them bear the brunt of systemic
racism with a legacy of redlining, zoning and dumping practices that have left families without
access to clean air, water, and land. We ask, how many more lives is this lack of ruling going to
cost us? How many more preterm babies, developmental disorders, cognitive disorders, asthma
attacks, heart disease, lung disease or cancer will occur in our communities as a result of
poisonous diesel emissions? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.l]
Environmental Justice communities and frontline workers are being buried day in and day out
with a multitude of polluting sources from the transportation freight sector. This is NOT
accounting for the coal plants, toxic release inventory sites, and scrap metal facilities all
primarily located in BIPOC and low-income communities. EJ communities are at the fenceline
and are inhaling the mixture of dirty air, compromising their immunity and resulting in higher
risks for health problems. As we have seen firsthand during this pandemic, they are the same
communities with higher hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1239-A1, pp. 1-2]
In the creation of zero emission infrastructure and zero emission solution, we must prioritize
environmental justice communities. The implementation of these regulations must take into
account the lifecycle of pollution, from source to manufacturing to tailpipe to waste and all of the
potential impacts throughout that system. We need innovative and comprehensive policy from
the EPA that ensures a reduction in harms to EJ communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-
Al, p.2]
The answer is zero actually meaning zero, it's a win win for the climate and for the hardworking
people of this nation. Because as we know, justice delayed is justice denied and haven't we faced
enough injustice? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1239-A1, p.2]
Organization: CleanEarth4Kids
Pollution from heavy-duty trucks is a racial justice issue as they mostly harm communities of
color. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1208-A1, p.l]
Communities of color are paying a heavy price for this pollution and need a rapid transition to
zero-emitting trucks and a clear path towards 100% electrification of big rigs, trucks, and
buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1208-A1, p.l]
Frontline communities are being poisoned and they can not afford to wait for cleaner air. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1208-A1, p.l]
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air
Emissions from vehicle tailpipes are the greatest barrier to clean air in California. Fine
particulate matter produced by diesel trucks is particularly health-threatening. It is responsible
for about 95 percent of pollution-related health impacts in the world. In California, communities
1240
-------
of color are most burdened by this diesel truck pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1139-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Of note, cleaner trucks on the roads are especially important for our residents who live in close
proximity to freight routes and bear a disproportionate impact from truck emissions. These
communities cannot be left behind in the transition to clean transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
Long-term exposure to ozone and PM2.5 increase the risk of premature death from respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases. Exposure to PM2.5 is also linked with increased incidences of
childhood asthma. 10 These health impacts more significantly affect the estimated 72 million
people living within 200 meters of a truck freight route. Communities living near these routes are
disproportionately people of color and those with lower incomes. 11 A recent study conducted by
the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that Asian-American, Black, and Latinx communities
face, respectively, 34%, 24%, and 23% higher exposures to diesel pollution compared to their
white counterparts. 12 Stringent NOx emission standards are vital to reducing these adverse
health impacts and to addressing historic environmental inequities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1285-A1, p.3]
10 American Lung Association, Health Impact of Air Pollution, (2022. Available at:
https://www.lung.org/research/sota/health-risks.
11 87F.R. 17414, 17418.
12 Union of Concerned Scientists, Inequitable Exposure to Air Pollution from Vehicles in
California, (January 28, 2019). Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/inequitable-
exposure-air-pollution-vehicles-california-2019.
Organization: Creation Justice Ministries
Even though these trucks account for only 4 percent of vehicles on the road, they are responsible
for 25 percent of total transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions. Those emissions are
destroying our climate and communities, degrading God's planet and God's people, with a
disproportionate and absolutely unjust impact on communities of color. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2482, p.l]
Organization: Dave Arndt
[From Hearing Testimony, April 12, 2022] Unfortunately, by plan, all of this injustice is
burdened on Black, Brown and low- income areas. Let me repeat that - this was and is all done
by design.
1241
-------
I sorry to say, just five years ago I did not know this. Sure, I knew that air pollution and
environmental and social injustice was bad, but I never saw the design. My eyes have been
opened; however, we need to open everyone's eyes. This hearing is a good start in doing that,
thank you for your work and this opportunity.
Let's take a look at the Brooklyn, Cherry Hill, Curtis Bay neighborhoods of Baltimore. They
have two incinerators within 5 miles. Now add a few more layers, 3 RMP facilities, a chemical
factory which is a large emitter of carcinogens. That is just the start. There is a working port
which drives heavy duty truck traffic through the neighborhoods. Plus, several very large
distribution centers which amplifies the truck traffic. Next add in the diesel emission from trains
and the large ships themselves. And for convenience several major interstates cutting through the
neighborhoods transporting thousands of trucks through the 1-95 corridor. This would be a good
design if it was isolated, however it was all placed in a Black, brown and low-income
neighborhood by design. All having a cumulative effect.
The Baltimore region ranks among the worst in the U.S. for air pollution. A study by the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2017 found air quality in the region was ranked moderate or
worse one of every three days, according to the EPA's own Air Quality Index. Little wonder then
that children in Baltimore City have asthma at twice the rate of the rest of the country.
I would recommend you go to your own EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping
Tool and see how bad it is.
I would like to end with a quote from Richard Moore, the National Co-Coordinator of the
Environmental Justice Health Alliance: "You can't separate health from environmental justice,
because environmental justice is health. And you can't separate issues of climate change and
global warming because environmental justice and economic justice is addressing global
warming and climate change. And so those intersections are very crucial." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867; see also EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0994]
Organization: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
Cleaning up truck emissions is long overdue for the communities living adjacent to the 1-95
Corridor, the Port of Wilmington, and freight hubs who disproportionately suffer from harmful
air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1200-A1, p.2]
Air pollution from HD vehicles disproportionately harms underserved and lower income
communities. To achieve environmental justice goals and provide equitable access to clean air
across the state, Delaware needs options for reducing vehicle pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1200-A1, p.3]
Organization: District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
DOEE acknowledges that the District's urban and natural environments are constructed and
managed in ways that have not benefitted the capital's communities equally. District residents
1242
-------
that continue to suffer the effects of environmental hazards—and their compounding impacts—
are disproportionately people of color and people experiencing poverty. These hazards manifest
as air pollution, inequities in access to clean water and nutritious food, lack of proximate green
space, proximity to industrial toxins, racial disparities in life expectancy, and increased
vulnerability to extreme weather events and climate change. By addressing racial inequity in the
systems we manage and influence, we create opportunities for more communities to benefit from
and participate in the process of identifying and implementing environmental solutions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 4]
Communities adjacent to congested highways in particular experience heavy truck traffic. These
communities in the District, located near the highways that run through the Southeastern portion
of the District experience the worst asthma rates in Washington. Data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention shows that, nationally, Black and indigenous people have
statistically significant higher asthma rates than their counterparts in other races.5 In the District,
children who live in predominately Black communities have 20 to 25 times more asthma-related
emergency department visits than their counterparts in majority White communities.6 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 4]
5. Center for Disease Control. Most Recent National Asthma Data.
https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/most_recent_national_asthma_data.htm. Accessed August 26,
2020.
6. Children's National Medical Hospital. 2017. "Asthma Surveillance in DC Emergency
Departments and Hospitals." https://childrensnational.org/-/media/cnhs-
site/files/departments/impactdc/impact-dc-
surveillance.pdf?la=en&hash=4235C55A9ClDE9DE9725D8D5D99D30831FCA18CF
Recent evidence, especially research conducted during the Covid-19 health emergency, has
shown the strong negative impact of NOx emissions on health, affecting environmental justice
communities in particular. One such study conducted by researchers at George Washington
University found the reduction in NOx pollution during the Covid-19 lockdown was twice as
large in Black, indigenous, people of color, and Latinx communities as it was in White
communities, providing further evidence that reducing NOx pollution is an environment justice
issue.7 Another study conducted specifically to look at health discrepancies in the District found
that communities of color in the Southeastern portion of the District had disproportionally higher
rates of negative health outcomes related to air pollution exposure.8 Strong heavy-duty NOx
standards are an important part of the solution to the health disparities that result from exposure
to truck emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1299-A1, p. 4]
7. G. Hunter Kerr, D.L. Goldberg, and S.C. Anenberg, COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals Persistent
Disparities in Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution, PNAS July 27, 2021 118 (30) e2022409118;
https ://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118.
8. Maria Daniela Castillo et al., Estimating Intra-Urban Inequities in PM2.5-Attributable Health
Impacts: A Case Study for Washington, DC, preprint, (Public Health, April 20, 2021),
www.essoar.org/doi/10.1002.
1243
-------
Organization: Edwin J. Ward
It's no secret that the health effects of air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles have
disproportionately impacted historically marginalized communities over the last century and
continue to do so. 1 In Syracuse, NY, I lived for years in the shadow of the infamous 1-81
viaduct, a highway constructed in the 1950s that destroyed the thriving black neighborhood of
the 15th Ward. 2 As a result, black residents in Syracuse today face significantly higher rates of
asthma than white residents.3 What happened in Syracuse is no anomaly; it is a microcosm of
the United States as a whole. And while heavy- duty vehicle emissions standards might seem like
an odd place to start ameliorating historical environmental injustices, heavy-duty vehicles are
responsible for a disproportionate amount of air pollution impacts and GHG emissions. Despite
accounting for only 5% of vehicles on the road, trucks generate over 25% of GHG emissions
from the transportation sector.4 Even more concerning, a recent study by the University of
Toronto found that someone living near a road that serves as a major trucking route experiences
the same levels of air pollution as someone who lives near a highway with ten times as much
traffic.5 If sufficiently stringent, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards have the
opportunity to right historic wrongs, mitigate air pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[EP A-HQ-OAR-2019-1050]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
In addition, air pollution has an adverse impact on public health and quality of life for nearly all
Americans, but communities of color, lower-income individuals, and frontline communities
remain disproportionately impacted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.l]
We know that air pollution from transportation disproportionately impacts people of color, who
are three times more likely than white people to live in the most polluted counties in the
U.S.xxxix [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, pp.6-7]
xxxix American Lung Association, Fact Sheet: Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles,
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/bb0d60ba-eff2-4084-907b-916839ae985d/medium-and-heavy-
duty-vehicles-fact-sheet.pdf.
Organization: Environmental Community Advocates of Galena Park
I live in the port community of Galena Park. The 18 wheelers rule our main street of Clinton Dr.
Monday thru Friday we live in a world of dust and particulate matter. When will be free of these
trucks? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2825,p.l]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
The health burden from truck and bus pollution is substantial, causing adverse health impacts in
utero, in infants and children, and in adults and the elderly - with those who live closest to our
nation's roads and highways, ports, distribution centers, freight depots, and other well-known
sources of truck pollution facing the greatest harms. 6 EPA has estimated that 72 million people
live within 200 meters of a truck freight route, and relative to the rest of the population, people of
1244
-------
color and those with lower incomes are more likely to live near truck routes.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1265-A1, p.4]
6 See, e.g., Riley, S., Wallace, J., & Nair, P. 2012. Proximity to Major Roadways is a Risk
Factor for Airway Hyper-Responsiveness in Adults. Can. Respir. J., 19(2):89-95. McConnell, R.
et al. 2010. Childhood Incident Asthma and Traffic-Related Air Pollution at Home and School.
Envtl. Health Perspect.,118(7):1021-6. Huynh, P. etal. 2010. Residential Proximity to Freeways
is Associated with Uncontrolled Asthma in Inner-City Hispanic Children and Adolescents, J.
Allergy (Cairo). Chang, J. et al. 2009. Repeated Respiratory Hospital Encounters Among
Children with Asthma and Residential Proximity to Traffic. Occup. Envtl. Med., 66(2):90-8.
Salam, M.T., Islam, T, & Gilliland, F.D. 2008. Recent Evidence for Adverse Effects of
Residential Proximity to Traffic Sources on Asthma. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med., 14(l):3-8.
7 87 Fed. Reg. 17451 (March 28, 2022).
Despite making up only about 4 percent of vehicles on the road,8 the buses, trucks, and tractor
trailers that distribute our people and goods are the largest contributor to ozone-forming oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) emissions from all highway vehicles and will be one of the largest mobile
source contributors to ozone in 2025.9 They are also responsible for a significant amount of
health-harming fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and more than 420 million tons of climate
pollution - nearly a quarter of all transportation sector emissions and more than the entire
country of Australia. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.4]
8 H. Christopher Frey. 2018. Trends in onroad transportation energy and emissions. Journal of
the Air & Waste Management Assoc. Vol. 68, No. 6, 514-563, Table 1.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2018.1454357
9 https://www.epa.gOv/sites/default/files/2019-08/documents/cti-sae-govt-ind-2019-04-04.pdf
10 EPA. 2020. Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-2019.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-
1990-2019 International Energy Agency, Atlas of Energy. 2020.
http: //energy atl as. i ea. org / #! /tellmap/1378539487
It is estimated that more than 15,000 Americans die prematurely every year as a result of the
motor vehicle pollution on our roads and highways. 11 As a result of housing discrimination and
other unjust policies, communities of color and low-income communities constitute a higher
percentage of the population near our roads and highways and therefore suffer disproportionately
from this harmful pollution. 12 According to the American Lung Association's 2022 State of the
Air report, people of color are more than three and a half times more likely to breathe the most
polluted air when compared to white people. 13 A report by Moving Forward Network found
that, on average, Asian and Black Americans are exposed to PM2.5 pollution that is 56 and 44
percent higher, respectively, than white Americans. 14 And an EDF analysis of the Bay Area in
California found that neighborhoods with higher percentages of residents of color experienced
double the rate of asthma from nitrogen dioxide (N02) -a pollutant often used as a marker for
transportation-related pollution.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.5]
1245
-------
11 Kenneth F Davidson et al. 2020. The recent and future health burden of the U.S. mobile
sector apportioned by source. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (7).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a8/pdfEstimate of'over
20,000' derived using the medians of the upper bound of Krewski and Lepeule's 2011 and 2025
onroad health burden estimates in Table 3 and 4 and assuming a linear reduction over time.
12 Gregory M. Rowangould. 2013. A census of the US near-roadway population: Public health
and environmental justice considerations. Transportation Research Part D 25, 59-67.
https ://www. sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S 1361920913001107.
13 American Lung Association. 2022. State of the Air.
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/74b3d3d3-88dl-4335-95d8-c4e47d0282cl/sota-2022.pdf
14 Jimmy O'dea. 2020. Zero-Emissions Technology for Freight: Heavy-Duty Trucks, Tools to
Advocate for Zero-Emissions Technology. Moving Forward Network.
http://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/MFN_ZeroEmissionToolkit-l.pdf
15 EDF. 2021. Air pollution's unequal impacts in the Bay Area.
https://www.edf.org/airqualitymaps/oakland/health-disparities
Heavy-duty diesel vehicle emissions are often identified as among the largest source of disparity,
disproportionally affecting racial-ethnic minorities across geographies and demographics. 16 A
recent analysis by The Real Urban Emissions (TRUE) Initiative finds that people of color living
in New York City are exposed to 5 percent more PM2.5 attributable to diesel trucks operating in
the city than average, while non-Latino white residents are exposed to 10 percent less. 17 TRUE
concludes,'[tjhese inequities in air pollution exposure contribute to racial disparities in health
outcomes.'18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.5]
16 Tessum, C. W., Paolella, D. A., Chambliss, S. E., Apte, J. S., Hill, J. D., Marhsall, J. D.
PM2.5 polluters disproportionately and systemically affect people of color in the United States.
Sci. Adv. 7, eabf4491 (2021).
17 Meyer, M. and Dallman, T., (April 2022). Air quality and health impacts of diesel truck
emissions in New York City and policy implications. The Real Urban Emissions (TRUE)
Initiative, https://www.trueinitiative.org/media/792240/true-nyc-report-fv.pdf 18 Id.
Recent work using satellite data to assess the health burdens from N02 pollution in 52 cities
found diesel traffic is the dominant source of disparities—across race, ethnicity, and income—
and that a 62 percent reduction in on-road diesel traffic would decrease these inequalities by
37 percent, noting that heavy-duty diesel vehicle emissions, specifically, contribute to the
majority of these N02 inequalities. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.5-6]
19 Demetillo, M. A. G., Harkins, C., McDonald, B. C., Chodrow, P. S., Sun, K., & Pusede, S. E.
(2021). Space-based observational constraints on N02 air pollution inequality from diesel traffic
1246
-------
in major US cities. Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL09433.
https ://doi. org /10.1029/2021GL0943 3 3
Analysis by scientists at EDF, Harvard Chan School of Public Health and University of North
Carolina, using state of the art fine scale air quality modeling and health impact assessment
methods, found that electrification of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have
significant benefits in New York City at a census tract scale.20 Full electrification of the sector
in New York area would prevent $2.4 billion in health damages every year by 2040 (248
deaths, 173 childhood asthma emergency department (ED) visits), much of it directly due to the
nitrogen dioxide (N02) reduction health benefits. Many minority and low-income
neighborhoods with high baseline asthma ED visits also have elevated diesel truck and bus
traffic and pollution and therefore face disproportionate impacts. Census tracts with 97 percent
minority populations bear >35 percent of total childhood asthma ED visits attributable to
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, despite being only 19 percent of the population. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.6]
20 Presentation by Jonathan Buonocore, Chet France, Rick Rykowski, Brian Naess, Komal
Shukla, Catherine Seppanen, Dylan Morgan, Frederica Perera, Katie Coomes, Ananya Roy,
Sarav Arunachalam. 2022. 'Distribution of Air Quality Health Benefits of MHEV policies: New
York,' University of North Carolina, Harvard Chan School of Public Health, Columbia
University Mailman School of Public Health and Environmental Defense Fund.
This also means that these communities in New York City will potentially experience significant
benefits of medium- and heavy-duty electrification. Up to 68 percent of childhood asthma ED
visits reduced will be accrued in census tracts with >85 percent minority populations if full
electrification takes place by 2040. (See Attachment D for full details of the analysis and
results) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.6]
Heavy-duty vehicles are also responsible for significant NOx, PM2.5, and black carbon
emissions around ports, railyards, distribution centers, airports, and other places where trucks
congregate and idle.21 Warehouses and distribution centers where trucks pull in and out, and
often idle, are also concentrated sources of risk. Again, many discriminatory policies have led to
the siting of these facilities near communities of color who face higher rates of underlying health
conditions as a result of the cumulative burden from air pollution and other factors.22 In
Houston's Fifth Ward, diesel trucks that come and go from the cluster of metal recyclers and
concrete processing plants, drive up N02 levels by 48 percent relative to the rest of the city.
Residents are largely people of color (more than 90 percent), 40 percent live below the federal
poverty line and life expectancy is almost a decade lower than the rest of the region (69
compared to 78 years).23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.6]
21 E.g., MJB Ports of Newark and Elizabeth.
22 Nardone A, Casey JA, Morello-Frosch R, Mujahid M, Balmes JR, Thakur N. 2020.
Associations between historical residential redlining and current age-adjusted rates of emergency
department visits due to asthma across eight cities in California: an ecological study. Lancet
Planet Health. 4(l):e24-e31. Miranda ML, Edwards SE, Keating MH, Paul CJ. 2011. Making the
1247
-------
environmental justice grade: The relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 8: 1755-1771. Ihab Mikati, Adam F. Benson, Thomas J. Luben,
Jason D. Sacks, Jennifer Richmond-Bryant. April 2018. Disparities in Distribution of Particulate
Matter Emission Sources by Race and Poverty Status, American Journal of Public Health 108,
no. 4: pp. 480-485. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5844406/
23 https://www.edf.org/airqualitymaps/houston/findings
Commercial diesel trucks also take an especially heavy toll on neighborhoods along their routes.
A years-long study in Canada confirms large trucks to be the greatest contributors to black
carbon emissions near major roadways.24 A study in Oakland, California found that
transportation-related air pollution (e.g., black carbon and NOx) was much higher—in some
cases double—on a freeway that is a designated truck route (1-880) compared to another freeway
in the same city where trucks are prohibited (1-580).25 Another study near the Port of Oakland
also found that black carbon levels measured along truck routes were higher compared to
measurements at most other sites, including those near industrial facilities, other highways and
on residential streets.26 Studies have combined these fine scale assessments with electronic
health records in the health care systems serving the population in Oakland (Sutter Health and
Kaiser Permanente) and find that these elevated levels of N02 and black carbon are associated
with higher rates of cardiovascular events,27 asthma emergency room visits and
hospitalizations,28 as well as adverse pregnancy outcomes.29 Estimated effects of N02 and
black carbon on preeclampsia were highest among non-Latina Black mothers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1265-A1, p.7]
24 Wang, J.M., Jeong, C-H., Hillker, N., Shairsingh, K. K., Healy, R. M., Sofowote, U., Debosz,
J., Su, Y., McGaughey, M., Doerksen, G., Munoz, T., White, L., Herod, D., Evans, G. J. Near-
road air pollution measurements: Accounting for inter-site variability using emission factors.
Environmental Science & Technology, 2018; 52(16): 9495. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b01914
25 Joshua S. Apte et. al. 2017. High-Resolution Air Pollution Mapping with Google Street View
Cars: Exploiting Big Data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12, 6999-7008.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891
26 Julien J. Caubel et. at. 2019. A Distributed Network of 100 Black Carbon Sensors for 100
Days of Air Quality Monitoring in West Oakland, California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 13,
7564-7573. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b00282 27 Alexeeff, Stacey E., et al. 'High-
resolution mapping of traffic related air pollution with Google street view cars and incidence of
cardiovascular events within neighborhoods in Oakland, CA.' Environmental Health 17.1 (2018):
1-13. 28 Alexeeff, S., et al. 'Google Street View car measurements of traffic related air pollution
within neighborhoods and asthma-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations.'
Environmental Epidemiology 3 (2019): 406-407. 29 Goin, Dana E., et al. 'Hyperlocalized
Measures of Air Pollution and Preeclampsia in Oakland, California.' Environmental Science &
Technology 55.21 (2021): 14710-14719.
The actual health burden from truck pollution may be larger still, as analyses often do not
account for the potential impact from after-market defeat devices on medium- and heavy-duty
1248
-------
trucks. The EPA believes the use of aftermarket defeat devices 'occurs within most or all
categories of vehicles and engines, including commercial trucks...'30 A zero-emitting truck and
bus fleet would avoid this problem of emission control tampering. Zero emitting vehicles would
also protect against unanticipated excess in-use emissions deterioration not properly accounted
for during EPA's engine/vehicle certification process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
p.7]
30 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diesel-pickups-ll-
20/6d70536b06182ad2/full.pdf
A shift to zero emitting medium- and heavy-duty vehicles - including rapid deployment in
communities long overburdened by this pollution - is critically important to save lives and bring
cleaner air to neighborhoods across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.7]
California and other states around the nation are paving the way for ZEVs and creating a strong
foundation for the federal government to move forward with protective emissions standards. In
September 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced a bold plan for the state to
achieve 100 percent zero emitting passenger vehicle sales by 2035 and 100 percent zero emitting
freight trucks and buses for all feasible operations by 2045, while accelerating mobilization of
zero emitting vehicles in urban and community applications to address environmental
injustice.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 12]
53 State of California, Executive Order N-79-20 (September 23, 2020).
https://www.gov.ca.gOv/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
Almost 60% of NOx and PM exhaust emissions from the trucks and buses were in urban areas,
45 million people in the United States live, work, or attend school within 300 feet of a major
road, airport, or railroad, and 45% of U.S. residents live in counties with unhealthy levels of
smog or soot. Medical experts have labeled these areas diesel death zones, and link exposure to
diesel exhaust to more than four dozen toxic air pollutants that cause birth defects, lung damage,
dementia, and cancer.i [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, pp. 1-2]
i Tessum CW, Apte JS, Goodkind AL, Muller NZ, Mullins KA, Paolella DA, Polasky S,
Springer NP, Thakrar SK, Marshall JD, Hill JD. Inequity in consumption of goods and services
adds to racial-ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar
26;116(13):6001-6006. doi: 10.1073/pnas.l818859116. Epub 2019 Mar 11. PMID: 30858319;
PMC ID: PMC6442600.
Organization: Florida Council of Churches
Florida is home now to nearly 22 million people and is growing by 1000 new residents a day.
Almost half of Floridians live in the ten counties with the highest density of population and thus
traffic congestion. Density can be determined in various ways. If one excludes land area with
zero population, the ten most dense counties are respectively Broward, Pinellas, Miami-Dade,
1249
-------
Palm Beach, Orange, Seminole, Hillsborough, Duval, Sarasota, and Lee. These counties also
have significant, historic populations of African descent and Latine populations who live in
urban neighborhoods ringed by inner-city interstates and expressways. It has been well-
documented by scholars how the road systems were intentionally designed in conjunction with
redlining to box these people in. They bear the brunt of exhaust pollution in Florida. Asthma is
common across the state in these hemmed in communities and life-expectancy is lower. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, p.l]
Organization: Gardener Manjikian Consulting LLC
we demand a zero emissions future where all communities can thrive without breathing in toxic
heavy duty truck pollution. EJ communities across the country are exposed to 28% more NOx
pollution than other neighborhoods because warehouses, truck routes, and industrial areas are
disproportionately built in frontline communities. The proposed HDT rule doesn't go nearly far
enough to protect EJ communities. It ignores the long-standing demands for protective solutions
from the folks experiencing the pollution of the freight transportation system firsthand. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2599, p.l]
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
EPA should take action on the Proposed Regulation and enact the most stringent options
available to it so as to protect the health of all Americans, but in particular, the low-income
people of color who have been systematically overburdened by air pollution in this country and
as a result, are most vulnerable to its continued impacts. Doing so would be of direct benefit to of
DSCC and Great Rivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.2]
It is well-established in the Proposed Regulation that Heavy Duty ('HD') vehicles are a
significant source of NOx, contributing to high concentrations of ozone and PM2.5.1. The
Proposed Regulation also points out that these impacts more severely impact low-income
minority communities, already overburdened by air pollution.2. In particular, the Proposed
Regulation demonstrates that HD vehicles are more often operated close to people of color.3
This is the case because people of color, as well as those with lower incomes, are more likely to
live near truck routes.4 The St. Louis metropolitan area is no exception - many areas bordering
major highways and traffic thoroughfares in the St. Louis area are populated by persons of color
and other economically disadvantaged communities.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.2]
1 Proposed Regulation at p. 17418.
2 Id. at pp.17418, 17452, 17584.
3 Id. at pp.17418, 17452.
4 Id.
1250
-------
5 Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic at Washington University School of Law,
Environmental Racism in St. Louis, located at https://7gxsll0eqdj9anbalk3swtoo-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019-09-
30_STL_Env_Racism_Report_REVISED_FINAL_Cropped.pdf. See also, US EPA, EJScreen,
Map Comparisons for St. Louis, Missouri, Pet. People of Color and Traffic Proximity, located at
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/comparemapper.html.
As is established in the Proposed Regulation, heightened exposure to HD vehicle traffic also
contributes to a variety of adverse health impacts - in particular asthma and respiratory illness, as
well as cardiovascular problems.6 Unfortunately, these heightened health risks bear out in St.
Louis, especially in the low-income minority neighborhoods in St. Louis City and County. In St.
Louis County and the City of St. Louis, the same zip code areas that have large low-income
minority populations also have significantly higher rates of asthma-related emergency room
visits than the Missouri and National averages.7 The City of St. Louis has the dubious honor of
ranking first out of the 35 largest United States metropolitan areas in terms of asthma risk.8 This
risk has increased over the last decade.9 Perhaps more startlingly, in a recent equity study
compiled by the City of St. Louis, the City was awarded an equity score of 1 out of a possible
100 in the category of child asthma. The exceedingly low score was bestowed as a result of data
showing that black children living in the City of St. Louis are more than 10 times as likely as
white children to visit emergency rooms for asthma-related complications. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1323-A1, pp.2-3]
6 Proposed Regulation at p. 17417.
7 Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, EPHT Asthma Data by zip code, located
at https://healthapps.dhss.mo.gov/MoPhims/QueryBuilder?qbc=EA&q=l&m=l; City of St.
Louis Department of Health, Understanding Our Needs, Update (2016), page 15, located at
https://www.stlouismo.gov/government/departments/health/documents/upload/UON-
20160102.pdf.
8 East-West Gateway Council of Governments, Where We Stand: Twenty Years Later, located
at: https://www.ewgateway.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/WWS6EdNo3.pdf.
9 Id.
10 City of St. Louis, Equity Indicators Toward a St. Louis Region that works for us all, Baseline
Report (2018), at pp. 36-37, located at: https://www.stlouis-
mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/initiatives/resilience/equity/documents/upload/Equity-
Indicators-Baseline-2018-Report-Document.pdf.
The unique features of the St. Louis area highlight the pressing need for EPA to take immediate
action to address transportation-related pollution. Focusing on pollution from HD vehicles offers
a great start. As emissions modeling performed by EPA in connection with the Proposed
Regulation reveals, 'heavy-duty engines will continue to be one of the largest contributors to
mobile source NOx emissions nationwide in the future'.23 Unless and until EPA tackles this
significant pollution source, the problem will not improve, but will instead continue to worsen.
1251
-------
Further, this is not a problem that can be put off to future generations - peoples' very lives are at
risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.5]
23 Proposed Regulation at p.17418.
At a minimum, EPA must include the above-described provisions in the Final Regulation. Doing
so will begin the process of protecting the low-income minority people that have already
shouldered to much of the pollution burden in urbanized communities such as St. Louis. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-A1, p.6]
Organization: King County, Washington County Executive
In King County, through the Washington State Environmental Health Disparities Map developed
by the University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences, we know that communities of color, low-income communities, and road-proximate
communities suffer from the highest rates of exposure to pollutants. This long-overdue rule must
benefit our communities. The Clean Air Act is clear in requiring EPA to set a standard not just
protective for healthy individuals, but also of these vulnerable populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1188-A2, p.l]
Organization: Lydia Heye
The Biden administration has made a public commitment to help protect environmental justice
("EJ") communities throughout the United States. However, EPA's heavy duty truck rule fails
our EJ communities. This proposal ignores the longstanding demands from EJ communities to
move the most protective solutions that will require air pollution reductions in EJ communities.
EPA's proposed rule punts meaningful action into the uncertain future, yet again delaying justice
for communities of color and frontline communities and perpetuating environmental racism.
Heavy Duty Trucks contribute to the worsening of the public health, environmental, and climate
crisis. With this current rule the Biden Administration is falling short of their commitments to
prioritize EJ and address the climate crisis. EJ communities cannot wait. We need strong
regulations now, justice delayed is justice denied! Environmental justice communities are
choking to death from the pollution from heavy duty trucks. The Biden Administration needs to
prioritize community health over corporate wealth and at minimum require a just transition
towards zero emission trucks.
We need to see a just transition towards zero emissions across the freight sector. Here in
Southern California, we see this clearly in our port communities and communities near freeways.
Through redlining and other racist land use practices, Black and Brown communities are forced
to subject themselves and their families to deadly air when they decide to open their windows or
walk outside. No one should be forced to experience that. Everyone should be entitled to breathe
clean air.
EPA should be proposing solutions aimed at phasing out our dependency on deadly diesel. We
will not accept partial solutions that leave us further burdened by pollution for decades to come.
1252
-------
Zero Emissions must mean zero - not near zero! EPA needs to do its part to end diesel-deaths in
our communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1405]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
Addressing heavy-duty NOx emission is particularly important for systemically disinvested
communities, where low-income and people of color are disproportionately harmed by heavy-
duty truck emissions because they are more likely to live, work, or go to school in areas with
high truck activity, such as ports, highways, railyards, and distribution centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1288-Al,pp.l-2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (22,659)
- Families in diesel death zones, particularly communities of color and low wealth communities,
have suffered long enough and cannot wait extra model years for clean air, and drivers cannot
wait extra model years for more efficient, pollution-free trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1193, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Consumer Reports (CR) (17,499)
These vehicles cause the majority of lung-damaging air pollutants, and disproportionately impact
vulnerable communities located near trucking corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1613-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Evangelical Environmental Network
(EEN) (67,755)
Almost 60% of NOx and PM2.5 exhaust emissions from the trucks and buses were in urban
areas, where 45 million people in the United States live, work, or attend school within 300 feet of
a major road, airport, or railroad. 45% of U.S. residents live in counties with unhealthy levels of
smog or soot. Medical experts have labeled these areas diesel death zones, and link exposure to
diesel exhaust to more than four dozen toxic air pollutants that cause birth defects, lung damage,
and cancer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1610-Al,p .1]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
Moreover, this type of pollution is inequitably distributed and disproportionately harms Blacks
and Latinos compared to whites. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1, p.2]
The residents of Arizona, especially those living in Maricopa County, have been plagued with
the health impacts of both the climate crisis and Air Pollution. The American Lung Association
has consistently graded the Maricopa County and Pinal County areas with failing grades on air
quality. The latest report came out this month and again, the Phoenix area has received an F on
the American Lung Association "State of the Air Report". Out of over 220 metropolitan areas,
the Phoenix area ranked 5th worst for high ozone days, 11th worst for 24-hour participle
1253
-------
pollution and 8th worst for annual particle pollution. The air we breathe is harming all of us, but
especially our children and elderly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-Al,p.2]
Heavy duty vehicles are major contributors to the valley's air pollution. Diesel engines emit
deadly particle pollution. And NOx combines with heat and sunlight in the atmosphere to form
ground level ozone, or smog, a lung irritant and asthma trigger. Health officials tell us that the
following groups are most at risk:
• Babies and children, whose bodies are rapidly developing.
• Pregnant women, whose risk of premature birth and low weight birth increases when
exposed to air-pollution.
• Children and adults with asthma - as air pollution can both trigger asthma attacks and
cause the development of the disease.
• People with COPD.
• People with lung cancer.
• People with cardiovascular disease.
• People with COVID-related lung problems or long-COVID, or people with active cases
of COVID or other respiratory infections.
• People with any chronic disease such as cancer
• Older adults (over age 65), whose risk of premature death increases with exposure to air
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-Al,p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Religious Partnership for the
Environment (4,677)
As Black Church leaders and congregants, we experience the tragedies of environmental justice
on a regular basis. Communities of color face an undue, disproportionate and unjust burden of air
pollution and climate impacts from the production of fossil fuels. Reducing emissions from the
transportation sector offers an opportunity to reduce the pollution and climate impact burden in
our communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1122-A1, p.l]
Exhaust from heavy duty vehicles is one of the main pollution sources in black communities. As
our country moves a vast amount of goods from manufacturing plants to warehouse to businesses
and homes, the distribution contributes to significant localized pollution in our communities,
which are already suffering from pollution. This disproportional impact by truck pollution is a
result of historical and ongoing systemic racism, which has placed interstates and heavily
travelled roads through the heart of our communities and neighborhoods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1122-A1, p.l]
Trucks, which only account for 10 percent of vehicles on the road, produce nearly 25 percent of
the transportation sectors greenhouse gases. A 2021 report stated that a 62% reduction in diesel
emissions would decrease race-ethnicity and income inequalities by 37%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1122-A1, p.l]
President Biden's in January 2021 that directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
other agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. To help fulfill that mission,
1254
-------
the EPA must make reducing air pollution from heavy duty trucks a priority. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2019-0055-1122-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Neighbors for Clean Air and Elders
Climate Action (43)
Vehicle pollution inequitably harms Black and Latinx communities that are much more likely
compared to whites to reside near heavy truck traffic on highways, and at truck terminals, ports
and distribution centers. In fact, Multnomah County communities with larger black populations
have three times higher diesel particulate matter pollution than neighborhood with majority white
residents. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1619-A1 ,p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Public Citizen (168)
Diesel emissions most severely harm communities of color and working class communities, and
cleaning up dirty diesel pollution helps to create a more just society. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1597-A2, p.l]
Improving these standards will improve health outcomes for communities hardest hit by diesel
pollution. EPA should adopt requirements to address disproportionate health impacts so that
those who are most harmed by diesel pollution can find relief quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1597-A2, p.l]
I encourage the EPA to boldly pursue environmental justice as it reduces diesel emissions and
improves the health of communities near ports and freight corridors. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-
0055-1597-A2,p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 1
(13,985)
Marginalized communities living in highly trafficked areas have suffered the health impacts of
diesel trucks for too long. And the science clearly shows that zero-emission trucks can be
deployed now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1194-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 2 (959)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made explicit commitments to climate, clean
air, and environmental justice under this administration. Environmental justice communities
suffer a disproportionate burden of pollution from the goods movement sector writ large. 1 Thus,
we believe that this NOx rule should be strengthened to live up to these important stated
commitments and to set us on a path to a zero-emission transportation future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1608-A1, p.l]
1 https://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/zero-emissions/
1255
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 1 (2,443)
This pollution is particularly dangerous for communities located close to high truck traffic areas,
affecting millions of people that live near highways, warehouses, or ports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1594-Al,p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 3 (605)
Truck pollution disproportionately impacts low-wealth communities and communities of color,
leading to higher rates of asthma and other respiratory illness. With solid heavy-duty vehicle
emission standards, we can cut deadly smog pollution for our children, families, and
communities to breathe the clean air they deserve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1606, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 5 (52,051)
This makes it critical to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles are as efficient as possible and that we
adopt and enforce strict emissions limits as we shift away from fleets powered by fossil fuels.
Our communities cannot afford to wait for cleaner air. Black and Brown communities need a
rapid transition to zero- emitting trucks and a clear path towards 100% electrification of polluting
big rigs, trucks, and buses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1600]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 8 (2,804)
Diesel emissions most severely harm communities of color and working class communities, and
cleaning up dirty diesel pollution helps to create a more just society. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-
1605]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 13 (165)
Because of discriminatory transportation practices, highways and transportation depots are often
placed near and through communities of color, placing these communities in greater danger from
vehicle pollution. Reducing diesel emissions would not only address climate change but
significantly reduce pollution in communities of color. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1599]
Organization: Mayor, City of Albuquerque, NM et al.
As mayors, our cities are highly trafficked freight destinations for the movement of goods, and
we are on the front lines of protecting the safety and well-being of our constituents. This long-
overdue rule must benefit our communities. According to the American Lung Association's 2022
State of the Air reportl, approximately 40% of Americans—over 137 million people—are living
in areas that received a grade of "F" for their air pollution. This is especially problematic for
vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, low-income families and communities of
color. The Clean Air Act is clear in requiring EPA to set a standard not just protective for healthy
individuals, but also of these vulnerable populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.l]
1 https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings
1256
-------
Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the greatest threats to public
health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300 feet of a major roadway
or transportation facility.4 The pollution from diesel trucks disproportionately harms frontline
communities near heavy vehicle traffic and trucking corridors - which by design tends to be low-
income and communities of color - and leads to increased risk for cardiovascular disease, lung
cancer, and other respiratory health illnesses. Recent studies show that diesel traffic is the largest
source of nitrogen oxide disparity by race in the United States. Transitioning from combustion to
zero-emission trucks is therefore one of our greatest opportunities to tackle both the climate
crisis and environmental injustice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.2]
4 https://www.epa.gov/air-research/research-near-roadway-and-other-near-source-air-pollution
Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) etal.
As noted in the Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan,2 underserved
communities have been disproportionately affected by harmful environmental exposures, such as
ambient air pollution and climate-change-related health impacts. Therefore, more stringent
controls on air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles and subsequent emissions reductions have the
potential to help the most vulnerable populations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0996-A1, pp. 1 -
2]
2. "Metropolitan Washington 2030 Climate and Energy Action Plan" (Washington, D.C.:
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, November 18, 2020),
https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2020/ll/18/metropolitanwashington-2030-climate-and-
energy-action-plan/.
Organization: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum
Emissions from heavy duty trucks concentrate near freight corridors and hubs where they impact
overburdened and underserved communities from surrounding neighborhoods. In the Kansas
City region, like many other metropolitan areas, these communities are where many low-income
individuals and people of color call home. These communities face a prevalence of asthma that is
higher than the national average and are medically underserved. Without further reductions,
heavy-duty vehicles will continue to be one of the largest contributors to mobile source
emissions of NOx, which react in the atmosphere to form ozone and particulate matter. These
pollutants create or exacerbate respiratory and cardiovascular problems and other adverse health
impacts that lead to hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and premature deaths. For the
health of our vulnerable communities, we urge the EPA to enact the strongest possible limits on
emissions from heavy-duty trucks possible to transition to zero-emissions vehicles more quickly
in the heavy-duty fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
The modeling data provided in these comments illustrates the need for measurable improvements
to environmental conditions in communities that are heavily impacted by dense traffic. Ambient
improvements to PM, PM2.5, and ozone represented by this proposed rule will serve to facilitate
1257
-------
the development of implementation outcomes of local environmental benefits attributable to
controls on mobile sources like heavy duty trucks. EPA's burden is to effectively implement this
rule per Executive Order 12898, 'Federal agencies must identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.' This comment is
also found in Section 20.1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
It is the MPCA's responsibility to protect Minnesotans' health and environment in collaboration
with the federal government, through cooperative federalism. Although Minnesota is currently in
attainment for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NOx and ozone, MPCA research
demonstrates that environmental justice communities are disproportionately exposed to air
pollution from transportation. People in these communities are also more vulnerable to air
pollution health impacts due to underlying issues, like their socioeconomic status and access to
health care. National studies have identified significant disparities in NOx exposure based on
race; researchers at the University of Minnesota estimate that people of color in America
experience 38% more NOx pollution where they live than white Americans. Further, previous
EPA research, as demonstrated in the proposed rulemaking, shows that there are significant,
known co-benefits to health outcomes related to NOx emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1044-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
MEMA urges EPA to consider the impacts of NOx emissions on underserved and inner-city
communities. While all communities are impacted by climate change and air quality, the effects
on communities of differing socioeconomic statuses are not proportionate. Historically,
environmental policies, including but not limited to electric vehicles, engine emissions standards,
carbon emissions trading or taxation, chemical bans or restrictions and other industrial
regulations, may have caused disproportionate harm to disadvantaged communities. It is critical
that EPA finalize NOx standards that will ensure all commercial vehicles, not just electric
vehicles, are equipped with best-in-class technology to ensure that every community is afforded
cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
Sadly, the brunt of the air pollution burden is felt in communities outside of our parks, where
residents who live near high freight traffic areas, such as highways, warehouse districts, or ports,
are forced to breathe in dangerous pollutants from heavy duty trucks. As highlighted in the
proposed rule, 72 million Americans live within 200 meters of freight routes with high levels or
HD truck traffic.21 Of those 72 million, people of color make up a disproportionate number of
the individuals harmed by pollution from freight traffic, greatly exacerbating the health and
environmental justice impacts felt by nonwhite populations across the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1314-A1, p.4]
21 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,451
1258
-------
Overall, when researchers isolate race, nonwhite people have a 28 percent higher health burden,
and Black people had a 54 percent higher than the population at large.22 Emission source types,
in particular, disproportionately affect racial-ethnic minorities and make the air that people of
color breathe dirtier than it is for White people.23 This relationship between emissions and race
is systemic and statistically significant for all major sectors, and heavy-duty vehicles is one of
the larges sources of disparity.24 Further, even when social class is held constant, the
relationship between race and the distribution of air pollution remains, independent of
socioeconomic status.25 This clear example of environmental justice must be rectified in every
way possible, including through the adoption of this EPA rule. This would begin the climb to
racial and environmental justice, and it would allow the national parks to provide cleaner air to
its visitors and the residents of its gateway communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1,
p.4]
22 Nancy Leong, Enjoyed by White Citizens, 109 GEO. L.J. 1421, 1465-66 (2021).
23 Christopher W. Tessum et al., PM2.5 Polluters Disproportionately and Systemically Affect
People of Color in the United States, SCIENCE ADVANCES (2021),
https ://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv. abf4491.
24 Id.
25 Robert D. Bullard, Building Just, Safe, and Healthy Communities, 12 TUL. ENVTL. L.J. 373,
382-83 (1999).
Heavy-duty vehicles are a key contributor to ozone and PM National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment in air basins across the country. This is of particular concern
in states like California, where NOx pollution from HD vehicles is an outsized source of ozone
and PM2.5 in regions such as the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basins. When it
comes to meeting the CAA's NAAQS, The San Joaquin Valley is now in extreme nonattainment
with the 1997, 2008, and 2015 ozone standards, serious nonattainment with the 1997 annual and
24-hour and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and moderate nonattainment with the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standard. The San Joaquin Valley is also home to the environmental justice communities
of Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield, which are ranked by American Lung Association (ALA) as
being three of the most polluted cities in the country for ozone, annual PM2.5, and short-term
PM2.5 pollution.26 In terms of the economic impact, one study found that '[i]n the San Joaquin
Valley overall, the cost of air pollution is more than $1,600 per person per year, which translates
into a total of nearly $6 billion in savings if federal ozone and PM2.5 standards were
met.'27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, pp.4-5]
26 ALA, 2019 State of the Air Report: Most Polluted Cities. Available at,
https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html.
27 Jane V. Hall, et. al., The Benefits of Meeting Federal Clean Air Standards in the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins 2008), at 5. Available at
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/AsthmaCoalition/docs/BenefitsofMeetingCleanAirStandard
s_ll_06_08.pdf.
1259
-------
When viewed alongside other heavily impacted areas, like West Oakland or communities in the
South Coast Air Basin, the total impact to vulnerable populations in the state is enormous, both
from an economic and public health standpoint. Attaining statewide standards for PM and ozone
just in California would annually prevent 9,000 premature deaths—more than the total number of
deaths from second-hand smoke and motor vehicle crashes combined—and avoid the annual
$2.3 billion price tag in the State's economy associated with hospitalizations and treatment
related to air pollution.28 The uneven distribution of health, social, and livelihood costs of the
freight sector is one of California's deepest forms of environmental injustice, where freight hubs
and corridors disproportionately poison the State's low-income communities and communities of
color.29 In West Oakland, where CARB attributes 71% air pollution risk to truck traffic,30
residents have life expectancies as much as 24 years shorter than their neighbors in the Oakland
Hills.31 This story will sound familiar to communities in Wilmington, Roseville, Shafter,
Fresno, Commerce, North Richmond, rural Riverside, and many other predominantly low-
income communities and communities of color that live near freight hubs and truck
corridors.32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.5]
28 CARB, Quantification of the Health Impacts and Economic Valuation of Air Pollution from
Ports and Goods Movement in California, (Mar. 21, 2006)
https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/plan/appendix_a.pdf
29 See, e.g. Pacific Institute, Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transport in
California, (Nov. 2006). Available at https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/paying-
with-our-health-full-report.pdf.
30 CARB, Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for the West Oakland Community,
(Dec. 2008) at 3. Available at
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/communities/ra/westoakland/documents/westoaklandreport.pdf.
31 Virgina Commonwealth University, Neighborhood-Level Determinants of Life Expectancy in
Oakland, CA, (Sept. 2012) at 20. Available at https://societyhealth.vcu.edu/media/society-
health/pdf/PMReport_Al ameda.pdf.
32 Pacific Institute, Paying with Our Health: The Real Cost of Freight Transport in California,
(Nov. 2006). https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/paying-with-our-health-full-
report.pdf.
Organization: National Religious Partnership for the Environment
The pollution generated by heavy duty vehicles is not an equal burden. Black, Indigenous, Latinx
and Asian-American communities disproportionately bear the brunt of air pollution from our
national transportation priorities. Reducing diesel emissions would not only address climate
change, which is felt first and worst in communities of color, but significantly reduce pollution in
black, brown and Asian-American neighborhoods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1221-A1, p.l]
1260
-------
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Low load cycles and excess NOx emissions are of particular concern in Overburdened
Communities located near busy truck routes and where trucks operate in stop and go conditions
where exhaust temperatures are potentially too low to enable selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
emissions control function. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 11] [Also in Section 3.3]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
In addition, urban residents can be exposed to higher levels of health-damaging PM2.5 and toxic
air pollutants concentrated at 'hot-spots' near high-density traffic arteries. Freight transportation
relies on trucks, trains, and ships operating within communities in the Northeast and mid-
Atlantic to move goods. This activity generates a significant amount of localized air pollution in
communities already overburdened by diesel exhaust pollution. Local emissions contribute to an
ongoing health crisis in these communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.4]
Low load cycles and excess NOx emissions are of particular concern in Overburdened
Communities located near busy truck routes and where trucks operate in stop and go
conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 14] [Also in Section 3.3]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
Cleaner technology results in tangible health benefits that will protect public health in
communities of color and low-income communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p.
1]
These recommendations will further improve health outcomes in the communities of color and
low-income communities most burdened by diesel pollution. We encourage the EPA to boldly
pursue environmental justice as it reduces diesel emissions and improves the health of
communities near ports and freight corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 5]
Organization: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
The challenges faced by the San Joaquin Valley with respect to air quality are unmatched by any
other region in the nation. The Valley's topography, climate, geography, and the presence of two
major transportation corridors connecting Northern and Southern California all contribute to the
region's air quality challenges. Additionally, a number of Valley communities are highly
impacted by environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Since its adoption, the Clean Air Act
has led to significant improvements in air quality and public health benefits throughout the San
Joaquin Valley. Through a comprehensive regulatory program, the District has adopted over 650
rules since 1992. With an investment of over $40 billion, air pollution from San Joaquin Valley
businesses has been reduced by over 80%. The pollution released by industrial facilities,
agricultural operations, and cars and trucks is at a historical low for all pollutants. As a result,
San Joaquin Valley residents' exposure to high smog levels has been reduced by over
90%. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1291 -A1, p.l]
1261
-------
Organization: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
We further applaud the analytical effort in the RIA to study whether communities saddled with
the worst air quality will stand to particularly benefit from more stringent standards. We concur
in the assessment that areas with worse air quality, including swaths of the Los Angeles area,
may stand to benefit from reductions in ozone. Similarly, the assessment that '[t] hose in areas
with the worst air quality would experience a greater reduction in PM2.5 than those in the
remaining 95 percent of grid cells' is an important one.25 Putting aside the potential for further
and future refinements in this mode of analysis, as is generally known, persons living in
proximity to freeways and heavily trafficked areas do suffer worse air quality on average. Those
who live in significant proximity to sources of heavy truck or other transportation emissions can
experience negative health outcomes, and those population areas can correlate with other
negative socioeconomic indicators. Providing environmental health benefits and relief to
burdened communities is rightfully at the core of EPA's responsibility to exercise its Title II
rulemaking duties. Thus, while securing emission reductions from trucks is needed for NAAQS
attainment throughout the entirety of South Coast AQMD's jurisdiction of 10,700 miles, it
should not be overlooked that having cleaner heavy truck traffic also helps assure significant
benefits for certain, highly impacted communities. We urge EPA to consider the most stringent
standards in favor of those communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1201-A1, p.7]
25 RIA at pg. 308.
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Exposure to this type of pollution is also an environmental justice issue; '[rjelative to the rest of
the population, people of color and those with lower incomes are more likely to live near truck
routes.'11 This is in part due to zoning practices and land use decisions, including in the South,
that have consistently sited highways and commercial and industrial facilities that often rely on
frequent truck deliveries in communities of color and low-income communities. 12 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.2-3]
11 Id.
12 See e.g., Kaveh Waddell, When Amazon Expands, These Communities Pay the Price,
CONSUMER REPS. (Dec. 9, 2021), https://www.consumerreports.org/corporate-
accountability/when-amazon-expands-these-communities-paythe-price-a2554249208/; INST.
FOR TRANSP. & DEV. POL'Y, Highways and Zoning: Tools of Racist Policy (Mar. 10, 2021),
https://www.itdp.org/2021/03/10/highways-and-zoning-tools-of-racist-policy/; Ashish Valentine,
'The Wrong Complexion for Protection.' How Race Shaped America's Roadways and Cities,
NAT'L PUB. RADIO (July 5, 2020), https://www.npr.org/2020/07/05/887386869/how-
transportation-racism-shaped-america; Johnny Miller, Roads to Nowhere: How Infrastructure
Build on American Inequality, THE GUARDIAN (Feb. 21,
2018), https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/21/roads-nowhere-infrastructure-american-
inequality.
1262
-------
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
Impoverished communities and communities of color are disproportionately harmed by heavy-
duty truck emissions because they are more likely to live, work, or go to school in areas with
high truck activity, such as ports, highways, railyards, and distribution centers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 2]
Emissions from heavy-duty trucks disproportionately endanger residents of environmental
justice communities by exposing them to harmful air pollution that causes significant health
impacts. Heavy-duty trucks concentrate their emissions along transportation corridors and near
ports and warehouses. 12 Communities located near this infrastructure are disproportionately
lower-income and communities of color and typically face industrial pollution cumulatively with
truck emissions. 13 For example, EPA modeling has shown that race and income are significantly
associated with living near truck routes nationally, even when controlling for other factors. 14
EPA research has also indicated that people of color are more likely to live within 300 feet of
major transportation facilities and go to school within 200 meters of the largest roadways. 15
Likewise, a comprehensive study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District—which
covers Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, the largest logistics hub nationwide—found that
communities located near large warehouses scored far higher on California's environmental
justice screening tool, which measures overall pollution and demographic vulnerability. 16 That
study concluded that, compared to the South Coast basin averages, communities in the South
Coast basin near large warehouses had a substantially higher proportion of people of color; were
exposed to more diesel particulate matter; had higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and
low birth weights; and had higher poverty and unemployment rates. 17 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1255-A1, pp. 4 - 5]
12. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,452.
13. EPA Memorandum, Estimation of Population Size and Demographic Characteristics among
People Living Near Truck Routes in the Coterminous United States, at 11-12, Fig. 3, 17-19, Fig.
9 (Feb. 16, 2022) (finding that individuals living near major truck routes are more likely to be
people of color and lower-income), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0982; see also Michelle Meyer &
Tim Dallmann, The Real Urban Emissions Initiative, Air quality and health impacts of diesel
truck emissions in New York City and policy implications, at 7, Fig. 5 (2022) (concluding that
Black and Latino individuals in New York City are disproportionately exposed to PM2.5 along
freight corridors), attached as Exhibit 1; South Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist., Final
Socioeconomic Assessment for Proposed Rule 2305 - Warehouse Indirect Source Rule -
Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule
316 - Fees for Rule 2305, at 3-7 (May 2021) (determining that individuals living near
warehouses in the logistics-heavy South Coast Air Quality Management District are more likely
to be people of color, lower-income, and exposed to high pollution levels), attached as Exhibit 2.
14. EPA Memorandum, "Estimation of Population Size and Demographic Characteristics among
People Living Near Truck Routes in the Coterminous United States" (Feb. 16, 2022), EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-0982, at 20-24.
1263
-------
15. Chad Bailey, "Demographic and Social Patterns in Housing Units Near Large Highways and
other Transportation Sources," at 3 (2011), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0126.
16. South Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist., Final Socioeconomic Assessment, supra note 13, at 4-5.
17. Id. at 5-7.
As the South Coast Air Quality Management District study demonstrates, and as many others
corroborate, 18 residents of environmental justice communities near logistics infrastructure suffer
from health effects due to exposure to NOx and associated heavy-duty truck emissions. These
issues are particularly acute in our States, which proudly generate a majority of the nation's
economic activity associated with the logistics industry, yet also bear its detrimental
environmental impacts. Major ports in some of our States handled 61 percent of all container
traffic nationwide in 2020, including the three megaports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New
York and New Jersey, which together accounted for 43 percent of all container traffic. 19
Additionally, Chicago's central location makes it a national leader in intermodal transit.20
Reflecting historical redlining,21 the communities near these ports are
overwhelmingly comprised of residents with lower-incomes and people of color who
disproportionately suffer exposures and health impacts from pollution from heavy-duty truck
engine emissions. Data from the census tracts surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach exemplify these inequalities: [[See docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1,
pp. 7-8 for data tables.]] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 5 - 7]
18. See, e.g., Gaige Hunter Kerr, et al., COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals Persistent Disparities in
Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution, 118 Proc. Nat'l Acad. Sciences 30 (2021), attached as Exhibit
3; Mary Angelique G. Demetillo, et al., Space-Based Observational Constraints onN02 Air
Pollution Inequality from Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities, Geophysical Research Letters 48
(2021), attached as Exhibit 4; Paul Allen, et al., Newark Community Impacts of Mobile Source
Emissions: A Community-Based Participatory Research Analysis (2020), attached as Exhibit 5;
Maria Cecilia Pinto de Moura, et al., Union of Concerned Scientists, Inequitable Exposure to Air
Pollution from Vehicles in Massachusetts (2019), attached as Exhibit 6; Iyad Kheirbek, et al.,
The Contribution of Motor Vehicle Emissions to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Public Health
Impacts in New York City: a Health Burden Assessment, 15 Env't Health 89 (2016), attached as
Exhibit 7.
19. Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent
Units) (2020), https://data.bts.gOv/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ (ports of Baltimore,
Boston, Honolulu, Long Beach, Los Angeles, New York and New Jersey, Oakland, Seattle,
South Jersey, Tacoma, and Wilmington combined for 24.956 million TEUs, 61% of 41.24
million TEUs total nationwide; ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and New York and New
Jersey combined for 17.62 million TEUs, 43% of 41.24 million TEUs) (last accessed May 16,
2022).
20. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, The Freight System: Leading the Way, at 16
(2017), attached as Exhibit 8.
1264
-------
21. Beginning in the 1930s, federal housing policy directed investment away from "risky"
communities of color. Nearly all of the communities adjacent to the three megaports (the Ports of
Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New York and New Jersey) and the intermodal terminals in
Chicago were coded red, signifying the least desirable areas where investment was to be avoided.
See Univ. of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab, Mapping Inequality,
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/33.748/-118.272&city=los-angeles-ca (Los
Angeles, CA), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=14/40.678/-
74.004&city=brooklyn-ny (Brooklyn, NY),
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/40.704/-74.068&city=hudson-co.-nj
(Hudson County, NJ), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/40.627/-
74.233&city=union-co.-nj (Union County, NJ),
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/41.854/-87.772&city=chicago-il (Chicago,
IL) (last accessed May 16, 2022).
Logistics hubs demand extensive networks of highways and warehouses to move and store cargo
via millions of truck trips annually. Southern California was home to nearly 1.2 billion square
feet of warehouse space as of 2014,24 the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately
3,000 warehouses over 100,000 square feet,25 and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day.26 Aggravating historical injustices,
decision makers disproportionately site highways and warehouses in environmental justice
communities whose residents, like those of port communities, suffer higher levels of pollution
exposure from heavy-duty trucks than do whiter and higher-income communities. Data
demonstrate that the census tracts in California with the highest levels of ozone, PM2.5, and
DPM exposure are communities of color bordering such logistics thoroughfares—Highway 99 in
the San Joaquin Valley and Highways 10 and 60 in the Inland Empire: [[See docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 9 for data table.]] [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1,
p. 8]
24. South Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist., Final Socioeconomic Assessment, supra note 13, at 7-8.
25. Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG
Region: Task 2. Inventory of Warehousing Facilities, at 2-11 (2018), available at
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/task2_facilityinventory.pdf (last accessed
May 16, 2022).
26. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support -
Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm (last accessed May 16, 2022).
Accordingly, achieving emissions reductions from heavy-duty trucks is a critical step to begin
dismantling historical patterns of environmental injustice burdening communities near ports,
highways, and warehouses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 9]
1265
-------
Organization: Sustainable Solar Systems
Diesel pollution from heavy duty trucks and buses is a massive public health threat. Even
without considering climate change, the air pollution caused by heavy duty trucks is a
environmental justice issue that causes more health issues in frontline and marginalized
communities. Diesel pollution worsens asthma and is particularly dangerous to children's
developing lungs. Here in Philadelphia, 21% of children have asthma, which is more than double
the national rate. Indoor and outdoor air pollution are major contributors to the high prevalence
of asthma in Philadelphia. The air pollution doesn't only affect childrens' health. It increases
costs for LMI families, increases absentee rates in school and days missed from work for their
parents. It affects childrens ability to learn in school, affecting lifetime income levels for those
children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2737, p.l]
We urgently need cleaner heavy-duty vehicles on the road, especially in underserved
communities that are overburdened with truck pollution due to their proximity to highways and
high-traffic corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2737, p.l]
This is more than a financial issue. It's a justice and equity issue. But soon, these cleaner vehicles
will actually be cheaper to own and operate than diesel vehicles anyway - making it the smart
financial choice to invest in these vehicles now. The EPA must not delay in the adoption of these
standards or the next round starting in 2030. Families in diesel death zones have suffered long
enough. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2737, p.l]
Organization: United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
The United Methodist Church further states that 'clean air is a basic right and necessity for all
life' (2016 Book of Resolutions, #1033). Communities of color face an undue, disproportionate,
and unjust burden of air pollution and climate impacts from the production of fossil fuels. Most
significantly, these new regulations would safeguard communities of color from continued,
disproportionate impacts of vehicular pollution and the health effects of greenhouse gas
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1042-A1, p.l]
Organization: Various Academic Researchers
Strengthening HDV NOx emissions standards is necessary to reduce air pollution injustice
NOx emissions are not distributed equally throughout the urban landscape, resulting in
disproportionately higher N02 concentrations in marginalized and minoritized communities of
the U.S. These disparities have persisted despite overall reductions in ambient N02. Our
research in progress indicates that in 2019, N02 levels in communities with the largest shares of
non-white residents were 2.1 times higher and rates of N02-attributable pediatric asthma were
7.6 times higher than levels and rates in communities with the largest shares of white residents
[Kerr et al., in prep], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 2]
HDV NOx emissions are a leading source of NOx in urban areas of the U.S. On average across
the U.S., HDV NOx accounts for 16% of total NOx emissions, but in some cities this proportion
1266
-------
can be as high as 30%.5 Marginalized and minoritized communities are located closer to a higher
density of interstates, highways, and other major roads. For example, the number of major roads
within a kilometer of the least white communities in the U.S. was about 4.5 times higher than the
number in the most white communities.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 2]
5. Kerr, G. H.; Goldberg, D. L.; Anenberg, S. C. COVID-19 Pandemic Reveals Persistent
Disparities in Nitrogen Dioxide Pollution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021, 118 (30),
e2022409118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118.
The unique natural experiment provided by the COVID-19 pandemic allowed us to better
understand N02 disparities and the source of these disparities. Despite an approximately 50%
decrease in passenger vehicle activity during the early phase of the pandemic, we found that
N02 levels in marginalized and minoritized communities of the U.S. during the pandemic still
exceeded levels in non-marginalized and minoritized communities prior to the pandemic.5 The
modest impact that removing -50% of passenger vehicles from roadways had on N02 disparities
during the pandemic, the important contribution of HDVs to NOx emissions, and the colocation
of heavily trafficked roadways with marginalized and minoritized communities point to the
importance of HDVNOx emissions in creating and maintaining N02 inequality. Given their
impact, strengthening HDVNOx emissions standards is necessary to advance environmental
justice in the nation's most vulnerable communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1220-A1, p. 2]
5. Kerr, G. H.; Goldberg, D. L.; Anenberg, S. C. COVID-19
Pandemic Reveals Persistent Disparities in Nitrogen Dioxide
Pollution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2021, 118 (30), e2022409118.
https ://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.2022409118.
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
These adverse impacts are a preventable reality for people living in low-income areas and
communities of color because of their close proximity to high-traffic roadways and trucking
routes, bus depots, and goods movement facilities.4,5 These are the areas that scientists have
deemed 'diesel death zones' due to adverse environmental and health impacts linked to exposure
to toxic air pollutants in diesel exhaust.6 A recent study that utilized space-based observations of
NOx air pollution across 52 U.S. cities revealed the striking inequities in exposure for low-
income Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Indigenous people compared to white residents.7 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.l]
4 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1014874.pdf
5 https://www.lung.org/research/sota/key-findings/people-at-risk
6 https://grist.org/Array/seeking-environmental-justice-in-californias-diesel-death-zones/
7 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094333
1267
-------
Our legacy of discriminatory transportation and land use planning has placed people of color on
the frontlines of the climate crisis8,9 and in segregated communities that are overburdened by
the health damaging effects of exhaust from trucks and buses, power plants, construction sites,
and heavy industrial and manufacturing sites. 10 We have seen that chronic exposure to high
levels of air pollution in communities of color placed residents at higher risk of hospitalization
and death from global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. 11, 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1347-A1, p.2]
8 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
9 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-09/climate-vulnerability_september-
2021_508.pdf.
10 https://www.propublica.org/events/sacrifice-zones-communities-in-the-path-of-industrial-
pollution
11 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204717/
10 https://www.propublica.org/events/sacrifice-zones-communities
12 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gonzalo-Bacigalupe/publication/342496424_COVID-
19_Interconnectedness_Health_Inequity_the_Climate_Crisis_and_Collective_Trauma/links/5f42
6f5b92851cd3021f56e7/COVID-19-Interconnectedness-Health-Inequity-the-Climate-Crisis-and-
Collective-Trauma.pdf
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Finally, low-income communities and communities of color represent a higher fraction of
populations living along high heavy-duty vehicle traffic corridors and bear a disproportionately
high pollution burden from mobile sources. Reducing the ozone and particulate matter pollution
from heavy-duty trucks will improve health outcomes throughout Wisconsin. Most importantly,
it will take a critical step toward attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, improving air quality in
areas overburdened by pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 2]
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Pollution from trucks, buses, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles directly affects the
health of people who live near highways, ports, and depots. EPA's own analysis estimates that
72 million people in this country live within 200 meters of a truck freight route, and relative to
the rest of the population, people of color and those with lower incomes are more likely to live
near these transportation corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.l]
In addition to these ambient conditions, also of concern are the on-board emissions from the
diesel school buses that represent more than 90 percent of the 480,000 school buses on the road
today, transporting over 20 million students daily and driving 3.3 billion miles annually.
Children are particularly susceptible to the negative health effects of diesel exhaust from school
1268
-------
buses, a known carcinogen linked to reduced lung development and increased risk for asthma
and pneumonia in children, among other risks. In addition, there is evidence that reducing
diesel exhaust exposure can improve not only students' respiratory health, but also their
academic outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
Electric school buses, which produce zero tailpipe emissions, are the healthiest solution for all
students, bus drivers, and the communities they travel through. Because students from low-
income communities are more likely to ride a school bus - 60% of students from low-income
families ride the bus to school, compared to 45% of students from families with higher incomes -
a more stringent rule will advance the transition to an electric school bus fleet and
simultaneously help address this transportation inequity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1,
p.2]
Organization: Yellowstone Integrated Architecture and Construction
Dangerous nitrogen oxides and other pollution that heavy duty vehicles like trucks and buses
spew into our air hurt communities of color and low wealth communities first and worst, but
affect all of us, especially our children. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2816, p.l]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters pointed out the need to control emissions from heavy-duty vehicles to improve
public health and welfare, especially to those who live, work, or attend school close to major
roadways and in communities with EJ concerns.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. EPA agrees that actions to control emissions from heavy-duty
vehicles are necessary to improve public health and welfare. The standards in this rule will bring
about significant health benefits in the U.S., including to those who live, work, or attend school
close to major roadways and in communities with EJ concerns. EPA notes that, as explained in
preamble Sections I and III, EPA is promulgating these standards under our authority in CAA
section 202(a)(3)(A) and has appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified in that section.
Please refer to Section 1 of this document for responses to comments regarding concerns that the
proposal does not go far enough to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. Please refer to
Section 3 for responses to comments about the stringency of the proposed standards.
EPA is committed to taking decisive action to advance environmental justice and civil rights as
part of its FY2022-2026 Strategic Plan. This rulemaking advances that strategic goal by setting
stronger national emission standards for heavy duty engines and vehicles.
EPA acknowledges comments from many stakeholders on the impacts of COVID on
underserved communities. While we were not able to incorporate COVID 19 into our modeling,
we have evaluated the impacts we expect the rule to have on communities overburdened by
1269
-------
pollution; this analysis is included in preamble Section IV.H, with additional discussion on
environmental justice in preamble Sections II and XII.
24 Comparison of Benefits and Costs
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Cost-benefit analysis also supports establishing stringent standards in this rulemaking. EPA's
cost-benefit analysis should quantify the rule's climate benefits based on the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), and EPA should consider these benefits—as well as the additional
benefits from Commenters' proposed improvements—in finalizing the standards.
Organization: Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
It is not without meaning that EPA's own cost analysis demonstrates more stringent emissions
controls will actually cost less money and save more lives.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1323-
Al, p.6]
25 Proposed Regulation at p. 17589, Table IX-1.
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
MECA estimated that the proposed NOx reductions could be achieved with an approximate cost-
effectiveness from $1,000 to $5,000 per ton of NOx reduced. We used a cost-effectiveness
methodology that is based on both certification emission levels as well as in-use emissions
reported by CARB [40] following the 2017 Carl Moyer Guidelines [41], and assuming typical
heavy-duty engine power, load and annual use. Benefits were calculated for a vehicle's current
full useful life of 435,000 miles. The resulting range of cost-effectiveness values is due to
variability in vehicle and engine characteristics. For example, replacing a higher-emitting vehicle
that operates more frequently and lasts longer on the road will be more cost-effective than
replacing a lower-emitting vehicle that operates for less time. EPA's estimate of $2,000 per ton
NOx reduced for the 2010 heavy-duty NOx standards is within this range [42], and both are
significantly below the average cost of controls on stationary power plants and industrial NOx
sources, which have been reported to range from $2,000-$21,000 per ton [43], Similarly, CARB
estimated the cost-effectiveness for future low-NOx requirements to be approximately $6,000
per ton [44], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.27]
[40] S. Hu, C. Howard, D. Quiros, R. Ianni, W. Sobieralski, W. Ham, H. Sun, B. Yang, C.
Fehrenbacher, A. Vanzant, V. Sales, D. Chernich and T. Huai, 'Overview of CARB's Truck and
Bus Surveillance Program (TBSP): Findings and Implications,' in 29th CRC Real World
Emissions Workshop, Long Beach, 2019.
1270
-------
[41] CARB, 'Carl Moyer Program Guidelines,' 20 June 2017. [Online], Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/current.htm.
[42] 40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86, 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,'
Federal Register, pp. 5002-5193, 2001.
[43] U.S. EPA, 'Menu of Control Measures for NAAQS Implementation,' 20 October 2017.
[Online], Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
02/documents/menuofcontrolmeasures.pdf.
[44] CARB, 'California Air Resources Board Staff Current Assessment of the Technical
Feasibility of Lower NOx Standards and Associated Test Procedures for 2022 and Subsequent
Model Year Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines,' 2019.
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
It is well established that agencies should consider a range of regulatory alternatives in order to
properly evaluate the costs and benefits of a regulatory proposal. Executive Order 12,866
explains that "agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits" when
"choosing among alternative regulatory approaches."21 Accomplishing such a goal of
maximizing net benefits is impossible without first considering a broad range of alternatives at
different levels of stringency.22 The Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") Circular A-4
directs agencies to "describe the alternatives available to [the agency] and the reasons for
choosing one alternative over another "23 When, as here, there is a continuum of possible
alternatives based on the level of stringency, agencies "generally should analyze at least three
options: the preferred option; a more stringent option that achieves additional benefits
(and presumably costs more) beyond those realized by the preferred option; and a less stringent
option that costs less (and presumably generates fewer benefits) than the preferred option."24
Circular A-4 makes clear that an analysis that, as here, does not discuss the incremental costs and
benefits of alternatives is not adequate.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 5-6]
21. 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 §l(a) (Oct. 4, 1993).
22. See Richard L. Revesz & Samantha P. Yi, Distributional Consequences and
Regulatory Analysis, 52 ENV'T L. 53, 91-92.
23. OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, CIRCULAR A-4: REGULATORY
ANALYSIS 16 (2003).
24. Id.
25. Id.
1271
-------
Organization: Our Children's Trust
What is at stake in this proposed rule are lives of children—their health and safety. Nonetheless,
EPA's RIA applies discount rates of 3% and 7% to the benefits of reducing pollution. Even in
the context of 'valuing PM2.5-related premature mortality, we discount the value of
premature mortality occurring in future years using rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.'3 At
the same time EPA discounts the benefits of eliminating pollution substantially devaluing those
benefits for children today who will become adults in 20 years, or children born in 20 years and
beyond, EPA has also ignored 'future changes to climate [that] may create conditions more
conducive to forming ozone' and 'the potential for climate-induced changes in temperature to
modify the relationship between ozone and the risk of premature death.'4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1317-A1, p.2]
3 U.S. EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-D-22-001, at 388 (Mar. 2022).
4 Id.
The RIA does not include any valuation for the social cost of carbon ('SCC'). As we have
written in other comments, given the catastrophic harms to young people and future generations
posed by ongoing GHG pollution and the intergenerational injustice and lack of political power
of these generations, EPA should not be discounting the benefits accruing to those generations
when it makes decisions today that will profoundly affect their health and welfare and indeed
their ability to sustain life in their communities and in their homes. Please stop using this
discounting practice that is unjustified from any ethical, legal or economic perspective, and use a
zero percent discount rate and a meaningful valuation of the SCC. Discounting as conducted in
this RIA is not required by any law of Congress and it is unconstitutional. It has real-life
implications. EPA does not even evaluate alternative regulations that could 'cost' more in dollars
today to implement because it does not fully value the benefit of doing so. Every one of the RIAs
EPA has prepared in the past thirty years has systematically undervalued the benefit of stringent
pollution control to protect air quality, and human health and welfare, and discriminates against
children and future generations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, pp.2-3]
5 U.S. EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-D-22-001, at 3 (Mar. 2022).
EPA has in the past performed a sensitivity analysis with zero % discounting and discounting as
low as 2%. Please explain why EPA refuses for the past three decades to engage in that analysis
to provide a more accurate picture of the benefit cost analysis to children of today and
tomorrow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.3]
The RIA acknowledges that: 'The benefits associated with the standards presented here do not
include the full complement of health, environmental, and climate-related benefits that, if
quantified and monetized, would increase the total monetized benefits.'5 By monetizing all costs
and only a margin of the economic benefits (then substantially discounted) gives a very
imbalanced and inaccurate picture of the enormous benefits of stopping GHG pollution. The
1272
-------
totality of health and climate harms from these GHGs are well-documented and relevant to the
burdens imposed by the proposed rule on youth and future generations. EPA should provide a
very clear explanation up front that the monetized benefits are so undervalued that they outweigh
costs by an order of magnitude and provide some tangible explanation for the American public,
judges and policymakers to understand how substantially the benefits outweigh any costs. EPA
should also explain how the discounting process, which is not lawful, not authorized by
Congress, nor allowed constitutionally also gives a skewed view of the benefits of these
proposed regulations and has foreclosed EPA from evaluating even more protective regulations
that would care for the health of the youngest citizens and the voiceless future generations who
will live with the consequences of these rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.3]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
Using the foregoing numbers, on a per-vehicle basis, the proposed Option 1 low-NOx
regulations likely would have a costs-to-benefits ratio (or a negative benefits-to-costs ratio) on a
per-HHD-vehicle basis of approximately 10:1. As a result, Option 1 is not implementable. In
addition, EPA will need to revise Option 2 in a manner consistent with EMA's recommendations
to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the Agency's final low-NOx regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 144]
In light of the foregoing, the Agency will need to revise its RIA and benefits estimates, and make
the necessary changes to the resultant cost-benefit calculations before finalizing this rulemaking.
As it stands, it remains clear that the Agency's Option 1 proposal is cost-prohibitive. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 165]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenters made several observations about the comparison of costs and benefits
associated with the proposal, including that EPA's cost-benefit analysis should quantify the
rule's climate benefits based on the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), that costs and
benefits should be compared across alternatives, that there are unquantified benefits that, when
accounted for, would further increase net benefits, and that the Agency needs to revise its cost-
benefit calculations.
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenters' input and observations about the comparison of benefits
and costs in the proposal. EPA's benefit-cost analysis is consistent with applicable guidance and
best practices for conducting such analyses, including OMB Circular A-4 and EPA's Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses, including guidance on which discount rate estimates to apply,
and how to apply them, when monetizing benefits and costs. We consider our analysis consistent
with the guidance, methodologically rigorous, and a best estimate of the projected societal
benefits and costs associated with the proposed and final program. In the proposal, we found that
the benefits of both scenarios we analyzed, Option 1 and Option 2, far outweighed the costs
associated with those same scenarios (RIA Chapter 8 describes EPA's benefits methodology and
1273
-------
assumptions). See also our response in sections 18 and 21 of this document for further detailed
response about the appropriateness of EPA's cost and benefits methods.
We note that EPA is not taking final action at this time on the proposed revisions to certain
Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 standards. As a result, the benefits analysis for this final rulemaking
does not monetize the Social Cost of GHGs associated with reductions in GHG emissions related
to any changes to the Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 standards.
In setting the final emission standards, EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified
in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. We also evaluated additional factors, including
factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our assessment of these factors lends further support to the
final rule. For additional discussion on our assessment in setting the final standards, see sections
3.1 and 3.2 of this Response to Comments document and preamble Sections III, IV, and V.
EPA also acknowledges that the benefits associated with the proposed program do not include
the full complement of health and environmental benefits that, if quantified and monetized,
would increase the total monetized benefits. However, EPA demonstrated that the benefits it did
monetize would provide society with a substantial net gain in welfare. Unquantified benefits
generally scale with the emissions impacts of the proposed standards and benefits far outweighed
costs under each regulatory option. The omission of unquantified benefits did not impact the
Agency's evaluation of the proposed regulatory options.
25 Impact on vehicles sales, mode shift, fleet turnover
25.1 Commenters who Agree with the Conclusions of EPA's Sales
Analysis
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
And while EPA has previously found that sales impacts from heavy-duty emissions standards
were too uncertain to quantify—a position with which Commenters continue to agree—
Commenters generally endorse the Agency's conclusions regarding the potential sales impacts of
this rulemaking. Despite uncertainties, Commenters agree with EPA that the adverse sales
impacts, if any, from proposed Option 1 (including pre-buy and low-buy effects) are likely to be
minimal and short lived. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.8]
EPA has previously declined to quantify the sales impacts of heavy-duty regulations,
determining that adverse impacts were not certain to occur, and that it was not possible to isolate
the effects of the standards from other, potentially stronger, factors, such as broader
1274
-------
macroeconomic conditions. In the 2011 Phase 1 GHG standards, EPA and NHTSA noted that
'whether pre-buy or delayed purchase is likely to play a significant role in the truck market
depends on the specific behaviors of purchasers in that market,' and explained that the Agencies
would not project fleet turnover effects '[wjithout additional information' about the likelihood of
future market conditions. EPA & NHTSA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, 76 Fed. Reg. 57,106,
57,332 (Sept. 15, 2011). Similarly, in the 2014 Tier 3 standards, EPA explained that it had 'not
attempted to estimate explicitly the effects of the rule on scrappage of older vehicles and
the turnover of the vehicle fleet,' because it did not 'have a good estimate of the effect of new
vehicle price changes on vehicle turnover.' EPA, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles:
Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, 79 Fed. Reg. 23,414, 23,617 (Apr. 28, 2014).
And most recently, in the 2016 Phase 2 GHG standards, EPA and NHTSA again declined to
project sales and turnover effects, explaining that while the standards might affect sales to some
degree, 'the size of that effect is likely to be swamped' by macroeconomic conditions, and that it
was 'unlikely to be possible to separate the effects of the existing standards from other
confounding factors.' 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,875.255 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.69-
70]
255 CARB similarly declined to attempt to estimate sales impacts from the
Omnibus, observing that while some studies had explored the relationship
between general cost increases and purchasing behavior, they resulted in a 'very
wide range' of 'highly uncertain' estimates, which CARB cautioned 'may change
markedly in the span of only several years due to the dynamics of industry, and
modern global economics.' CARB, Attachment B to Resolution 20-23, Response
to Comments on the Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Omnibus Regulation and Associated Amendments 14 (Aug.
26, 2020).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2020/hdomnibuslownox/res
20-23attbrtc.pdf.
We recognize that EPA has now developed a peer-reviewed methodology to estimate the sales
impacts of heavy-duty regulations, which it suggests could be applied in the final rule. While we
do not think EPA should quantify sales effects in the final rule, for the reasons noted above in the
previous rulemakings, we do concur in the Agency's ultimate conclusion that any such effects
are likely to be minimal and short-lived. According to the Agency's example results, proposed
Option 1 is unlikely to cause extensive or long-lasting adverse sales impacts, with potential pre-
and low-buy for Class 8 trucks ranging 'from zero to approximately two percent increase in sales
over a period of up to 8 months before the 2031 standards begin (pre-buy), and a decrease in
sales from zero to approximately two percent over a period of up to 12 months after the 2031
standards begin (low-buy).' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,429. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.70]
As EPA's analysis of previous, comparable heavy-duty regulations determined, historical pre-
buy/low-buy effects have been limited—where there is evidence that they have even occurred at
all.256 Specifically, these effects have been shown to be limited by vehicle type (with 'some
evidence for Class 8 vehicles' but no such evidence for Classes 6 or 7257), limited in magnitude
(with '[s]mall' pre-buy effects for Class 8 vehicles prior to the 2010 and 2014 regulations258),
1275
-------
and limited in duration (with 'some evidence for Class 8 vehicles of short-term pre-buy and low-
buy' lasting 'typically less than 8 months'259).260 And on the limited occasions when both pre-
buy and low-buy effects have occurred in the past, they often cancel each other out in a matter of
months, with a net sales impact of zero.261 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.70-71]
256 EPA, Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to New Regulation
at 8-16 , EPA-420-R-21-013 (2021),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm?dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTA
Q.
257 Id. at 8.
258 Id.
259 Id.
260 See id. at 9 ('Pre-buy and low-buy effects, where they occur, are short lived,
with the period of significance not extending beyond 8 months pre and post
regulation.').
261 See id. at 20 (citing Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watkins's (2018) finding that
pre-buy prior to the 2007 regulation was 'followed by a near-symmetrical
reduction in sales in the months immediately after the regulation went into
effect—for an overall near zero net sales impact'); National Academies of
Sciences Engineering and Medicine, Reducing Fuel Consumption and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two:
Final Report 329 (2020), https://doi.org/10.17226/25542 ('The pre-buy and low-
buy impacts [of the 2007 standards] were short-lived and small in volume.. .and
they roughly canceled out, leaving an insignificant net impact on sales.').
Moreover, while there is mixed evidence of limited pre-buy and low-buy behaviors surrounding
some prior heavy-duty vehicle regulations, the evidence is neither definitive nor predictably
consistent across regulations or vehicles. As EPA concluded from its literature review, 'pre-buy
and low-buy do not occur universally. These effects do not appear to show up in all rules, or for
Class 7 vehicles.'262 In fact, in the case of the 2010 regulations, Class 7 vehicles actually
showed some evidence of reduced sales before the implementation of the regulations, and
increased sales after the implementation of the regulations—the opposite of pre-buy/low-buy and
contrary to a simplistic assumption that higher expected regulatory costs necessarily result in
greater adverse sales impacts, given that the 2007-2010 regulations 'are largely seen as the most
extensive (and expensive) HDV emissions standards.'263 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
P-71]
262 EPA, Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to New Regulation
at 99.
263 Id. at 39.
1276
-------
Similarly, not all purchasers can be expected to engage in the same kind of behavior in response
to regulations. For example, smaller firms, which make up a plurality of trucking companies,
'typically have lower pricing power, and as such are less likely to engage in pre-buy, low-buy, or
class-shifting behavior.'264 Likewise, contrary to claims regularly advanced by industry
advocates, trucking firms' responses to increased costs 'may not always follow what would be
expected by theory.'265 Studies 'suggest that trucking companies may pass on, and recoup (or
more than recoup) certain costs, and that economic responses to HDV emissions regulations may
be more complex than anticipated and may be counterintuitive in certain respects.'266 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.71]
264 Id. at 16.
265 Id. at 43.
266 Id.
Further, as EPA noted in its 2021 analysis, '[g]iven the high relative costs of [HDVs], we also do
not expect much of a pre-buy effect, as any advantage associated with increasing early purchases
because of anticipated HDV price increases are offset by the costs of managing excess vehicle
capacity, which can be expensive, or selling or scrapping older stock.'267 Commenters agree
with this assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.71]
267 Id. at 54.
Commenters also strongly support EPA's view that the extended useful life and warranty periods
of proposed Option 1—in addition to ensuring critical real-world emissions reductions—are
likely to reduce the potential for adverse sales impacts. As EPA explains, ' [t]his is because
longer useful life periods are expected to make emission control technology components more
durable, and more durable components, combined with manufacturers paying for repairs during
the proposed longer warranty periods, would in turn reduce repair costs for vehicle owners.' 87
Fed. Reg. at 17,590. The reduced repair costs can be expected to alleviate some of the effect of
increased vehicle purchase costs, and '[a]s a result, they may reduce incentives for pre- and low-
buy and mitigate adverse sales impacts.' Id. at n.785. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
pp.71-72]
The Proposal's reliance on familiar technology, combined with the enhanced durability and
warranty provisions, means that purchasers can be expected to face reduced incentives to engage
in pre-buy behavior in response to these standards. See Comments of MFN, to be filed in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 on May 16, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.72]
Finally, Commenters' proposed improvements to the GHG standards can also be expected to
reduce the potential for adverse sales impacts of the standards. Manufacturers often improve the
fuel efficiency of their vehicles as part of their strategy for complying with GHG standards,
which are less likely to cause adverse sales impacts because the benefits of fuel savings accrue to
the vehicle purchaser, thereby lowering transport costs and stimulating the economy.270 Fuel
efficiency and GHG standards also reduce the impact of fuel price volatility on new vehicle
1277
-------
demand, and insulate manufacturers and workers from fuel price shocks, leading to more stable
sales and employment numbers.271 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.72]
270 See Katherine Rittenhouse & Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins, Anticipation and
Environmental Regulation, 89 J. Envtl. Econ. & Mgmt. 255, 267 (2018).
271 See id.; Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins, Analysis of Market Impacts of GHG
and Fuel-Economy Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (May 11, 2015),
attachment to Comment of EDF on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase
2 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827) (Aug. 16, 2016).
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (1265 and 2855)
Certain companies continue to inaccurately make the argument that protective pollution
standards disrupt the market for new trucks because of a pre-buy/low buy phenomenon. These
arguments are based almost entirely on inflated cost projections for compliance with EPA
Option 1, which aligns with the California Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule, including assumed
substantial additional costs for replacing diesel NOx controls based on warranty and extended
useful life provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.25-26]
However, CARB's cost projections are reasonable and indeed, similar claims related to past
standards have proven incorrect. For instance, some companies often incorrectly cite the
2006/2007 emissions standards as an example of standards that caused a pre-buy/low-buy effect.
A prior analysis by EDF has shown that standards, including the 2007 standards, did not
meaningfully result in 'pre-buy' or 'low-buy.'108 The study found that the net impact of the 2007
criteria standards on sales, and likely employment, was quite small. 109 Instead, GDP, the price
of diesel fuel, and controls for annual and month-of-year differences described the vast majority
of the variation in sales and employment, 110 Failing to control for these underlying economic
trends biases analysis of the impact of regulation. Ill The study found that other previous criteria
pollutant standards, in 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2010, also had no impact on new-vehicle sales. 112
The study concluded that the empirical evidence suggests that compliance with criteria pollutant
standards has not generally caused a demand shift or net impact on new-vehicle sales. 113 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.26]
108 Analysis of Market Impacts of GHG and Fuel-Economy Standards for Heavy
Duty Vehicles by Dr. Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins in comments of Environmental
Defense Fund on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2; Proposed Rule, 80
Fed. Reg. 40138 (July 13, 2015), EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1971,
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-1971; See also
Katherine Rittenhouse and Matthew Zaragoza-Watkins, Anticipation and
Environmental Regulation, Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 89, 255-277 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/jjeem.2018.03.005.
109 Id.
1278
-------
110 Id.
111 Id.
112 Id.
113 Id.
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
A frequent industry claim that EPA should forcefully reject in response to comments is that new
emission standards cause a "pre-buy/no-buy" phenomenon. The theory goes that complying with
new standards comes at an exorbitant cost, causing fleets to stock up on older truck models
before the new standard comes into effect ("pre-buy") resulting in a sharp decrease in sales after
the standard begins ("no-buy"). Because of this wild oscillation in demand, manufacturers claim
standards will result in job cuts—something they claim happened with previous heavy-duty
vehicle emission standards. Any scrutiny of the impact of past emission standards on purchasing
behavior shows that manufacturers are superimposing trendlines and erroneously calling that a
causal relationship. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 38]
A more rigorous econometric approach was conducted to evaluate the 2007 federal truck
emission update impact on truck sales. The analysis found that regulatory "anticipation" caused a
spike in truck sales before the rule began, followed by a slump once it came into effect. 154 But,
critically, the spike and slump were extremely short-lived (only seven months before and after),
and caused by other macroeconomic factors (GDP and oil price changes). Moreover, the number
of vehicle sales impacted was small, roughly 30,000 nationally, and almost 30 percent of these
sales were attributable to GDP and oil price changes. In fact, further examination of historical
Class 3-8 sales data shows a clear correlation between decreased truck sales and periods of
economic downturn (Figure 6). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 38 - 39]
154.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0095069617306848?via%
3Dihub
Further, the 2007 standard required an entirely new emission control technology. In comparison,
the 2010 federal truck standard, which the report also evaluated, only required minor
improvements to existing technology and did not experience any pre-buy/no-buy behavior. This
is vital because an enhanced version of EPA's Option 1 that aligns with the Heavy-Duty
Omnibus rule only necessitates improvements to existing technology, not entirely new
technologies, and is much more similar to the 2010 update. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al, p. 39]
Additionally, the only cost data that manufacturers can point to comes from an unverifiable
survey conducted on their members with wildly inflated projections. In contrast, numerous third
parties, including the California Air Resources Boardl56 and the manufacturers of emission
control systems, 157 have published extensive cost projections that are orders of magnitude less
1279
-------
than the industry survey. Many of these studies are backed by actual lab testing and all results are
publicly available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 39 - 40]
156. California Air Resources Board Staff Report on the Warranty Cost Study for
2022 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy-duty Diesel Engines.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/warranty _cost_study_final_report.pdf.
157. https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf,
pp. 24-25.
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Some commenters, including a comment from Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law &
Policy Center, National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club (CATF, et. al), agreed
with EPA's analysis of the proposed rule, specifically stating that pre- and low-buy sales effects
will be limited and short-lived. CATF, et, al also stated that, though they agree that any sales
effects are likely to be minimal and short-lived, EPA should not quantify the sales effects in the
final rule, highlighting uncertainties EPA noted in previous HD rulemakings with respect to
estimating sales and fleet turnover effects. EDF and MFN further commented that pre- and low-
buy sales effects analyses by some manufacturers rely on inflated cost projections and "an
unverifiable survey," as opposed to published, public cost projections which are often backed by
lab testing.
Commenters, including CATF, et. al, EDF and MFN pointed out that there is evidence of limited
pre- and low-buy from previous HD standards, with EDF and MFN stating that the sales effects
around the 2007 standards can be largely explained by changes in factors such as GDP and the
price of oil or diesel. CATF, et.al commented that the familiar technology available to meet this
proposed regulation's standards, as well as the increased durability and warranty provisions
proposed, would lead to reduced incentive for pre-buy. Similarly, MFN commented that the
proposed standards could be met with mostly existing technology, "similar to the 2010 update,"
which the commenter stated resulted in minimal pre- and low-buy.
Response:
EPA maintains our assessment that any possible sales effects of the final rule are likely to be
minimal and short lived, see RIA Chapter 10 for more detail. EPA agrees that there are many
uncertainties associated with estimating pre-buy and low-buy, including those discussed in past
rules. For this reason, we have presented the sales analysis for this rule as an illustrative
example. EPA agrees that the costs used by some manufacturers to analyze possible pre- and
low-buy effects from the proposed rule were larger than the publicly available cost estimates
EPA used in the proposed analysis, as well as the cost estimates used in the final rule analyses.
See RIA Chapter 7 for more information on the cost estimates used in the final rule analyses, and
1280
-------
section 18 of this document for EPA's response to commenters' cost estimates submitted to the
docket on the proposed rule.
EPA agrees that macroeconomic factors are the main driver of changes in HD vehicle sales, as
shown in the peer reviewed EPA report "Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to
New Regulation" (EPA sales impacts report).57 Though EPA disagrees with MFN's
characterization of the 2010 standards as an update to the 2007 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Rule, noting that the "2010 update" refers to the full phase-in of that rule, we agree that the
standards in this final rule can be met with technologies that are an evolution of today's
emissions control technologies.
25.2 Commenters who Disagree With our Analysis and Provide
Supporting Data from ACT Research, Ricardo or Ramboll
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• EPA has also underestimated the potential impact of "pre-buy" and "low-buy" behavior.
Based on data submitted with these comments, Allison believes that these periods will be
both more extensive and of greater impact to vehicle sales, particularly with respect to the
two-phased approach adopted in Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.6]
EPA has proposed two-different options with regard to the stringency of new standards to control
emissions of nitrogen oxides ("NOx") from heavy-duty vehicles ("HDVs"). EPA is also taking
comments on the range of alternative standards that lie between the two options. 5 On the whole,
Allison supports the single-phase regulatory structure of Option 2, rather than imposing two
different sets of standards in Model Years ("MYs) 2027 and 2031 under Option 1. As indicated
in more detail below, the imposition of new standards for heavy-duty commercial vehicles has
historically been preceded by a "pre-buy" period where trucking companies and other fleet and
individual purchasers seek to avoid a step-up in price and change in emissions architecture for
vehicles that will be used in their business. This is followed by a downturn in business after the
new standards take effect (the "low-buy" period). Thus, rather than smoothing out any pre-buy
period by phasing-in two sets of standards taking effect within four years of each other, Allison
believes that EPA's Option 1 would likely exacerbate the turmoil that normally attaches to the
imposition of new standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.7]
5 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,421.
Under Option 1, it is likely that pre-buys would start before 2027, followed by decreases in
demand that would extend well into the 2030s. Many vehicle buyers, when confronting new
requirements in the second phase of Option 1, would seek to avoid a step-up in costs, changes in
proven technology, and the costs of new maintenance procedures. These potential buyers —
57 The full document can be found on EPA's Science Inventory website:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm7dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ and in the docket on this rule
1281
-------
having purchased during the "pre-buy" period or during the first phase of Option 1 —would
likely not re-enter the market for some time after the MY 2031 standards were implemented. As
provided below, Allison's data indicates that EPA may have underestimated this "pre-buy" effect
by orders of magnitude in the vocational vehicle market. Overall, Allison believes that Option 1
has the potential to extend economic dislocation and, with it, create market inefficiencies that
will raise the ultimate cost of a transition to cleaner HDV technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.7]
EPA has projected that Option 1 would result in a pre-buy of approximately zero to 2 percent
and a corresponding decrease in sales of the same magnitude for up to 12 months following
implementation of the 2031 Option 1 standards.44 EPA bases this estimate, in part, on a study of
previous transitions in regulatory standards in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2014.45 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.19]
44 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,429.
45 Id. at 17,590. See also: RIA Chapter 10.1
As the RIA notes, however, the results of EPA's study vary by regulation. In the month prior to
the implementation of the 2014 regulations, pre-buy activity reached 13.2 percent.46 In other
months prior to implementation of the same standard, particularly those further away from the
implementation date, the percentages of pre-buy were generally lower and included months
where no change was detected.47 Thus, assuming an averaged zero to 2 percent effect as across
all vehicles may not be justified or fully reveal the actual real-world effects (including volatility
in sales) that may be experienced in different segments of the market. While the RIA notes that
there are several limitations to EPA's analysis, including the observation that other effects of the
proposed rule apart from price could have an impact on buying behavior, neither EPA or the
outside study attempted to further quantify how different vocational vehicle or Class 7-8 tractors
could be affected by pre-buy and low-buy behavior. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
P-19]
46 Table 10-2, RIA at 410.
47 Id.
In general, Allison believes that a more significant pre-buy and low-buy than EPA analysis has
projected should be expected. As reflected in Table 4 below, Allison has conducted an analysis
using ACT Research's historical North America build data pulled in April. This data represents
the CL6/7/8 North American On-Highway portfolio over previous fifteen-year period, i.e., for
2006-2021 sales, and shows that there are substantial differences in how new EPA criteria and
GHG regulations have affected vehicle sales.48 In many cases, the pre-buy and low-buy effects
are substantially more than projected by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p. 19]
48 In reviewing Table 4, it should be noted that most of Allison's fully
automatic transmission sales during this fifteen-year period were
attributable to vocational truck and bus sales in classes 4 through 8. In the
1282
-------
chart above, the 2000 series was used in Class 4/5 walk-in vans and class
6/7 pickup & delivery vehicles as well as school buses. The 3000 series
was utilized in Class 6/7 and 8 vocational trucks as well as Class 8 transit
and school buses. The 4000 series was used in Class 8 vocational vehicles.
Allison Transmission performed an analysis using ACT Research data pulled from April 2021,
supporting finalization of Option 2 to moderate anticipated pre-buy and low-buy effects. See
Appendix 3. Specifically, based on a review of our analysis, we would note that:
• Allison analysis of ACT Research historical build data reflects a more significant pre-
buy/low-buy effect from the EPA 2007 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Rule than EPA
projects for the current rulemaking. Across weight classes CL6/7/8, pre-buy activity
ranged up to 47-56%, far exceeding EPA assumption of 0-2% pre-buy resulting from the
proposed emission standards. While Allison data regarding EPA's Phase 1 and Phase 2
GHG rules show lower relative effects, they are still above EPA projections.
• In addition, based on the same data for the 2007 rule, EPA's estimate of low-buy impacts
is almost certainly underestimated. As reflected above, both the extent and duration of the
low buy period exceeds what EPA estimates for this rulemaking. In comparison with
EPA 0-2% twelve-month estimate, one-year impacts during 2006-2007 ranged from 28 to
44%. And these effects persisted beyond twelve months duration. Allison analysis using a
smoothed average based off of ACT Research data reflects approximately six years of
lower-than-average sales from 2007-2013. (based on fifteen-year build average 2006-
2021).
• Pre-buy and low-buy effects were not limited to Class 8, rather sales data shows
substantial prebuy and low-buy activity in medium- and heavy-duty Class 6/7 vehicles.
Our analysis of data showed evidence of stronger pre-buy effects for Class 6/7 (56%
above fifteen-year average) compared to Class 8 in 2007 (47% above fifteen-year
average)
• Pre-buy and low-buy effects showed similar patterns across all CL6/7/8 vocations
industry-wide Additional detail by vocation is provided in Appendix 2. 49 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.20]
49 One possible explanation is that the Heavy Heavy-Duty Class 8 engine
design capability allowing rebuild may lead to stronger low-buy affects
without as much related pre-buy activity, compared to Medium Heavy -
Duty engines which showed stronger pre-buy activity.
EPA also requested comment on impact from events external to industry. A high level of year
over year volatility is common in commercial vehicle markets due to replacement cycles and
multi-year capital planning at the fleet level. Allison's analysis in Table 4 above smooths
averages during multi-year periods to better understand sustained impacts over a longer period of
time. At EPA's request we included some one-year impacts in Table 5. In general, Allison
believes that external events can create significant volatility. However, unlike regulatory impacts
which are more easily factored into replacement cycles and capital planning by fleets, external
events can be more challenging to anticipate and therefore can have sharp one-year impacts and
1283
-------
rebounds as industry and customers recover (as in 2019-2020 COVID-19 and 2021 recovery as
GHG Phase 2 began). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.20]
External events can also exacerbate a period of pre-buy / low-buy, e.g., as was experienced
during the Great Recession of 2008 that took place before full phase in of 2010 NOx standards.
Specifically:
• As the previous NOx standards began to be partially phased in during 2006 to 2007, on-
highway sales and industry builds dropped 28% to 44% across Class 6/7/8. These effects
also persisted in subsequent years.
• Builds dropped 34% to 42% from 2008 to 2009. In this period of time, a reasonable
assumption could be made that external factors like the Great Recession of 2008
contributed to the decline. But the market stayed lower than the fifteen-year average for
an extended period (2007-2013) even during a time period when the U.S. economy could
be viewed as being in full recovery. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that other factors,
such as the impact of stricter NOx regulations combined with external factors to cause a
decrease in builds. In our analysis within Table 4, Allison chose to smooth the average
across multiple years to show short term and sustained regulatory effects of the previous
NOx rulemaking and avoid relying on any particular year, such as 2009, when there were
unclear reasons for low sales apart from prevailing economic conditions.
• Builds also dropped 30% to 38% over 2019 to 2020 which one could assume may be
attributed, in large part, to the economic impacts flowing from COVID. In contrast
however, these, this unexpected setback could not be factored into end-user buy cycles
ahead of time, and builds rebounded 5% to 23% in 2021 despite continuing supply-chain
headwinds. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.21]
North America Commercial Vehicle Production forecasts from ACT Research's Charging
Forward 1st Edition CEV study in Q1 2021 project a nearly 26% drop in Class 4-8 vehicle sales
from 2026-2027 that may be attributed to pre-buy in 2026 and the costs that would flow from
regulations to be implemented in 2027. (For further detail, see Appendix 2). When Allison
sought permission from ACT Research to share our analysis based on ACT Research, we
understood that ACT Research is engaging in further study of pre-buy and low-buy of 2027
regulations in a forthcoming report, and there may be minor differences in the developing report
compared to Allison analysis of ACT Research data. However, ACT Research reviewed and
agreed with the general trends Allison Transmission analysis reflects within this comment.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, p.21]
Overall, Allison believes that this pre-buy and low-buy analysis is an important consideration for
determining the level of control required by the final rule. Given this importance, EPA should
conduct a sensitivity analysis of different levels of economic impact this rule may have prior to
finalizing the final rule, particularly considering that initial cost of equipment and lower
compliance margin may drive more severe effects for Option 1 compared to Option 2. 50 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.21-22]
50 EPA should make such analysis available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
1284
-------
Allison also believes Option 1 benefits are overcounted in Proposed Rule due to an expectation
that higher indirect costs, greater compliance risks from insufficient margin, and a two-step
phase-in rule structure could undermine EPA goals through pre-buy and low-buy effects. Allison
believes that EPA analysis of 8-month pre-buy and 12- month low buy only to CL8 at 0-2% is a
severe underestimation and that EPA should engage in further sensitivity analysis modeling a
moderate pre-buy with Option 2 and a more severe and protracted pre-buy with Option 1 prior to
finalization of rule.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-Al, p.22]
Comparing sales during periods transitioning in EPA/NHTSA Phase 1 GHG and fuel efficiency
program and Heavy-Duty Phase 2, one can note that GHG rulemakings have less apparent pre-
buy, low-buy affects compared to the 2007 NOx rulemaking. There could of course be many
reasons for this variability, but one aspect could be that the technology to reduce GHG emissions
may positively impact total operating costs for the buyer and/or lead to the perception that such
technology will have a lesser impact on vehicle maintenance and related uptime that could affect
the mission of affected vehicles. Based on our review of the proposed rule, the associated draft
RIA and our own data, Allison would encourage the following actions: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1231-A1, p.22]
• EPA should further consider historical data from 2007 HD Engine and Vehicle Rule to
check assumptions regarding the impact of additional NOx regulation on commercial
vehicles during this timeframe on sales. Allison's analysis based on ACT Research data
exceeds the estimated impacts that EPA has relied on in this rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.22]
Allison would also encourage EPA to carefully consider the potential impacts of increased prices
for engines/vehicles that could result from extended emission warranty and useful life provisions
and how these impacts could affect pre-buy and low-buy periods. As noted above, warranty and
useful life periods are proposed to undergo a substantial increase in length, up to 6 times for
some vehicle categories. This level of increase also follows an extended period during which
warranty periods have not changed, potentially increasing the level of uncertainty for those
manufacturers who will need to price-in the extended periods into an engine/vehicle sales price.
In terms of relevant data, EPA should consider the price impacts flowing from the California Air
Resources Board's Step 1 increase that took effect with MY 2022.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, pp.22-23]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
ATD has long supported continuous emission improvements for HDEs. At the same time, ATD
has suggested consistently that any new emissions mandates must not compromise the
affordability, reliability, fuel economy, and/or serviceability of HDEs and CMVs. This position
reflects the fact that prospective customers will avoid purchasing or leasing new CMVs which
cost too much, offer performance compromises, or pose risks of unacceptable downtime. CMV
customers purchase or lease new equipment only when necessary to meet the needs of their
private or for-profit business models and use cases. New medium- and heavy-duty CMVs are
expensive, but unlike high-priced light-duty vehicles, they are not luxuries but specially built to
1285
-------
do a wide variety of jobs in a reliable and cost-effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1321-A1, p. 1]
Appropriately structured HDE NOx standards must involve a national, wholistic approach to
reducing the impact of CMVs on air quality. Specifically, EPA must only adopt new HDE
emission standards that will enhance (and not delay) fleet turnover. If EPA instead moves too
far, too fast, as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other states have done, the cost
of new CMVs will increase dramatically even as their performance degrades, resulting in a
decline in the otherwise applicable rate of fleet turnover and environmental
improvement.3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 2]
3. In October 2021, several states urged EPA to adopt CARB's newly adopted
HDE NOx Omnibus mandates. ATD categorically opposes EPA's adoption of
those mandates.
Together, the higher CMV prices and operating costs that directly stemmed from EPA's 2002-10
HDE NOx standards led to a significant disruption of the new CMV marketplace, leading to lost
employment, lost profits, and even the shuttering of some businesses. New CMV customers
acted rationally and predictably to avoid higher new CMV prices and performance compromises.
Many opted to pre-buy new CMVs equipped with older HDEs. Others opted to hold onto their
existing equipment for longer than they otherwise planned to. Still others met their business
needs by seeking out late model used CMVs. Employees suffered, the industry suffered, and the
environment suffered as fleet turnover ground to a halt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p.
2]
This history must not be repeated. EPA must ensure that the new NOx mandates for MY 2027
and later will be technologically feasible and cost effective, both up front and over the useful life
of the HDEs they will apply to. Otherwise, if faced with products that are too costly up front, too
expensive to operate, or too unreliable, prospective new CMV buyers will once again opt to pre-
buy CMVs equipped with older HDEs, opt to hold onto older CMVs longer, or opt for the used
truck market. In addition to disrupting CMV suppliers, manufacturers, dealers, and the
employees who work for them, the resulting delay in fleet turnover will undermine the
continuous environmental improvements we all seek. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 2]
Based on industry cost analyses and data related to the marketplace reactions to EPA's MY
2002-2010 HDE NOx standards, ATD is concerned that EPA's proposed NOx standards,
assuming that they are even achievable, will cause CMV prices to skyrocket, resulting in reduced
fleet turnover and an increase in the average age of the on-road CMV fleet. The most effective
near term option for reducing CMV NOx emissions is to accelerate the turnover of the on-road
CMV fleet. Currently, the average age of CMVs on the road in the U.S. is over 14 years.7
Consequently, almost 50% of the in-use CMV fleet is equipped with pre-MY 2010 HDEs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 4]
7. Association for the Work Truck Industry, Aging Trucks Create More Service
Opportunities, (Nov. 2019).
1286
-------
Given RSC's projected average CMV price increase, ATD concludes that EPA's proposed
Option 1 NOx standards could have a major disruptive impact on new CMV sales resulting from
a major pre-buy/no buy, a significant deferral of new CMV sales, and a spike in later model used
CMV purchases prior to 2031. This conclusion runs counter to EPA's suggestion that a pre- and
low-buy for Class 8 trucks may range from zero to an approximately two percent increase in
sales over a period of up to 8 months before the 2031 standards begin (pre-buy), and a decrease
in sales from zero to approximately two percent over a period of up to 12 months after the 2031
standards begin (low-buy). 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 4]
10. 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17590.
Figure 1 below, which graphs annual retail Class 4-8 CMV sales between 2000 and 2010, shows
how prospective new truck purchasers rushed to "pre-buy" trucks equipped with pre-compliant
technologies to avoid the cost and performance impacts of EPA's NOx mandates. A surge of
orders began in 2002 for the pre-MY 2004 equipment, after which orders slumped significantly.
In 2006, orders surged for pre-MY 2007 equipment, and then fell off precipitously. Lastly, in the
2009 timeframe, orders increased for pre-MY 2010 equipped trucks. In each instance, the new
CMV marketplace recognized, anticipated, and sought to avoid the higher prices and poorer
performance of the phased-in NOx mandate-compliant equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1321-A1, p. 5]
U.S. Retail Sales of Heavy Duty Trucks
550,000
„ 500,000
TO 450,000
- 400,000
£ 350,000
"to 300,000
| 250,000
< 200,000
150,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Years
It would be unconscionable for EPA to adopt new NOx mandates that would result in a similar
scenario given the negative economic and employment impacts that would result and, as
importantly, the lost emissions reduction benefits associated with a slowdown in fleet
turnover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 5]
In addition to undermining anticipated environmental benefits, delays in CMV fleet turnover
caused by new EPA NOx reduction mandates, by increasing the average age of trucks and
tractors on the road, will exacerbate reliability and safety concerns. Simply put, older CMVs are,
on average, not as clean, green, safe, and reliable as newer vehicles. As noted above and detailed
1287
-------
in Appendix B, when faced with higher truck pricing and lower truck performance, prospective
new CMV truck customers acted rationally and held on to their older equipment longer. This
delayed turnover resulted in an aging fleet largely made up of CMVs built prior to 2004. Figure 2
below indicates that the age of the class 8 fleet increased to 6.6 years, about 11 months older than
the historical average dating back to 1979. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 5]
7
6.8
Irt
1_
ro
6.6
at
6.4
>-
c
6.2
aj
w>
6
<
0)
5.8
ClO
ro
5.6
01
<
5.4
5.2
5
Average Age: U.S. Class 8 Active Population
1990-2013 Projected
^ ^ O?
VVVVVVVVVVTTTTtTTTTTTTTt
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA's proposed standards would impose inordinate costs upon manufacturers and vehicle
owners alike and thus present a significant possibility of market-disrupting pre-buy and no-buy
scenarios.9 As acknowledged in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA's regulatory
program must be premised upon the availability of 'technically feasible, cost-effective
technologies to achieve the [desired emission] reductions in the 2027-2031 timeframe at
reasonable cost per vehicle, with no compromise to vehicle or safety.' 10 EPA has not, however,
proposed standards and requirements with 'reasonable' per-vehicle costs. Both the Proposed
Rule and accompanying draft RIA dramatically underestimate the increased costs to achieve
compliance with the proposal, which ultimately would be borne at every level of the heavy-duty
transportation industry. As discussed in more detail in Section II.B.2 of these comments, the
anticipated manufacturing cost increases will have ripple effects across the United States and
world economies—potentially disincentivizing the production of certain classes of vehicles,
which in turn may constrain the options available for affordable domestic freight transportation.
To fulfill its statutory obligation to give 'appropriate consideration' to costs, EPA must fully
account for these impacts in its cost analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.l 1]
9 While Daimler Truck focuses primarily here on increased incremental technology,
warranty, and other direct/indirect compliance costs, we also note that paperwork burdens
would increase under EPA's proposal. The Proposed Rule implicates a number of
information collection activities, all of which will significantly increase compliance
burdens and costs for manufacturers. Daimler Truck has reviewed EPA's 'Supporting
Statement for Information Collection Request' (EPA ICR Number 2621.01) (April 19,
1288
-------
2022) and notes that EPA's summary—in particular the respondent burden and cost
estimates in Table 3 of the 'Supporting Statement'—captures some but perhaps not all of
the information collection burdens and costs accompanying implementation of the
Proposed Rule. These costs should not only be factored in to OMB's consideration of the
Proposed Rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act, but should also be accounted for in
evaluating whether EPA's proposal reflects adequate consideration of costs as required
under CAA Section 202.
10 See EPA, Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards, Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (March 2022) ('Draft RIA').
EPA's conclusions regarding anticipated effects of the Proposed Rule on HD vehicles (e.g.,
sales, mode shift, fleet turnover) similarly undermine the lessons of past industry experience,
including the Agency's projections that the market would likely see a modest 'pre-buy' scenario
for Class 8 trucks under proposed Option 1 (around a 0-2% increase over a period of up to 8
months before the 2031 standards begin) and a similarly modest 'low-buy' scenario (namely a 0-
2% decrease in sales over a period up to 12 months after the 2013 standards begin).53 EPA
opines that the expected dramatic increases in vehicle purchase price will be offset by reduced
operating costs, reasoning that longer useful life periods will make emission control technology
components more durable, and more durable components—combined with manufacturers paying
for repairs during the proposed longer warranty periods—would in turn reduce repair costs for
vehicle owners. Through this reasoning, EPA reaches the conclusion that these combined effects
may increase sales of new HD vehicles 'if fleets and independent owner-operators prefer to
purchase more durable vehicles with overall lower repair costs.'54 Yet EPA has not, nor can it,
provide empirical or historic support for this assertion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P-20]
53 Id. (noting that if pre-buy and low-buy behaviors occur, then the initially projected
emission reductions are likely to be smaller than expected).
54 Id. (noting, however, that EPA is unable to quantify these effects because existing
literature does not provide clear guidance on the relationship between warranty changes,
price increases due to increased warranty periods, and sales impacts).
Further, it is notable that EPA anticipates no change in the price or mode of freight transportation
associated with the regulatory proposal, concluding simply that 'the Proposed Rule is not
expected to have a large impact on truck freight rates given that the price of the truck is only a
small part of the cost per mile of a ton of goods' and, for this reason, 'the Agency expects little
mode shift due to the proposed standards.'55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.21]
55 Id. at 17,590.
The suppositions underlying EPA's economic impact analysis lead the Agency to overlook
market impacts that are widely expected to follow from the Proposed Rule. To assemble a more
accurate picture of anticipated impacts, EMA engaged third party market expert ACT Research
to study the likely economic effects of implementing EPA's proposal.56 The ACT Research
1289
-------
Impacts Study, submitted with the EMA comments on the Proposed Rule, examines three
different scenarios to help predict vehicle market and labor impacts related to the anticipated
increases in operating costs for Class 8 vehicles, working off of both the incremental cost
estimates provided in the Ricardo Cost Study and EPA's cost estimates in the Proposed Rule.
Specifically, the ACT Research Impacts Study considers the pre-buy effects of three different
cost scenarios: Scenario 1, which uses the Ricardo Cost Study estimates discussed above;
Scenario 2, which uses EPA's significantly lower cost estimates in the Proposed Rule and draft
RIA; and Scenario 3, which uses the Ricardo Cost Study estimates but removes the proactive
aftertreatment system replacement system cost that was included in the Ricardo study. ACT
Research then analyzes anticipated heavy-duty manufacturing sector employment impacts of
projected pre-buy and low-buy under each of these three scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, p.21]
56 See ACT Research, 'Pre-Buy/Low-Buy Analysis of Heavy-Duty Sector Impacts from
Emissions Regulations' (April 29, 2022) (the 'ACT Research Impacts Study') (submitted
with Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association comments on EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055).
ACT Research's analysis arrives at pre-buy estimates ranging from 94,428 units total (for the
years leading up to both MY 2027 and MY 2031 standards implementation) under the
conservative EPA cost scenario (Scenario 2) to 211,900 units total under the Ricardo cost
scenario (Scenario 1). These estimates lead to a projection of employment impacts in 2027 and
2031 from 98,335 jobs lost in EPA's lower cost scenario, to 220,666 jobs lost in the Ricardo
cost scenario. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.21]
Aside from these numerical projections, a number of key observations emerged from the ACT
Research Impacts Study:
• EPA Significantly Underestimates the Magnitude of Expected Pre-Buy. ACT Research
projects, based upon the history of previous standards implementation, that implementation of
the Proposed Rule will result in two large pre-buys in the years immediately preceding MY 2027
(i.e., MY 2025 and 2026) and MY 2031 (i.e., MY 2029 and MY 2030). Even under the most
conservative Scenario 2, which builds off of EPA cost estimates in the Proposed Rule, ACT
Research estimates that pre-buy could be around 14% of market share for new MY 2025-2026
Class 8 vehicles and 8% of market share for new MY 2029-2030 Class 8 vehicles.57 Under
Scenario 1, using the higher cost estimates of the Ricardo Cost Study, ACT Research estimates
that pre-buy could be the 'largest ever,' around 34% of market share for new MY 2025-2026
Class 8 vehicles and 19% of market share for new MY 2029-2030 Class 8 vehicles.58 EPA's 0^
2% pre-buy estimates in the Proposed Rule are off by a factor of at least 8 using the Agency's
own conservative cost estimates; and, applying the more realistic cost estimates from the Ricardo
Cost Study, are off by a factor of around 35. These pre-buy estimates are based upon ACT
Research's assessment of operating cost increases for Class 8 tractors and vocational trucks,
which (under the study's Scenario 1) could be as high as 14% and 12% for these categories of
vehicles, respectively, in MY 2027 and 9% and 7%, respectively, in MY 2031.59 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.21-22]
1290
-------
57 Id. at 10-11, Tables 4 and 5.
58 Id. at 8, Tables 2 and 3.
59 Id.
• EPA's Analysis Fails to Account for the Labor Effects of Pre-Buys. Based upon the ACT
Research analysis, it is clear that EPA's economic impact analysis fails to appreciate, and
therefore assess, each link of the causal chain triggered by more stringent emission regulation,
namely (1) price and operating cost increases, (2) prebuy/ low-buy scenarios, and (3) job losses
in the commercial vehicle manufacturing sector. The ACT Research Impacts Study evaluates the
low-buy effects anticipated to flow from the pre-buy scenarios described above, applying
Newton's Third Law that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction.'60 In other words,
every pre-bought unit is pulled forward from the future and will not recur, meaning that pre-buy
volumes in the years immediately preceding new standard implementation correlate directly with
a reduction in units that would otherwise be sold in the years following the new standards taking
effect. Thus, pre-buys can be expected to have adverse impacts on the truck manufacturing
supply chain by proportionately reducing demand for future model year vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.22]
60 Id. at 23.
• EPA Erroneously Concludes That There Will Be No Freight Rate Impacts. ACT Research
also considers a significant downside of a pre-buy scenario, namely the inevitable rebalancing of
excess trucking capacity that results from a pre-buy, which in turn causes lower freight rates and
reduced earnings in the trucking industry during the pre-buy /low-buy period. The ACT Research
analysis concludes, for instance, that prebuy in the Class 8 tractor market ahead of the MY 2027
standards (using Scenario 1 cost figures) could have as much as a 2.9% negative impact on
truckload freight rates, which would mean about $10.4 billion in lost earnings, which is
discounted to $8.4 billion in 2021 dollars. ACT Research estimates a similar earnings impact in
2031, with a total of $17.9 billion (2021$) combined impact from implementation of the
Proposed Rule standards. Adding to the further adverse impacts in the freight transportation
industry, it is widely expected that, as increased costs associated with more stringent regulation
are realized and fleets are required to purchase more expensive trucks, there will ultimately be a
long-term freight rate increase above today's rates. This will consequently increase the price of
every good that is shipped domestically by truck, increasing the price of consumer goods and
exacerbating rapidly-rising inflation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.22]
EPA should also consider the strong potential for its proposal (and attendant pre-buy and no-buy
effects) to encourage older commercial fleets to remain on the road longer, thereby significantly
delaying the anticipated emission reductions under the Proposed Rule. As observed by Diesel
Technology Forum in testimony given during EPA's April 2022 public hearings on the Proposed
Rule, market research reflects that nearly half of the vehicles currently on the road are pre-2011
model years, suggesting that a significant portion of fleet owners would prefer to maintain and
operate older vehicles rather than invest in more costly, new-technology vehicles.61 This
phenomenon of continued and widespread use of legacy vehicles—many of which do not have
1291
-------
particulate traps and/or selective catalytic reduction technology to help reduce emissions—
defeats the emission reduction aims of the Proposed Rule and begs the question of
whether government resources are better spent incentivizing turnover of these older fleets rather
than mandating costly reductions from the vehicles of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168-A1, pp.23-24]
61 See Testimony of the Diesel Technology Forum before the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (April 12, 2022), available at
https://www.dieselforum.org/news/testimony-of-the-diesel-technology-forum-before-the-
u-senvironmental-protection-agency-april-12-2022 (stating that 'According to our most
recent analysis of vehicles in operation (VIO) data from IHSMarkit as of the end of 2021,
53 percent are 2011 and newer model year vehicles and 47 percent are an older
generation. These are pre-2011 model year vehicles with relatively higher emissions.').
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We urge the EPA to avoid creating economic insecurity for the hardworking men and women
who build heavy duty vehicles and parts. It is important to note that the customers for medium
and heavy-duty vehicles are often commercial customers capable of in-depth cost analysis and
fleet planning. If these customers believe that new regulations will increase the cost of future
trucks and operations, they will pull truck purchases forward to avoid those costs. In an industry
that is already highly cyclical, this can create a 'pre-buy/no-buy' cycle in which there is a surge
of purchases for older vehicles prior to the regulations and a steep decline in the purchase of new
vehicles following the regulations. Overly aggressive regulations could also result in truck
makers delaying or reducing new product offerings. This type of market disruption can result in
layoffs or job losses for American workers. This concern is not just theoretical. For many UAW
workers in the heavy truck industry, they will still remember the wave of layoffs in 2007 that
came out of a pre-buy/no-buy cycle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.3]
We recognize that economic projections always come with uncertainty and are strongly shaped
by modeling assumptions. However, it is important to recognize there are studies from credible
organizations that suggest there is a real possibility the regulations will create a major 'pre-
buy/no-buy' cycle. For example, [Figure can be found on p.4 in EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1138-A1] analysis by the Americas Commercial Transportation (ACT) Research, an industry
leading research firm, raises concerns that the proposed regulations will create a major market
disruption resulting in significant job impacts.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.4]
1 ACT Research. April 2022. 'Pre-Buy/Low-Buy: Analysis of Heavy-Duty Sales Effects
from Emissions Regulations':
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/625cbf7329b4af630
a080311/1650245492139/ACT.pdf; See also Ricardo. January 14, 2022, 'Cost Impact
Study for Potential Next-Tier EPA HDOH Emission Regulations':
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/625cbec8f7aef559c
bc4c9a7/l 650245321849/Ricardo.pdf
1292
-------
Importantly, market disruption that hurts vehicle sales can also hinder the environmental goals
the regulations are hoping to achieve. Well-crafted regulations must also consider market
responses that could lead to unintended consequences. If overly aggressive regulations
significantly reduce truck sales or create a pre-buy cycle, it will take longer to turn over the U.S.
truck fleet with new vehicles using the latest technologies. This does not just have economic and
employment impacts, it also results in customers purchasing and holding onto older, less
efficient, and higher emitting trucks that will be on the road longer.2 Without sufficient fleet
turnover, regulations could result in delaying the deployment of cleaner and more efficient trucks
they are meant to promote. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.4]
2 Ramboll. February 10, 2022. 'Alternative Regulatory Scenarios for Heavy-Duty Diesel
Trucks: NOx Emissions Effects':
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/624f66f9ccfff63904
f2a967/1649370873280/Ramboll_EMA_Scenarios_l 0Feb2022.pdf
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner: The pending rulemaking — arguably the last rulemaking for
HD diesel engines — needs to be truly cost-effective to ensure that the market is fully receptive
to the new low-NOx trucks. Otherwise fleet turnover will be stalled or delayed, which will
diminish the envisioned benefits of the low-NOx regulations. Fashioning a final rule that will not
impede fleet turnover will help to ensure that the reasonably estimated benefits from this
rulemaking can be achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 6]
Significantly, EPA's cost-benefit analysis also does not adequately account for the significant
pre-buy/no-buy impacts that the proposed low-NOx regulations will cause. To the contrary, EPA
downplays the potential impacts of any pre-buy/no-buy market response, claiming that "our
results for proposed Option 1 suggest pre- and low-buy for Class 8 trucks may range from zero
to approximately two percent increase in sales over a period of up to 8 months before the 2031
standards begin (pre-buy), and a decrease in sales from zero to approximately two percent over a
period of up to 12 months after the 2031 standards begin (low-buy)." (87 FR at p. 17429.) As
detailed below, that is a fundamentally unrealistic assessment of how the HD vehicle market is
likely to respond to Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 155 - 156]
The HD commercial vehicle truck market is very sensitive to the introduction of new
technology-forcing emissions regulations. The most recent example of that is when EPA and
CARB implemented a 90% reduction in the PM standard for 2007 MY and later heavy-duty
engines, which required the introduction of diesel particulate filters into the HD marketplace. In
parallel, NOx standards were reduced by 50%. HD vehicle purchasers, wary of the cost and
reliability implications of the major new HDOH technology launches, significantly accelerated
their vehicle-replacement purchasing cycles in 2005 and 2006 to avoid purchases of the new
technology vehicles in 2007 - the classic manifestation of a pre-buy/no-buy response to new
aggressive emissions regulation. More specifically, in the Class 8 market, vehicle purchases
ramped-up significantly in 2005 and 2006, with the result that 40% more vehicles were sold in
1293
-------
2006 (284,000 units) than in 2004 (203,000). In 2007, the market then dropped by a full 47%, to
just 151,000 units. Among the other adverse consequence of that pre-buy/no-buy response, air
quality benefits were delayed, and very significant layoffs ensued at vehicle assembly plants and
powertrain production facilities, with similar cascading unemployment effects and other
dislocations throughout the HDOH supply chain. See Polk Automotive Services Data; ATD's
Report, "Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact Projections for 2004-2010 HDOH
Standards" (Feb. 13, 2012); UAW Comments (Oct. 15, 2015; RIN 2060-A816). See also ERG
Report, "Analysis of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sales Impacts Due to new Regulations" (May 2021,
EPA-420- R-21-013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 156]
With respect to this rulemaking, Ricardo and ACT Research Group (ACT) have conducted a
detailed analysis of the pre-buy/no-buy vehicle-purchasing practices that HD vehicle fleet
operators likely would engage in to try to avoid the cost and other impacts of the proposed low-
NOx regulations, with specific reference to Option 1. As set forth in Tables 32 and Figure 8 of
the Ricardo Report (reproduced below), EPA's Option 1 low-NOx regulations likely would
result in an initial "pre-buy" of approximately 93,000 Class 8 vehicles, followed by a second
two-year prebuy in advance of the 2031MY that would amount to approximately $53,000 Class
8 vehicles — for a total of approximately 146,000 "pre-bought" HHD vehicles. A pre-buy of that
magnitude would eliminate a correspondingly large percentage of EPA's assumed emission-
reduction benefits from the low-NOx regulations, and would cause an additional increase in the
per-vehicle costs resulting from the proposed regulations, given the reduced number of new
vehicles that would be sold and therefore available to recoup the costs of the regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 156]
In addition to Ricardo's analysis, ACT has conducted its own detailed assessment of the pre-
buy/no-buy response that likely would occur in the heavy-duty vehicle market in response to the
per-vehicle cost increases associated with EPA's Option 1 proposal. A copy of ACT's report is
attached hereto as Exhibit D. ACT has concluded that proposed Option 1 regulations would lead
to the "largest ever" pre-buy/no-buy market response. The specific results of ACT's analysis are
summarized in the following tables: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 157]
Similar to what Ricardo has estimated, and by way of example, ACT estimates that the
anticipated pre-buy s of HHD vehicles in response to the implementation of Option 1 regulations
and costs would impact more than 37% of the market in advance of the MY 2027, and an
additional 19% of the market in advance of the MY 2031. The impact on the overall HD market
would be an aggregate pre-buy of approximately 211,900 trucks. Thus, when factoring-in the
likely actual prebuy/ no-buy impacts at issue, it is evident that EPA has understated the per-
vehicle cost impacts of its proposed low-NOx regulations, in part, due to the fact that the Agency
has over-estimated the number of low-NOx-compliant trucks that will be acquired in the years
starting in 2027, and extending out through 2031 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 158]
In addition, the reasonably anticipated pre-buy/no-buy response will substantially diminish the
potential environmental benefits from a nationwide program centered around a 0.02 g/bhp-hr
standard, as opposed to Option 2-like standards. In that regard, Ramboll has compared the
relative efficacy, from a national NOx emissions-inventory perspective, of a low-NOx program
1294
-------
based on a 0.02 g/bhp-hr standard, including the expected associated pre-buy/no-buy response,
with a low- NOx program based on a 0.05 g/bhp-hr standard, which Ramboll assumes would
result in a 50% lower pre-buy/no-buy response and greater availability of new emissions-
compliant HD vehicles. A copy of Ramboll's report is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The overall
results of Ramboll's comparative inventory analysis are set forth below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 158]
Ramboll's emissions-inventory analysis shows that an Option 2-like low-NOx program targeting
a 0.05 g/bhp-hr FTP/RMC NOx standard would reduce baseline-projection NOx emissions by
approximately 23% as of 2035, while a program centered around a 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx standard
could actually increase NOx emissions from current baseline projections by as much as 11% as
of 2035 due to the "largest-ever" pre-buy/no-buy response, and due to the projected
unavailability of new HDOH diesel vehicles and engines that would be fully-compliant with the
associated Option 1 low- NOx requirements. Thus, Ramboll's analysis helps to confirm the
enhanced efficacy of EMA's more feasible alternative proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 159]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
In particular, PACCAR agrees with the following aspects of EMA's comments: A nationwide
program centered around Option 2-like requirements, and including higher interim in-use
standards, would be more cost-effective, and would reduce the prospects for further delaying
fleet turnover or creating disruptive pre-buy/no-buy responses from the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1346-A1, p.2]
Organization: Truckload Carriers Association (TCA)
A workable solution is needed to help bridge gaps on emissions, not widen them. Under the
proposed standards, due to compliance-driven demand, the price is expected to steeply increase
for newer model engines, further delaying fleet turnover for many motor carriers. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 2]
An incremental cost would also reflect manufacturers' added stringency for emissions and an
increase in useful life and warranties for emission-related components. One report found that if
the proposed standards go into effect, the price of heavy-duty diesel engines would increase
between $18,000 to $35,000 per vehicle, depending on the level of requirement^ [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 2]
4. Ricardo Strategic Consulting, "Cost Impact Study for Potential Next-Tier EPA HDOH
Emission Regulations", January 14, 2022,
360b6600755b47/t/625cbec8f7aef559cbc4c9a7/l 650245321849/Ricardo.pdf
If motor carriers, due to the proposed standards, are unable to find available, reliable, and
affordable technology and parts, they will be incentivized to keep their older, higher-emission
vehicles and engines longer - leading to worse environmental consequences than intended. TCA
argues that a more practical standard would better lay the groundwork for timely and affordable
1295
-------
fleet transition. According to a 2022 study, which forecasted market response, a 0.02g/bhp-hr
FTP standard scenario would increase NOx emissions between 2.2 to 11.6 percent, while a more-
feasible 0.05 g/bhp-hr FTP standard would decrease NOx emissions between 0.7 to 23
percent8. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 2.]
8. Ramboll, "NOx Emission Effects", February 10, 2022,
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/624f66f9ccfff63904
f2a967/1649370873280/Ramboll_EMA_Scenarios_l 0Feb2022.pdf
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
While our comments tend to focus primarily on potential impacts to long haul freight trailers and
the traditional trucking sector, similar concerns exist with respect to potential impacts on all
vehicle classes covered by the rule, including transit buses, commercial delivery vehicles, and
vehicles designed for waste removal, construction, agriculture, and more. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1245-A1, p. 3]
First, it should be recognized that trucking is enormously important to the economy—it moves
72 percent of goods in America and is the foundation of a well-functioning supply chain.6 When
trucking costs go up, the costs of nearly all goods go up along with them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1245-A1, p. 3]
6. Economics and Industry Data, American Trucking Association,
https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industry-data
Moreover, long-haul trucking in particular is overwhelmingly comprised of small businesses that
are disproportionately vulnerable to changing economic circumstances. According to the Truck
and Engine Manufacturers Association, 98 percent of U.S. fleet owners are small businesses
operating 20 or fewer commercial vehicles. These small businesses operate on tight margins and
typically do not have the financial resources necessary to absorb significant regulatory cost
increases, which therefore must be passed on to American consumers in the form of higher costs
for shipped goods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, pp. 3 - 4]
As the White House pointed out at an event in April, trucking costs grew more than 20 percent
last year as a surge in demand for goods combined with a decline in trucking employment that
preceded the pandemic.7 In 2022, sharply increased fuel costs have added to economic burdens
on the industry, which also faces major challenges due to supply chain disruptions and labor
shortages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 4]
7. April 4, 2022 White House event: The Biden Administration's Unprecedented Actions
to Expand and Improve Trucking Jobs. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/04/04/fact-sheet-
the-biden-administrations-unprecedented-actions-to-expand-and-improve-trucking-jobs/
As indicated above, steady fleet turnover is arguably the most important factor relevant to
ensuring continuing NOx emissions reductions from the trucking sector. A regulation that adds
1296
-------
significant cost for new vehicles, or other significant uncertainties, could delay this
progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 7]
We are particularly concerned that EPA's proposal underestimates the likely negative
consequences associated with large scale "pre-buys" prior to compliance deadlines. While EPA's
proposal dedicates attention to this issue, stating that "if pre-buy and low-buy behaviors occur,
then the initial emission reductions are likely to be smaller than expected." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1245-A1, p .7]
However, the agency ultimately projects nearly negligible pre- and post-compliance impacts of
between zero and two percent of sales. These projections appear low based on recent history—a
recent detailed analysis by industry sales consultancy ACT Research details the significantly
higher pre-buy /low-buy phenomenon that resulted from prior medium- and heavy-duty rules. 14
Moreover, EPA admits that these projections are guesswork, noting that "existing literature does
not provide clear guidance on the relationship between warranty changes, increases in prices due
to increased warranty periods, and sales impacts." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p .7]
14. Pre-Buy/Low-Buy Analysis of Heavy-Duty Sales Effects From Emissions
Regulations. Available at
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/625cbf7329b4af630
a080311/1650245492139/ACT.pdf
If technology and warranty costs exceed EPA's estimates as many industry experts expect, pre-
buy behavior will be further incentivized beyond EPA's already low estimates. This could
significantly delay emissions reductions benefits that are the central purpose of the rule.
Accordingly, prior to finalization of the rule, it should be a top priority for EPA to perform
further careful analysis to resolve discrepancies in pre-buy projections. Indeed, a 2022 study by
Ramboll finds that under a scenario similar to EPA's proposed Option 1, emissions of nitrogen
oxides would actually increase between 2.2% and 11.6% due to pre-buy/low-buy
effects. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 7]
15. Alternative Regulatory Scenarios for Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks. Available at
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/624ddf53a2360b6600755b47/t/624f66f9ccfff63904
f2a967/1649370873280/Ramboll_EMA_Scenarios_l 0Feb2022.pdf
Delayed adoption of safety features. Delayed fleet turnover can have impacts beyond just
emissions. Slowed fleet turnover delays adoption and use of enhanced automated safety features
that are common on newer trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EPA should consider revising its estimation of sales impacts and fleet turnover. EPA should
consider discussing sales impacts and fleet turnover qualitatively, or, in the alternative,
identifying and discussing the assumptions baked into its quantitative model that may result in an
overestimate of sales impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 2]
1297
-------
EPA lays out three effects of regulation on heavy trucks in its fleet turnover analysis. First, there
is a pre-buy effect, whereby the Proposed Rule encourages companies and individuals to buy
vehicles before the implementation date to avoid the (potential) increased (net) cost of their
vehicle. Second, there is a low-buy effect whereby the (potential) pre-buy behavior displaces
purchases that would have occurred in the absence of regulation from after the implementation
date to before the implementation date and out of the new truck market altogether (either through
not buying a truck or shifting to purchase a used truck). The net effect of this pre-buy and low-
buy effect on overall demand for new heavy-duty vehicles captures the elasticity of demand to
the regulation. 107 Finally the Gruenspecht effect, also known as the scrappage effect, whereby
substitution from new vehicles to used vehicles increases used vehicle price and the longevity of
these vehicles by making it more economical to fix them. These three impacts jointly determine
the impact of the regulation on fleet size and thereby emissions, as vehicles sold before the
implementation date emit relatively more air pollutants than those sold after the regulations take
effect. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 19]
107. We use "net" here to note that there are also improvements in the quality of the
vehicle, including a longer warranty and improved durability, which has the opposing
effect on pre-buy behavior than price. Theoretically, these quality improvements could
reverse the impact of an increase in price leading to an elasticity of zero or even a shift in
sales from before to after the rule implementation. In the final SAFE rule (see "Equation
3 - Calculation of Change in Sales"), NHTSA and EPA folded fuel efficiency savings
into the vehicle price to construct a measurement of the net price change. In this context,
this is also possible with decreased maintenance and repair costs.
EPA uses a new methodology to forecast the sales impacts of the proposed regulation.
Specifically, EPA estimates changes in truck sales across the months before and after the
compliance deadline of previous EPA standards. It then calculates the demand elasticities based
on the estimated sales effects of the 2007 and 2010 standards. Based on its estimated compliance
costs, EPA further uses the elasticities to forecast changes in truck sales due to the proposed
regulation. As we explain in detail below, this methodology could be improved by strengthening
the key assumption of 100% cost pass-through and correcting the econometric errors that could
bias the forecast. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 19]
EPA fails to recognize that the reduced-form identification effects capture both the increased
price due to the regulation and the improved vehicle quality such as longer warranties
and improved durability. The pre-buy effects estimated by the agencies capture the anticipation
effects, i.e., the increased pre-regulation purchases in anticipation of higher new-truck prices
along with improved vehicle attributes (i.e., the cross-price elasticity over time), whereas the
low-buy effects capture both systematic post-regulation sales slump due to this shift in demand
over time and the direct effects of policy (i.e., the own-price elasticity of demand). 108 In
particular, the own-price elasticity implied by EPA captures the net change in sales due to higher
purchase vehicle prices, which are passed through to buyers from sellers with higher compliance
costs, and improved vehicle attributes. EPA is thus essentially jointly estimating the two
elasticities without isolating the direct effects of policy, which are the most relevant estimates for
the forecast of the sales impacts of the new rule in its methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1256-A1, pp. 19 - 20]
1298
-------
108. The anticipation effects led to 31,164 more truck sales before the implementation of
the 2007 heavy-duty emission standards. See Katherine Rittenhouse & Matthew
Zaragoza-Watkins, Anticipation and Environmental Regulation, 89 J. ENV'T ECON. &
MGMT. 255-77, 266 (2018).
In the sales effects estimation, the agencies have omitted and/or failed to address a number of
confounding factors that may bias the effects of the proposed regulation on truck sales,
including:
• The adverse fuel consumption effects, i.e., excessive fuel consumption due to improved fuel
efficiency with the new emission standards, and buyers' concerns about the reliability of untested
control technology; 109
• Rule stringency, e.g., the required emission reductions level, technology requirement, and
compliance costs;
• Vehicle attributes, e.g., improved efficiency, increased longevity and warranty, and decreased
repair costs; 110
• Endogenous vehicle purchase prices; 111 and
• Previous truck sales. 112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 20]
109. DRIA, supra note 41, at 412.
110. Id. at 226.
111. The pre-buy effects may be confounded by higher pre-regulation vehicle prices due
to sellers' anticipation of an increased demand shock. The endogenous vehicle price is
particularly the case in a non-competitive freight market. An instrumental variable
approach is called for to address this supply-side confounder if the vehicle purchase price
is to be controlled for in the model. See Rittenhouse & Zaragoza-Watkins (2018), supra
note 108, at 262; see also Terence Lam & Charles Bausell, Strategic Behaviors Toward
Environmental Regulation: A Case of Trucking Industry, 25 CONTEMP. ECON. POL'Y
3-13, 11 (2007).
112. See Lam & Bausell (2007), supra note 111 at 10-11.
These omissions are critical because they may be effects from these elements that EPA is
observing, rather than effects from the factors EPA is explicitly considering. Unlike the two
papers that EPA cites, 113 EPA uses these estimates to make forecasts about the impact of
the proposed regulation on future vehicle sales over time. Failure to address the omission of the
above unobservable time-varying variables raises serious questions about the accuracy of the
agencies' forecast of the sales impacts of the proposed regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1256-A1, pp. 20-21]
1299
-------
These forecasting issues are unsurprising, as the published studies upon which the agency relies
were not peer reviewed for the express purpose of forecasting the future impact of a proposed
regulation. Instead, these studies focused solely on identifying the existence of pre-buy and low-
buy effects. With this more limited goal in mind, these papers only have limited success, as their
estimates of these effects were only statistically significant for a subset of the truck regulations
only providing mixed evidence of their existence; EPA has similarly mixed results with respect
to statistical significance. 114 Policy Integrity has previously commented on similar identification
and forecasting problems in the light-duty context when EPA and NHTSA advanced their
modeling of the scrappage effect beyond the peer-reviewed literature. 115 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1256-A1, p. 21]
114. DRIA, supra note 41, at 410, tbl. 10-1.
115. See, e.g., Inst, for Pol'y Integrity, Comments on The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks at
56-78 (Oct. 26, 2018).
EPA has three options to address the potential forecasting errors. First, EPA could improve its
current reduced-form estimation by exploiting available data to account for the impact of these
confounding changes on truck sales and testing the sensitivity of the estimation to alternative
model specifications. Alternatively, EPA could consider estimating a structural model, as it has
indicated it may do for future regulations in the light-duty context. 116 As a final alternative—
that Policy Integrity recommends—EPA could qualitatively discuss the potential impact of the
pre-buy and low-buy effect in a similar manner as its current discussion of the Gruenspecht
effect. 117 In this discussion, the agency could discuss the identification problems above as
limiting factors on their analysis, along with the non-existence of literature using these estimates
to forecast sales effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 21]
116. See Jacobsen et al., The Effects of New-Vehicle Price Changes on New- and Used-
Vehicle Markets and Scrappage (EPA, Aug. 2021),
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=352754&Lab=OTAQ.
117. DRIA, supra note 41, at 416.
In response to the rule, EPA assumes that the required extended warranties and increased truck
durability will reduce repair costs, which will be a benefit for the trucking industry that partially
or fully offsets increased sale prices. 118 The impact on repair costs for the trucking industry is to
extend the period of low maintenance costs—which are covered by the manufacturer under the
Proposed Rule's longer warranties—thereby lowering their repair costs in the medium run until
increased technology costs result in higher long-run per-mile maintenance costs after roughly 7
years of operation. 119 These benefits should in turn increase demand for trucks holding price
constant. Therefore, the overall impact of the regulation on sales could theoretically be
positive or negative, just as the sign of the pre-buy effect is theoretically unclear. 120 At a
minimum, this improvement in truck quality will lower the overall impact of the regulation on
fleet-turnover, including pre-buy and no-buy behavior. However, EPA's current methodology for
estimating fleet size impacts is unable to capture the opposing price and quality effects
1300
-------
separately, and so is unable to determine if trucking companies will be better off after the
Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 21 - 22]
118. Id. at 342 & n.370.
119. Id. at 348, fig. 7-4.
120. Assuming perfect information and no information shocks after the implementation
date (a potentially reasonable assumption for trucking companies making long-run fleet
size decisions), a trucking company would only move up their planned purchase of a new
truck if the expected post-implementation increase in sales price exceeds the decrease in
maintenance and repair costs.
Currently, the EPA implicitly captures quality changes, including longer warranties and
increased durability, along with other "unobserved factors, such as concerns over vehicle
reliability and control technology uncertainty," in the price coefficient of their pre-buy and no-
buy analyses. However, it is unclear if truck manufacturers and trucking companies will respond
to the Proposed Rule in the same manner as they did to the past rules. In fact, based on the mixed
results with respect to statistical significance and coefficient magnitudes in RIA Table 10-1 of
the pre-buy and low-buy effects, it is even unclear if truck manufacturers and truck companies
responded to past regulations in 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2014 in the same manner. Moreover, as
the price increases stem from the cost of implementing a specific set of production processes and
technology changes in the truck manufacturing assumed by EPA, it is unclear if the past
estimates are consistent with the assumed quality changes that EPA forecasts. Therefore, it is
unclear the extent to which EPA captures the offsetting effect of lower repair costs on fleet
turnover in its analysis of the pre-buy and low-buy effects. To accurately capture the impact of
EPA's projected quality changes, consistent with its assumed price increases, EPA needs to
identify the price and quality effects on sales separately. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p.
22]
There may be long-run impacts not captured in EPA's simple short-run estimates comparison.
Specifically, as the demand for capital goods, like heavy-duty trucks, becomes more inelastic
over time, we should expect any negative sales effect to be small and temporary (as discussed
above). This is particularly true given that EPA predicts minimal to no fleet turnover,
transportation mode shifting, or changes in site locations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1,
p. 22]
The result of EPA's analysis is strongly dependent on the assumption that manufacturers can
fully pass along the additional compliance cost to consumers (i.e., the trucking companies
purchasing heavy-duty vehicles) through higher prices for new vehicles. However, EPA does not
adequately discuss its reasoning for this assumption. Theoretically, 121 in a perfectly competitive
market, increased marginal costs are expected to be passed onto consumers as price equals the
marginal cost of production. However, the degree to which the costs would be borne by
producers and consumers depends on the sensitivity of consumers to prices. Consumers would
not fully bear the costs unless they were completely insensitive to price changes. In other words,
if consumers choose not to buy or buy fewer units because of price increases, then manufacturers
1301
-------
are not able to pass on 100% of the additional costs. Moreover, the pass-through rate varies
with the share of fixed costs within total compliance costs, i.e., costs that would occur regardless
of the quantity of the product sold and do not affect the price in competitive markets. In an
imperfectly competitive market, the validity of the 100% pass-through assumption also relies on
producers' market power. Empirically, the agencies' estimates of the demand elasticities indicate
some change in overall demand, which is not consistent with perfectly inelastic demand and thus
does not support the 100% cost pass-through assumption. 122 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-
Al, pp. 22 -23]
121. See SYLWIA BIALEK & MAX SARINSKY, INST. FOR POL'Y INTEGRITY,
OVERINFLATED: THE SAFE RULE'S OVERSTATED ESTIMATES OF VEHICLE-
PRICE IMPACTS 9-12 (2020).
122. DRIA, supra note 41, at 412.
EPA implicitly discusses the scrappage effect in the context of pre-buy and low-buy impacts.
Specifically, EPA states that "potential buyers decid[e] not to purchase at all. In this case, the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of older vehicles may increase to make up for the VMT otherwise
expected of the newer ('missing') vehicles. To the extent that the older vehicles emit more than
the missing vehicles, emissions may increase. However, because the VMT is likely to be shifted
to the newer [heavy-duty] vehicles among the existing fleet, and most of those vehicles are
expected to be in compliance with the existing [heavy-duty] vehicle standards, this effect is
expected to be small." 123 EPA then goes on to argue against the scrappage effect due to the
absence of a robust methodology. 124 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 23]
123. DRIA, supra note 41, at 416.
124. Id. EPA explicitly states that "Quantifying these effects would require a robust
method to estimate the effects of the standards on pre-buy and low-buy, as well as a
method to estimate shifts in VMT among vehicle vintages in the case of an expected
change in the net sales of newer vehicles. In the absence of robust methods to estimate
these effects, EPA is not quantifying the fleet turnover or emissions impacts in this
proposed rule, though, as with pre-buy and low-buy, we acknowledge these potential
impacts."
We agree that modeling the scrappage effect is potentially unnecessary in this instance, but
recommend that EPA provide a fuller explanation of why this is the case. EPA cannot simply
claim it lacks the methodology given the use of such methodology by NHTSA and EPA in the
light-duty vehicle context. In the 2020 SAFE rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA estimated the
scrappage effect using a reduced-form model. More recently, EPA issued a report outlining a
structural-form methodology for estimating the scrappage effect. 125 While Policy Integrity has
previously submitted comments critical of EPA and NHTSA's methods of estimating the
scrappage effect for light-duty vehicles, 126 EPA cannot now ignore its prior methodologies
without a fuller explanation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 23]
125. See generally Jacobsen et al, supra note 116.
1302
-------
126. See, e.g., Inst. forPol'y Integrity Comments, supra note 115.
We recommend that EPA briefly discuss the scrappage estimates in the light-duty vehicle
context. The agency should explain why this estimate lacks robustness (i.e., is challenging or
flawed) in the heavy-duty vehicle context relative to the light-duty vehicle context. Alternatively,
EPA could discuss why NHTSA and EPA's current estimation strategies are weak more
generally (i.e., in both light and heavy-duty contexts). Part of this justification should also
include EPA's expectation that the scrappage effect will be "small" in the heavy truck
context. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 23]
This suggestion should not be read as a recommendation to include the scrappage effect. Instead,
we recommend that EPA provide a more comprehensive explanation for its modeling decisions,
particularly where it is inconsistent with past EPA modeling practices in the vehicle market more
generally. If EPA now believes its prior methodologies for estimating scrappage are flawed more
generally—even in the light-duty vehicle context—this should be explained. We believe a
similar consideration and discussion may be warranted for EPA's estimates of the pre-buy
elasticities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 24]
EPA makes clear that the sales effect of the regulation should be small due to the competing
effects of increased capital costs and decreased operating costs. However, as EPA notes, the
evidence is unclear and mixed as to whether the net effect of sales is zerol27 or negative. 128 In
fact, this is consistent with EPA's finding that the sales impacts of regulations in 2002 and 2014
are insignificant, while it finds significant low-buy effect in 2007 and 2010.129 But even in 2007
and 2010, EPA notes that the "observed effects are short-lived, on the order of months rather
than years."130 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 24]
127. Rittenhouse & Zaragoza-Watkins (2018), supra note 108.
128. D. Harrison, Jr., & M. LeBel, Customer Behavior in Response to the 2007 Heavy-
Duty Engine Emission Standards: Implications for the 2010 NOx Standard, NERA
Economic Consulting (2008) [Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0576],
129. DRIA, supra note 41, at 410.
130. Id.
The net effect of the proposed regulation on sales is unclear based on EPA's illustrative
examples using the 2007 and 2010 estimates. 131 Despite the estimation problems discussed
above, it is clear that EPA's analysis indicates that the net sales effect should be interpreted as
zero based on the above evidence, including the likely small and temporary effect on sales. This
interpretation is consistent with EPA's prediction of low turnover effects and no mode shifting
due to the Proposed Rule. EPA should be explicit about the near-zero impact on sales based on
previous studies and their own estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 24]
1303
-------
131. Id. at 412-15 (showing pre-buy effects that are statistically insignificant using the
2007 estimates and slightly positive effects using the 2010 estimates and small, negative
low-buy effects using both the 2007 and 2010 estimates).
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
Lastly, the pre-buy effects of this rule will likely be smaller under option 2 than option 1. Pre-
buy effects are likely to follow this rulemaking as owners of these fleets are operating under slim
margins and must think of long-term viability when purchasing trucks. This was seen during the
implementation of EPA's MY2004-2010 emission standards, as there was a spike in truck
purchases before stringent emission standards went into effect for MY2007-2010 and then a
subsequent slowing of fleet turnover to avoid purchasing new trucks with harsher standards. The
annual retail sales in 2005 was over 250,000 higher than 2010 and the average fleet age was
nearly one year higher in 2010 compared to 2005.4 Since option 2's requirements are less severe,
fleet owners will not bear as high a cost and can have more confidence in reliability, creating a
smaller pre-buy effect than option 1. The EPA should also consider creating incentives for fleet
owners to transition to new trucks versus more stringent NOx requirements - requirements that
will only serve to keep older trucks on the road longer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p.
4]
4. American Truck Dealers, 'A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other Impact Projections
for MY 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards,' nada.org, NAD A,
https://www.nada. org/Work Area/DownloadAsset.aspx9id=2147483 93 08
EPA Summary and Response:
Summary:
Commenters stated that EPA overestimated costs, underestimated pre- and low-buy effects and
fleet turnover effects, and failed to account for additional market disruptions. Some commenters
compared EPA results to an analysis completed by ACT Research. Some commenters made
suggestions on changes to EPA's sales effects methodology.
Response:
Commenters expressed their concern about potential market disruptions and employment effects
associated with standards that commenters asserted are not feasible or cost-effective (particularly
proposed Option 1). Some commenters stated that the pre- and low-buy analysis should be an
important consideration for determining the level of control in the final rule. Some commenters
stated that EPA underestimated costs of the proposed regulation, as well as pre- and low-buy,
and failed to account for some of the effects of market disruptions (such as employment effects,
changes to freight rates, and delayed fleet turnover). One commenter (Daimler) commented that
EPA did not propose standards "with 'reasonable' per-vehicle costs.'" One commenter (ATD)
stated that if EPA moves too far, too fast, new vehicle costs will increase dramatically and
performance will decline, resulting in a decline in fleet turnover and environmental
improvements. Commenters cited external studies and data that yield higher estimates of costs,
as well as pre- and low-buy, including ACT Research, Ricardo, and Ramboll studies and data.
1304
-------
Commenters stated that EPA overestimated fleet turnover, as well as the emissions reductions
achievable by the proposed regulation, and underestimated the effect of the proposed rule on
trucking capacity and freight rates. One commenter, Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), stated that
EPA overestimated pre-buy and low-buy, and that EPA should discuss these impacts
qualitatively due to limitations of the methodology.
The final NOx standards will be implemented with a single step in MY 2027 (which was the type
of approach used in proposed Option 2) and reflect the greatest emission reductions achievable
starting in MY 2027, giving appropriate consideration to costs and other statutory factors.
Regarding commenters' statements that the new emission standards must be cost-effective, EPA
notes that CAA section 202(a)(3) neither requires that EPA consider all the statutory factors
equally nor mandates a specific method of cost analysis; rather EPA has discretion in
determining the appropriate consideration to give such factors. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 325
F.3d 374, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that similar technology forcing language in CAA
section 202(1)(2) "does not resolve how the Administrator should weigh all [the statutory]
factors in the process of finding the 'greatest emission reduction achievable' "); Husqvarna AB
v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that under CAA section 213's similar
technology-forcing authority that "EPA did not deviate from its statutory mandate or frustrate
congressional will by placing primary significance on the 'greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable' " or by considering cost and other statutory factors as important but secondary). As
explained in the final rule preamble Sections III and V, and sections 3 and 18 of this document,
in setting the final emission standards EPA appropriately assessed the statutory factors specified
in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving appropriate consideration to the cost associated
with the application of technology EPA determined will be available for the model year the final
standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance for the manufacturer associated with the application of
such technology). EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section
202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards.
We also undertook additional analyses, including a sales analysis; however, since there are many
uncertainties associated with estimating pre-buy and low-buy, including those discussed in past
rules,58 we have presented the sales analysis for this rule as an illustrative example. Our
evaluation suggests that if pre-buy or low-buy occur, they will be small in magnitude (-2%) and
short in duration (8 to 12 months) (see preamble section X and RIA Chapter 10 for more
information). EPA has also provided a cost analysis for the final rule and disagrees that our final
regulation will lead to dramatic cost increases (see preamble Section V, RIA Chapter 7, and
section 18 of this document for more information). In addition, EPA has carefully and
appropriately assessed sales and other economic impacts, and we continue to believe that our
peer-reviewed methodology is appropriate, even considering the uncertainties we acknowledge
in the RIA and in the EPA sales impacts report.59 The EPA sales impact report and the method
used to estimate illustrative results in Chapter 10 of the RIA, which stemmed from that report, is
58 For example, see Chapter 8.4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles, found at
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
standards, or the EPA sales impact resort found at
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm7dirEntry ID=349838&Lab=OTAQ
59 The study can be found at https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_pra_view.cfm7dirEntryID=349838&Lab=OTAQ an
in the docket for this rule.
1305
-------
transparent, reproducible, and "is based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical,
and economic information available," in compliance with OMB Circular A-4.60
Many commenters stated that EPA underestimated the costs due to the proposed regulation. In
addition, some commenters stated that EPA cost estimates should include taxes and additional
insurance and financing costs as outlined in the ACT Research Impacts Study (submitted with
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association comments). Allison commented that EPA should
consider the price impacts flowing from the California Air Resources Board's Step 1 increase
that took effect with MY 2022. Daimler commented that paperwork burden costs should be
accounted for in regulatory costs. Many commenters, including Daimler, UAW, and TCA,
referred to cost estimates from Ricardo Strategic Consulting. The ACT Research study referred
to by commenters also relies on costs estimated from Ricardo.
EPA believes that the estimates and methodologies presented in the RIA are appropriate, even
considering the uncertainties we acknowledge in RIA. As explained above in this response, in
Preamble Sections III IV, and V, EPA explains that the final standards are appropriate and
technologically feasible for MY 2027 based on EPA's consideration of the statutory factors. The
sales analysis for this rule is an illustrative example, using the technology costs as estimated and
discussed in Chapter 7 of the RIA as a proxy for the change in price due to this rule. In the
context of the sales analysis, EPA does not have data to estimate additional insurance or
financing costs for purchasers of HD engines and vehicles as a function of this regulation. In the
context of the cost analyses, because such taxes, insurance, and financing costs are paid by
purchasers of vehicles, those costs are not part of the manufacturers' costs of compliance. Also,
EPA does not agree that we should include transfer payments such as taxes in the cost analysis
for the total program. See Section 18.3 of this document for responses to similar comments about
transfer payments.
Regarding Allison's comment, EPA has considered the price information from California Air
Resources Board along with data from the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association in
developing the warranty-related costs for the final standards. EPA has provided a cost analysis
and estimate for the final rule and disagrees that our final regulation will lead to dramatic cost
increases. Regarding Daimler's comment, EPA includes paperwork burden costs in the "Other"
category of indirect costs. Regarding commenters' reference to cost estimates from Ricardo,
EPA has provided a cost analysis and estimate for the final rule and disagrees that our final
regulation will lead to dramatic cost increases. For more information on EPA's response to
comments regarding estimated costs of this EPA regulation, including to the cost estimates in
Ricardo Strategic Consulting's report, please refer to section 18 of this document, Section V of
the Preamble, and RIA chapter 7.
Several commenters stated concerns that the proposed NOx standards, particularly proposed
Option 1, may lead to increasing truck prices, and therefore result in pre- and low-buy sales
effects. Commenters also stated that the phase-in approach of Option 1 would lead to larger sales
effects than the single-step implementation time frame of Option 2. NACD commented that
proposed Option 2 would be less costly and be associated with more confidence in reliability
60 OMB Circular A-4 (found at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars a004 a-4/#d) provides
guidance to Federal Agencies on the development of regulatory analyses as required under Executive Order 12866.
1306
-------
than proposed Option 1, leading to a smaller pre-buy effect compared to proposed Option 1.
PACCAR commented that a program with Option 2-like requirements would be more cost-
effective, and less likely to lead to delays in fleet turnover or pre-buy/no-buy responses from the
market. Allison Transmission stated that EPA does not attempt to quantify how different
vocational vehicles or Class 7-8 tractors could be affected by pre- and low-buy, and assuming an
average effect across all vehicles may not fully reveal real-world effect in different segments of
the market. Commenters including Allison, Daimler, UAW, EMA, and U.S. Chamber of
Commerce stated that pre- and low-buy effects will be larger in magnitude and duration than
EPA estimates. Daimler, ACT, EMA, and Allison all referred directly to estimates made in the
ACT Research study. ACT estimated two years of pre-buy, with low-buy being an opposite but
equal effect, using cost estimates outlined in the Ricardo study. In addition, ACT estimated
effects across Classes 4-8. ATD pointed out that Ricardo also estimated larger pre- and low-buy
than EPA as a result of the Proposed Option 1, as well as reduced turnover and increased used
vehicle sales.
EPA disagrees that pre- and low-buy estimates are underestimated in the RIA. Our estimates rely
on peer-reviewed methodology and EPA cost estimates for the final program presented in the
RIA. We believe our estimates and methodology are appropriate even considering the
uncertainties we acknowledge in the RIA and in the EPA sales impacts report. EPA also notes
that the final rule includes a single step approach in MY 2027, which was the approach proposed
until Option 2. See also our response further below regarding possible emission effects from pre-
buy and low-buy of the final standards. EPA also notes that the pre- and low-buy analysis in the
RIA is an illustrative example of how this methodology could be used to estimate sales impacts
of a HD regulation and does not impact cost and benefit estimates of this final rule. EPA believes
that effects on fleet turnover due to pre- and low-buy will be minimal and short-lived, as
discussed in Chapter 10.1 of the RIA. In the EPA sales impacts report supporting the pre- and
low-buy methodology introduced in the proposed rule, the sales effects for Classes 6-8 were each
examined separately. The data and estimated results for Classes 6 and 7 were economically
insignificant or inconsistent with market expectations; therefore, we are unable to estimate
effects on those two HDV classes at this time. In addition, we do not have data to separate out
different HD applications within a class.
The analysis estimated by ACT Research uses much higher cost estimates from Ricardo as
opposed to those estimated by EPA. Even for the cost scenario ACT Research states is based on
EPA cost estimates, the final costs used by ACT Research are adjusted upward compared to EPA
cost estimates for the proposed rule. In addition, the significantly larger results from ACT
Research mentioned by commenters are estimated assuming a strong economic outlook. ACT
Research pointed out that if a neutral economic outlook is assumed, results would be smaller. In
addition, though ACT Research explained their methodology in broad strokes (they use measures
of both willingness and ability to buy to estimate pre-buy), they did not provide enough detail on
the model or assumptions for EPA to further respond to their specific estimation method and
results. Without sufficient information, EPA cannot fully evaluate the study or results.
ACT Research assumed low-buy estimates were equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to
the estimated pre-buy. In other words, pre-buy effects in the ACT Research study were entirely
due to planned purchases shifting forward in time to before the standards are in place. Published
1307
-------
literature on pre- and low-buy in the HD vehicle market is mixed on whether pre- and low-buy
are equal and opposite. See Chapter 10 of the RIA for this rule for more information on HD sales
effects literature. The results from the EPA sales impacts report are also unclear on this issue,
with economic significance and magnitude varying across the pre-buy and low-buy sales effects
for the different standards. Assuming equal and opposite reactions assumes all pre-bought
vehicles are purchases pulled forward in time and are vehicles that would have been purchased
after the regulation if the regulation had not been finalized. This ignores alternative reasons pre-
or low-buy may happen, including HD vehicle owners that do not pre-buy, but instead delay a
purchase for some period after a regulation is finalized.
Some commenters raised specific points on what should be additionally included or assessed
differently in EPA's estimates and analyses. Allison Transmission commented that EPA should
carefully consider potential impacts of increased prices due to extended warranty and useful life
provisions. In their comments, Daimler partially quoted EPA with respect to the discussion on
the effect of extended warranties and longer useful provisions, stating that EPA cannot provide
support for the assertion that "the conclusion that these combined effects may increase sales of
new HD vehicles 'if fleets and independent owner-operators prefer to purchase more durable
vehicles with overall lower repair costs.'" IPI commented that the method EPA used to estimate
pre- and low-buy effects does not separate out the improved quality effects from the effect of
increasing costs, and that EPA must identify price and quality effect separately. IPI commented
that improvements in truck quality will reduce the impact of the regulation on fleet turnover,
including pre- and low-buy. IPI also commented that failing to address the omission of
unobservable time-varying variables (including adverse fuel consumption effects, rule
stringency, vehicle attributes, endogenous vehicle purchase price and previous truck sales) leads
to serious questions about the accuracy of EPA's forecast of sales effects. IPI suggested three
options for addressing the potential errors they point out in their comment. IPI first suggested
EPA exploit available data to account for the impact of these factors, and test the sensitivity of
the estimation to alternative model specification. The second suggestion made by IPI was to
estimate a structural model. IPI's third recommendation was to qualitatively discuss potential
pre- and low-buy effects. In addition to discussing sales impacts qualitatively, IPI commented
that EPA should consider discussing fleet turnover qualitatively, or identify assumptions within
the quantitative model that may lead to overestimation. IPI also stated that EPA should be
explicit about the near-zero impacts on sales based on previous studies and on the EPA
estimates.
In the analyses for the final rule, as in the proposed rule, EPA estimated pre- and low-buy effects
using total per-vehicle direct and indirect EPA cost estimates for the final program, which
include the estimated cost of longer warranty and useful life. For information on EPA's approach
to estimating warranty and useful life costs, see RIA Chapter 7. In the final RIA, the full
sentence Daimler is referring to states "More durable components coupled with manufacturers
paying for repairs during a longer warranty period would in turn reduce repair costs, which may
increase (or reduce the decrease in) sales of new HD vehicles due to fleets and independent
owner-operators being inclined to purchase vehicles with lower repair costs." EPA points out
that the effect of longer warranties and useful life provisions may increase, or reduce the
incentive for, pre- and low-buy, mitigating adverse sales impacts. Longer useful life and longer
warranty may also lead to reduced perception of risk (for example, that quality of post-regulation
1308
-------
implementation vehicles will be lower compared to pre-regulation implementation vehicles), as
well as lower overall repair costs, which may mitigate downward pressure on sales through pre-
and/or low-buy. In addition, this may lead to increased sales of new HD vehicles compared to a
counterfactual where these regulations are not in place, especially in the long term, when
uncertainty of the effect of the rule on vehicle performance decreases. In the nearer term, the
effect depends on the magnitude of 1) purchaser preferences for any or all of the following:
durability, lower repair costs, and decreased emissions; and 2) purchaser aversion to either, or
both, increased costs and perceived risk. EPA does not have the data to estimate the direct effect
of longer useful life and longer warranty on sales impacts for this rule. EPA considered multiple
sensitivities in our inputs and assumptions in the course of estimating effects for the proposed
and final rules. In the pre- and low-buy effects analysis, we estimated pre- and low-buy using
multiple estimated elasticities to get a range of possible sales effects.
EPA states in Chapter 10.1 of the RIA and in the EPA sales impacts report that the sales impacts
estimates likely capture unobserved aspects of the regulation, which includes quality changes.
Therefore, we assume the pre- and low-buy results are an upper-bound estimate for sales effects
due to the cost of the rule. EPA agrees that the expected quality improvements, and possible fuel
or other operating cost savings due to the rule, may reduce those effects to below the upper-
bound estimates.
With respect to IPI's suggestion that EPA exploit available data to account for unobservable
variables, the EPA sales impacts report containing the HD sales effects literature review and
methodology for the EPA sales effects estimates explains the data the researchers considered, as
well as the reasoning behind including or excluding it from the analysis. In section 2.4 of the
EPA sales impacts report, we discuss how the model specification was chosen, and the
considerations made in choosing it. In addition, the data and method used in EPA's estimates
were informed by published literature examining the effect of HD regulations on pre- and low-
buy, and included multiple tests on the validity of the data, as described in section 3 of the EPA
report. In section 3 of the EPA sales impacts report, we also discuss the econometric framework
used, including testing on different forms of the month of year indicator variables, and
determining the appropriate leads and lags, if any, that should be included. EPA believes we
appropriately identified and used available, relevant data. With respect to IPI's second
suggestion, that EPA estimate a structural model, "structural model" is a broad term, but
generally requires assumptions on the relationship of the variables used in the analysis. Reduced-
form methods, like the one used in the sales effects analysis in the RIA, identify the relationship
between the variables. EPA believes the reduced-form method applied, without assumptions
regarding the relationship between variables, is useful for this illustrative analysis, and moves the
sparse HD sales effects literature forward. With respect to IPI's third suggestion that EPA
discuss sales effects and fleet turnover qualitatively, EPA points out that sales impacts and fleet
turnover effects are discussed qualitatively in RIA Chapter 10.1. Quantitative estimates of sales
impacts are introduced as an illustrative example of how EPA may estimate pre- and low-buy in
RIA Chapter 10.1.2.2. In addition, the RIA cites the EPA sales impacts report where the method
EPA illustrates is identified and explained. In fact, EPA clearly states in the RIA and in sections
2 and 4 of the cited EPA sales impacts report that estimated effects found in the literature are
mixed, and that the lower-bound for all pre- and low-buy results in the EPA study is zero, or no
effect.
1309
-------
IPI asserted that there are likely long-run impacts that are not captured by EPA's short-run sales
effects estimates, and that like other capital goods, the demand for HD trucks is more inelastic,
leading to temporary and small long-term sales effects.
EPA agrees with the assertion that long-term sales effects of this regulation are likely to be
small. EPA clearly states that the sales effects estimated and illustrated in the RIA are short-term
effects and cover a range of possible outcomes, including no effect.
IPI commented that EPA could improve our methodology by strengthening the assumption of
100% cost pass-through, and states that EPA does not adequately discuss its reasoning for this
assumption. IPI stated that in a perfectly competitive world, consumers would not fully bear the
costs unless they were completely insensitive to prices (perfectly inelastic demand - demand
would not change with a change in price), and in an imperfectly competitive world, cost pass-
through relies on producers' market power. IPI stated that because EPA's estimated demand
elasticities indicate some change in overall demand, the assumption of 100% cost pass-through is
not supported.
EPA does not have data to support a lower level of cost pass-through. The assumption of 100%
cost pass-through is consistent with EPA's characterization of the sales effects as range between
upper-bound (under full cost pass-through) and lower-bound (or no effect) estimates. Full cost
pass-through is associated with upper-bound estimates because it will lead to the greatest
increase in estimated costs as a function of the rule for consumers, which will lead to the largest
estimated impacts on sales. Assuming partial cost pass-through, without changing other
assumptions, will lead to smaller estimated impacts of the rule.
Allison Transmission stated the EPA should conduct a sensitivity analysis of different levels of
economic impacts the regulation might have, and that this analysis should be available in the
docket. The pre- and low-buy analysis method EPA outlined and illustrated in Chapter 10 of the
RIA includes estimating multiple elasticities, as well as the effects of those multiple elasticities.
Our analyses, both for the proposal and final rule, are available in the docket for this rule.
Commenters stated that EPA-estimated historical effects of previous EPA regulation are
underestimated in both magnitude and direction. Allison, EMA, UAW, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce comments reflect estimates and conclusions ACT Research made in its study on sales
effects of previous EPA HD regulations in comparison to sales effects estimated in EPA's report.
Allison Transmission stated that EPA should consider further historical data from the 2007 rule
to check assumptions regarding the impact of NOx regulations on commercial vehicles during
that timeframe. ATD included figures showing annual retail sales of Class 4-8 vehicles from
2000 through 2010. ATD commented that these sales show pre-buy starting in 2002 ahead of the
2004 HD rule, as well as in 2006 ahead of the initial implementation of the 2007/2010 HD rule
with sales falling after the rules were implemented. ATD also stated that sales increased before
2010, when the 2007/2010 HD rule was fully phased in. Allison Transmission stated that there
were about six years of lower-than-average sales from 2007-2013 based on the 15-year build
average over 2006 to 2021. NACD stated that there was a spike in truck purchases ahead of the
start of the 2007/2010 HD rule, followed by a slow-down in fleet turnover, which they attribute
1310
-------
to consumer avoiding purchasing new trucks with "harsher standards." IPI commented that it is
unclear if truck manufacturers and trucking companies will respond to the Proposed Rule in the
same manner as they did to the past rules.
In building a method to estimate sales impacts, EPA considered the effect of four previous EPA
HD rule implementations, including data surrounding the 2004 HD rule, the 2007/2010 HD rule
and the 2014 HD rule. In response to ATD stating that sales increased starting in 2002, ahead of
the 2004 HD rule, EPA points out that the Department of Justice and EPA completed consent
decrees with seven of the largest heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers in the U.S., under
which six of the manufacturers were required, among other things, to meet a 2.5 g/bhphr limit on
NMHC+NOX no later than October 1, 2002, thus pulling much of the regulatory implementation
timeline ahead to October 2002.61 Because of this, much of the pre-buy for that rule, if there was
any, would have been felt in the time frame preceding the end of 2002. In the EPA study, we find
no evidence for pre-buy in Class 8 vehicles ahead of the 2002 implementation. In response to
comments stating that EPA underestimated the effect of the 2007/2010 HD rule, specifically
citing the fall in retail sales starting around 2005, EPA points out that there were external factors
affecting the market, and economy as a whole, at that time, including the Great Recession, which
officially began at the end of 2007.62 In addition, for the 3 years prior, starting in 2004, the
Federal Reserve steadily increased interest rates. This made it costlier to purchase expensive
goods, especially those purchased through the use of credit, like HD vehicles. This ultimately led
to reduced purchases of those expensive goods. Attributing all, or even most, of the decline
between 2005 and 2009 to the 2007 HD regulation is not appropriate. The EPA sales impacts
report does find evidence of pre-buy in Class 8 vehicles before the final phase-in of the
2007/2010 HD rule implementation in 2010, though results are smaller than those cited by
commenters. EPA agrees with IPI that the results in the EPA sales impacts report were mixed
with respect to statistical significance and magnitude for the previous EPA regulations, which
indicates that is it not clear that truck manufacturers and truck companies responded to past
regulations in a similar manner.
Allison Transmissions chose to smooth vehicle sales averages across multiple years to better
understand sustained impacts over a longer period of time, pointing out that there is a lot of year-
over-year volatility due to replacement cycles and multi-year capital planning. Impacts of year-
over-year volatility are mitigated in EPA's estimation methodology, as the effect of each
historical regulation were estimated separately and built upon previous literature, extending our
analysis from accounting for only 8 months of data to including data from the 12 months
preceding and following implementation of the rule. This is consistent with annual cycles in
vehicle purchasing and model year updates. Also, with the exception of the sales effects for low-
buy surrounding the 2007 implementation date, our results show no effects after 8 months, and
the results for low-buy using the effects estimated for the 2007 implementation date decrease
from 7 to 12 months. In addition, EPA accounts for macroeconomic events through the inclusion
of monthly GDP, oil prices, imports and exports, and a measure of consumer sentiment. Within-
61 More information on these consent decrees can be found on EPA's Civil Cases and Settlements by Statute
webpage:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/cases/index.cfm?templatePage=12&ID=l&sortby=RELEASE_D ATE,RELEASE
_DATE&stat=Clean%20Air%20Act
62 https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-december-l-2008
1311
-------
year volatility is also accounted for in EPA's estimation through the use of controls for month-
of-year seasonality.
Many commenters stated that because EPA underestimated pre-buy and low-buy, we
overestimated the number of low-NOx compliant trucks that will be purchased starting in 2027
through 2031, and this reduced turnover, and associated increase in the average age of the fleet,
will reduce the emissions impacts from the rule. In addition, commenters stated that EPA should
estimate emissions effects due to pre- and low-buy. Some of these commenters cited a study by
Ramboll stating that the proposed Option 1 can result in increased NOx emissions due to a large
pre-buy, while the proposed Option 2 could result in a smaller sales effect and more emissions
compliant trucks on the road.
In section 10 of the RIA, we qualitatively discuss possible emission effects from pre-buy and
low-buy. As discussed in preamble Section III.A, in setting the final standards we gave
appropriate consideration to costs associated with the application of technology to achieve the
greatest emissions reductions in MY 2027 (i.e., cost of compliance for manufacturers associated
with the standards63) and other statutory factors, including energy and safety. In preamble
Section III. A, and throughout Sections III and IV more broadly, we detail our determination that
the combination of elements in the final standards are appropriate, feasible, and consistent with
our authority under the CAA to set technology-forcing criteria pollutant standards for heavy-duty
engines for their useful life.64 In turn, it is our assessment that the final standards, including
when combined with the final useful life and warranty requirements, will lead to a minimal effect
on the duration or magnitude of any possible pre- or low-buy (see preamble Section X for
additional discussion). Since we expect minimal effects on duration or magnitude of pre- and
low-buy, and since there are many uncertainties associated with estimating pre-buy and low-buy
(including those discussed in past rules), we have chosen a qualitative approach to evaluate
potential emissions impacts of pre- and low-buy, as provided in RIA Chapter 10.
Some commenters pointed out the ACT Research estimates of employment effects due to low-
buy. EPA has added an illustrative method to estimate a sales effect on employment. For more
information on EPA's response to the ACT Research employment impact estimates, and on
63 More specifically, for this rule in setting the final standards and consistent with CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), the
cost of compliance for manufacturers associated with the standards that EPA gave appropriate consideration to
includes the direct manufacturing costs and indirect costs incurred by manufacturers associated with meeting the
final standards over the corresponding final useful life values, given that this rule sets new more stringent standards
through both the numeric level of the standard and the length of the useful life period.
64 CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) is a technology-forcing provision and reflects Congress' intent that standards be based
on projections of future advances in pollution control capability, considering costs and other statutory factors. See
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association v. EPA, 287 F.3d 1130, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (explaining that EPA
is authorized to adopt "technology-forcing" regulations under CAA section 202(a)(3)); NRDC v. Thomas, 805 F.2d
410, 428 n.30 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (explaining that such statutory language that "seek[s] to promote technological
advances while also accounting for cost does not detract from their categorization as technology-forcing
standards"); see also Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (explaining that CAA sections 202 and
213 have similar language and are technology-forcing standards). In this context, the term "technology-forcing"
has a specific legal meaning and is used to distinguish standards that may require manufacturers to develop new
technologies (or significantly improve existing technologies) from standards that can be met using existing off-the-
shelf technology alone. Technology-forcing standards such as those in this final rule do not require manufacturers to
use specific technologies.
1312
-------
EPA's illustrative sales effect on employment estimation, see section 26 of this document and
Chapter 10.2 of the RIA.
Commenters stated that pre-buy would lead to excess capacity, and excess low-buy (beyond the
estimated pre-buy level) would lead to tight capacity. In addition, Daimler and other commenters
reported ACT Research conclusions that, due to excess trucking capacity due to pre-buy, freight
rates would be lower, which would lead to reduced earnings in the trucking industry during the
pre-buy /low-buy period. Daimler also commented that increased costs due to the proposed rule
would lead to long-term freight rate increases above today's rates. EPA acknowledges that pre-
buy may lead to excess trucking capacity, and low-buy may lead to tight capacity in the short
run, but such impacts would be small. Results in the EPA sales impacts report indicate that if
pre- and low-buy occur, they would be short-run effects, and therefore, in the event that excess
or tight capacity exists due to pre- or low-buy, those effects would also be short-term as the
market reverts to expected levels. Also, as EPA estimates indicate that any pre- or low-buy
effects would be small in magnitude, possible resulting capacity effects would be small as well.
In addition, the assumptions by these commenters ignore planned replacement, scrappage, and
delayed scrappage in a fleet. If a pre-bought truck is a truck that would have been purchased later
in absence of the regulation, this indicates there were plans to either purchase an additional truck
for a fleet, or to replace a truck in a fleet. Excess capacity would not exist unless the fleet
owner(s) retained the vehicle they otherwise would have sold or scrapped when they pre-bought
their new truck. In addition, if there is tight capacity after a regulation due to excess low-buy,
this indicates that not only were new trucks not purchased, but truck/fleet owners scrapped or
sold trucks they currently owned without replacing them. Alternatively, excess low-buy due to
delayed purchase could be associated with delayed scrappage, again leading to minimal effects
on capacity.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce pointed out that long-haul trucking is mainly comprised of
small businesses, and that 98% of U.S. fleet owners are categorized as small businesses; they are
disproportionately vulnerable to changing economic circumstances and typically do not have the
financial resources to absorb significant regulatory cost increases, and therefore pass those
increases on to the consumer. As explained in preamble Section V, EPA's cost analysis for the
final program includes "technology costs," that represent the costs incurred by manufacturers—
i.e., regulated entities—to comply with the final program, and "operating" costs, that represent the
costs of using the technology in the field and which accrue to the owner/operator of MY 2027
and later heavy-duty vehicles. EPA notes that U.S. fleet owners are owner/operators, not
manufacturers, and are not regulated entities under the final program's requirements.65 As
previously noted above in this response, EPA's assessment of the relevant statutory factors in
CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards. EPA recognizes that the costs of
our rules are often ultimately passed on to the consumer through increased upfront prices;
however, we also expect that the longer useful life and warranty periods in the rule will result in
lower emission repair costs for many vehicle types and fewer emission control failures, which
we anticipate could be particularly impactful for small businesses. We further expect that several
provisions in the final rule will improve the operating experience of small fleet owners; for
65 See Chapter 11 of the RIA for EPA's discussion of the impacts of the final program on directly regulated entities
that are small businesses and section 17.1 of this document for responses to additional comments regarding impacts
on small businesses.
1313
-------
instance, we expect the serviceability provisions in the final rule will result in better service
experiences for owners who repair their own equipment, as is typical of small fleets (see
preamble Section IV and sections 3, 4, and 5 of this document for additional details on warranty,
useful life, and serviceability provisions in the final rule). Our assessment of the total program
costs (i.e., both technology and operating costs) lend further support to the final rule.
IPI recommended that EPA provide a fuller explanation of why modelling scrappage is
potentially unnecessary, including a discussion of scrappage in the light-duty context. IPI cited
the scrappage effects estimated in prior NHTSA and EPA light-duty vehicle rulemakings, as well
as the recent EPA issues report outlining a structural-form methodology for estimating the
scrappage effect.
The scrappage models EPA has used to estimate responses in the light-duty market to vehicle
regulations, and the effects that have been estimated using them, were all built using data
exclusively from the light-duty vehicle market. Purchase and use decisions are made differently
in heavy and light-duty contexts, and assumptions about inputs that affect scrappage decisions in
the light-duty market are not the same as those that would be made in the heavy-duty market.
Though we do not have data or a methodology to estimate dynamic scrappage in the HD vehicle
context, or the changing of scrappage decisions due to the cost of the rule, the EPA MOVES
model includes an estimate of static scrappage rates. EPA has added further discussion on
modeling scrappage in the HD context to Chapter 10.1.3 of the RIA, including a reference to the
static scrappage modeling in the MOVES model.
Some commenters, including ATD and NACD, stated that EPA emission standards should focus
on increasing fleet turnover as opposed to disincentivizing purchases of new HD vehicles
through dramatic increases in costs and decreased performance.
As explained in the final rule preamble, sections 3 and 18 of this document, and above in this
response, the final standards are promulgated under and consistent with our authority in CAA
section 202(a), which includes EPA giving appropriate consideration to cost associated with the
application of technology EPA determines will be available for the model year the final
standards apply. EPA also provides a cost analysis and estimate for the final rule and disagrees
that our final program will lead to dramatic cost increases or decreased performance. See
Chapters 3 and 7 of the RIA for this rule for more information on our feasibility and cost
analyses. Finally, while we agree with the importance of encouraging fleet turnover, state or
other federal programs are best positioned to offer incentives for retiring older heavy-duty trucks
and purchasing new, lower emitting trucks or zero-emissions vehicles and such programs are
outside the scope of this rulemaking (see Section 12.1.1 of this document for additional
discussion on fleet turnover).66 For example, the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
66 For example, other Federal programs that are well positioned to help encourage fleet turnover include the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act funding, which grants and rebates that protect human health and improve air quality by
reducing harmful emissions from diesel engines.
1314
-------
has many incentives for promoting zero-emission vehicles that are anticipated to assist in fleet
turnover.67
25.3 Commenters who Disagree With our Analysis
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
To illustrate the importance of fleet turnover and safety, it was not until 2018 that all major CMV
manufacturers began including such advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) as forward
collision avoidance and lane departure warning to standard package offerings. ADAS features
have led to a reduction in accidents involving CMVs, along with a reduction in related injuries
and deaths. Bottom line: to the extent EPA's new NOx mandates serve to inhibit fleet turnover,
they also will inhibit the roll-out of important new accident-reducing features and systems such
as ADAS, by no means yet prevalent on the road today. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1,
p. 6]
12. According to a Fleet Advantage survey, as of 2020, over 50% of the CMV fleet was
MY 2017 and older.
Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
Specifically, we are concerned that the agency's projection of extremely modest technology and
warranty costs associated with the rule will result in a significant overestimation of future fleet
turnover and underestimation of the negative emissions consequences associated with large-scale
'pre-buys' prior to compliance deadlines. To its credit, EPA openly admits that its projections are
guesswork, but it does not quantitatively explore how underestimating costs could drive higher
pre-buy behavior that could significantly delay and undermine emissions reductions benefits that
are the central purpose of the rule. So, before finalizing this rule, we urge EPA to work
collaboratively with industry, states, and other affected stakeholders to resolve discrepancies
related to technology costs and achievability, warranty impacts, corresponding fleet turnover and
environmental impacts of the proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1163-A1, p.2]
Organization: Autocar, LLC (Autocar)
Autocar is proud to say that it has a strong, longstanding relationship with Cummins. As
partners, the two companies consistently communicate and work collaboratively to address
challenges and explore potential solutions to enable both companies to comply with and honor
the spirit of CARB's and EPA's greenhouse gas and NOx rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1292-A1, p. 4]
67 For example, see Sections 13403 (Qualified Clean Vehicles), 13404 (Alternative Refueling Property Credit),
60101 (Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles), 60102 (Grants to Reduce Air Pollution at Ports), and 70002 (United States
Postal Service Clean Fleets) of H. R. 5376.
1315
-------
Through that regular dialogue, Cummins has informed Autocar that production of Autocar's top-
selling diesel engines will be modified significantly in 2024-2026 as a result of CARB's Low
NOx rule and now in 2027 and after under the Proposed Rule. Under the CARB rule, Cummins'
sales volume of these engines is limited to 45% in 2024 and 25% in 2025, and it is not yet known
what portion of those restricted sales will be to Autocar. Further, sales of those engines will
create credit deficits for Cummins. In order to take the actions necessary to offset the deficits, the
cost of these engines are anticipated to increase by $4,000-$5,000 per engine. Although
Cummins understands the problems this causes for Autocar and its customers that rely on diesel
trucks, including municipalities purchasing trucks with taxpayer dollars, they can't bear all of the
cost to meet the new standards. They anticipate similar issues with other engines when more
stringent standards are implemented over time, particularly for small-volume product
lines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p .4]
In addition, the California NOx standards, and now the EPA NOx standards in the Proposed
Rule, present ongoing development demand for Cummins. Engine fuel maps and emissions
levels are a constantly-moving target. This complicates Autocar's efforts toward compliance for
the vehicle, making it impossible to predict performance against 2027 standards. By contrast,
large vertically-integrated manufacturers develop their engines and vehicles simultaneously and
in a complementary manner, without the many challenges of a third-party engine-vehicle
relationship. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Engine and Truck Organizations
Based on our assessment, EPA's "Option 1" rule as proposed will be:
• Cost prohibitive. The additional technology required for diesel engines will drive new
and used vehicle prices higher, reducing or delaying fleet turnover to newer, cleaner,
safer trucks. Higher operating costs will also deter the attractiveness of those
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l]
• Counter to environmental goals. When new truck prices rise and their costs of operation
increase, customers will hold onto older, higher emitting trucks longer, undermining the
continuous improvements in air quality we all seek. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-
Al, p.l]
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
In addition to the extremely burdensome potential costs associated with the Proposal, both in
terms of direct and indirect costs to manufacture and maintain new emissions control technology,
which may not even be feasible, the Notice also mentions EPA's review of the Proposal's
potential impact on the sale of new vehicles and fleet turnover. Here, again, ABA believes EPA's
estimates are insufficient because the underlying cost estimates in the analysis do not fully
capture the costs and economic impact on motorcoach operators, or other property-carrying
stakeholders. With the potential cost to purchase a new vehicle under the Proposal increasing by
$42,000 or more, along with additional costs associated with maintaining the system, and
likelihood of increased repair costs and other operational costs resulting from the likelihood of
increased derate situations, motorcoach operators will take every measure possible to avoid the
1316
-------
need to purchase a new vehicle for as long as possible. This outcome will not only affect air
quality, it will also affect safety, with older vehicles remaining on the road. Alternatively, the
cost to purchase a new vehicle will force more motorcoach companies out of business. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, p.7]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• Implementation must not result in pre-buys/low-buys/no-buys of new equipment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
If pre-buy and low-buy behaviors occur, the initial emission reductions will be smaller than
expected. In other words, if new truck buyers anticipate adverse technological and/or financial
impacts, changes in purchase patterns could reduce the anticipated benefits. This highlights the
importance of correctly assessing the potential impacts of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1326-A1, p. 15]
Fleets that purchase new trucks typically to do so on a consistent basis which supports a steady
manufacturing schedule, including the labor and supplies needed to produce new vehicles.
According to a recent sampling of fleets, 30% of respondents indicated they would not consider
pre-buying ahead of a new standard while a majority (54%) indicated they would consider a
prebuy depending upon the additional price of a new truck. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-
Al, p. 15]
12. See Appendix A.
Similarly, low-buying after a new standard takes effect was slightly less appealing with 27% of
respondents indicating they would not consider a low-buy while 44% would depending upon the
additional price. Finally, a no-buy scenario where purchases shift to the used truck market was
the least considered approach with 42% of respondents indicating they would not consider this
approach. As these results indicate, a large percentage of fleet respondents that purchase
new trucks would consider pre-buys or low-buys depending upon the anticipated purchase price
increase resulting from the new standard. This highlights the importance of accurately
quantifying and minimizing the cost impacts of the proposed rulemaking in order to avoid these
adverse impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
Given the economic challenges still facing the motorcoach industry, any rules that will increase
the cost of a new bus by over $40,000, as proposed here (and that will likely also increase
vehicle maintenance and repair costs) will counterproductively encourage the continued use of
older, less emissions-efficient motorcoaches. Such rules could also have the perverse effect of
forcing some motorcoach operators to abandon the business altogether, as many have already
done in recent years. The impact could well be more personal cars on the highway, and higher
1317
-------
emissions. To prevent these results, EPA needs to be more mindful of the role of motorcoaches
in the nation's transportation system and develop emissions rules that balance reasonable
emissions goals with the constraints facing our industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1307-A1, p.
3.]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
To be effective, the final rule must be: Customer-acceptable. If truck owners and operators
choose not to purchase new trucks due to cost or reliability concerns that result from a bad
federal rule, older trucks will stay on the roads longer and environment goals will not be
achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
The rule applies to manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles; still, it directly affects the motor
carriers that must purchase the vehicles and the drivers who must operate them on the job. As
Bloomberg reports, "whether the rule succeeds will be determined by how quickly trucks with
the new technologies are sold."3 NASTC has served our sector of the trucking industry for more
than 30 years, providing a range of services that facilitate our members' business operations and
help them remain competitive. In our estimation based on three decades of experience, the
outcome of such dramatic emissions standards is fairly predictable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1130-A1, p. 5]
3. Bloomberg, "Truckers Say This Is the Worst Time for Biden's Plan to Cut Emissions,"
March 1, 2022. https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/34662-truckers-say-this-is-
the-worst-timefor- bidens-plan-to-cut-emissions
If the proposed rule, either option, is adopted, many if not most carriers and truckers will opt to
keep the vehicle(s) they have for longer than they otherwise would have. Small-business truckers
in general cannot afford to buy brand-new power units, which today cost around $140,000. New
vehicles complying with the proposed rule as of MY '27 will cost significantly more—reflecting
the sophisticated new technologies that enable their engines to meet the new standards and
requirements, a period of inflation-fed cost increases, and new technologically complex systems
still working out the bugs. So, for the large percentage of carriers having 20 or fewer trucks, the
new vehicles will be even less of an option; these carriers will remain in the used heavy-duty
truck market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1130-A1, p. 5]
Organization: NC Commerce
History has shown that dramatic changes in emissions standards materially drive costs up. That
creates an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer the
purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and
grow employment in North Carolina. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in
1318
-------
North Carolina (and in America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1434]
Organization: North Carolina Assembly House of Representatives, John Fair cloth
We need to avoid an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer
the purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and
grow employment. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in North Carolina (and in
America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p.
2]
Organization: North Carolina General Assembly, Philip E. Berger
History has shown that dramatic changes in emissions standards materially drive costs up. That
creates an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer the
purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and
grow employment. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in North Carolina (and in
America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-
Al, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, Tim Moore
History has shown that dramatic changes in emissions standards materially drive costs up. That
creates an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer the
purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to effolts to preserve and
grow employment. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in North Carolina (and in
America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-
Al, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina State House of Representatives, Larry W. Potts
We need to avoid an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer
the purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and
grow employment. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in North Carolina (and in
America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1061-
Al, p. 2]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
In response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule (Control of Air
Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards) published in
the March 28, 2022 Federal Register, NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
1319
-------
submits the following comments expressing our concern that the costs associated with these
proposed changes would delay the introduction of newer and cleaner trucks and be
counterproductive to the goal of decreasing truck emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-
Al, p. 1]
The EPA proposal would significantly increase the purchase price of a new truck. As indicated,
today's trucks that are already 98% cleaner than older trucks. Currently, more than 50% of the
trucks operating are pre-2010. An old (pre-2010) truck emits some 30 times more NOx than
today's engines. EPA should be incentivizing the sale of current trucks not making them more
expensive and creating a disincentive to the replacement of old trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1164-A1, p. 3]
The federal government levies a 12% excise tax on the retail sale of new heavy-duty trucks. This
tax would apply to any additional costs associated with compliance to the proposed EPA rules.
Placing an additional tax burden on what are primarily domestically manufactured trucks will
only serve to disincentivize their sale. The best way to reduce emissions is to incentivize the
replacement of the oldest trucks on the road. Making new trucks more expensive - possibly by
$40,000 - will guarantee keeping old trucks on the road longer than is healthy for both the
environment and the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 3]
EPA's proposal would require manufacturers to develop new technology for further NOx
reduction at the same time as these manufacturers are trying to develop zero emission advanced
fuel trucks likeEV's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 3]
Promulgating regulations that would significantly increase the cost of replacing older, less
environmentally friendly trucks while forcing manufacturers to divert critical R&D resources
away from further development of zero-emissions technology trucks seems
counterproductive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 3]
Many localities that face significant air quality concerns are in and around areas of heavy truck
traffic, such as ports, warehouses, terminals and urban areas. Because of the economic
challenges in many of these places the trucks operating locally are often older. As mentioned,
pre-2010 trucks emit significantly more tailpipe emissions than newer trucks. The best and
fastest way to improve air quality in these areas is to replace the numerous older trucks with
newer and cleaner ones. Unfortunately, regulations that make trucks marginally cleaner but
dramatically more expensive than post 2010 trucks will only serve to keep those older trucks in
operation longer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, pp. 3-4]
What is needed from these regulations are trucks that are affordable, durable and meet the
customer's vocational needs. The regulations must not act as a financial barrier to cleaner trucks
and ultimately ZEV's. Rather, federal regulations should focus on reducing the current high costs
associated with ZEV's and building the infrastructure needed to operate the next generation of
work trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 4]
EPA has the opportunity to issue a single, nationwide rule that is both reasonable and reduces
emissions while allowing manufacturers to continue developing the future of ZEV's. Issuing a
1320
-------
rule that is technologically infeasible and increases acquisition costs such that it forces fleets to
delay the turnover of their oldest trucks will not help the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1164-A1, p. 4]
Organization: State Trucker Associations (2)
As EPA develops the final rule on tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the
"Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards", we file these comments in support of a single national low-NOx rule that is
technologically feasible, protects American jobs, and is not disruptive to the nation's economy or
supply chains. An approach such as Option 1 that cannot be achieved by all classes of trucks
under widely varied business models will cause significant uncertainty among fleets and will
result in purchasing new trucks before new standards are implemented. This pre-buy/low-buy/
no-buy scenario would jeopardize thousands of good paying jobs and slow environmental
success. To be effective, the final rule must result in new trucks that are:
Affordable - If trucking companies choose not to purchase new trucks due to cost or reliability
concerns, older trucks will stay on the road longer and environmental goals will not be
achieved; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1039-A1, p.2]
Durable - New, more expensive trucks are not purchased to sit in repair bays. Trucks are
unproductive pieces of equipment unless they are moving freight; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1039-A1, p.2]
Safe - Safety is a top priority in every trucking operation. Putting off the purchase of the newest
equipment will delay the use of the latest safety technologies; and [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1039-A1, p.2]
Cleaner - An unworkable rule will delay fleet turnover and impede environmental
progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1039-A1, p.2]
Fleets don't make trucks - they are consumers that buy trucks. While this rule is directed at
manufacturers, it is trucking companies buying new technologies that determine the success or
failure in the implementation of every trucking emission regulation. Fleets remain extremely
sensitive to the many difficulties involved in running a trucking company - a matter that is
especially significant to the 97% of fleets classified as small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1039-A1, p.2]
[Additional comment by one commenter who joined this mail campaign]: We believe it is
equally important to look for solutions that will not jeopardize American jobs too. ... Running a
trucking operation is extremely difficult and challenging, but trucks are the backbone of our
economy and impact every American every single day. Now more than ever, it is incumbent that
all the stakeholders work together to find solutions that can and will work for everyone. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1089]
1321
-------
[Additional comment by one commenter who joined this mail campaign]: RITA [Rhode Island
Trucking Association, Inc.], whose members move roughly 90% of the state's fright (sic), is
comprised primarily of small businesses who operate trucks to perpetuate their businesses. The
aforementioned factors are critical to their sustainability and survival, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0025-2051]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
As we have seen in years past, significant environmental rules tied to a specific model year have
led to large pre-buys in the years preceding the adoption of new rules. Pre-buys have led to a
boom-and-bust market, as customers do not want to pay for the increased cost and new
maintenance requirements associated with the newer environmental regulations. Given the
significant increases in purchase costs and operating costs expected from Option 1, TRALA
believes that Option 1 will trigger significant pre-buys that could strain the new truck market.
This could dramatically hinder the ability of its members to acquire new trucks in the years
preceding the new rule, harming small businesses who need new trucks to operate or expand
their business. For these reasons TRALA urges the EPA to reject Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1180-A1, p. 3]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
Additionally, buses and motorcoaches significantly reduce emissions by removing private
passenger automobiles. Consumers that cannot afford the inevitable fare and charter cost
increases will select less efficient means of travel, counterproductive to EPA's goals of reducing
overall emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
Another consideration is the general havoc mandated by the earlier rounds of NOx emissions
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
Organization: Worldwide Equipment Enterprises, Inc.
Secondly, this regulation, like most others, burdens both small businesses and small trucking
operations with much higher costs. That additional burden and cost will, therefore, simply keep
fleet and individual truck owners from upgrading their existing heavy-duty trucks to the newer,
more efficient and environmentally friendly engines and systems that were mandated back in
2014. In fact, this regulation, regardless of which Option is implemented, would have a negative
environmental impact because those cost increases would effectively incentivize a truck owner to
keep a dirty pre-2014 truck on the road for much longer than would otherwise be the case. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1275-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
EPA should therefore build consensus with market participants in identifying a balance that
maintains strong emissions standards over a reasonable length of time for these engines without
inducing an overly burdensome cost-increase to owners and operators of vehicles that use heavy-
duty engines. Such increases in vehicle price could be especially challenging to owners of
1322
-------
smaller fleets, whose operations might be less resilient to significant unanticipated rises in
vehicle prices. Furthermore, although EPA acknowledges the potential issues related to reduced
fleet-turnover counteracting the intended reduction of pollutants in Section 10.1.3 of its
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this proposed rule, the Agency also admits that it has not
performed analyses to quantify the impacts of such issues. EPA is therefore encouraged to
investigate such impacts and incorporate updated findings into its economic impact analysis.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.4]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters stated EPA underestimated costs and that the technology needed might not be
feasible. Commenters stated that the rule will lead to slower reductions in emissions than
estimated, and lead to additional tax burden. Some commenters state that we do not fully capture
effects on the motorcoach industry.
Response:
Commenters stated that EPA's estimated costs in the proposed rule were too low, and that the
price of HD trucks would increase significantly under the proposed regulation. ABA stated that
costs to make and maintain the technology needed might not be feasible. AFBF and RILA stated
that EPA does not qualitatively explore the sales and emissions effects of potentially
underestimating costs. Commenters stated that the increased cost due to the regulation would
lead to pre- and low-buy, reduced fleet turnover and associated slower reductions in emissions.
NTEA stated that that the proposed rule would lead to higher purchase price of a new truck,
which disincentivizes replacement of older, less environmentally friendly trucks, and the
increased costs will lead to additional tax burden. NTEA also states that the proposal would
require the development of new technology, diverting critical R&D resources away from further
development of zero-emission technology. Some commenters, including TRALA, RILA and
State Trucker Associations, stated that small business fleets are particularly sensitive to increased
prices, with RILA stating that small fleets are less resilient to increases in vehicle prices and
ABA stating that the increased costs could force companies out of business. Some commenters
stated that pre- and low-buy, and associated reduced fleet turnover, will affect safety due to older
vehicles remaining on the road longer.
See our responses to similar comments in section 25.2 of this document. We note that, besides
the survey information responded to below, the commenters in this subsection additionally did
not provide data or other information to support their assertions. With respect to NTEA's
comments about additional tax burden, see our response to similar comments in section 25.2 of
this document. With respect to comments about fleet turnover and the impact on zero-emission
vehicles, see our response to similar comments in section 25.2 of this document. We note that the
safety concerns related to fleet turnover raised by commenters were not safety concerns related
to the technology that may be applied beginning in MY 2027 to meet the new emission
standards, but rather concerns related to older vehicles remaining on the road longer. We
estimate little to no pre-buy and low-buy due to this rule, as further explained in section 25.2 of
1323
-------
this document and other documents referenced in our responses there; therefore, we do not
expect fleet turnover to impact HD vehicle safety.
TRALA stated that previous rules led to large pre-buy, and, along with Engine and Truck
Organizations, that proposed Option 1 will lead to significant uncertainty and pre-buy.
In the EPA study, we find no evidence for pre-buy in Class 8 vehicles ahead of the 2002
implementation. The EPA sales impacts report does find evidence of pre-buy in Class 8 vehicles
before the phase in of the 2007/2010 HD rule implementation in 2007 and 2010, though we
disagree that there is evidence of "large" pre-buy. There were external factors affecting the
market, and economy as a whole, in the lead up to the 2007, especially, and attributing all, or
even most, of the decline between 2005 and 2009 to the 2007 HD regulation is not appropriate.
See our responses in section 25.2 of this document as well.
ABA, Coach, and UMA stated that EPA costs do not fully capture the cost and economic impact
on the motorcoach industry, and these costs will lead to motorcoach operators delaying
purchases of new vehicles as long as possible. Commenters also stated that increased costs will
lead to increased fares which will lead consumers to choose less efficient means of personal
travel, like personal vehicles.
EPA has not conducted an analysis in this rule of the effects on individual sectors such as the bus
or motorcoach industry, instead analyzing this rule by heavy-duty vehicle groups. See our
response to comments in sections 18.6 and 18.9 for more information.
ATA commented on results of a survey of fleet members, stating that 30% of truck buyers would
not consider pre-buying, while 54% say that would, depending on the additional price of a new
truck. The survey ATA discussed in their comments consisted of 26 responses, the largest group
of which (8 responses) reported not being price sensitive. 5 respondents indicated they would
consider pre-buying at an additional price of $5,000 or more, and an additional 4 respondents
indicated they would start considering pre-buying at an additional price of $10,000 or more.
Similar responses to low-buy were seen in the survey results, where the largest group would not
consider it. In the final rule, EPA estimates costs of this rule for Class 8 vehicles to be under
$5,000. If the survey results ATA provided are representative of national heavy-duty vehicle
buyers, they support our estimates of little to no pre- and low-buy as a function of this rule.
AFBF stated that EPA should collaborate with industry, states, and other affected stakeholders to
resolve discrepancies related to technology costs and achievability, warranty impacts, fleet
turnover, and environmental impacts. EPA conducted extensive stakeholder outreach in this
rulemaking. See Preamble Section I and the introduction of this Response to Comments
document for information on the extensive stakeholder input EPA received on the proposed rule.
Details on meetings with stakeholders and materials shared with EPA post-proposal can be found
in the docket for this rulemaking.68
68 For a complete list of stakeholder meetings post-proposal see "U.S. EPA. Stakeholder Meeting Log. November,
2022.", located at docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055,
1324
-------
Autocar expressed their concern that the combination of the new NOx standards and the sales
volume limitations due to the CARB rule will lead to uncertainty in the volume of engines they
will be able to purchase from their supplier, Cummins. Autocar commented that this will also
adversely affect their business and customers because Cummins will increase the cost of their
engines by as much as $4,000 to $5,000 because Cummins cannot bear all of the cost of meeting
the new standards. In addition, Autocar stated that, not being vertically integrated, it is at a
disadvantage with respect to development and compliance costs.
We acknowledge Autocar's concerns regarding potential impacts on their company. EPA is
acting on our authority under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(A) for this final rule (see our
response in section 25.2 for more information). After considering comments on the proposed
rule, we have updated our technology costs per vehicle estimates in the final RIA (see RIA
Chapter 7).
26 Employment impacts
26.1 Commenters Supporting our Analysis
Comments by Organizations
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We appreciate the EPA's willingness to engage with the UAW on heavy-duty and light-duty
regulations. It is refreshing that Administrator Regan and his team have made it clear at by their
actions that workers have a seat at the table on regulatory matters that have a direct impact on
their jobs both now and in the future. The final regulations could have a direct impact on the over
40,000 UAW members working at manufacturing plants building medium and heavy-duty
trucks, vocational trucks, commercial vans, school buses and medium and heavy-duty pickup
vehicles and parts. Our heavy truck members work in communities throughout the country for
major truck manufacturers at assembly, engine, and component manufacturing facilities. UAW
members are proud to meet our economy's diverse trucking needs while incorporating
technologies to aid in fuel economy and reduce harmful emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1138-A1, p.2]
Whether the heavy truck industry can achieve such ambitious standards and remain globally
competitive will depend in large part on additional policies that promote domestic manufacturing
and support quality jobs. The Biden Administration has supported consumer incentives that
simultaneously encourage manufacturers to build vehicles in the United States that support great
union jobs as well as investing in infrastructure and retooling factories for a successful transition.
We agreed with the Biden Administration and are disappointed that the Senate has thus far failed
to pass legislation that is needed for a successful transition. Whether it is government support for
manufacturing investments, production volumes, government procurement, consumer purchases,
or workforce development, all policies should be crafted to promote and strengthen the domestic
1325
-------
supply chain for traditional and electrified vehicles that are a source of quality union jobs for
American workers now and in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.2]
Balanced regulations should set a feasible path to address the impact of pollutants and position
the U.S. truck manufacturing industry to innovate and lead with clean technologies that improve
fuel efficiency, reduce emissions, and advance emerging powertrain technologies like battery
electric or fuel cells. This, in turn, would strengthen U.S. competitiveness and ensure stability for
the thousands of workers and communities benefiting from quality manufacturing jobs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.3]
A significant market disruption can have a devastating impact on workers and the economy.
Surrounding communities are also negatively impacted by layoffs as families suddenly have less
to spend on housing, car payments, groceries, clothes, and other essential and discretionary
items. The potential for layoffs is not limited to worker assembly trucks and buses, the impacts
would ripple through the network of manufacturing communities that produce components and
materials for the medium and heavy-duty truck industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1,
P 4]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
The commenter above (UAW) stated that the final regulation could have an impact on many
UAW workers at manufacturing plants, and that significant market disruption can be devastating
for workers. UAW also stated that significant market disruption can lead to potential layoffs that
span from those working in assembly plants and rippling through the community. UAW
commented that the regulation should feasibly reduce pollution, lead to innovation, improve fuel
efficiency, strengthen US competitiveness, and ensure job stability.
Response:
EPA agrees that this regulation might impact employment at vehicle manufacturing plants, and
discusses possible impacts qualitatively and quantitatively in Chapter 10 of the RIA. EPA is
unable to estimate effects of this regulation on industries outside of the directly regulated HD
engine and vehicle manufacturing industries due to lack of data and appropriate methods. As
required by CAA 202(a)(3)(A) for the standards in this final rule, we are setting standards that
will result in the greatest emissions reductions achievable through the application of technology
beginning in model year 2027 after giving appropriate consideration to costs and other statutory
factors associated with the application of such technology. See preamble Sections III and V for
additional discussion on feasibility and costs of the final standards, and our assessment of the
cost impacts of the final program.
26.2 Commenters who Disagree with our Analysis and Provide Data
1326
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA's economic impact analysis is not informed by real world data and, due to fundamental
analytical flaws, reflects the Agency's failure to give informed consideration to the likely
impacts its Proposed Rule will have on jobs, the cost of goods transportation, the HD
transportation market, and the economy more generally. The Agency's analysis of the impacts of
the proposed standards on vehicle sales and employment treats these considerations as entirely
separate and overlooks the links between the two. Indeed, EPA acknowledges that its
employment analysis is divorced from any consideration of how 'demand-effect' impacts of the
Proposed Rule will affect firm-level employment, 'due to data limitations.'51 This omission
leads EPA to conclude that more costly vehicles and parts will in fact lead to an increase in
manufacturing sector employment, an assertion that ignores how price increases are likely to
affect sales and, in turn, the labor market.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.20]
51 Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,592 (noting that EPA's employment impact
analysis is not based upon any projected changes in vehicle sales; rather that EPA's
analysis assumes that output would be held 'constant').
52 Id. (reflecting EPA's projections that increased vehicle and parts costs would be
expected to increase employment by 400 to 2,200 job years in 2027 and 300 to 1,800 job
years in 2032 under proposed Option 1, and that—for similar reasons—employment
would be expected to increase under proposed Option 2 by 400 to 2,200 job years in 2027
and 300 to 1,500 job years in 2032).
Not surprisingly, low-buy years cause the loss of manufacturing jobs. ACT Research reviews the
pre-buys that took place in MY 2005 and 2006 ahead of the MY 2007 standards, which
precipitated a loss of about 10,000 truck assembly jobs from low-buy in 2007. The 10,000 jobs
lost represented a labor decrease of approximately 26% from the previous year, which ACT
Research points out is a conservative estimate when compared to the 48% decline in Class 6-8
unit production that took place in 2007. Thus, the 26% reduction in commercial manufacturing
jobs may be used to benchmark potential job losses associated with the current Proposed
Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.22]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The market impacts from the expected pre-buy go beyond the number of impacted HD vehicles.
Pre-buys also trigger subsequent low-buys or no-buys, which in turn can result in significant
layoffs in the vehicle-manufacturing industry and in related market sectors as well. ACT's report
analyses and quantifies those reasonably anticipated employment impacts, which, if the Option 1
standards are finalized, would be dramatic. More specifically, and as detailed in the ACT report,
the likely layoffs resulting from the pre-buy /low-buy that the costs of the Option 1 requirements
will trigger would amount to approximately 220,700 jobs in the aggregate. (See ACT Report, pp.
14-17.) [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1203- A 1, p. 158]
1327
-------
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
However, continually adding more aggressive, yet unproven emission requirements to heavy-
duty trucks will significantly burden the chemical distribution industry and the American
economy as a whole. This is supported by an analysis conducted by NACD economist John
Dunham & Associates (JDA), which used the EPA's regulatory impact analysis estimate that
calculated the cost of this rule would be between $1.9 and $2.1 billion per year to implement.
JDA's economic analysis found that chemical distributors would bear a cost of $429.6 million
with a loss of 716 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the chemical distribution industry and a loss
of over $208 million of economic output if this rule is implemented. When applied to the total
economy, this would force a loss of over 3,000 FTE jobs and negative impact of over $675
million of economic output. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 2]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Daimler and EMA commented that pre-buy will trigger low-buy, which will lead to significant
layoffs in the HD truck industry, pointing out that EPA did not estimate sales effects on
employment. These commenters referred to the ACT Research report and the employment
analysis discussed within it.
Response:
In response to commenters, EPA has added an illustrative method to estimate a sales effect on
employment due to pre- and low-buy in the RIA for the final rule. This method uses an average
estimate of job-years per truck produced in the U.S. and focuses on employees in the sectors
identified as directly affected by the regulation. Our results indicate that employment effects due
to sales effects would be small in magnitude. For more information on methodology and results,
see chapter 10 of the RIA.
The ACT Research method referred to by commenters assumes low-buy is an equal but opposite
counter to pre-buy. For EPA's response to the assumption that low-buy is equal but opposite to
pre-buy, see our responses to the comments in section 25.2. To estimate the effect of low-buy on
employment, ACT Research found the change in employment between 2006 and 2007 and
divided that by their estimate of pre-buy in 2006 to get an estimate of jobs lost per low-bought
truck in 2007. The method used by ACT attributes all changes in employment to low-buy and
does not account for any changes that may have occurred in this time frame separate from the
2007/2010 HD rule. This approach by ACT Research thus does not account for factors
mentioned in section 25.2 above, like the Federal Reserve increasing interest rates or the official
beginning of the Great Recession.
Daimler commented that EPA's analyses are not informed by real world data. For the sales and
employment effects estimated in Chapter 10 of the RIA, EPA uses data from many sources,
including the Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wards Automotive Group, Energy
Information Administration, Bureau of Economic Analyses and more. In addition, the analyses
performed by EPA are informed by peer-reviewed and published literature.
1328
-------
NACD commented that the rule will lead to millions of dollars in cost and economic output to
the chemical distribution industry, as well as hundreds of job-years reduced, stating that
aggressive, unproven requirements for HD trucks will lead to significant burdens for the
chemical distribution industry and the American Economy as a whole. They also commented that
there will be thousands of job-years lost to the total economy along with a negative impact of
millions of dollars to economic output. In setting the final emission standards, EPA appropriately
assessed the statutory factors specified in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving
appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the application of technology EPA
determined will be available for the model year the final standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance
for the manufacturer associated with the application of such technology). EPA's assessment of
the relevant statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards.69
We also evaluated additional factors, including factors to comply with E.O. 12866; our
assessment of these factors lends further support to the final rule. EPA acknowledges there are
costs to society associated with this final rule; our evaluation of the costs and benefits of the final
program concludes that the benefits to society far exceed the costs, as explained in Chapter 9 of
the RIA. EPA is unable to estimate the effects of this regulation on industries outside of the
directly regulated HD engine and vehicle manufacturing industries due to lack of data and
appropriate methods, and we cannot evaluate the NACD estimates because the analysis and data
was not provided in the comment.
26.3 Commenters who Disagree with our Analysis
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Charter Township of Redford
I have recently learned that your agency has proposed new regulations regarding commercial
vehicles emission standards in the U.S. that are intended to reduce emissions by 90%, increase
the useful life period by 84%, and increase the emissions warranty period by 500%) in 8 V2
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1099-A1, p. 1]
While I appreciate your concern for air quality, and your goals to reduce the carbon footprint and
safeguard our environment, I fear that such aggressive measures could cripple the commercial
vehicle industry, that account for thousands of jobs in my community and many more than that
nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1099-A1, p. 1]
Still suffering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, our community has witnessed the closing of
many local businesses, an increase in unemployment, a growing number of delinquent tax
accounts and water bills, and more and more residents in need of government assistance. This is
all too reminiscent of the most recent recession that will already take us another 20 years to fully
recover from. The last thing we need right now, is another impediment to employment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1099-A1, p. 1]
69 For information on the numeric level and feasibility of standards of the final rule see preamble Section III.
1329
-------
I am NOT writing you today to suggest that you abandon your mission to protect the
environment, as I respect and appreciate those efforts very much. I encourage you only to take a
more balanced approach in doing so. Give industry the time it needs to retool and adjust, so more
jobs aren't lost and more families and communities aren't decimated in the process. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1099-A1, p. 1]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• Standards should be based upon sound science and account for economic and employment
impacts on fleet operators, manufacturers, and suppliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1,
p. 5]
Organization: Engine and Truck Organizations
Based on our assessment, EPA's "Option 1" rule as proposed will be:
• Bad for jobs. As was caused by previous EPA NOx rules, we anticipate a pre-buy/no buy
scenario, that could result in dramatic job losses for our employees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l]
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EPA should clarify that any employment impacts from the Proposed Rule are likely small and
short-lived. EPA should quantify upstream and downstream employment effects, and if it cannot,
the agency should at a minimum identify the direction and magnitude of total net employment
effects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 2]
Ideally, EPA should quantitatively measure employment effects. Currently, EPA addresses
employment effects qualitatively except for the cost effect, as discussed below. If EPA continues
to address employment qualitatively, it should at least attempt to give an idea of the direction of
the employment impacts and its relative size. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 24]
EPA discusses total employment impacts in the manufacturing sector qualitatively, indicating
that the impact of the regulation on employment could be positive or negative. 132 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 25]
132. Id. at 420.
But EPA does conduct a quantitative analysis of the cost effect, i.e., the increased
employment analysis necessary to adopt technologies needed for trucks to meet the
standards. 133 For these employment effects, it uses the ratio of workers to production
cost for all vehicle manufacturing to imprecisely infer the specific ratio for production
1330
-------
processes related to emission reductions compliance activities in the heavy-duty
sector. 134 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 25]
133. Id. at 425.
134. Id. at 421-22.
Qualitatively, EPA accounts for two additional impacts on employment in the manufacturing
sector: the demand effect, i.e., changes in demand for labor in the manufacturing sector due to
changes in sales, and the factor-shift effects, i.e., the employment changes due to changes in
labor intensity of production resulting from changes in the production process and compliance
activities. 135 EPA predicts the demand effect to be negative, but since EPA also predicts that the
sales impact will be small and indistinguishable from zero,136 this employment effect should
also be small and indistinguishable from zero. 137 In contrast, EPA cannot even determine the
direction of the factor-shift effect on manufacturing employment. 138 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1256-A1, p. 25]
135. Id. at 420.
136. See section V.C, supra.
137. EPA misleadingly states that "a demand effect caused by higher production costs
raising market prices. Higher prices reduce consumption (and production) reducing
demand for labor within the regulated industry." DRIA at 419. However, this statement
ignores the opposing effect of quality improvements later recognized in Section 10.2.2.1.
In fact, based on EPA's own analysis, the net impact on sales is unclear and currently
indistinguishable from zero.
138. DRIA, supra note 41, at 420.
Overall, the direction of overall employment effect on manufacturing is unclear. Even so, EPA
should attempt to qualitatively determine whether the overall net effect on employment is likely
to be small or large, as the former seems more likely due to the small sales effect and the overall
unclear direction on manufacturing employment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 25]
In addition, EPA also needs to qualitatively assess the impact of the Proposed Rule on
downstream employment. For consumers of heavy-duty trucks (i.e., truckers and trucking
companies), the impact is again unclear due to the opposing effects of the cost increase and the
presumptive improvement in vehicle quality that leads to the small and essentially zero sales
effect. 139 A similar logic applies to middlemen, such as dealers and service providers, because
the sales effect is likely to be small and indistinguishable from zero. Furthermore, the counter-
veiling impacts on competing sources of transportation such as rail and air that would result from
any negative impact is a further reason that employment impacts downstream should be small
and indistinguishable from zero. We again recommend that EPA discuss the potential
magnitude of this impact, particularly given its statement that the agency does not expect
1331
-------
transportation mode shifts, again clarifying that the evidence does not support an impact different
than zero. 140 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, pp. 25 - 26]
139. Id. at 426.
140. Id. at 416.
Finally, EPA's analysis fails to discuss the upstream employment impacts of the Proposed Rule.
Specifically, it should discuss the impact on the upstream sectors, such as steel or electronic
producers. 141 As with downstream employment impacts, because the overall impact of vehicle
sales is potentially small and close to zero, the impact on upstream employment is again likely
small. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 26]
141. Id. at 421.
Given the interest in employment effects, EPA should attempt to measure the employment
effects quantitively. However, if this is not possible, EPA should at least attempt to qualitatively
assess the direction and magnitude of the employment effects. Based on the above assessment,
the direction of the employment effect is unclear and likely to be relatively small, though the
existing evidence points to a small impact that is either zero or slightly positive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 26]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
To be effective, the final rule must be: Economically viable. If the final rule results in higher
costs for manufacturers and fleet owners, manufacturers and small business owners may have no
choice but to lay off workers and eliminate jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, pp. 1-2]
History has shown that dramatic changes in emissions standards materially drive costs up. That
creates an economic perfect storm whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer the purchase
of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new technology on
the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and grow
employment. Bottom line: there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in Michigan (and in America)
if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. rEPA-HO-OAR-2019-0055-1062-Al. p.2]
Organization: NC Commerce
History has shown that dramatic changes in emissions standards materially drive costs up. That
creates an economic "perfect storm" whereby customers either pre-buy trucks or defer the
purchase of new vehicles entirely. Both effectively circumvent the objective of getting new
technology on the road. More important, both are highly detrimental to efforts to preserve and
grow employment in North Carolina. In other words, there will be a dramatic loss of jobs in
North Carolina (and in America) if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1434]
1332
-------
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber's America Works Data Center has documented the ongoing worker shortage crisis
in detail.8 More than 3 million people have left the workforce since the beginning of the COVID
pandemic, and we now have nearly 11.5 million job openings with only 5.9 million unemployed
workers. Truck drivers are no exception; the American Trucking Association estimates that the
driver shortage has reached an all-time high of 80,000 unfilled jobs.9 These circumstances,
combined with EPA's proposal, led United Auto Workers Regional Director Laura Dickerson to
warn that the rule will create an economic "perfect storm" resulting in "a dramatic loss of jobs in
Michigan and in America if the proposed rule by EPA is adopted as written." 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 4]
8. America Works Data Center: https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/america-works-
data-center
9. ATA Driver Shortage Update. Available at
https://www.trucking.org/sites/default/files/2021-
10/ATA%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202021%20Executive%20Summary.FINA
L_.pdf
10. UAW Region la comments. Available at
https://www.regulations.gOv/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062
Accordingly, in light of the ongoing worker shortage crisis, EPA should take extra caution to
avoid exacerbating the historic inflation, labor, and supply chain disruptions facing the
industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 4]
Exacerbation of labor shortages. In addition to delayed adoption of safety features, other
technological features and amenities found on newer trucks tend to aid in driver recruitment—an
important priority due to aforementioned labor shortages. The impact of delayed fleet turnover
could therefore become a factor negatively impacting driver recruitment efforts. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, pp. 7 - 8]
Organization: Volvo Group
Truck sales plummeted in 2007 and 2008 because of the regulation and this behavior led to a
reduction in force for Volvo Group UAW-represented production workers in our three truck and
engine plants from more than 4600 jobs in 2006 down to only 2300 jobs in June 2008 (before the
great recession began) representing a 50% loss of good paying union jobs. These production job
losses were not fully recouped until seven years later (i.e., 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1324-A1, p. 4.]
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
1333
-------
The Engine and Truck Organizations, UAW, NC Commerce and U.S. Chamber of Commerce
stated that the proposed rule will lead to a dramatic loss of jobs and reduced fleet turnover. The
UAW commented that if the final rule results in higher costs for manufacturers and fleet owners,
manufacturers and small business owners may have to lay off workers. The US Chamber of
Commerce stated that the EPA should avoid exacerbating historical inflation and the labor and
supply chain disruptions facing the industry. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also stated
delayed fleet turnover could negatively impact driver recruitment efforts because the new trucks,
and the draw of the technological features and amenities found on them, would not be available
to help attract new drivers. Volvo commented that reduced truck sales in 2007 and 2008 were
due to EPA regulation, and that they led to job losses in Volvo's UAW-represented production
workforce that were not recouped until about 7 years later. Charter Township of Redford stated
that the aggressive proposal could lead to many job losses. The commenter pointed out
similarities in the effect Covid-19 and the most recent recession had on their community, and
stated their hope to avoid another impediment to employment. The commenter asked EPA to
take a more balanced approach to the proposed regulation and give the industry time to retool
and adjust to prevent job loss. The US Chamber of Commerce stated that the EPA should avoid
exacerbating historical inflation and the labor and supply chain disruptions facing the industry.
ATA stated that "standards should be based upon sound science and account for economic and
employment impacts on fleet operators, manufacturers, and suppliers."
Response:
As required by CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) for the emission standards in this final rule, we are
setting technology-forcing standards. In setting the final emission standards, EPA appropriately
assessed the statutory factors specified in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), including giving
appropriate consideration to the cost associated with the application of technology EPA
determined will be available for the model year the final standards apply (i.e., cost of compliance
for the manufacturer associated with the application of such technology). EPA's assessment of
the relevant statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A) justify the final emission standards.
See preamble Sections III and V for additional discussion.
EPA's analyses of the cost effects of this final rule on employment indicate that employment
effects are expected to be small, as explained in Chapter 10.2 of the RIA. In the final RIA, we
also include an illustrative analysis of the demand effect on employment.70 These illustrative
results also indicate that employment effects are expected to be small. EPA analyses of
employment and other economic impacts are transparent, reproducible, and are "based on the
best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, and economic information available," in
compliance with OMB Circular A-4.71 With respect to the commenter's statement that delayed
fleet turnover will lead to new negative impacts on driver recruitment efforts, to the extent that
this might happen, EPA does not expect significant impacts on fleet turnover. EPA estimates pre-
and low-buy would be small in magnitude and short lived, and therefore effects on fleet turnover
would be small and short-lived as well. See Chapter 10.1.3 of the RIA for EPA's discussion of
70 The demand effect on employment analysis added to the final RIA is presented as illustrative because it is based
on the illustrative sales analysis discussed in section 25 of this document, as well as in Chapter 10.1 of the RIA.
71 OMB Circular A-4 (found at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars a004 a-4/#d) provides
guidance to Federal Agencies on the development of regulatory analyses as required under Executive Order 12866.
1334
-------
fleet turnover. In addition, there are factors outside the scope of this rulemaking that could
impact driver retention, including job quality, driver pay and driver benefits, and EPA does not
have data, and the commenter did not provide data, to support that fleet turnover is a
predominant factor in driver retention.
In response to Volvo's assertion of the decrease in sales and associated employment effects in
2007 and 2008, EPA points out that there were external factors affecting the market and the
economy as a whole at that time, including the Great Recession which officially began at the end
of 2007.72 Attributing all, or even most, of the decline in sales, and associated employment
losses, in those years to the 2007 HD regulation is not appropriate. See also our response
regarding similar comments in section 25.2 of this document.
The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (IPI) commented that
EPA should clarify that employment impacts are likely small and short lived, as well as quantify,
or at least identify the direction and magnitude on total net employment of, the upstream and
downstream employment effects. IPI also commented that the statement in the proposal "a
demand effect caused by higher production costs raising market prices. Higher prices reduce
consumption (and production) reducing demand for labor within the regulated industry" is
misleading. The commenter stated that this statement ignores the opposing effect of quality
improvements recognized later in the draft RIA, and that the net impact on sales in unclear and
indistinguishable from zero. IPI requested that EPA attempt to qualitatively determine if the net
employment effect will be small or large. IPI stated that the direction of employment effects is
unclear, and likely to be relatively small, pointing out that existing evidence indicates a small
impact, ranging from zero to slightly positive.
In RIA Chapter 10.2, we are clear that our employment estimates are only partial employment
effects, and that we are uncertain as to the magnitude or direction of full employment effects. In
addition, we are unable to estimate upstream or downstream impacts due to data and
methodology being unavailable. EPA does not agree with IPI that the draft RIA discussion about
how higher prices can lead to reduced labor demand is misleading and ignores the effect of
quality improvements. We are clear in the RIA that the demand effect is a result of the change in
cost, ignoring other effects, which includes changes in quality. Later in Chapter 10.2 of the RIA,
we qualitatively discuss how quality changes might impact employment effects.
26.4 Commenters Providing Information on Employment Effects
due to Electrification
Comments by Organizations
Organization: CALSTART
CARET s macroeconomic analysis of the ACT found the policy would result in a net increase of
over 7,000 jobs in California through 2040 (CARB, 2019a). In an examination of labor
requirements associated with manufacturing combustion passenger vehicles compared to a
72 https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-december-l-2008
1335
-------
similar battery electric vehicle, one study found nearly identical per vehicle labor hours
associated with battery electric vehicle manufacturing as combustion vehicles. This finding
indicates the commonly held belief that battery electric vehicles are less labor intensive is
inaccurate (Kiipper, 2020). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.8]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
Lion supports the expected job growth associated with the proposed Options 1 and 2. As Lion
grows, we continue to expand our team of change-makers dedicated to transforming the future of
transportation. Our Joliet factory will initially provide over 750 clean energy jobs in a field that
is in high demand, as states across the U.S. introduce laws to deploy more zero-emission vehicles
in the next decade. In the next four years, we expect that this plant will add over 1,400 jobs that
will create an abundance of economic opportunities in clean manufacturing for local
communities. Lion will directly contribute to reducing unemployment in Joliet, thereby
strengthening the local economy. In addition, Lion will continue to create jobs in our nationwide
Experience Centers with a focus on hiring locally and training technicians to provide service and
support to a variety of clients. These are stable, well-paying positions in a growing industry that
will have long-term sustainability as the electric vehicle sector continues to expand. By
implementing programs that facilitate the switch to ZEVs, the EPA can help boost projected job
growth across OEMs in the field of electrification, while meeting its primary goal of reducing air
pollution in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, pp. 3-4]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Labor and those working in the freight sector (including truckers, equipment operators,
warehouse and logistics workers, and others) are essential constituents in the quest for a just
transition to a cleaner energy economy, air quality improvements, zero emissions, and climate
mitigations. Many workers not only work in industries (such as trucking) that expose them to
toxics and impact their health, but they also live in communities disproportionately bearing the
burdens of pollution. Regulations to strengthen emission standards as well as further zero
emission trucks need to account for more than just the effects of the policy on job growth.
Standards should include an economic analysis of the proposed regulation and alternatives as
well as include provisions to ensure that these increases in jobs are coupled with labor standards
to ensure that workers are benefiting by more than just access but quality of job. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 37]
MFN provided a detailed analysis in our Making the Case for Zero-Emission Solutions in
Freightl51 report on the economic benefits of zero emissions for different labor sectors through
the freight transportation system, including manufacturing, maintenance, etc. MFN found that if
money and resources were prioritized for the commercial fleet infracture, the job creation alone
from direct and indirect work would be at around 30,000 additional jobs by 2037 (Figure 4). This
estimate far outweighs the claims that under the current structures of the rule EPA could be
affecting jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 37]
151. https://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/MFN_Making-the-Case_Report_May2021 .pdf
1336
-------
A strong ZEV sales requirement coupled with the emission standard has the potential to achieve
one of the goals of the Biden administration to develop domestic manufacturing jobs. A new
report from SAFE highlights the potential for more than 270,000 jobs "through investment in
transportation manufacturing grants and tax incentives" and nearly 154,000 jobs through
"incentives that make it cheaper to buy medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles, like trucks and
buses." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 37]
Many of the components that make up an MHD internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle are the
same as a ZEV. However, there are key electric drive components that differentiate a ZEV, such
as battery packs, electric motor, inverters and converters, along with other electrical parts. These
various components, from materials sourcing, to design, to assembly, all make up the long list of
sub-segments within the ZEV manufacturing segment of the supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 38]
ERM's analysis found that a national ACT-style rule combined with a federal NOx standard that
aligns with the Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule would generate a 63,000 net increase in jobs and net
GDP growth of over $10 billion by 2035.153 Importantly, the average wages for the new jobs
created are roughly double the average wages of those replaced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 38]
153. Robo et al. 2022, p. 4.
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
The growth in the electric vehicle industry has created jobs and will continue to do so. About
10% of the employees in the motor vehicles and component parts sector (including
manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and professional services) work on alternative fuel
vehicles.40 Component parts manufacturing employs nearly half a million people in jobs that
work on increasing fuel economy in the United States.41 The domestic manufacturing of
alternative fuels vehicles and hybrids grew from 2018 to 2019 in most technologies, with electric
vehicles adding 6,200 manufacturing jobs.42 The jump was even greater in 2020: electric and
hybrid electric vehicle employment grew more than 6% from 2019, adding over 12,000 new
jobs.43 This was the largest jobs increase of any clean energy category.44 One study found that
the electric vehicle industry (defined broadly to include professional services, management,
personal services, etc.) in California employed 275,600 people in 2018, and these jobs grew an
average of 2.9% per year (2010-2018).45 Securing America's Future Energy estimates that
updating fuel economy standards and sustaining emission reductions over five years will lead to
the creation of 60,378 new jobs nationwide.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, pp. 8-9]
40. National Association of State Energy Officials & Energy Futures Initiative, 2020 U.S.
Energy & Employment Report (2021) at 148-49, 154, available at
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/5a98cf80ec4eb7c5cd928c61/t/5e78b3c756e8367ab
bd47ab0/l 58496866032 l/USEER+2020+0323 .pdf.
41. Id. at 154.
1337
-------
42. Id. at 149.
43. Environmental Entrepreneurs, Clean Jobs America 2021 (2021) at 4, available at
https://www.powermag.eom/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/e2-2021-clean-jobs-america-
report-04-19-2021 .pdf.
44. Id.
45. Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, Energizing an Ecosystem:
The Electric Mobility Revolution in Southern California (Mar. 2020) at 36-37, available
at https://laedc.org/2020/03/01/laedc-ev-industry-report/.
46. Securing America's Future Energy, The Commanding Heights of Global
Transportation (Mar. 2021) at 6, available at https://2uj256fs8px404p3p217nvkd-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/The-Commanding-Heights-Of-
Global-Transportation-Quantifying-The-Employment-Effects.pdf.
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
Moreover, the transition supports employment opportunities economy-wide. The current
workforce and communities most affected by disinvestment, climate change and generations of
environmental degradation must and deserve to benefit, accessing potential jobs across the
electric vehicle supply chain and opportunities to build community wealth. An analysis found
that electrifying cars and trucks by 2035 would produce over 2 million jobs.29 Again, this
emphasizes the importance of the EPA to create the regulatory conditions to transition to 100%
zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales by 2035. As outlined in our Green Jobs
Report,30strategic interventions such as workforce development and STEM training are
necessary to help displaced workers, people of color, and under- and unemployed residents in
disadvantaged communities earn the relevant technical skills to access and retain family-
sustaining jobs in the clean energy and electric transportation industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1347-A1, p.6]
29 http://www.2035report.com/transportation/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/2035Report2.0-l.pdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-752a-
40eeb3a5-90e28d5f2e 18%7C81 c0077a-d01 d-45b9-a3 3 8-fcaef78a20e7
30 https://www.weact.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FINAL-2_Green-Jobs-
Report_Full-Report-Full-View.pdf
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
HDV electrification is also precipitating tremendous job creation. A 2019 study found that in
California alone, policies designed to electrify HDVs could generate 1.31 million more job-years
than the status-quo policies. 10 The charging infrastructure necessary to accommodate this
transaction could alone create more than 29,000 jobs across the country. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1283-A1, p.3]
1338
-------
10 https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
Il.pdf
11 https://secureenergy.org/the-commanding-heights-ofglobal-transportation-quantifying-
the-employment-effects/
Relatedly, the transportation industry is also experiencing considerable shortages of available
truck drivers, and HDV electrification could ameliorate this crisis. The trucking industry is an
estimated 80,000 drivers short, with many long-term employees citing stress as a reason for
quitting. 12 This trend is expected to worsen by 2030 as the industry struggles to meet the growth
in freight demand. 13 Drivers consistently report higher satisfaction with the EV driving
experience compared to fossil fuel-powered vehicles, however, and trucking is expected to
benefit from the same trend. EVs provide a smoother ride with minimal vibrations, less noise
pollution, and a high-tech driving experience free from the fumes of diesel exhaust. 14 As a
result, the health benefits associated with eliminating diesel fume inhalation and improved
experience from a quieter drivetrain may reduce healthcare costs and increase driver
retention. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.3]
12 https://www.nytimes. com/2021/11/09/us/politics/trucker-shortage-supply-chain.html
13 https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/ata-chiefeconomist-pegs-driver-shortage-
historic-high
14 https://www.trucks.com/2021/07/26/electric-trucks-cost-driver-benefits/
15 https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Insights-On-Electric-Trucks-
ForRetailers-And-Trucking-Companies.pdf
EPA Summary and Response
Summary:
Commenters including CALSTART, MFN, NCAT, WE ACT, and ZETA cited published studies
indicating that there could be job growth with increasing electric vehicle production. ZETA went
on to say that electrification can help reduce truck driver shortages due to the improved
experience of driving a HD electric vehicle over driving the ICE counterpart, as well as leading
to reduced healthcare costs and increased driver retention. In their comment, Lion supported the
expected job growth under the proposed Options 1 and 2, and discussed the clean energy jobs
they are planning on introducing over the next decade. Lion stated that by implementing
programs that facilitate the switch to ZEVs, EPA can help job growth in the field of
electrification, and reduce air pollution. MFN stated that regulations that further zero emission
trucks need to account for more than the effects of the policy on job growth, but should include
provisions that ensure that growth is paired with labor standards to lead to improvements in both
job access and quality. They also stated that many of workers, including those in trucking, work
in industries that expose them to pollutants that impact their health, but also live in communities
that disproportionately bear the burden of pollution.
1339
-------
Response:
EPA appreciates the information provided on the possible effect that increasing the penetration
of electrified vehicles in the heavy-duty market might have on jobs. Since the final standards are
not based on projected utilization of ZEV technology, we have not incorporated additional
production of ZEV technologies into our assessments of the impacts of the final rule; therefore,
these comments are outside the scope of this final rule.73
27 This Section is Blank
28 Proposed changes to HD Phase 2 GHG program
28.1 Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Penetration rates for MY 2027,
2028, and 2029
28.1.1 Support Proposed Standards or More Stringent
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
AESI supports EPA's decision to revisit the Phase II GHG standards and propose that they be
tightened to reflect the pace of electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products)
While Air Products applauds EPA's regulatory effort to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, we do not believe the proposed regulation goes far enough
with respect to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies in light of truck manufacturer
developments and the number of states adopting the California Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)
regulations, which stipulate an implementation schedule for the introduction of ZEV trucks -
including both hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) -
into the commercial market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, p. 1]
73 See preamble Section III for discussion on the technology pathway we evaluated for complying with the final
standards. Manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through using other technologies, including ZEV
technologies.
1340
-------
The scientific community agrees that hydrogen must play an important role in decarbonizing
heavy-duty transportation, because of its unique ability to deliver the performance characteristics
needed for this class of vehicles. Heavy-duty FCEVs are exceeding heavy-duty battery electric
vehicle performance, including faster refuel times, longer range, and larger payloads, while
performing better in extreme climate conditions. Without hydrogen powered fuel cell drive
trains, the supply logistics of many of these markets will have to change considerably. Hydrogen
as a transportation fuel most closely mirrors the traditional transportation fuel experience and
when deployed at scale, hydrogen FCEVs provide cost savings on a total cost of ownership basis
for most single vehicles and fleet applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, p. 2]
The last few years have seen considerable commercial development in fuel cell transportation
and hydrogen fueling. Today, over 13,000 light-duty fuel cell electric consumer vehicles have
been sold in California, accompanied by dozens of fuel cell electric buses in revenue service
across the country, and a growing deployment of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for long-haul
transport and delivery services, including customers like DHL, UPS, and FedEx. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, p. 2]
The Biden Administration in 2021 established significant goals to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from the transportation sector to address global warming. These include the January
2021 Executive Order which initiated a Federal Clean Vehicle Procurement Strategy that
directed federal officials to develop plans to convert all federal fleets to zero emission vehicles,
including Postal Service vehicles. President Biden's American Jobs Plan includes $15 billion to
fund deployment of a national network of 500,000 public chargers for electric vehicles by 2030.
In further support of the deployment of zero emission vehicles nationwide, US DOT announced
in April 2021 its latest round of Alternative Fuel Corridor designations established by the FAST
Act of 2015. This program recognizes highway segments that have infrastructure plans to enable
travel on alternative fuels, including hydrogen. Cumulative designations for all fuel types
(electric, hydrogen, propane, natural gas) include 134 Interstates and 125 US highways/State
roads, covering almost 166,000 miles of the NHS in 49 States plus DC. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1166-A1, p. 2]
The initiatives above are in addition to the bold initiatives of California and New York to
eliminate sales of internal combustion engine vehicles starting in 2035 for all classes of on-road
vehicles. California's light-duty ZEV program is also currently being implemented in 15 other
states. In addition, the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulations adopted by California and
several other states focus on requiring manufacturers to supply increasing numbers of M/HD
ZEVs to the market, including hydrogen FCEVs. Moreover, President Biden signed an executive
order in August 2021 setting the goal of 50 percent of all new vehicle sales for light, medium and
heavy-duty vehicles be zero emission vehicles in 2030. This action was supported by
announcements from GM and Ford of their plans to sell 40 percent to 50 percent zero-emissions
vehicles by 2030. GM has said it will sell only electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1166-A1, p. 2]
As the White House American Jobs Plan May 2021 statement urged, "now is the.. .time for long-
term transformative investments." Instead, the proposed update to the EPA heavy-duty engine
standards regulation supports a slow walk to zero-emission vehicles, allowing new low emission,
1341
-------
internal combustion engine vehicles to remain acceptable through 2030. Zero emission vehicles
simplify or eliminate many of the current and proposed EPA regulations related to controlling
emissions under a broad range of engine operating conditions and maintaining emission control
over a greater portion of an engine's operational life. With zero emission vehicles, the EPA no
longer needs to police vehicle exemptions and deterioration of vehicle life-time performance,
and non-compliance resulting from non-certified engines that are introduced into the market can
be eliminated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
In recognition of the rapidly expanding adoption of zero-emission vehicle requirements across
the country and the potential regulatory program enforcement benefits associated with their
introduction, Air Products strongly recommends that the US EPA accelerate the deployment of
zero emission vehicles, including fuel cell electric vehicles, and more closely align its proposed
regulation with the ZEV goals initiated by the Biden Administration and heavy-duty ZEV
regulations being adopted by California and other individual states across the country. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, p. 3]
Given our global experience in these areas, Air Products been a resource for policy development
in many leading jurisdictions. We look forward to greater coordination and collaboration with
US EPA and other federal agencies on hydrogen fuel cell vehicle infrastructure deployment
going forward. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1166-A1, p. 3]
Organization: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
In the original Phase 2 rulemaking EPA projected no EV sales and noted that the model year
(MY) 2027 standards were achievable with improvements in internal combustion vehicle (ICV)
technology alone. However, EV sales and developments in EV technology have grown rapidly
since the rule was adopted and these changes have the potential to significantly decrease the
GHG benefit of the rule, by allowing ICVs to lag in performance, or even backslide. Thus, EPA
should increase rule stringency to deliver at least the same improvements in ICVs as the original
rule expected to deliver, while considering the emissions reduction benefits of an increase in EV
market share. Increasing the stringency of the proposed rule by the expected EV market share
will not only prevent unnecessary losses in GHG reductions but also preserve manufacturer
freedom to choose between ICV improvements or even faster electrification to comply with the
rules. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.2]
In the proposed rulemaking EPA projects that EVs will reach 1.5% of the combined vocational
and day cab markets in 2027 (p. 17601)1. This projection is based upon heavy-duty sales data
that shows that California accounts for 3.1% of the national HDV market2 (pl7600-17601),
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rule requirements and assumptions on California's share of the
total EV market ix (p. 17601). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.3]
1 All page numbers refer to this rules NPRM, unless otherwise noted.
2 As discussed further below, however, we find this to be an implausibly low
market share for California.
1342
-------
ix Ben Sharpe and Claire Buysse, 'Zero-Emission Bus and Truck Market in the United States
and Canada: A 2020 Update' (ICCT, May 21, 2021), https://theicct.org/publication/zero-
emission-bus-and-truck-market-in-the-united-states-and-canada-a-2020-update/.
The adoption of the ACT rule in additional states will have a significant effect on the heavy-duty
EV market. To date this rule has been adopted by 6 states x and is in the process of being
adopted in Connecticut xi. Based on EPA's California sales projection and these states' own
analyses of the ACT rule, ACEEE estimates that the states that have already adopted the ACT
represent at least 6% of the HDV sales market (see Appendix A). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2852-A1, p.3]
x State of Oregon, 'DQC Approves Clean Trucks Rule, a Significant Move toward
Fighting Climate Change and Protecting Human Health,' State of Oregon Newsroom,
November 17, 2021,
https://www.oregon.gov/newsroom/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=64571; Department
of Ecology, 'WAC 173-423-400,' Washington State Department of Ecology, November
29, 2021, https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Laws-rules-
rulemaking/Rulemaking/WAC-173-423-400; Edmund Coletta, 'MassDEP Files New
Regulations to Reduce Emissions, Advance Market for Clean Trucks in the
Commonwealth | Mass.Gov,' December 30, 2021, https://www.mass.gov/news/massdep-
files-new-regulations-to-reduce-emissions-advance-market-for-clean-trucks-in-the-
commonwealth; Lawrence Hajna and Caryn Shinske, 'NJDEP - News Release 21/P043 -
DEP Commissioner LaTourette Announces Adoption of Clean Truck Rules, Setting New
Jersey on Path for Zero-Emission Vehicle Future,' Department of Environmental
Protection, accessed May 4, 2022, https://www.nj.gov/dep/newsrel/2021/21_0043.htm;
NY Press Office, 'Governor Hochul Announces Adoption of Regulation to Transition to
Zero-Emission Trucks,' New York State, December 30, 2021,
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-adoption-regulation-
transition-zero-emission-trucks.
xi 'AN ACT CONCERNING EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR MEDIUM AND
HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES,' Pub. L. No. Bill No. 931 (2021),
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2021/fc/pdf/2021SB-00931-R000218-FC.PDF.
Given these market shares, ACEEE estimates that required EV sales in the states that have
already adopted the ACT will account for at least 1% of all HDV sales nationally in MY 2027.
Additionally, as the NPRM analysis rightly anticipates (p. 17601), the ACT rule will also spur
EV sales outside of ACT adopting states, albeit at a slower rate. Assuming that EV sales share in
non-ACT states is at least 15% of that of ACT states, EV sales will be 3.5% nationally at a bare
minimum in MY 2027. The 1.5% EV sales share in the NPRM underestimates the EV market
share by more than a factor of 2 and, therefore, fails to take advantage of the emissions
reductions made possible by growing EV sales, potentially allowing ICVs to improve at a slower
rate than intended under the Phase 2 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.3]
EPA requests comment on additional increases in stringency for 2028 and 2029, correctly noting
(17419) that there is information to support higher HDV EV share in those years. ACT
1343
-------
requirements will increase to 40% for class 4-6 vocational vehicles, and 25% for class 2b-3 and
all class 7-8 vehicles, in MY 2029 xii, and consequently the EV share in ACT states will account
for 3% of the HDV market by MY 2029. Continuing to increase stringency through MY 2029 is
vital to setting the stage for the next round of rule making, especially given the rapid growth in
EVs that is expected in these years. Neglecting to increase stringency during these years would
lower the baseline for standards in MY 2030 and lead to a growth in credits that would hinder the
adoption of appropriately stringent standards. ACEEE projects national EV sales in MY 2029 of
no less than 6.5%. Estimated nationwide EV sales are summarized in Table 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2852-A1, p.4]
xii CARB, 'Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet',' California Air Resources Board, June
25, 2020, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-trucks-fact-sheet.
Importantly, California's projected 3.1% share of national heavy-duty sales in 2027 shown in the
EPA proposal (p. 17600) is surprisingly small. California HDV registrations accounted for 10%
of national tractor registrations in 2020 xiii. We understand that California's share of HDV sales
does in fact trail registration share, but the disparity shown in the NPRM figures is very large.
Furthermore, the dollar value of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales in California was 6.9% of
the national total in 2021 xiv. Given that California EV sales were calculated as a fixed (ACT-
mandated) percentage of all heavy-duty sales in California, low heavy-duty sales projections
would result in an underestimate of EV sales. This concern is compounded by the fact that
several ACT states scaled their sales to California's reported sales based on truck VMT. Using
the states' calculations from their rule adoptions as discussed above leads to the conclusion that
the non-California ACT states account for about 3.5% of the HD market, when one would expect
them instead to account for 12% based on statistics such as registrations xv. Given that the
NPRM's own analysis of EV sales is based upon scaling California's projected sales to its share
of EV registrations (p. 17601), it is worth noting that only looking at registrations would instead
lead to nationwide EV sales of 5% in MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.4]
xiii US DOT, 'Table MV-9 - Highway Statistics 2019 - Policy | Federal Highway
Administration,' Federal Highway Administration, November 2020, 9,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/mv9.cfm.
xiv ATD, 'ATD Data 2021' (American Truck Dealers, 2022),
https://www.nada.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=21474861283.
xv US DOT, 'Table MV-9 - Highway Statistics 2019 - Policy | Federal Highway
Administration,' 9.
California is also in the process of adopting the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule, which will
enforce a Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate on fleets operating in the state xvi. This rule
will create a ZEV mandate for many new vehicle registrations, preventing non-compliant out of
state vehicles from being registered in California. This will likely bring California's share of
sales closer to its share of registrations and affect the projection of EVs as a percentage of the
national heavy-duty market in 2027. Thus, it is crucial that EPA base its EV projections for the
1344
-------
final rule on consistent, up-to-date data on state heavy-duty vehicle markets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2852-A1, p.4]
xvi CARB, 'Advanced Clean Fleets,' California Air Resources Board, 2022,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets
EPA proposes to increase GHG emissions stringency by 1.5% for MY 2027 vocational vehicles
and day cab tractors based on its projection of 1.5% EV sales share among these vehicles in MY
2027. EPA, however, proposes an exclusion that carveout that reduces this stringency by half.
EPA excludes spark ignition (SI) vocational vehicles from the increase in stringency, proposing
that all vocational EVs be certified under the compression ignition (CI) standard, while noting
that SI and CI vocational vehicles belong to the same averaging set. However, strengthening
standards by 1.5% for only a subset of vehicle types fails to reflect the emissions benefits gained
by the 1.5% EV sales share that EPA projects across all vocational vehicles and day cabs. SI
vehicles account for 60% of class 4 vocational vehicles, and more than 30% of class 5 and 6
vehicles xvii. As a result, applying the proposed improvements to just the CI vehicles effectively
halves the stringency increase for vocational vehicles to under 1% on average. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2852-A1, p.5]
xvii Dana Lowell and Jane Culkin, 'Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure,
Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness' (EDF,
n.d.), https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport
22jul21.pdf.
If EPA excludes SI vehicles from stringency increases in the final rule, the standards for CI
vehicles must be strengthened further to account for the SI market share of each vehicle class.
This requires projecting the CI/SI sales split into the future and considering how electrification
may change this split. ACEEE recommends that EPA instead increase emission stringency for
both SI and CI vehicles, which avoids the need to correct for SI market share. This stringency
increase should also be tailored to expected EV sales, which we have already noted is currently
underestimated in the proposal. The stringency increase for both CI and SI vehicles, therefore,
should not be under 3.5%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.5]
EPA does not propose any changes in Class 2b-3 vehicle emission standards, nor do they provide
evidence that these vehicles are less likely to be electrified over the life of the rule. As of this
point in time GHG emissions from Class 2b-3 pickup trucks and vans are regulated under the
heavy-duty standards alone. EPA has discussed potentially regulating these vehicles as light-duty
vehicles (P. 17417), however there are no proposals on the table to do so yet. EPA should
include them in any and all rule updates. Excluding them without reason misses the opportunity
and the need to hold them to more appropriate standards. Should EPA decide to include these
vehicles in future LD regulations, they can then amend the HDV regulations accordingly. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.5]
Until this point, our comments have focused on improving EV sales projections and the
corresponding stringency increases, and ensuring that the rule does not allow ICV performance
to degrade. The Phase 2 GHG emission program, however, is meant not merely to reflect real-
1345
-------
world technological trends, but to push them further to achieve greater GHG reduction. Simply
updating EV sales estimates and rule stringency to recognize current state commitments to
vehicle electrification, will not push developments in ICV technology or EV sales as far as
feasible or as fast as needed to meet broader climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1,
p.6]
In addition to the states that have already adopted the ACT rule, 10 other states are parties to a
Memorandum of Understanding committing to rapid electrification of heavy-duty vehicles.
Strong federal standards would help encourage these states to adopt the ACT, which would push
the market further and set the stage for stronger standards in MY 2030 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.6]
Likewise, many manufacturers have announced accelerated schedules for heavy-duty EV
production, with several companies announcing targets of 50% worldwide electrification by
2030, including Volvo and Scania xviii. Vehicle standards of comparable ambition would
provide crucial support for these leading companies and ensure that their targets can be met in
the U.S. market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.6]
xviii Scania, ' Scania's Electrification Roadmap,' Scania Group, November 24, 2021,
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2021/Scanias-electrification-
roadmap.html; AB Volvo, 'Volvo Trucks Launches Electric Truck with Longer Range,'
Volvo Group, January 14, 2022, https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-
medi a/ne ws/2022/j an/news-415 8927. html.
Historically, EPA has developed proposals for vehicle standard stringency using analysis of
technology cost-effectiveness, among other considerations. Yet no up-to-date analysis of heavy-
duty EV ownership cost parity appears in the proposal. A recent National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) study found that EVs will make up 42% of the medium-duty (MDV) and
HDV market share by calendar year 2030, based on a lower total cost of ownership for more EV
types xix. This finding suggests that EPA could feasibly set standards that decrease emissions in
new vehicles by 20% in MY 2027 and linearly increase to 40% in MY 2029, compared to the
current standards; either by increased EV sales or even greater improvement to ICV
performance. This is supported by the NREL study, which predicts that many EVs will become
cost competitive by MY 2027 xx. The NREL study additionally suggests that EVs could rapidly
grow in cost performance and market share even as ICVs continue to improve efficiency,
undercutting arguments that one must come at the expense of the other xx/'. This rate of
electrification is also roughly consistent with the ACT requirements, supporting EPA standards
consistent with the year-by-year EV sales shares required by the ACT on a nationwide
basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.6]
xix Catherine Ledna et al., 'Decarbonizing Medium-& Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis' (NREL, March 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
1346
-------
xx Catherine Ledna et al., 'Decarbonizing Medium-& Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis' (NREL, March 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
xxi Catherine Ledna et al., 'Decarbonizing Medium-& Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis' (NREL, March 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
Such ambitious actions are necessary to deliver the progress on ICV efficiency and EV adoption
to meet broader climate goals. Global warming is a critical threat to our nation and we need to
limit the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2°C. Research from the
International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) suggests that mild increases in rule
strigency are not enough to have an impact. Accounting for the fact that vehicles sold today will
remain on the roads for over a decade, and their GHG emissions much longer, HD ZEV sales
must reach at least 20% in MY 2027 and 50% in 2030% xxii. ICCT's estimates are summarized
by vehicle class and type in Table 2. These sales numbers are excedingly close to levels that
NREL and industry actions suggest are possible. For this reason ACEEE suggests that EPA
increase average strigency by 19% in MY2027 and increase this linearly to 40% in MY
2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.7]
xxii Claire Buysse, Sara Kelly, and Ray Minjares, 'Racing to Zero: The Ambition We
Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States,' International
Council on Clean Transportation (blog), April 8, 2022, https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-
hdv-us-apr22/; Arijit Sen and Josh Miller, 'Emissions Reduction Benefits of a Faster,
Global Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicles' (ICCT, March 8, 2022),
https://theicct.org/publication/zevs-global-transition-benefits-mar22/.
EPA has rightly proposed to strengthen MY 2027-2029 GHG and NOx emissions regulations.
However, the rule needs improvements. As discussed, the rule does not follow the historical
standard of using technology cost-effectiveness analysis to set stringency and instead simply
attempts to follow market trends. In doing so it also significantly underestimates the pace of
technological development. The proposed rule is also weakened by counterproductive
credit provision and vehicle exclusions. Even without these credits and exclusions the proposed
rule is not stringent enough to ensure the predicted improvements in ICV efficiency. Moreover, a
much stronger rule is needed to support an EV adoption trajectory consistent with the cost-
effectiveness of electrification in a rapidly growing number of heavy-duty vehicle segments and
the urgent need to curtail transportation greenhouse gas emissions. While our comments are
focused on the GHG portion of the NPRM, ACEEE also recognizes the value and pressing need
to reduce NOx and other criteria pollutant emissions as much as possible. ACEEE encourages
EPA to ensure that the final rule protects the health of our nation by ensuring that the final rule
pushes NOx standards and technology further than what the current market can support and
drives innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, pp.9-10]
EPA should improve its EV sales estimates to reflect consistent, up-to-date data on state heavy-
duty vehicle markets. Reference case EV sales estimates of at least 3.5%, 5%, and 6.5% in MYs
2027, 2028, and 2029, respectively, are warranted. GHG stringency increases of these same
1347
-------
percentages would be required just to ensure that the ICV improvements in the original rule are
preserved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p. 10]
EPA should not exclude vehicles that will see significant electrification, such as class 2b-3
pickup trucks and vans, from stringency increases and should, likewise, not exclude SI
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p. 10]
EPA should set standards that reflect an EV share of 19% by MY 2027, 30% in MY 2028, and
40% in MY 2029. This is also in line with the pressing need to prevent global temperatures from
rising more than 2°C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p. 10]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
Support stronger climate pollution reductions and boost the transition to zero-emission
trucks. We support a widespread and rapid transition to zero-emission trucks, noting that the
proposed Option 1 assumes extremely limited growth in the zero-emission truck market and may
work at cross purposes to both emission reductions and more rapid electrification. Six states have
now adopted zero-emission truck standards, and more are in the process of adopting standards
and other agreements that will further accelerate the zero-emission truck market. To truly spur
the transition to zero emissions, the final rule must account for greater growth in the zero-
emission truck market and establish more stringent greenhouse gas standards that account for
this growth. Failing to account for the growth in the zero-emission vehicle market may reduce
the overall benefits of the rule if higher emitting trucks are balanced against advanced
technology credits. Conversely, establishing a stronger signal via Phase 2 is essential to setting
the stage for accelerating to zero-emission technologies throughout the trucking sector. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.3]
Organization: AMPLY Power et al.
We, the undersigned businesses, write to support the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in finalizing a Clean Trucks Plan that accelerates the transition to zero-emission medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p. 1]
The Clean Trucks Plan represents a critical opportunity for the US to transition to widespread
electrification of trucks and buses. The emissions and economic benefits of the transition to zero-
emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are well documented and the urgency to reduce
global warming and criteria emissions is paramount to human health and the economy. 1 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p. 1]
1. For example see, Sen, A., R. Minjares, J. Miller, and C. Braun. 2022. "Benefits of the
2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding," Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation. Online
at: https://theicct.org/publication/md-hd-mou-benefits-apr22/ and Ledna, C., M. Muratori,
A. Yip, P. Jadun, and C. Hoehne. 2022. "Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-
Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis," Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Online at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
1348
-------
We are concerned with the level of zero-emission vehicles expected to be deployed through the
proposed Clean Trucks Plan. To avoid the most severe impacts of climate change and attain
clean air in communities impacted by vehicle emissions, we need federal standards that at a
minimum, achieve zero-emission truck and bus deployments on par with the Advanced
Clean Trucks standard in model years 2027-2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p.
1]
Six states, representing 20 percent of national medium- and heavy-duty vehicle registrations,
have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks standard, which sets a minimum level of zero-emission
vehicle sales in these states. Through this policy, zero-emission vehicles in these states will
comprise nearly 20 percent of Class 4-8 sales in model year 2027, nearly 30 percent in model
year 2028, and nearly 40 percent in model year 2029.2 Several other states are actively
considering adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-
Al, p. 1]
2. Based on sales-weighted averages of zero-emission vehicle sales requirements in the
Advanced Clean Trucks standard for Class 4-8 straight trucks and Class 7-8 tractors.
There are many policy mechanisms that EPA can use to achieve this transition. No matter the
path chosen, the results should be the same: accelerating national zero-emission vehicle
deployments in model years 2027-2029 at least to levels in the Advanced Clean Trucks standard.
Federal policy supporting zero-emission vehicle deployments in these years is critical to
achieving even greater deployments of zero-emission vehicles in subsequent policies, such as a
Phase 3 GHG standard, that would apply to vehicles in model year 2030 and later. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p. 2]
EPA's assessment of the zero-emission truck and bus market in its proposed updates to the Phase
2 GHG standards—that zero-emission trucks and buses will comprise just 1.5 percent of Class 4-
8 vehicle national vehicle sales in model year 2027—greatly underestimates the number of zero-
emission trucks and buses needed and possible to be deployed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1236-A1, p. 2]
Parallel to our support of regulatory action at EPA is our support of federal policies for
incentives and investments in zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure. Such policies include
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and tax incentives proposed in Congress for zero-
emission vehicles and infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p. 2]
Our businesses are building the vehicles, infrastructure, and business models to support the zero-
emission vehicle market. We stand by ready to work with EPA to enable and encourage this
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1236-A1, p. 2]
Organization: BorgWarner
We strongly urge EPA to avoid tailpipe-specific ZEV definitions that exclude technologies
that could make a timely real-world difference in C02 emissions. For example, hydrogen
combustion is an advanced technology that is under development and more ready to be rapidly
1349
-------
deployed in high volumes to make an impact on the environment. This technology can be readily
adapted from existing systems and therefore, could be used as a bridging strategy to significantly
decrease C02 during the transition to electric and fuel cell vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1234-A1, p. 3]
We recommend EPA look to future Commercial Vehicle (CV) Battery Electric Vehicle
(BEV) growth forecasts when considering the new standard. While BorgWarner supports
adjustments to the Phase II standards, we recognize that CV BEV forecasts are rapidly shifting.
Industry forecasts increasingly expect more CV BEVs and consequently we believe that, even
with adjustments, EPA is underestimating the level of CV ZEV penetration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 4]
Organization: BYD Motors, LLC (BYD)
As the global leader in the manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, BYD is uniquely positioned to
assess the feasibility of significant long-term deployment of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1207-A1, p. 1]
Our own data shows that globally BYD Motors has delivered and sold 72,222 battery electric
buses; 17,974 battery electric trucks and 1,898,219 New Energy Passenger Vehicles (including
pure electric and hybrids). We expect that number to continue to rise, indicating that the capacity
is there and will continue to grow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 1]
This same U.S. factory, operating as BYD Bus & Coach in Lancaster, California, has begun
producing zero-emission battery electric school buses that will transport school children to and
from their schools and provide emerging Vehicle-to-Grid technologies that will transform
communities reliance on the grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, pp. 1-2]
In support of EDF, we urge EPA to ensure its standards help achieve 80 percent ZEVs for new
school and transit buses by MY2029. We also support EDF's encouragement of EPA to ensure
its standards help achieve 40% ZEV sales by 2029 for new Classes 4-7 Vehicles and Class 8
Short-Haul Trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 2]
A 2022 study done for EDF by Rousch supports the case that a significant near-term deployment
of ZEVs is, in fact, feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 2]
As the Official Sponsor of Mother Nature, BYD is committed to manufacturing products,
including buses, school buses, trucks, forklifts and passenger vehicles that are emission-free and
safe. BYD announced in April it has ceased manufacturing internal combustion engines to focus
on hybrid and battery electric vehicles including its full line of passenger vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 2]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requests comment on all aspects of the proposed targeted updates to the 2027 MY
HD GHG Phase 2 program, including the projections of the four vehicle types affected and if
1350
-------
additional vehicle types should be considered. CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposed
adjustment of the 2027 MY C02 emission standards to account for higher HD ZEVs penetration
in the HD vehicle market than originally expected in the existing U.S. EPA's HD Phase 2 GHG
standards. As also mentioned in the NPRM, in March 2021, CARB adopted the ACT regulation
which requires manufactures to produce a certain percentage of HD ZEV for sale in California.
CARB's ACT HD ZEV requirement will start with the 2024 MY (5 to 9 percent of total HD
vehicle sales) and ramp up significantly through 2035 MY and beyond (40 to 75 percent of total
HD vehicle sales). 138 Furthermore, some section 177 states such as Washington, Massachusetts,
Oregon, New Jersey, and New York have followed California and adopted the ACT regulation,
and other states are in the process of adopting the regulation. This will significantly increase HD
ZEV production starting in 2024 MY, not only in California, but also in the whole nation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.79]
138 California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order, Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation, effective date March 15, 2021.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf
While CARB staff supports U.S. EPA's proposed adjustment of C02 emission standards for
2027 and later MY vehicles, we have significant concerns on the proposed C02 emission
standard adjustment values as well as the U.S. EPA's targeted subcategories and respectfully
urge U.S. EPA to consider the two following recommendations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.79]
CARB staff has significant concerns regarding the methodology used for calculating the
percentage of national 2027 MY HD ZEVs in the NPRM. One key assumption in the U.S. EPA's
calculation is that 42 percent of HD ZEVs sold in the U.S. would be sold in California. This 42
percent estimate is based on an International Council on Clean Transportation report showing
that in 2020, almost 1,100 of the 2,600 zero-emission commercial vehicles in the U.S. were in
California. The report noted in its introduction that the market for zero-emission buses and trucks
is still in its early stages and provided an overview of the 2020 market. However, that report
neither projects HD ZEV sales beyond 2020 nor considers that zero-emission technology
continues to advance nor accounts for the fact that other states adopt CARB's ACT regulation.
Consequently, both that report, and U.S. EPA's estimates of HD ZEVs in the nation improperly
failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; specifically,
factors that, as discussed below, indicate that as a number of other states implement HD ZEV
requirements and encourage electrification of commercial vehicles, the number of HD ZEVs will
increase in the nation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.79-80]
In the NPRM, U.S. EPA used CARB's ACT rulemaking's estimates of 2027 MY California
sales of 3,938 HD ZEVs and divided it by 42 percent, to arrive at the national sales of 9,376 HD
ZEVs, as shown in Section XI.C.l. of the NPRM. However, this method of estimating the
quantities of HD ZEVs throughout the nation is highly inaccurate and therefore projects
inappropriately low numbers of HD ZEVs in the 2027 MY, less than 10,000 HD ZEVs sold in
the U.S. compared to total national sales of all heavy-duty vehicles of almost 600,000
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.80]
1351
-------
In Table XI-3 of the NPRM, the total number (conventional and HD ZEV) of California vehicle
sales was taken from CARB's ACT projections for the 2027 MY, which was 20,938 vehicles.
For the national sales, the sales projection was from the Phase 2 Final Rule (Table XI-5). If
CARB's ACT California sales were divided by the Phase 2 national sales, the California sales
constitute a little over 3 percent of national sales, which is low compared to the typical California
sales of about 7 to 10 percent of national sales. The effect of this lower number of California
sales compared to national sales would also result in an inaccurate lower fraction of calculated
national HD ZEVs in 2027 MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.80]
As U.S. EPA mentioned in the NPRM, California's HD vehicle population is approximately 10
percent of the U.S. HD population. Based on CARB's HD certification data in the 2019 and
2020 MYs, California's HD vehicle sales are about 7 percent of the national sales. Based on
these facts, CARB staff estimates about 7 to 10 percent of national sales are California sales in
2027 MY. With the required HD ZEV sales of 15 to 20 percent of total California HD vehicle
sale in 2027 under CARB's ACT regulation, the California ZEV sales alone are already about 1
to 2 percent of the total U.S. HD sales. It is also worth noting that CARB staff is currently
working on developing the proposed Advanced Clean Fleet regulation that would accelerate the
market for zero-emission trucks and buses by requiring California fleets that are well suited for
electrification to transition to ZEVs where feasible. 139 In the NPRM, U.S. EPA assumed only
1.5 percent national HD ZEV penetration in their proposed 2027 MY C02 emission standards,
which seems to only account for California's adoption of the ACT. However, as noted earlier, in
addition to California, several section 177 states have already adopted CARB's ACT regulation,
which will definitely result in national ZEV penetration much greater than 1.5 percent as
proposed in the NPRM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.80]
139 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Fleets, March 3, 2022. Advanced
Clean Fleets Fact Sheet (ca.gov)
HD ZEV sales will likely increase beyond CARB's ACT regulatory push in 2027. As mentioned
in the NPRM, an MOU organized by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management,
sets a target of an interim goal of 30 percent of all new medium-duty and HD vehicles sales
being HD ZEVs no later than 2030.140 Currently, 18 signatories, including California and the
section 177 states noted above, are part of this agreement. In order to achieve this interim goal, a
significant number of vehicles sales in 2027 must be HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.81]
140 https://www.nescaum.org/documents/medium-and-heavy-duty-zero-emission-
vehicles-action-plan-development-process/. Accessed March 21, 2022.
A report by the ACT Research shows projections of HD ZEV sales to be 21 percent in 2027.141
The report predicts that in the early years, regulatory requirements will drive HD ZEV sales;
however, past 2030, technology gains will far exceed regulatory influences due to increasingly
favorable total cost of ownership of ZEVs over conventional vehicles. A recent report by Roush
projects that by 2027 to 2030, the total cost of ownership for a HD ZEV will be less for a
conventional commercial vehicle in certain vehicle types. 142 NREL conducted a study that
projected HD ZEV sales would account for 42 percent of all new HD sales by 2030 based solely
1352
-------
on economics, assuming the charging and refueling infrastructure is established (a very
conservative scenario showed 7 percent of HD ZEV sales by 2030.143) Furthermore, recent
federal, state, 144,145 and privatel46 programs and agreements are being implemented in the
near-term to build infrastructure for HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.81]
141 ACT Research, https://www.actresearch.net/electric-vehicles-charge/.
142 http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2022.
143 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
144 https://www.michigan.gov/-
/media/Project/Websites/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master.pdf?rev=6dd781b5a4eb4551b
3b3a5b875d67fb9. Accessed March 21, 2022.
145 https://www.governor.state.nm.us/2022/02/24/new-mexico-coalition-of-mountain-
west-states-sign-mou-to-develop-a-regional-clean-hydrogen-hub/ Accessed March 21,
2022.
146 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-
headlines/daimler-nextera-blackrock-to-invest-650m-in-us-charging-sites-for-trucks-
68665504. Accessed March 21, 2022.
CARB staff accordingly urges U.S. EPA to account for the aforementioned factors that
individually and collectively indicate there will be significantly greater quantities of HD ZEVs in
the nation than as estimated in the NPRM and that the proposal will consequently result in the
generation of more credits than U.S. EPA is anticipating, which will likely not fulfill U.S. EPA's
objective of maintaining the stringency of the Phase 2 GHG program. State Farm, 463 U.S. at
43. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.81]
CARB staff believes that more accurate and realistic national HD ZEV penetration projection
rates will likely be at least 20 percent of all nationwide HD sales per year for 2027 and beyond,
in adjusting the 2027 and subsequent MY C02 emission standards. If U.S. EPA moves forward
with a proposal that is based on the NPRM's projection of weak HD ZEV sales like the 1.5
percent proposed in the NPRM, then the Phase 2 GHG standards need to be adjusted to ensure
higher HD ZEV sales do not destroy the efficacy of the Phase 2 GHG standards. The standards
must be amended with some backstop in allowable credits for HD ZEVs to prevent higher HD
ZEV sales resulting in substantial delays or the elimination of needed and cost effected vehicle
and engine technologies initially identified during the adoption of Phase 2 GHG program.
Applying HD ZEV emission credit caps or significantly reducing HD ZEV credits after a
threshold volume is reached would be necessary to assure that the projected vehicle and engine
technologies identified as feasible and cost effective are realized in the implementation of the
Phase 2 GHG program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.81-82]
1353
-------
In addition to the four vehicle types most likely to be electrified through 2030, U.S. EPA should
also consider the refuse hauler vehicle type. As part of CARB's ACT rulemaking package,
CARB staff conducted an assessment of the ZEV market and the suitability of ZEVs in the MD
and HD commercial space. 147 The ZEV suitability was assessed based on four factors: weight,
route/range, charging/fueling infrastructure, and battery/vehicle space constraints. Each of these
factors for each market segment (i.e., vehicle category) was assigned a number value of 1, 3, or
10 (with 1 representing a highly suitable characteristic, 3 representing a challenging suitability
characteristic, and 10 representing a poorly suitable characteristic). These values were then
averaged for each market segment to assign each segment a value between 1 and 10, where the
lowest values would suggest the highest suitability for electrification. The market segment with
an average suitability score that is above 5 has at least two characteristics identified with poor
suitability factors. This indicates that electrification with today's technology is not likely to be
feasible for most of that market segment. According to the assessment, refuse haulers have a
ZEV suitability score of 1 to 2, indicating that they are the most suitable segments to transition to
ZEP due to their typical operation on predictable routes with frequent stop-and-go. Hence,
CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA to consider refuse haulers in their targeted vehicle types that
are subject to the proposed adjustment of the 2027 MY C02 emission standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.82]
147 California Air Resources Board. Appendix E: Zero Emission Truck Market
Assessment, to the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, 'Public Hearing to
Consider the Proposed ACT Regulation,' October 22, 2019.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appe.pdf
In addition, CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to also include HD vehicles subjected to SI GHG
standards (or HD gasoline vehicles) as part of the targeted subcategories for adjusting 2027 and
newer MY C02 emission standards. The projected higher ZEV penetration in 2027+ timeframe,
which had necessitated the proposed 2027 and newer MY GHG standards adjustment for HD
diesel vehicles, should be accounted for all HD internal combustion vehicle standards regardless
of their powered fuel types. HD gasoline vehicles still make up a significant portion in HD
transportation sector, especially in light and medium HD vehicle categories. It can also be argued
that all gasoline-fueled HD vehicles have targeted applications that do not require high engine
torque (i.e., less vehicle payload) or high fuel efficiency (i.e., shorter operating routes), thereby
making this segment highly feasible for electrification. Therefore, CARB staff recommends U.S.
EPA to adjust 2027 and newer MY C02 emission standards for HD vehicles certified to SI GHG
standards following the same approach that U.S. EPA proposed in the NPRM, incorporating
CARB staffs suggested revised HD ZEV penetration projection discussed in the comment
above, for diesel vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 82-83]
Organization: CALSTART
As significant as the benefits of the ACT were estimated to be in California, CARB's emissions
analysis also illustrates the need for even greater emission reductions. The 2.9 million metric
tons of global warming emissions estimated to be reduced in California by the ACT in 2040 is
small compared to the baseline of roughly 33 million metric tons per year in 2040. The 5,301
tons of NOx reduced per year in 2040 is also small compared to an annual estimate of nearly
1354
-------
60,000 tons in 2040. Adoption of the ACT is a significant step in deploying zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, but it alone will not reduce emissions of criteria pollutants or
GHGs enough to achieve air quality or climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.7]
Similar NOx and GHG emission benefits of adopting the ACT result from multi-state analyses.
Adoption of ACT in 12 states and the District of Columbia, assuming implementation in 2025,
will reduce GHG emissions an estimated 15 percent below business as usual in 2050 (Figure 3).
ACT adoption in these states would similarly reduce NOx emissions by 15 percent in 2050
compared to business as usual (ICCT, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.7]
While the widespread transition to zero-emission vehicles will require large scale production of
vehicles, small businesses have enabled the early stages of the medium- and heavy-duty zero-
emission market (CARB, 2021). Zero-emission vehicles produced by small businesses have
helped demonstrate the suitability of zero-emission technologies, while generating new jobs and
economic growth in the process. Such companies manufacture buses and shuttles (e.g,
Greenpower Motor, Motiv Power Systems, and Lion Electric), on-road trucks and vans (e.g.,
Phoenix Motorcars and Lightning Systems), and off-road yard trucks (e.g., Orange EV) and have
combined to manufacture over 560 vehicles for California fleets alone as of May 2021. As larger
manufacturers enter the marketplace, small business will continue to provide critical innovations
and products in the transition to zero-emission vehicles. The US Department of Energy
recognizes how critical small-business contributions are to the development of clean energy
technological solutions—in June 2021, 235 small businesses were awarded $54 million in seed
funding for projects ranging from electric vehicle batteries to advanced grid technologies (DOE,
2021). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1313- A 1, pp.7-8]
Regulatory actions to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission medium- and heavy duty
vehicles have taken place at the state level in the US to-date. In June 2020, California became the
first state to adopt the ACT standard, a regulation requiring an increasing fraction of zero-
emission Class 2b-8 sales beginning in model year 2024, according to Table 1. Five more
states—Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts—adopted the ACT in
2021, with implementation beginning in model year 2025. Based on Class 2b-8 vehicle
registrations in 2019, these six states represent 20 percent of the national truck and bus market
and 17 percent of Class 4-8 sales.6 Three other states are actively considering adoption of the
ACT including Colorado, Maine, and Connecticut (CDPHE, 2022; Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, 2021; State of Connecticut, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-
Al, p.8]
6 Class 2b-8 vehicle registrations are based on Atlas' evaluation of 2019 IHS Markit
registration data, available at: https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/medium-and-heavy-
duty-vehicleregistrations- dashboard/. Sales are based on an unpublished CALSTART
analysis of 2019 IHS Markit data that uses a 1 percent growth in total annual sales for all
vehicle classes (Al-Alawi, 2022).
In 2020, state governors, under a memorandum of understanding (MOU), committed to
accelerating deployments of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in their states with
at least 30 percent of sales being zero-emission vehicles in 2030 and 100 percent no later than
1355
-------
2050. As of May 2022, 17 states, Washington, DC, and Quebec have adopted this Multi-state
MOU (O'Dea, 2022). Note, these commitments apply to Class 2b-8 vehicles. A summary of
states adopting the ACT, Heavy-Duty Omnibus, and Multi-state MOU are shown in Figure
4. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1313- A 1, p.9]
At the international level, CALSTART's Global Drive to Zero program is a strategic,
international initiative designed to catalyze the growth of the zero-emission medium and heavy-
duty vehicle sector, focused on key vehicle segments, from transit buses to semi-trucks (Global
Drive to Zero, n.d.). More than 100 Drive to Zero pledge partners promise to collaboratively put
in place supporting mechanisms to speed the early market for these vehicles and equipment.7
Similar to the Multi-state MOU, fifteen countries have signed the Global MOU committing to
zero-emission vehicles comprising 30 percent of medium- and heavy-duty sales and 100 percent
of sales no later than 2040. The 100 percent sales target signed by countries is ten years earlier
than that in the Multistate MOU. An additional 42 sub-national governments, businesses, and
other organizations in the freight and bus industry and road transport, have fully endorsed the
ambition of the Global MOU. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp.9-10]
7 A current listing of Drive to Zero Pledge Partners is available at
http s ://gl ob al dri vetozero. org/ab out/pi edge-partners/
CALSTART urges EPA to increase the number of zero-emission vehicles deployed through the
final rule. There are many mechanisms that EPA can use to achieve this outcome, including
increasing the stringency of the Phase 2 GHG standards or crediting of zero-emission vehicles
for compliance with NOx emission standards while achieving net 90 percent NOx reductions
compared to current engines. No matter the path chosen, CALSTART recommends the final rule
set the regulatory framework on a path to accelerate national zero-emission vehicle deployments
in model years 2027-2029 at least to levels achieved by the ACT for Class 4-8 vehicles. In model
years 2027-2029, the ACT achieves Class 4-8 zero-emission sales of 18 percent, 26 percent, and
34 percent based on analysis by CALSTART (weighted for national sales of Class 4-8 straight
vehicles and Class 7-8 tractors) (Table 2 and Figure 5). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
p.10]
A final rule supporting zero-emission vehicle deployments in model years 2027-2029 is critical
to building a ramp to even greater deployments of zero-emission vehicles in subsequent policies,
namely the Phase 3 GHG standard, that would apply to vehicles in model year 2030 and later.
The world is already behind the pace of reductions needed for addressing climate change and air
quality. The Clean Trucks Plan must move the path to zero-emission vehicles upward.
Otherwise, Phase 3 GHG standards will never push industry to the levels of zero-emission trucks
that are achievable and needed. As discussed and shown below, EPA's assessment of the zero-
emission truck and bus market in its proposed updates to the Phase 2 GHG standards—that zero-
emission trucks and buses will comprise just 1.5 percent of Class 4-8 vehicle national vehicle
sales in model year 2027—greatly underestimates the number of zero-emission trucks and buses
expected and possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp. 10-11]
As shown in our market adoption analysis below, zero-emission vehicles can be deployed at
levels similar to the ACT standard in segments ready for electrification today, i.e., in urban
1356
-------
regions where the duty cycles and distances best match with technology capabilities and
production capacity. These applications, some of which are already called out by EPA in the
proposed rule (transit, school bus, delivery and regional tractors) could be mapped to EPA's
existing matrix bin structure created for EPA's Phase 2 GHG standard. Each bin would be
assigned a discrete emission reduction target based on segment-based projections of zero-
emission sales. The total GHG emissions reductions from such a scheme would adjust the 1.5
percent GHG reduction called for in the proposed rule to at least match emission reductions
achieved by the ACT standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.11]
More stringent GHG emission standards could work in parallel to flexibility given to
manufacturers to comply with NOx emission standards through the accelerated deployment of
zero-emission vehicles. The NOx reductions from these deployments would meet or exceed a net
90 percent NOx reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p. 11]
CALSTART analyzed IHS Markit sales data by state and vehicle class to estimate sales of zero-
emission Class 4-8 vehicles in the six states that have adopted the ACT standard (Al- Alawi,
2022). Compared to the 9,376 zero-emission vehicles estimated will be sold in model year 2027,
CALSTART's analysis indicates 16,347 vehicles will be sold across the six states that have
adopted the ACT (Table 3). This represents 3.3 percent of total Class 4-8 sales in model year
2027 (estimated at 297,574 Class 4-8 straight vehicles and 189,117 Class 7-8 tractors), compared
to the 1.5 percent estimated in the proposed rule. In model years 2028 and 2029, CALSTART
estimates zero-emission vehicles from the six ACT states will comprise 4.8 percent and 6.3
percent of total Class 4-8 sales in the US, respectively. While annual sales of all vehicles have
decreased since 2019 as a result of the pandemic, the fraction of zero-emission vehicles from the
six ACT states will remain similar no matter the basis for annual sales. For example, in
CALSTART's estimate of zero-emission Class 4-8 vehicle sales using both 2019 and 2021 sales
as baselines, the number of zero-emission vehicle sales in the six ACT states doubles from model
year 2027 to 2029 from roughly 3 percent to 6 percent. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
P-12]
While six states have currently adopted the ACT standard, another 11 states and Washington, DC
have committed to achieving 30 percent zero-emission Class 2b-8 vehicle sales by 2030. Three
of these states are actively considering adoption of the ACT, including Colorado, Maine, and
Connecticut, and it is likely that more than six states will be implementing the ACT in model
years 2027-2029. Modifications to the Phase 2 GHG standards and crediting in the NOx standard
should account for states that adopt the ACT in the future and whose implementation begins
sometime between model years 2026 and 2029. If all of the 18 jurisdictions in the US that have
adopted the Multi-state MOU were to achieve ACT-like sales in line with the MOU's 2030
commitment, CALSTART estimates 32,470 zero-emission Class 4-8 vehicles would be sold
nationally in model year 2027 corresponding to 6.5 percent of national Class 4-8 sales and
increasing to 12.4 percent of sales in model year 2029 (Table 4).8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1313-A1, p.12]
8 In MOU jurisdictions that have not adopted the ACT, implementation was assumed to
begin in model year 2026. In the six states that have adopted the ACT, implementation
1357
-------
was consistent with regulatory actions in these states, i.e., 2024 in California and 2025 in
the other five states.
The Clean Trucks Plan should also account for zero-emission vehicles deployed through states'
adoption of the ACF standard, which sets requirements for fleets to purchase zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. This policy has been in development at CARB since 2019 and
is expected to be adopted by the CARB Board in 2023, with implementation beginning in 2024.
Other states will have the ability to adopt this policy (CARB, n.d.). The ACF will result in three
times the number of Class 4-8 zero-emission vehicles (straight vehicles and tractors) than the
ACT in model years 2027-2029, as shown in the Table 5 (CARB, 2021a). Unaccounted for,
credits from zero-emission vehicles in the ACF could overwhelm the Clean Trucks Plan and
greatly compromise its intended reductions in emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
P 13]
EPA's projection of zero-emission vehicle sales should also take into account state and local
requirements for the deployment of zero-emission transit buses, which are excluded from ACT
sales requirements but are included in EPA's projection of zero-emission vehicle sales and affect
Phase 2 GHG standards. California's Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) standard, adopted in
December 2018, is one such policy that EPA should consider. The ICT requires an increasing
fraction of transit bus purchases to be zero-emission vehicles beginning at 25 percent in 2023 for
large transit agencies and 25 percent in 2026 for small transit agencies. Under this policy, all
transit bus purchases in the state must be zero-emission vehicles from 2029 and onward (CARB,
2019b). From purchase plans submitted to CARB by 19 large transit agencies across the state, an
estimated 5,000 zero-emission buses (Class 4 and above) will be deployed in California through
2030 (Figure 6) (Paddon, 2021). Additional zero-emission transit buses will be deployed by
small transit agencies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp. 13-14]
Outside of state policies requiring the deployment of zero-emission vehicles, there are other
important market drivers that EPA should consider in its projection of zero-emission vehicle
sales, including vehicles deployed with known incentive funding and public commitments by
fleets and vehicle manufacturers to produce and adopt zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1313-A1, p.14]
Funding in the recently adopted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will provide
roughly $3.5 billion for zero-emission transit buses and up to $5 billion for zero-emission school
buses. In a rough estimate that considers the price of a battery electric transit bus at $850,000 and
a school bus at $375,000, the IIJA could fund approximately 4,000 transit buses and 13,000
school buses over the five-year life of these programs. While no targets have been set to date,
incentives for the purchase of zero-emission trucks are also eligible expenditures under several,
billion-dollar IIJA programs, including but not limited to the Carbon Reduction Program ($6.4
billion), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program ($13 billion), and the
National Highway Freight Program ($7.1 billion). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp.14-
15]
Nationally, over 1,200 zero-emission trucks have been deployed across the US (Figure 7), with
at least that many more expected to be deployed through existing vouchers awarded in
1358
-------
California's HVIP incentive program.9 Through 2021, an additional 1,700 zero-emission school
buses and 3,500 zero-emission transit buses have been awarded, ordered, or delivered (see maps
in Figure 8 below showing state distribution of these vehicles). 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1313-A1, p.15]
9 Deployments of zero-emission trucks can be found at: https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-
zero-emission- trucks/. Vehicles ordered through HVIP can be found at:
https://californiahvip.org/impact
10 Adoption of zero-emission school buses and transit buses can be found at:
https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-esbs-2022/ and https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zebs/.
Fleets are committing to zero-emission vehicle transitions, ordering these vehicles, and
deploying them. Nationwide, an estimated 81 fleets are currently operating zero-emission trucks.
An additional 76 fleets have zero-emission vehicles on order. Twenty fleets have publicly set
goals for adopting zero-emission vehicles. 11 Last December, President Biden issued an
Executive Order committing all Federal vehicle purchases to zero-emission technologies by 2035
(White House, 2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.16]
11 EDF has catalogued fleets' deployments, orders, and commitments to zero-emission
trucks, see:
https://docs.google.eom/spreadsheets/d/110m2Dolmj Semrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-
KLSvHC- 5vAc/edit#gid= 1021779951
Fleets in the US have "ordered" - inclusive of legally binding and non-binding commitments -
146,000 zero-emission trucks to be delivered over the next ten years. The largest order is from
Amazon for 100,000 Rivian delivery vans. Rivian aims to have the first 10,000 delivery vans
delivered to Amazon by 2022 and all 100,000 delivered by 2030. The United Parcel Service's
order of 10,000 Arrival delivery vans is expected to be completed by 2024.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1313-A1, p.16]
12 See CALSTART's report "Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks" for more information
at: https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zero-emission-trucks/
Twenty-one manufacturers of combustion cars, trucks, and equipment have made public
commitments around zero-emission, electric, "carbon neutral," or "fossil free" vehicles (Table
6). 13 Notable commitments include those by two large, legacy manufacturers of heavy-duty
vehicles that have committed to 50 percent of their sales being electric or zero-emission vehicles
by 2030, which match the Class 4-8 sales requirements and exceed the Class 7-8 tractor sales
requirements under the ACT. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp. 16-17]
13 Information on vehicle manufacturers' commitments to clean technologies can be
found in Table 2 at: https://globaldrivetozero.org/publication/country-policy-targets-
briefing/
1359
-------
14 Information on Volvo Trucks and Scania's commitments can be found at:
https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2022/jan/news-4158927.html and
https://www.scania.com/group/en/home/newsroom/news/2021/Scanias-
electrificationroadmap.html.
CALSTART's knowledge of the truck and bus industries indicates a rapid transition to zero-
emission vehicles is achievable in many medium- and heavy-duty vehicle segments.
CALSTART's "beachhead" strategy, summarized in Figure 9 below, envisions such
deployments can be achieved through waves of investments, policies, and deployments that
begin with vehicle segments most suited for zero-emission technology based on duty cycle,
business case, and performance and progressively expand to additional applications as
technology matures and manufacturing capacity increases.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-
Al, pp.17-18]
15 More information on CALSTART's market-ready, "beachhead" strategy can be found
at: https://globaldrivetozero.org/public/The_Beachhead_Model.pdf
BYD, a world leader in electric car, truck, and bus deployments, represents a company deploying
vehicles across market-ready applications, including transit buses, coach buses, delivery trucks,
regional haul tractors, yard trucks, and school buses (BYD, n.d.). Proterra also represents an
example of the company deploying zero-emission technology in waves as it expands in scale. An
early and current leader in zero-emission transit buses, Proterra now uses its battery technology
in partnership with vehicle manufacturers that make school buses, coach buses, delivery
vehicles, and construction equipment.16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.18]
16 Proterra's zero-emission product offerings can be found at:
https://www.proterra.com/applications/
The state of zero-emission technologies for medium- and heavy-duty applications can be seen in
CARB's assessment of Technology Readiness Levels in Figure 10 below (CARB, 2021). In all
applications shown, covering nearly every use-case except long-haul, emergency, and
construction, zero-emission technologies were determined to be in the commercial stage with
early market entries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p. 18]
While further from maturation, the industry is progressing to zero-emission long-haul trucking, a
transition once deemed impossible by some in the heavy-duty industry. In the Research Hub for
Electric Technologies in Truck Applications (RHETTA) project funded by the California Energy
Commission, CALSTART is working with industry partners to develop, test, and deploy
megawatt charging systems for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. This and similar pilot projects
represent steps underway in the transition of long-haul trucking to zero-emission technologies.
The Department of Energy's SuperTruck 3 program will fund two legacy vehicle manufacturers
to develop megawatt charging systems for Class 8 trucks (DOE, 2021a). A $650 million private
investment from a vehicle manufacturer, utility, and investment management firm will support
charging and hydrogen refueling corridors for long-haul electric and fuel cell trucks along the
West and East coasts of the US and across Texas, with construction expected to begin next year
(Saul, 2022). This follows a similar announcement by three legacy vehicle manufacturers to
1360
-------
jointly develop charging infrastructure for heavy-duty long-haul trucks in Europe (Mossalgue,
2021). Funding in the IIJA could also help build out these corridors, particularly the $2.5 billion
"Discretionary Grants Program for Charging and Fueling infrastructure" in Section 11401 of this
law. Standardization of a megawatt charging connector by SAE (J3271) is also enabling the
development of charging infrastructure for long-haul trucks (SAE, 2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1313-A1, pp. 19-20]
Demonstration and pilot projects involving fuel cell trucks and buses have also expanded in
recent years. CARB and the California Energy Commission have supported a project in Oakland
that will deploy 30 Hyundai fuel cell trucks for drayage operations starting in early 2023. As part
of the Department of Energy's SuperTruck 3 program, three legacy vehicle manufacturers will
develop fuel cell trucks, including a Class 8 tractor and Class 6 vehicle based on a popular
chassis used for combustion vehicles (DOE, 2021a). A Nikola Fuel Cell truck delivered beer to
the Superbowl, Hino and Toyota have announced fuel cell trucks, and Hyzon is working to bring
their fuel cell truck to the US after deployments in China and Europe (Ericson, 2022). Fuel cell
trucks are also being developed by Kenworth in partnership with Toyota and Navistar in
partnership with GM. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.20]
The range of current battery and fuel cell electric trucks can meet many fleets' operational
demands. Based on the national Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS), more than 80 percent
of all Class 2b-8 trucks have a primary operating range (the farthest distance from the vehicle's
home base) of less than 100 miles. More than 75 percent of Class 2b-8 trucks travel 30,000 miles
or less each year, which corresponds to 120 miles per day for 250 operational days per year.
Sixty five percent of Class 2b-8 vehicles travel less than 20,000 miles each year or 80 miles per
day for 250 operational days per year (Figure 11). 17 An updated survey of heavy-duty vehicles
in California found similar vehicle miles traveled by truck class, suggesting results from the
2002 VIUS still reflect present day vehicle miles traveled by medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
(Komanduri, 2019). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.20]
17 Analysis of truck operating ranges and annual mileages by the Union of Concerned
Scientists can be found at: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ready-work
In a study of Class 6-7 school bus operations in three states (Washington, New York, and
Colorado) and of over 1,500 individual operating shifts found an average driving distance of 32
miles. A 99.7 percent confidence interval on route distance was found to be zero to 77 miles
(route distances were doubled to determine an average daily driving distance of 64 miles, with a
99.7 percent cutoff of 154 miles) (Duran, 2013). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.20]
As shown in the next section, these daily distances are well within the range of existing heavy-
duty electric vehicles on a single charge or tank of hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-
Al, p.20]
An increasing number of battery and fuel cell electric trucks are being offered by legacy vehicle
manufacturers and new vehicle manufacturers alike. Many new products are being offered by
vehicle manufacturers and many more are moving from the demonstration and pilot stage and
into mainstream production with significant manufacturing capacities being added to the market.
1361
-------
CALSTART's tracking of the industry, shown in Figure 12 below, indicates that by 2023, 56
manufacturers will offer 244 different models of zero-emission trucks and buses in the United
States and Canada. 18 Policies requiring the deployment of zero-emission vehicles are critical to
ensuring these vehicles come to market in significant amounts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1313-A1, p.21]
18 More information on CALSTART's Zero-Emission Technology Inventory Tool can
be found at: https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventory/
The number of zero-emission models available provides an important indicator in the market,
showing the breadth of manufacturers and suppliers investing in these technology platforms. The
more manufacturers and suppliers producing zero-emission components and vehicles, costs will
likely be lower, consumer choice will be expanded, and production times accelerated compared
to a market with a limited number of commercial manufacturers. The presence of larger vehicle
manufacturers in the marketplace will help bring prices down due to economies of scale and
efficiencies in production processes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.21]
All major manufacturers and several new innovators are now in active sales and product
development stages. In Class 7 and 8, applications include drayage and regional haul trucks.
Eight manufacturers have Class 8 tractors available for sale in California. Longer range and
lower, more competitively priced trucks are in the pipeline. Scania, for example, has recently
announced longer range capable trucks in Europe by 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-
Al, p.21]
The last mile delivery market is also seeing significant transformation. With the huge increases
in e-commerce and last mile delivery needs, EV-only startups as well as established OEMs have
increased offerings. GM and their EV600, leveraging their Ultium battery and drive system, has
begun delivering vans to some major customers and Ford has started delivery of their eTransit as
well. Other manufacturers such as Envirotech, Green Power Motors, Lightning eMotors, Motiv,
SEA Electric, Workhorse, and Xos all have delivery vans available for sale. Companies like
Zeem, WattEV, and others are offering new 'transportation as a service' models to help speed
the adoption of zero-emission trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.22]
Most zero-emission truck models available today serve lower-mileage applications, but
manufacturers are increasingly bringing vehicles to market with longer ranges. CALSTART's
chart in Figure 13 below shows zero-emission truck and bus offerings expected through 2022 by
vehicle type and range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.22]
There is growing consensus that electric trucks and buses are becoming cost competitive with
diesel technologies today and will offer measurable savings with continued decreases in battery
and fuel cell costs over the next 10 years (Ledna, 2022; CARB, 2021b). Vehicle applications
with higher annual mileages are expected to benefit from electrification the most due to the
significant fuel and maintenance savings electrification can provide over diesel. Total cost of
ownership studies by CARB, ICF, ICCT are shown in the Figures 14 and 15 below and illustrate
the expected costs savings for Class 6 delivery vehicles and Class 8 drayage and short-haul
1362
-------
tractors, without financial incentives or revenue from low carbon fuel standards (O'Dea,
2019). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1313- A 1, p.23]
Based on a total cost of ownership analysis, NREL estimates that across all modes and travel
distances of heavy-duty vehicles, zero-emission technologies will comprise 42 percent of vehicle
sales by 2030, 98 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2046, with zero-emission vehicles
achieving cost parity with combustion vehicles no later than 2035 for operations of all distances
(Ledna, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.23]
CALSTART's examination of truck vocations indicates the sales percentages in the ACT can be
exceeded through deployments of zero-emission vehicles just in fleet segments that are ready for
zero-emission technologies today, including urban and regional delivery vehicles (vans, box
trucks, and tractors), school buses, transit buses, shuttle buses, heavy-duty short/regional haul
(Al-Alawi, 2022b). These applications typically follow a return-to-base model, traveling to
predictable destinations and with consistent daily mileage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1,
p.25]
These results reflect the timing for technology readiness of zero-emission technologies for
different vehicle vocations, types and weights, and recognize that zero-emission technologies can
be transferred across vehicle types as technologies evolve and costs decrease. Slower along the
adoption timeline are more specialized vehicles like refuse and construction trucks (e.g., which
represent a relatively small share of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1313-A1, p.25]
Projections of zero-emission sales are based on CALSTART's quantitative and qualitative
assessments of zero-emission feasibility based on technology readiness (i.e., availability and
suitability of the technology to an application); fleet bias towards new technologies (i.e.,
preference towards technology risk and reliability, and time it takes for fleets to have confidence
in a new technology), and scalability for different vehicle segments (i.e., how fast manufacturers
can scale up production, accounting for different levels of supply scalability with OEM market
share and financial position). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.25]
Figure 16 below shows CALSTART's projections of zero-emission medium- and heavy duty
vehicle sales in alignment with the Global MOU discussed above, which commits to 30 percent
zero-emission truck and bus sales by 2030 and 100 percent sales by 2040 (Al- Alawi, 2022b). 19
The figure below presents only the Class 4-8 sales targets associated with this analysis. The
dashed black line represents the sales-weighted average across all categories of Class 4-8
vehicles. In model year 2027, sales of zero-emission Class 4-8 vehicles represent approximately
20 percent of total sales; 28 percent in model year 2028, 40 percent in model year 2029 and 50
percent in model year 2030. These sales levels exceed the sales weighted average requirements
in the ACT standard. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.25]
19 Buses and passenger shuttles include transit buses, school buses, coach buses, and
shuttles used at locations such as airports and hotels. Urban and regional delivery
vehicles include single unit trucks. Short-haul tractors include drayage, intracity, and
1363
-------
lower mileage intercity operations. Examples of construction vehicles include utility
trucks and dump trucks.
The final rule should achieve zero-emission vehicle deployments of at least 18 percent, 26
percent, and 34 percent in model years 2027-2029, equivalent to those in states' Advanced Clean
Trucks standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.26]
Organization: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
In short-haul medium- and heavy-duty applications, many vehicles' use cases make them
particularly well-suited to early adoption of electrification technology. For example, slow speeds,
frequent stops, and relatively predictable routes of last-mile delivery vehicles enable them to
fully utilize the advantages of regenerative braking and the cost savings of depot
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.2]
In the heavy-duty sector, transit and school buses are also favorable for early adoption of zero
emission vehicle (ZEV) technologies, with their predictable routes and charging times. Because
these vehicles are most often used by children and other vulnerable populations, the reduction of
air pollution from these vehicles is particularly impactful in historically marginalized
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.2]
Last year's passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) marked a significant
commitment to the development and deployment of low- and zero-emission bus technologies.
The bill's more than $5 billion in funding for electric and alternative fuel school buses, alongside
its $4 billion in funding for transit bus electrification, related infrastructure, and workforce
development, will build on existing momentum in the field to accelerate the deployment of zero-
emission technologies in the coming decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.2]
The market is currently moving much more rapidly toward electrification than was expected at
the time EPA initially finalized the Phase 2 standards in 2016. In considering whether and to
what extent to make targeted adjustments to the Phase 2 standards, EPA cites two vastly different
projections for 2030 market penetration of ZEV powertrains by total vehicle miles traveled: the
U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2018 Annual Energy Outlook, which projects 0.08
percent, and the 2018 NREL Electrification Futures Study, which projects 29 percent. However,
the more recent 2022 Annual Energy Outlook projects this share will be 13 percent by 2050.5
Given the developments in the market and the industry since then, C2ES believes more
optimistic projections are more appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, pp.2-3]
5 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2022 (Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2022),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf.
Based on recent progress in battery technology development extending range and reducing cost,
in combination with increasing corporate ambition and federal procurement commitments,
BloombergNEF's 2021 Electric Vehicle Outlook predicts that "battery electric trucks of any size
become the cheapest option for several use cases in the 2020s."6 For example, Atlas Public
1364
-------
Policy finds that, as of February 2022, the total cost of ownership of the forthcoming electric
Ford F-150 Lightning—one of the most popular pickup truck models in the U.S. market—is 17
percent lower than its gas-powered version.7 The Environmental Defense Fund and ROUSH
Industries also project that electric versions of all class 3, 5, 7, and 8 vehicles will reach parity in
total cost of ownership with their diesel counterparts by 2027, and all apart from shuttle buses
will reach purchase price parity by the same year.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
6 Colin McKerracher et al., Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (New York: BloombergNEF,
2021), https://about.newenergyfinance.com/electric-vehicle-outlook.
7 Tom Taylor and Josh Rosenberg, Total Cost of Ownership Analysis (Washington, DC:
Atlas Public Policy, 2022), https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Total-
Cost-of-Ownership-Analysis.pdf.
8 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification Costs
for MY 2027-2030 (Environmental Defense Fund and ROUSH Industries, 2022),
http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf.
Recent federal policy developments since the 2020 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
also lend additional funding and political support to the development of the nascent heavy-duty
ZEV industry in the United States. The IIJA includes a transformative investment in capital
funding to support battery technology development and targeted ZEV deployment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
As EPA references throughout the proposed rule, momentum is also building at the state and
local levels, as states move to adopt California's Advanced Clean Trucks standards. 15 states and
the District of Columbia signed the Multi-state Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission
Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding setting a target of making 100 percent of new trucks
zero-emission by 2050 and 30 percent zero-emission by 2030.9 Additionally, cities including
Los Angeles and Boston have committed to fully electrifying their municipal fleets, including
their heavy-duty transit vehicles. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
9 Multi-State Zero Emission Vehicle Task Force, Multi-state Medium- and Heavy-duty
Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding, (signed July 13, 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/2020-07/Multistate- Truck-ZEV-Governors-
MOU-20200714.pdf.
10 Steve Hanley, 'Electric Vehicle Master Plan-10,000 EVs for Los Angeles,'
CleanTechnica, April 12, 2022, https://cleantechnica.com/2022/04/12/electric-vehicle-
master-plan-10000-evs-for-los-angeles; 'Boston's Zero- Emission Vehicle Roadmap
Summary,' Boston Transportation Department, Last modified October 2020,
https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2020/10/Executive%20Summary.pdf.
One successful example of heavy-duty fleet electrification can be found in Antelope Valley,
California, which transitioned its entire transit fleet to electric in 2022, a full 18 years ahead of
1365
-------
the state's 2040 electrification mandate. 11 The fleet now includes 57 zero-emission buses, 10
EV microtransit vans, and 20 battery-electric commuter coaches, serving a community with more
than 450,000 residents. The agency reported no disruptions to service and millions of dollars
saved in avoided diesel fuel costs, as well as significant emissions reduction benefits. This
successful example demonstrates not only that fleet electrification is possible, but it also sets a
model for other transit authorities to follow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
11 Antelope Valley Transit Authority, ' AVTA Becomes the First All-Electric Zero-
Emission Transit Agency in North America,' press release, March 16, 2022,
https://www.avta.com/avta-becomes-first-all-electric-zero-emission-transit-agency.
Given these developments in both technology advancement and policy support, EPA should
adopt the most stringent emissions standards feasible with the earliest feasible target date. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
Organization: ChargePoint, Inc. (ChargePoint)
In 2020, 15 states and the District of Columbia signed a joint MOU pledging to achieve a 30%
heavy duty electric vehicle (HDEV) market penetration by 2030 and 100% market penetration
by 2050.5 Additionally, six of these MOU states have already adopted the Advance Clean
Trucks (ACT) standard to set a minimum level of ZEV sales at nearly 20 percent of Class 4-8
sales in model year 2027, nearly 30 percent in model year 2028, and nearly 40 percent in model
year 2029.6 Although, EPA concludes MDHVs will have 1.5% market penetration by 2027,
ChargePoint strongly urges EPA to take the ACT standard market's impact into consideration
moving forward in the Clean Trucks Plan. ChargePoint would strongly suggest federal
deployment standards match those of the ACT in order to urge a swifter adoption of ZEV
vehicles on our highways and aiding in the reduction of NOx, VOC, and GHG emissions from
the MDHV sector. Based on the adoptions of the ACT plan, manufacturers will be required to
sell between 40% and 75% ZEVs to the MHDV sector by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1294, p. 2]
5 https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
Il.pdf
6 Based on sales-weighted averages of zero-emission vehicle sales requirements in the
Advanced Clean Trucks standard for Class 4-8 straight trucks and Class 7-8 tractors.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
Zero-emission technologies can achieve significant pollutant reductions and are already being
deployed within the heavy-duty fleet today. Despite the increasing growth of these technologies,
EPA undermines its proposed criteria pollutant and GHG programs by greatly underestimating
baseline (business-as-usual) heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle (HD ZEV) market penetration in
MY 2027 and later. As a result of this underestimate, EPA proposes less stringent emissions
standards than are warranted; overlooks the generation of a significant amount of credits that will
1366
-------
allow vehicles to pollute at higher levels; and inadvertently exempts many vehicles from having
to install any emissions controls to meet GHG standards. EPA's proposed HD ZEV baseline
penetration rate of 1.5% for MY 2027 is based on outdated information and flawed methodology.
It also fails to account for current market projections indicating significantly higher baseline
sales; HD ZEV sales required by the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule and other state-level
requirements; federal, state, local, and private sector commitments and incentives; and recent
cost estimates supporting the viability of HD ZEVs across vehicle segments. Based on our
analysis, EPA should revise its assessment of baseline HD ZEV penetration to at least 8-11% for
MY 2027, and 19-27% by MY 2030. This correction is necessary for the standards to perform as
EPA intends. In addition, we urge EPA to use this rulemaking to drive additional ZEV
deployment in the heavy-duty sector in light of the current and rapidly increasing feasibility of
zero-emission technologies across the range of HDV classes and applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.7-8]
Advancements in zero-emission technologies and the rapid growth of HD ZEV sales have
created a critical need for EPA to update its Phase 2 GHG standards. But by dramatically
underestimating baseline HD ZEV penetration and failing to include zero-emission technologies
in its standard-setting analysis, EPA proposes unjustifiably weak standards that will effectively
exempt many vehicles from installing any GHG emissions control technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.8]
EPA has the opportunity in this rulemaking to set a strong foundation for ambitious future rules
that will achieve significant emissions reductions through widespread deployment of zero-
emission technologies within the heavy-duty sector. Both now and in the future, EPA must fully
analyze zero-emission technologies as feasible emissions control technologies, and it must set
standards that reflect these technologies' deep emissions reductions capability. Electrification
and fuel cell technologies are, or will soon be, feasible and cost-effective across the full range of
HDVs, including long-haul applications. In order to achieve the United States' climate goals and
carry out the Clean Air Act's mandate to protect public health and welfare, EPA must forge
paths toward greater acceleration of zero-emission technology deployment in the entire heavy-
duty sector. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.8-9]
EPA's goal of strengthening existing criteria pollutant and GHG standards for MY 2027 and
later HDVs is appropriate considering the urgent need to address these air pollutants and the
significant harms they cause to public health and welfare. However, the Agency's proposed
standards are too lenient, in part because they rely on inaccurate estimates of future baseline HD
ZEV market penetration levels, and because they fail to further drive the implementation of zero-
emission technologies that can achieve deep emissions reductions. For the reasons explained in
this section, instead of EPA's proposed 1.5% HD ZEV sales estimate for MY 2027, the Agency
should—at a minimum—assume baseline HD ZEV sales will progress such that they reach
between 8% and 11% by MY 2027, and between 19% and 27% by MY 2030.54 Moreover,
because zero-emission technologies are already feasible and cost-competitive in many HD
market segments, including those for which EPA proposes revisions, in order to fulfill its
obligations under the Clean Air Act the Agency should adopt standards that would accelerate the
deployment of these technologies above these baseline estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.20]
1367
-------
54 EPA's 1.5% HD ZEV baseline penetration rate applies to Class 4-8 HDVs and omits
vehicles in Classes 2b and 3. EPA also is not proposing adjusting standards for long-haul
trucks. Accordingly, the 8-11% estimate for MY 2027 HD ZEV sales includes vehicles
in Classes 4-8 and not Class 2b/3 vehicles and not long-haul tractors. For greater detail
on the assumptions underlying this estimate, please see Appendix A. Including Class 2b
and 3 vehicles would raise baseline ZEV penetration rates even higher, given the rapid
market advancements in Class 2b and 3 ZEVs. Throughout this section, 'heavy-duty'
vehicles only refer to Class 4-8 vehicles and not Class 2b and 3.
The Proposal's underestimate of the baseline market penetration of HD ZEVs and its failure to
propose standards that further drive adoption of zero-emission technologies ignores the Agency's
obligations under the Clean Air Act and weakens the proposed standards in several ways:
1. Considering more accurate (higher) baseline HD ZEV market penetration 'could lead to a
more stringent NOx emission standard,' as EPA acknowledges. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.
2. Underestimating the baseline market penetration of HD ZEVs will lead to the generation
of a significant amount of credits that will dramatically undermine the goals of the NOx
standards and fail to protect public health and welfare. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.55
Allowing for ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits is a significant departure from
EPA's prior rules,56 and a revised, more accurate baseline HD ZEV penetration estimate
would require reconsideration of these credits to ensure that the rule reflects the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable, as is EPA's statutory mandate.
3. Disregarding the feasibility of zero-emission technologies in establishing the stringency
of the proposed criteria pollutant standards unjustifiably takes proven emission reduction
technologies off the table. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.20-21]
55 EPA notes that it includes an FEL cap on NOx emissions to help limit the impact
credits generated from BEVs or FCEVs could have in enabling vehicles to exceed the
NOx standard. However, if HD ZEV market penetration is higher than EPA projects,
'there is the potential for a greater portion of CI engines to emit up to the level of the
FEL cap,' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,560, further undermining the goals of the regulatory
program. EPA notes the importance of 'considering] what impact NOx emissions credits
generated from BEVs and FCEVs might have on the NOx emission reductions expected
from the proposed rulemaking. Id. at 17,561. Further, as discussed in Section IV.D.2.C of
these comments, EPA's proposed FEL cap is unreasonably high.
56 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,556 ('However, under the current criteria pollutant program,
manufacturers do not have a pathway to generate NOx emission credits for HEVs, BEVs,
or FCEVs. For BEVs and FCEVs, current 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4) stipulates that these
technologies may not generate NOx emission credits...'); id. at 17,561-62 (proposing to
allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits); 40 CFR 86.016-l(d)(4) ('Electric heavy-
duty vehicles may not generate NOx or PM emission credits.').
4. Because the GHG standards apply as a fleet average, by underestimating the MY 2027 HD
ZEV market penetration in the Proposal, EPA in turn underestimates the percentage of vehicles
that would be able to meet the current Phase 2 standards without installing emission-reduction
1368
-------
technologies, undermining the program's goal of requiring all conventional vehicles to install
such controls.57
57 EPA explains in the Proposal that '[t]he intent of the existing HD GHG Phase 2
program was to set the stringency of the standards at a level that all conventional vehicles
would need to install some level and combination of emission-reducing technologies or
offset another conventional vehicle not installing such technology, since at that time we
predicted very little market penetration of EVs.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,603.
5. Failing to revisit the GHG standards with an approach that would further drive adoption of
zero-emission technologies—a regulatory path that is clearly feasible—results in standards that
fall far short of achieving necessary climate and health benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.21]
The combination of applying an unreasonably low baseline HD ZEV market penetration
estimate and failing to set criteria pollutant and GHG standards that further drive adoption of
zero-emission technologies means that not only does EPA fail to set technology-forcing
standards, as Congress directed it to do, but that the Agency actually limits itself to technologies
that are inferior to what is available today. See NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d at 328 (emphasizing that
EPA should 'press for the development and application of improved technology rather than be
limited by that which exists today'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.21]
The Proposal underestimates baseline HD ZEV market penetration in several ways. First, EPA
bases its estimate on the number of HD ZEVs it expects as a result of California's regulatory
requirements for HDVs in 2027, extrapolated to a national level, but its methodology is flawed
for several reasons. In particular, EPA relies on HD ZEV projections from California's ACT58
rulemaking in 2019, which are based on projected 2027 HD sales that are significant
underestimates—notably lower than EPA's own projections in its MOtor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model and when compared to historical HDV sales data, as
discussed in more detail below. As a result, the Proposal's baseline ZEV sales projections for
California in 2027 are unreasonably low and out of line with other, more accurate data and
information. In calculating its baseline HD ZEV penetration estimate, EPA should rely on its
own up-to-date MOVES data (which is also more in line with historical sales data) rather than
California's 2019 projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.20-21]
58 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation—Final Regulation Order (Mar. 15, 2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
Further, in extrapolating to the national level, EPA relies on a ratio from a 2021 report by ICCT
on U.S. and Canada ZEV sales. But there is no reason to believe that this ratio will continue to
hold in the future. Moreover, EPA ignores the HD ZEV sales that will result in other states that
have already adopted the ACT rule, as well as those that have signed the Multi-State Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),59 which
targets ZEV sales and commits to ZEVs achieving 30% of all HDV sales by 2030 and 100% of
all HDV sales by 2050. If EPA used MOVES data and looked at these existing state-level
1369
-------
commitments, the baseline HD ZEV market penetration for 2027 would be significantly higher
than that calculated in the Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.21]
59 See NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle
Memorandum of Understanding (NESCAUM MOU) (last accessed May 10,
2022), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/.
In addition to the flaws in EPA's methodology, the Agency ignores other highly relevant
information that shows that its approach in the Proposal is a significant underestimate of baseline
ZEV penetration in the heavy-duty sector. This includes:
• Current market projections indicating significantly higher baseline HD ZEV sales;
• Federal, state, local, and private sector actions supporting a much higher baseline HD
ZEV penetration rate; and
• Recent HD ZEV cost estimates supporting the viability of ZEVs across vehicle
segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.22]
EPA must consider the additional data available and presented in these comments to fulfill its
obligations to engage in reasoned decision making and to set emissions standards that are
supported by the record. In particular, EPA should update its assessment of baseline HD ZEV
penetration in the range of at least 8-11% for MY 2027, significantly higher than EPA's
proposed rate of just 1.5%.60 Assuming that all states that have signed the MOU also adopt the
ACT, national HD ZEV market penetration will reach 8% in 2027. Assuming that additional
state programs and private sector commitments drive some ZEV penetration in non-MOU states,
national HD ZEV market penetration will reach 11% in 2027. By 2030, baseline HD ZEV
penetration will reach 19-27%, accordingly. It is important for EPA to consider baseline market
penetrations beyond MY 2027 since manufacturers have three model years to carry back
ZEV credits; sales between MY 2028 and MY 2030 are, consequently, available for compliance
in 2027. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 73,638 ('The agencies proposed and are adopting for Phase 2 the
five year credit life and three year deficit carry-over provisions from Phase 1 (40 CFR
1037.740(c) and 1037.745).'). High baseline HD ZEV penetration in MYs 2028-2030 would
allow manufacturers to accrue large numbers of credits that they could apply to prior years,
diluting the standards. The carry-over provision effectively allows manufacturers to average
sales across a multi-year period; having permitted compliance on a multi-year average basis,
EPA is required to examine baseline market penetration across the same multi-year
period. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.22-23]
60 See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,458 (noting that EPA 'may re-evaluate our approach,
especially if we receive information showing higher BEV/FCEV market penetration in
the MY 2027 or later timeframe'); id. at 17,471 (requesting comment on whether to
include zero-emission technologies in the feasibility analysis for the final rule); id. at
17,599 (considering 'whether it would be appropriate in the final rule to increase the
stringency of the standards more than what we have proposed'); id. (requesting
information and data to support 'HD ZEV penetration rates of 5 or 10 percent (or higher)'
in the MY 2027-2029 timeframe).
1370
-------
Moreover, to comply with its Clean Air Act obligations, EPA should go further than correcting
its baseline HD ZEV penetration estimate by including zero-emission technologies in the
technology packages underlying the criteria pollutant and GHG standards. EPA requested
comment 'on how the Agency can best consider the potential for ZEV technologies to
significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,420. As
detailed below, zero-emission technologies are already available and cost-competitive in many
HD market segments. Importantly, given technological advancements and substantial
investments and commitments in the public and private sectors, greater adoption of zero-
emission technologies is clearly feasible prior to MY 2030. In addition to these comments, EPA
should consider the data presented in the comments on this Proposal submitted by the Moving
Forward Network (MFN), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and ICCT, all of which further
elaborate on the feasibility and importance of achieving significantly greater levels of ZEV
penetration within the HD fleet.61 Doing so would fulfill EPA's statutory mandate by delivering
substantial climate and health benefits, as is detailed in the research supporting the MFN, EDF,
and ICCT comments on this Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.23]
61 When considering GHG standards that further drive adoption of zero-emission
technologies, EPA should ensure that it preserves the original Phase 2 stringency for ICE
vehicles. See, e.g., Sara Kelly et al, ICCT Comments on EPA's Proposed Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards 17-18, ICCT (May 10, 2022), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/04/public-webinar_l0May2022.pdf (urging EPA to preserve the
original Phase 2 stringency for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by removing
ZEV crediting and requiring all ICE vehicles to meet the original Phase 2 GHG
standards).
Second, EPA wrongly assumes that California will continue to represent an oversized share of
national HD ZEVs sales by failing to accurately capture the impact of other states' policies on
HD ZEV sales. The Proposal correctly points out that numerous states 'have announced plans to
shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emission technology.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598.79 Yet when
calculating baseline HD ZEV market penetration, EPA fails to discuss or account for the full
range of state policies and commitments, particularly those from outside of California.
Considering them would lead to substantially higher and more accurate baseline HD ZEV
penetration rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.26]
79 See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,595, n.813, n.814 (citing states' and cities' expansion of
electric bus fleets); id. at 17,596-97 (noting that the 'BEV market for transit and school
buses continues to grow,' and identifying several cities with ZEV transit bus programs);
id. at 17,597 (listing several states with ZEV school bus programs); id. at 17,598
(explaining the ACT rule and states that have signed a related MOU).
EPA notes that' [o]utside California, several states have signaled interest in shifting to heavy-
duty ZEV technologies and/or establishing specific goals to increase the heavy-duty electric
vehicle market.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598. EPA further explains that 15 states and the District of
Columbia have signed the MOU targeting ZEV sales equaling 30% of all HDV sales by 2030
and 100% of all HDV sales by 2050. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598. The Proposal fails to include both
Virginia and Nevada as MOU signatories, and these two states bring the total MOU signatories
1371
-------
to 17 states and the District of Columbia.80 HDV sales in MOU states, including California,
make up a significant portion of national HDV sales—about 36.5%.81 In March 2022, Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the MOU states issued a
comprehensive and detailed draft Action Plan to meet their goals.82 Despite mentioning the
MOU, the Proposal does not factor into its baseline HD ZEV market penetration the fact that
ZEVs will be added to the heavy-duty fleet more rapidly in these 17 states and D.C., which make
up more than a third of national HDV sales.83 An analysis by ICCT estimates that 36% of HDV
sales in MOU states (excluding California) would be ZEVs in 2030 if all states implement the
goal set out in the MOU.84 ICCT estimates that this would translate to 153,820 HD ZEV sales in
MOU states (excluding California) in 2030.85 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.26-27]
80 Electrification Coalition, Nevada Joins Multi-State Agreement to Electrify Trucks and
Buses (Mar. 31, 2022), https://www.electrificationcoalition.org/nevada-joins-multi-state-
agreement-to-electrify-trucks-and-buses/; Sierra Club, Governor Northam Signs Virginia
onto Multi-State Agreement to Electrify Trucks and Buses (Dec. 9, 2021),
https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/12/governor-northam-signs-virginia-
multi-state-agreement-electrify-trucks-and.
81 Claire Buysse, et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the UnitedStates, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022). This is consistent with
MOVES3 projections for MY 2027, which show 219,092 heavy-duty sales in all the
MOU states, as compared to 606,659 total heavy-duty sales nationally, or 36% of all
sales. See Appendix A for the relevant MOVES3 sales projections.
82 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action
Plan: A Policy Framework to Eliminate Harmful Truck and Bus Emissions, Draft for
Public Comment (NESCAUM Action Plan) (Mar. 10, 2022),
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhd-zev-action-plan-public-draft-03-10-2022.pdf.
83 The MOU signatories are: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of
Columbia. See NESCAUM MOU.
84 Arijit Sen et al., Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding 5, ICCT (Apr. 2022),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-mou-benefits-apr22.pdf.
85 Id. at 5, Figure 1; id. at 15, Table A4, excluding 2b/3 vehicles.
In addition to the MOU, EPA cites the adoption of the ACT rule in three states—New York,
New Jersey, and Washington, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598 nn.846-48—but in fact, five states in
addition to California have adopted the ACT rule,86 which with California would comprise
20%87 of total HDV sales in 2027.88 Other states also have relevant legislation underway. In
May 2022, Connecticut passed legislation authorizing the state's Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection to adopt the ACT rule.89 Maine has also made progress toward
1372
-------
adopting ZEV standards for the state's HDVs and is currently seeking additional public and
stakeholder comment on its proposed ACT rule.90 The Proposal correctly notes the expectation
that more states will follow,91 and Colorado, Illinois, and Vermont have 'signaled plans to
weigh the new regulations' as well.92 HD ZEV sales in ACT-adopting states will need to reach
between 30% (Class 7-8 tractors) and 50% (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2030, and 40% (Class 7-8
tractors) to 75% (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2035 in order to meet the ACT targets.93 But again, EPA
fails to account for the fact that the states that have adopted the ACT rule have committed to
ZEV adoption at a more rapid pace than EPA projects, even absent any additional federal
regulation, and that others are already taking action to join them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.27-28]
86 States that have adopted the ACT rule include New York, New Jersey, and
Washington, as cited in the Proposal, along with Oregon and Massachusetts.
87 Calculated using EPA MOVES3, https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-
vehicle-emission-simulator-moves. See Appendix A for the relevant MOVES3 sales
projections.
88 Laura Bliss, How Six States Could Transform the U.S. Trucking Industry, Bloomberg
(Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-
emission-laws-will-reshape-u-s-trucking.
89 See Electric Trucks Now, States Are Embracing Electric Trucks (last accessed May
10, 2022), https://www.electrictrucksnow.com/states; Governor Ned Lamont, State of
Connecticut, Governor Lamont Applauds Final Passage of Climate Legislation That
Includes New Emissions Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Apr. 29,
2022),
https://officeofthegovernor.cmail20.eom/t/ViewEmail/j/74D52C48B1231B922540EF23F
30FEDED/BC5917CDF0297FE1025DA65DC0D0F53A?alternativeLink=False.
90 State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection, Meeting Minutes (Jan. 20, 2022),
https://www.maine.gov/dep/bep/calendar.html.
91 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598 (noting that 'we anticipate more states to follow with similar
proposals' to the states that have adopted California's ACT rule).
92 Laura Bliss, How Six States Could Transform the U.S. Trucking Industry, Bloomberg
(Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-
emission-laws-will-reshape-u-s-trucking.
93 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, Final Regulation Order, Table A-l at 5
(Mar. 15,2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf; Rachel
Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 15, EDF (Apr. 2022),
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april20
22.pdf.
1373
-------
Instead of factoring these state policies directly into its calculations, EPA takes an approach that
leads to a significant underestimate of baseline HD ZEV market penetration by MY 2027. In the
DRIA, EPA cites a 2021 analysis by ICCT that notes that 42% of cumulative HD ZEVs sold
through 2020 in the U.S. and Canada have been in California.94 This leads EPA to conclude that
42% of annual national HD ZEV sales will be in California in MY 2027. But this will not be the
case in 2027. While California represents 42% of cumulative HD ZEV sales in the United States
and Canada, it only comprises 10% of U.S. HDV registrations.95 As noted above, states that
have signed the MOU, including California and other ACT-adopting states, represent 36.5% of
HDV registrations.96 As these policies take effect in these states, the relative share of HD ZEV
sales in California will fall, even as national sales increase. California would only represent 28%
of total HD ZEV sales nationally if all MOU states achieve the ACT targets (with the MOU
states representing 72% of total HD ZEV sales). 97 And these figures do not account for the high
possibility that other states beyond the MOU states also see growth in HD ZEV sales, as detailed
in Section III.C below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.28]
94 Ben Sharpe & Claire Buysse, Zero-Emission Bus and Truck Market in the United
States and Canada: A 2020 Update 5, ICCT (May 21, 2021),
https://theicct.org/publication/zero-emission-bus-and-truck-market-in-the-united-states-
and-canada-a-2020-update/.
95 For MY 2020. See Appendix A for details on these calculations.
96 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022). See also MOVES3
projections for MY 2027.
97 See Appendix A for details on these calculations. Calculated using EPA MOVES3,
https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
There has been a similar trend of other states making up a larger share of light-duty ZEV
sales. In 2015, a total of 64,175 light-duty ZEVs were sold in the United States, with 53%
sold in California.98 However, as of 2021, California's relative share has fallen to 35%
as light-duty ZEV sales have dramatically accelerated nationally, driven by other federal
and state policies and significant consumer interest in ZEVs (Figure 2). As of 2021, new
light-duty ZEV sales totaled 166,582 in California (nearly 5 times higher than in 2015)
and 473,426 nationally (nearly 7 times higher than in 2015).99 These trends demonstrate
not only how quickly ZEV sales have accelerated but also how they have grown in states
beyond California. Over the long term, with other state policies and federal incentives
taking effect, regional differences in ZEV sales will diminish for HDVs, just as they have
for light-duty vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-Al, pp.28-29] [Figure 2 has footnote 100]
98 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard (last accessed
May 10, 2022), https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/electric-vehicle-sales-
dashboard.
1374
-------
99 Id.
100 Developed using data from the Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard. See id.
In light of this data, EPA should not calculate forward-looking national HD ZEV sales using
outdated HDV sales estimates and backward-looking sales shares. Instead, EPA should factor in
the impact of policies in other states beyond California in the Agency's estimate of baseline HD
ZEV market penetration. This should include states that 1) have adopted the ACT rule; 2) have
committed to the MOU; and 3) are taking actions to deploy zero-emission transit and school
buses (where it is possible to separately quantify those actions). This would result in a baseline
HD ZEV market penetration estimate of at least 8% by 2027 and 19% by 2030.101 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.29]
101 This assumes MOU states adopt ACT targets for 2027 and 2030. For detailed
description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see Appendix A.
Still, even these more accurate baseline estimates would fail to reflect growing HD ZEV
deployment in states that may adopt regulatory policies in the future or deployment that is driven
by local government programs and private sector investments, as discussed below in Section
IHC. As such, a baseline HD ZEV market penetration of 8% by 2027 and 19% by 2030 would
be conservative. Accounting for modest additional state and private sector actions would
bring baseline HD ZEV market penetration to at least 11% by 2027 and 27% by 2030.102 In
addition, the faster-than-expected gains in the cost-competitiveness of HD ZEVs, as detailed
below in Section III.D, offers additional evidence that HD ZEV uptake will continue to increase
and that a MY 2027 HD ZEV penetration rate of between 8% and 11% by 2027 is a feasible and
conservative baseline estimate. 103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.29-30]
102 This assumes MOU states adopt ACT targets for 2027 and 2030 and non-MOU states
achieve 4% HD ZEV penetration by 2027 and 11% HD ZEV penetration by 2030. For a
detailed description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see Appendix A.
103 For a detailed description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see
Appendix A.
Current market analyses project rapid growth in HD ZEVs by the late 2020s, further illustrating
that EPA's proposed baseline market penetration is a significant underestimate and that standards
that further drive adoption of zero-emission technologies are clearly feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
In discussing advances to the HD ZEV market, EPA cites two modeled projections: the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2021 ('AEO 2021') and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Electrification Futures Study (2018). EPA
also requests comment on sources for estimates and projections of the HD ZEV market. There
are additional and up-to-date projections that demonstrate much higher baseline national HD
ZEV penetration than the limited information that EPA considered in the Proposal, as shown in
Table 2 below. These include:
1375
-------
• Boston Consulting Group discusses the fact that 'change is unfolding at electrifying
speed in the commercial vehicle industry,' driven by economics and policies. 104 The
report predicts BEV sales in the range of 19-23% and FCEV sales in the range of 3-6%,
with a central estimate of 25% ZEVs by 2030 (and 10% ZEVs by 2025). Even in its
conservative scenario, zero-emission commercial vehicle sales would reach 6% in 2025
and 15% in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
104 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (Mar. 22, 2022),
https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2022/what-the-shift-to-zero-emission-vehicles-
means-for-commercial-transportation.
• NREL's 'Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles' report finds that
'zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) can reach total-cost-of-driving parity with conventional
diesel vehicles by 2035 for all medium- and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicle classes,' with
smaller trucks and short-haul trucks achieving cost parity soon. 105 The analysis
concludes that 'demand for ZEV could rise rapidly...once cost parity is reached' and that
ZEV sales could reach 42% by 2030.106 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
105 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis 2, NREL (Mar. 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
106 Id. at 3.
• ACT Research's 'Charging Forward Update' report projects that BEVs will reach 21% of
Class 4-8 sales by 2027.107
107 Jennifer McNealy, ACT Research Releases Updated BEV and FCEV Study &
Adoption Forecasts for NA CV Markets, ACT Research (Feb. 7, 2022),
https://content.actresearch.net/blog/nacev-act-research-releases-updated-bev-and-fcev-
study-adoption-forecasts-forna-cv-markets.
• The International Energy Agency's Global EV Outlook 2021 projects that due to federal
and state policies incentivizing ZEVs and charging infrastructure, ZEV sales for buses
and trucks will reach 20% and 8%, respectively, by 2030.108
108 IEA, Prospects for Electric Vehicle Deployment (2021),
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/prospects-for-electric-vehicle-
deployment (IEA's definition appears to include Class 2b/3 categories).
• BNEF's Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 states that 'in urban duty cycles, battery electric
trucks of any size become the cheapest option for several use cases in the 2020s,' with
'battery electric trucks becoming a viable option for heavy-duty long-haul operations' by
the late 2020s.109 BNEF's Economic Transition Scenario projects that U.S. HD ZEV
1376
-------
sales will reach 5% in 2027 for commercial HDVs and 38% in 2027 for buses. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.31]
109 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021), https://about.bnef.com/electric-
vehicle-outlook/.
The AEO 2021 report that EPA cites in the Proposal projects that HD ZEVs will only make up
0.12% of new truck sales in 2027.110 This projection is substantially lower than other available
market-based projections and should not be relied upon for the rulemaking. The model projects
that only 485 electric medium- or heavy-duty vehicles will be sold in 2027, which is completely
inconsistent with existing state policies and private sector commitments. Ill Importantly, the
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), the model used for the AEO 2021 report, does not
consider the impact of California and other states adopting the ACT rule or signing the MOU.
NEMS also does not factor in total cost-of-ownership in calculating vehicle sales demand, 112
does not appear to reflect the latest projected battery costs, and imposes exogenous maximum
zero-emission technology penetration of 10%. 113 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.31]
110 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,596
111 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, Table 49. Freight Transportation Energy Use
(last accessed May 10, 2022), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo21/tables_ref.php
(attached to these comments as an Excel spreadsheet).
112 EIA, Transportation Sector Demand Module of the National Energy Modeling
System: Model Documentation (Dec. 2020),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/transportation/pdf/m070(2020).p
df.
113 National Energy Modeling System input file 'Max Share of Each Fuel Type'
corresponding to parameter 'EFSHXG' for formula (199) as discussed in id. at 108.
NEMS input files can be found at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/info_nems_archive.php
For its second source, EPA cites the NREL Electrification Futures Study (EFS).l 14 Compared to
AEO 2021, NREL projects a greater market penetration of HD ZEVs, but the analysis is still
dated compared to more recent analyses. NREL EFS projects 2027 HD ZEV sales shares of 5%
for Class 3-6, 2% for Class 7-8, and 9% for buses in its Medium Scenario; and 10% for Class 3-
6, 7%> for Class 7-8, and 45% for buses in its High Scenario. As NREL's analysis was completed
in 2017, it does not account for all the significant advancements in the HD ZEV market that EPA
proposes to take into account in this rulemaking. For instance, the NREL EFS assumes that
battery costs decline such that they reach $135/kWh by 2050. This is a much slower pace than
has been demonstrated in the real world. In fact, according to BNEF, the average lithium-ion
battery pack cost was $137/kWh in 2020, down from $295/kWh in 2016.115 Projected battery
costs have fallen significantly to such an extent that a report by Roush Industries notes that
'battery cost projections made in 2017-2018 are already obsolete.' 116 Analysis conducted by
Roush finds that battery costs could reach $59-68/kWh by 2027. Other analyses have cited costs
1377
-------
of $100/kWh by 2025.117 Furthermore, the NREL EFS pre-dates California's ACT program and
the MOU signed by 17 states, so it does not consider the impact that these policies will have on
market evolution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.31-32]
114 Trieu Mai et al., Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology
Adoption and Power Consumption for the United States, NREL (2018),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/71500.pdf.
115 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021).
116 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030 44, Figure 15, Roush Industries for EDF (Feb. 2, 2022),
http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf.
117 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (March 22, 2022); Chad Hunter,
NREL, Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8
Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks 10 (Sept. 2020),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf.
Accordingly, EPA should place greater weight on recent studies that more accurately reflect a
current assessment of the HD ZEV market, and which project more rapid market penetration of
HD ZEVs in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.32]
Table 2: Recent Studies with Market Projections for HD ZEVs
• ACT Research ' Charging Forward Update' 118
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 24% by 2027 for Class 4-8 commercial vehicles
118 Jennifer McNealy, ACT Research Releases Updated BEV and FCEV Study &
Adoption Forecasts for NA CV Markets, ACT Research (Feb. 7, 2022),
https://content.actresearch.net/blog/nacev-act-research-releases-updated-bev-and-fcev-
study-adoption-forecasts-forna-cv-markets.
• NREL 'Decarbonizing Medium and Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles' 119
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 42% by 2030 for Class 3-8 vehicles
119 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis 2, NREL (Mar. 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
• Boston Consulting Group 'What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicles Means for
Commercial Transportation'120
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 25% by 2030 (range of 21% to 29%)
1378
-------
120 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (Mar. 22, 2022).
. IEA Global EVOutlookl21
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 8% for trucks and 20% for buses by 2030 under
Stated Policies Scenario
121 IEA, Prospects for Electric Vehicle Deployment (2021),
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/prospects-for-electric-vehicle-
deployment.
• BNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021122
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 5% for trucks and 38% for buses by
2027 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.32]
122 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021).
EPA's proposed HD ZEV market penetration estimate also fails to account for plans by entities
at all levels within the public and private spheres beyond state-adopted ACT rules and the MOU,
which would significantly expand the HD ZEV market. This suggests that even a MY 2027
baseline HD ZEV penetration rate of 8% to 11% is a conservative estimate. The federal
government, cities, and states across the country have implemented plans to transition their
heavy-duty fleets to ZEVs. The private sector, too, has seen rapidly increasing commitments
from both manufacturers and fleet managers. The Proposal notes a few of these public and
private commitments, but it fails to capture the depth and breadth of the pace at which these
commitments and goals are being announced. This section offers a non-exhaustive survey of
some of the many goals and commitments already made; several sources are regularly updated
and available to EPA to track the rapidly expanding HD ZEV market. 123 A more accurate
picture of the national HD ZEV landscape clearly indicates that EPA's estimate of only 9,376
HD ZEV sales nationally by MY 2027124 is a gross underestimate—especially given that fleets
have already ordered or deployed at least 19,000 Class 4-8 ZEVsl25—and supports a baseline
HD ZEV market penetration of at least 8-11% in MY 2027. In addition, these goals and
commitments further show the need for EPA to treat zero-emission technologies as feasible and
to incorporate them into its standards-setting analysis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
p.33]
123 For updated information, EPA should consult the following resources: EDF, Electric
Fleet Deployment & Commitment List (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://docs.google.eom/spreadsheets/d/110m2Dolmj Semrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-
KLSvHC-5vAc/edit#gid=2049 738669 (tracking fleet-level orders, vehicles in operation,
and commitments); CALSTART, Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (2022),
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventory/ (tracking HDV
ZEV models and commercial availability); DOE, Federal and State Laws and Incentives,
Alternative Fuels Data Center (last accessed May 10, 2022), https://afdc.energy.gov/laws
(tracking federal, state, and local laws and commitments within all ZEV sectors).
1379
-------
124 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,600.
125 This value was calculated by selecting the Class 4-8 trucks listed as deployed or
ordered in EDF's Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List, as of May 10, 2022.
The list is regularly updated to include additional new commitments. EDF, Electric Fleet
Deployment & Commitment List.
On the state level, commitments and incentives extend beyond the ACT rule and the MOU. For
example, CARB's Innovative Clean Transit regulation directs large transit agencies to make 25%
of new bus purchases zero-emission in 2023, increasing to 50% by 2026 and 100% by 2029.126
More than 3,500 BEV and hydrogen FCEV transit buses are already in operation or on order
nationwide. 127 New York has also signed into law plans to electrify all school buses in the state
by 2035—yielding 50,000 electric HDVs in that state alone. 128 CARB is also developing the
Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) rule, which EPA did not analyze in the Proposal, to complement
the ACT rule. The ACF rule will regulate public and private fleets, new mobility fleets, large
employer fleets, rental fleets, and delivery fleets, with the 'goal of achieving a zero-emission
public bus and truck fleet in California by 2045 and significantly earlier for certain market
segments like last mile delivery and drayage trucks.' 129 In addition, California's Low NOx
Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation (the 'Omnibus'), adopted in 2020, 'will cut NOx emissions
from heavy-duty trucks by roughly 75 percent below current standards beginning in 2024 and 90
percent in 2027.' 130 These regulations are expected to be fully effective by 2024, likely
increasing HD ZEV uptake in California even more than the ACT rule alone. 131 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.33-34]
126 Sandra Wappelhorst & Felipe Rodriguez, ICCT, Decarbonizing Bus Fleets: Global
Overview of Targets for Phasing Out Combustion Engine Vehicles (Dec. 9, 2021),
https://theicct.org/decarbonizing-bus-fleets-global-overview-of-targets-for-phasing-out-
combustion-engine-vehicles/; CARB, Innovative Clean Transit Fact Sheet (May 16,
2019),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/innovative-clean-transit-ict-regulation-fact-
sheet.
127 NESCAUM Action Plan at 15; Hannah Hamilton et al., CALSTART, Zeroing in on
ZEBs 10 (Dec. 2021), https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-ZIO-ZEB-
Final-Reportl .3.21 .pdf.
128 Michelle Lewis, New York State Commits to 100% Electric School Buses by 2035,
Electrek (Apr. 8, 2022), https://electrek.co/2022/04/08/new-york-state-governor-100-
electric-school-buses-2035/ (New York City had already passed legislation that required
electrifying its entire school bus fleet—9,500 buses—by 2035 prior to the state's
commitment); World Resources Institute (WRI), Statement: New York Enacts First-in-
Nation Plan to Electrify All State School Buses (Apr. 7, 2022),
https://www.wri.org/news/statement-new-york-enacts-first-nation-plan-electrify-all-state-
school-buses.
129 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 15, EDF (Apr. 2022).
1380
-------
130 Id.; Patricio Portillo, Natural Resources Defense Council, California Omnibus Rule
Adds Momentum to Cut Truck Pollution (Aug. 27, 2020),
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/patricio-portillo/california-omnibus-rule-adds-momentum-
cut-truck-pollution.
131 Id.
In addition, state-level commitments do not end with states that have enacted the ACT rule or
signed the MOU. In fact, goals have been announced, commitments made, regulations passed, or
financial incentives provided (such as rebates or funding) specific to the heavy-duty sector in at
least 39 states plus the District of Columbia. 132 These heavy-duty sector programs are in
addition to many broader state and local programs targeted at ZEV adoption generally (across all
vehicle sectors), which exist in all 50 statesl33 and include: medium- and heavy-duty or diesel
emissions reduction funding, rebates, or HDV replacement grants in states such as Delaware,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wyoming; 134 allowance for HD ZEVs to exceed weight limits in Arizona; ZEV school and/or
transit bus programs and incentives in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin; and a diesel refuse truck replacement program in Nebraska. 135 Other
states beyond those that have adopted the ACT rule or signed the MOU have also been forming
smaller regional-specific collaborations aimed at HD ZEV adoption. For example, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin recently signed an MOU establishing the Regional
Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition (REV Midwest), which 'aims to create [a] cohesive
regional framework to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles.' 136 One of REV Midwest's
three key foundations is to accelerate medium- and heavy-duty fleet electrification. 137 These
state actions provide strong support for reducing emissions from the heavy-duty sector by
transitioning to ZEVs, which will further enable HD ZEV market penetration in excess of that
projected in the Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.34-35]
132 See DOE, Federal and State Laws and Incentives, Alternative Fuels Data Center (last
accessed May 10, 2022), https://afdc.energy.gov/laws (tracking federal, state, and local
laws and commitments within all ZEV sectors).
133 Information on regulations and programs in all states, including those that have
signed the MOU or adopted ACT regulations, is available in id., and from the NC Clean
Energy Technology Center, Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
(last accessed May 10, 2022), https://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program.
134 Many of these programs are funded as part of the Volkswagen Environmental
Trust/Volkswagen settlement.
135 This list is compiled from information available at DOE, Federal and State Laws and
Incentives, Alternative Fuels Data Center (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws (does not include the vast array of programs and incentives
available in the MOU and ACT states).
1381
-------
136 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 16, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition, Memorandum of Understanding Between
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 1 (Sept. 30, 2021),
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master_737026_7.pdf.
137 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 16, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition, Memorandum of Understanding Between
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 1 (Sept. 30, 2021),
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/leo/REV_Midwest_MOU_master_737026_7.pdf.
The federal government's procurement goals and commitments will also lead to greater HD ZEV
market penetration. President Biden recently signed Executive Order 14,057, directing the
federal government to transition to 100% ZEV acquisitions for all federal fleets (including
HDVs) by 2035.138 The federal fleet is large, and in 2020 included 39,246 heavy-duty trucks
(Classes 5-8), 103,215 medium-duty trucks (Classes 2b-4), and 8,057 buses. 139 As this large
number of vehicles ages, the directive in the Executive Order will further drive HD ZEV
penetration as federal agencies replace conventional vehicles with ZEVs. The ZEV transition
within the federal fleet is already underway, with the General Services Administration (GSA)
doubling the amount of ZEV medium- and heavy-duty models available to federal agencies. 140
In accordance with Executive Order 14,057, individual agencies will develop and annually
update their own ZEV fleet strategies to meet the ZEV target in the Executive Order, and already
have been directed to 'maximiz[e] acquisition and deployment of zero-emission light-, medium-,
and heavy-duty vehicles where the General Services Administration.. .offers one or more zero-
emission vehicle options for that vehicle class.'141 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.35]
138 U.S. Office of the Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, 100% Zero-Emission Vehicle
Acquisitions by 2035, Including 100% Light-Duty Acquisitions by 2027, Federal
Sustainability Plan (last accessed May 10,
2022), https://www.sustainability.gov/federalsustainabilityplan/fleet.html; The White
House, Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through
Federal Sustainability, Executive Order 14,057, Section 102(a)(ii) (Dec. 8, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-
order-on-catalyzing-clean-ene
rgy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/.
139 GSA, FY 2020 Federal Fleet Open Data Set, at tab 2-6T (May 25, 2021),
https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/vehicle-management-policy/federal-fleet-
report.
140 The White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Announces Actions to
Accelerate Clean Transit Buses, School Buses, and Trucks (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/07/fact-sheet-
vice-president-harris-announces-actions-to-accelerate-clean-transit-buses-school-buses-
and-trucks/ (noting increase in GSA models available).
1382
-------
141 White House, Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs
Through Federal Sustainability, Executive Order 14,057, Section 204 (Dec. 8, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/12/08/executive-
order-on-catalyzing-clean-energy-industries-and-jobs-through-federal-sustainability/.
The federal government has also committed significant funds toward achieving increased HD
ZEV development and demand. 142 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021
(the 'Bipartisan Infrastructure Law') 'provides critical funding for states to accelerate MHD
vehicle electrification.' 143 Examples of programs that the law will fund include: EPA's Clean
School Bus Program with $5 billion over the next five years (FY 2022-2026) to replace
conventional school buses with ZEV models; 144 the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
Low-No Program with $5.5 billion toward purchases of low- or no-emission transit vehicles,
'more than 10 times greater than the previous five years of funding;' 145 and DOT's Grants for
Buses and Bus Facilities Program with $5.1 billion over the next five years to support
modernizing and electrifying bus fleets. 146 DOT's Federal Transit Administration also plans to
award funding for ZEVs through the American Rescue Plan, including $7 million to replace
diesel school buses with ZEV buses in underserved communities, and an additional $10 million
for ZEV school buses through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act School Bus Rebate
Program. 147 DOE has also increased funding for ZEV research, allocating $127 million in
funding to industry through its SuperTruck 3 program, 'focused for the first time on reducing
costs and improving durability in hydrogen and battery electric trucks.' 148 EPA does not discuss
or account for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding or other recent federal funding in the
Proposal, and these commitments will certainly accelerate the pace of growth in the HD ZEV
market nationwide. When adopting the final rule, EPA must consider the impacts that this federal
funding will have on HD ZEV development and uptake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
pp.35-36]
142 For a list of ZEV-related programs funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, see
DOE, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021),
Alternative Fuels Data Center (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/infrastructure-investment-jobs-act; see also The White
House, Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Nov. 6, 2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/ll/06/fact-sheet-
the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/; NESCAUM Action Plan at 18.
143 Id.
144 EPA, Clean School Bus Program Funding (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus.
145 Federal Transit Administration, Biden-Harris Administration and the U.S.
Department of Transportation Announce Nearly $1.5 Billion in Grants Funded by the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to Modernize Bus Fleets and Facilities, New Release (Mar.
7, 2022), https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-administration-and-us-
department-transportation-announce-nearly-15-billion.
1383
-------
146 Federal Transit Administration, President Biden and the U.S. Department of
Transportation Announce $409 Million for 70 Transportation Projects in 39 States (Mar.
14, 2022), https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/president-biden-and-us-department-
transportation-announce-409-million-70 -transportation; Federal Transit Administration,
Fiscal Year 2021 Buses and Bus Facilities Projects (last accessed May 10, 2021),
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/fiscal-year-2021-buses-and-bus-facilities-
projects.
147 White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Announces Actions to Accelerate
Clean Transit Buses, School Buses, and Trucks (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/07/fact-sheet-
vice-president-harris-announces-actions-to-accelerate-clean-transit-buses-school-buses-
and-trucks/. See also Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 18, EDF
(Apr. 2022).
148 The White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Announces Actions to
Accelerate Clean Transit Buses, School Buses, and Trucks (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/07/fact-sheet-
vice-president-harris-announces-actions-to-accelerate-clean-transit-buses-school-buses-
and-trucks/. Multiple other governmental and industry research projects are focused on
ZEVs, including: Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (providing a real-
world environment for testing large battery and fuel cell electric trucks); Million Mile
Fuel Cell Truck consortium (developing cost effective technology with industry for next
generation fuel cells); and 21st Century Truck Partnership (launching a new
electrification tech team focused on removing barriers to wide-scale truck electrification
and deploying technology to improve freight efficiency).
Cities and other local governments are also committing to a shift to zero-emission technologies
in the heavy-duty sector. EPA notes one specific commitment by the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation (LADOT) to electrify its entire transit fleet by 2030 or sooner. 87 Fed. Reg.
17,597. The commitment from just this one municipal agency will yield approximately 501
ZEVs by 2030.149 But several other cities and states have announced commitments specifically
aimed at electrifying local fleets. As EPA notes, numerous other cities and localities across the
country have set ZEV transit and/or school bus commitments or piloted ZEV bus programs. 87
Fed. Reg. at 17,597. EPA lists ZEV transit bus programs in Chicago, Seattle, New York City,
and Washington, D.C., and school bus programs in school districts in California, Virginia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,597. According to data from the World Resources Institute (WRI), in the six months prior to
April 2022, 'the number of committed electric school buses increased over 50 percent to a total
of more than 1,800,' and at least 37 states have either procured one or more electric school buses,
or announced plans to do so, 'with California, Maryland and Florida leading the way.' 150 States
and cities have also ordered other Class 4-8 ZEVs across the country, such as refuse and fire
trucks, including in states beyond those that have signed the MOU or adopted the ACT rule, such
as Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and Alaska. 151 Despite noting a few of these commitments, the
Proposal fails to capture the speed and breadth of local government actions, and its projections
fail to account for any significant HD ZEV penetration outside of California. All of these
1384
-------
commitments provide further evidence that even baseline HD ZEV market penetrations within
the range of 8-11% for MY 2027 and 19-27% for MY 2030 are conservative estimates. At least
some modest level of HD ZEV uptake in states that have not adopted the ACT rule or signed the
MOU is likely and would lead to baseline HD ZEV penetration of 11% or higher by MY
2027. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.37-38]
149 LADOT, Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan 7 (Oct. 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
12/L ADOTROPResoAD A12172020 pdf.
150 Arianna Skibell & Ariel Wittenberg, How Electric Buses Reduce Toxic Exposure for
Kids, E&ENews (Apr. 13, 2022), https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-electric-buses-
reduce-toxic-exposure-for-kids/. See also Leah Lazer and Lydia Freehafer, WRI, The
State of Electric School Bus Adoption in the U.S. (Aug. 5, 2021),
https://www.wri.org/insights/where-electric-school-buses-us; WRI, Dataset of Electric
School Bus Adoption in the United States (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://datasets.wri.org/dataset/electric_school_bus_adoption; Hannah Hamilton et al.,
CALSTART, Zeroing in on ZEBs (Dec. 2021),
https://calstart.Org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021-ZIO-ZEB-Final-Report_l.3.21.pdf.
School buses have especially attractive potential for electrification, as districts have
begun to look into using electric school bus fleets to provide vehicle-to-grid services,
meaning that 'when electric school buses sit idle in the evenings and summer months, the
batteries can be used to store and discharge electricity back to the grid during periods of
peak demand when electricity is costlier,' which 'improves the economics of fleet
electrification while reducing electricity distribution system costs for ratepayers.'
NESCAUM Action Plan at 15-16; see also, e.g., The Lion Electric Co., Lion Electric
Announces Successful Electric School Bus Vehicle-to-Grid Deployment with Con
Edison in New York (Dec. 14, 2020), lion-electric-announces-successful-electric-school-
bus-vehicle-to-grid-deployment-with-con-edison-in-new-york-301191980.html. For a
recent compilation of current and proposed electric school bus V2G project, see Norma
Hutchinson and Greggory Kresge, 3 Design Considerations for Electric School Bus
Vehicle-to-Grid Programs, TheCityFix (Feb. 14, 2022), https://thecityfix.com/blog/3-
design-considerations-for-electric-school-bus-vehicle-to-grid-programs/.
151 EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://docs.google.eom/spreadsheets/d/110m2Dolmj Semrb_DT40YNGou4o2m2Ee-
KLSvHC-5vAc/edit#gid=2049738669 (listing 10,034 HD ZEVs already deployed or
ordered by federal, state, and local governments).
As heavy-duty fleet managers establish their own environmental goals and recognize the
increasingly favorable economics of ZEVs, both the speed of innovation and the demand for HD
ZEVs are increasing at a rate that EPA's proposed 1.5% market penetration does not reflect. A
2018 survey of fleet managers listed 'sustainability and environmental goals' as the primary
motivator for transitioning to ZEVs, with 'lower cost of ownership' as the second most important
factor. 152 In fact, '[ljarge corporate fleets are responsible for much of the early momentum in
commercial MHD fleet electrification.. .driven by corporate sustainability commitments and a
1385
-------
desire to achieve operational savings.' 153 These cost and sustainability motivations exist
independent of regulatory requirements, and support the expectation that HD ZEV uptake will
continue to grow in all states, including those that have not yet adopted more stringent
regulations. While the Proposal mentions a few examples of fleet commitments to a zero-
emission future, it again fails to capture the speed and breadth of these commitments that are
driven not only by governmental policy but also by private industry interests, with commitments
being made nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.38]
152 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17596; Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, Electrifying Trucks: From
Delivery Vans to Buses to 18-Wheelers 10-11, American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEE) (June 2021), https://www.aceee.org/research-report/t2102.
153 NESCAUM Action Plan at 16.
According to EDF's Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List (see Attachment 101 to
these comments), commercial fleets have already ordered or deployed more than 164,000
medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles, of which at least 19,000 are Class 4-8 electric
vehicles. 154 The Proposal cites a few examples of commercial fleets that have made efforts
toward acquiring ZEVs, such as UPS, FedEx, DHL, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Amazon, and
PepsiCo. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,597. These orders cover the full range of heavy-duty applications—
from last-mile delivery vehicles to trucks intended to cover longer distances—and include orders
such as UPS's order of 10,000 Class 4 cargo vansl55 and orders and/or deployments of over
2,500 Class 8 tractors by Amazon, UPS, PepsiCo, DHL, Walmart, and Anheuser-Busch. 156
Walmart and PepsiCo have also both placed orders with Tesla for its upcoming electric Semi, for
130 and 100 trucks, respectively. 157 Examples from just these six companies total 12,730 HD
ZEVs already ordered or deployed, evidencing significant momentum toward greater
deployment within private fleets. EPA should factor such commitments and deployments into its
HD ZEV market penetration estimates. At the very least, these fleet commitments show
significant momentum toward greater HD ZEV deployment within private fleets and offer
further support for a MY 2027 baseline HD ZEV market penetration of 8-11%, as a conservative
estimate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.38-39]
154 These values were calculated from EDF's Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment
List as of May 10, 2022. The list is regularly updated to include additional new
commitments. See id. See also NESCAUM Action Plan at 16.
155 EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List.
156 Id.
157 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 33, EDF (Apr. 2022); Fred
Lambert, Tesla Semi Receives Order of 30 More Electric Trucks from Walmart, Electrek
(Sept. 6, 2018),
https://electrek.co/2018/09/06/tesla-semi-new-order-electric-truck-walmart/; Fred
Lambert, Tesla (TSLA) Secures Massive Order of Tesla Semi Electric Trucks from
Walmart, Electrek (Sept. 29, 2020),
1386
-------
https://electrek.co/2020/09/29/tesla-tsla-secures-order-tesla-semi-electric-trucks-
walmart/.
Companies with heavy-duty fleets are also announcing their commitment to a zero-emissions
future. Several of these commitments include aims to reduce carbon emissions by one-third to
one-half by 2030.158 Amazon, PepsiCo, and Walmart all plan to reach net zero carbon
emissions across their businesses by 2040, including their long-haul tractor operations. 159
AT&T plans to be carbon neutral even earlier, by 2035.160 Anheuser-Busch plans to reduce
carbon emissions by 25% by 2025, and FedEx is committed to 50% of its pickup and delivery
fleet purchases being electric by 2025 and 100% by 2030.161 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-
Al, p.39]
158 EDF, Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List.
159 Id.
160 Id.
161 Id.
It is true that several large fleets such as those cited by EPA are some of the earliest adopters of
HD ZEVs, but they are not alone. Interest in developing HD ZEV fleets is far-ranging, evidenced
by the fact that over 135 different commercial fleets have either ordered or deployed HD
ZEVs. 162 Additionally, at least 59 commercial fleets, both large and small, have announced
fleet-level commitments to increased ZEV penetration and/or reduced carbon emissions. 163 In a
recent survey of nearly 250 U.S.-based fleets that have used clean fuels and vehicles, nearly 85%
said that their use of clean vehicle technologies would grow over the next five years. 164 In
considering what the heavy-duty sector will look like in MY 2027 and beyond, EPA must
consider the breadth and scale of these announcements and the fact that these commitments are
considered technologically and economically feasible by such a large range of fleet
managers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.39]
162 Id.
163 Id.
164 Jack Roberts, On the Glide Path to Net Zero, HDT Truckinginfo (May 10,
2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170224/on-the-glide-path-to-net-zero.
Government and fleet commitments would not be possible if manufacturers were not producing
HD ZEVs, and manufacturers are in fact rapidly increasing their HD ZEV production to meet the
growing demand. For example, at May 2022's Advanced Clean Transportation Expo,
manufacturers such as Cummins and Navistar made clear that they are committed to deploying
zero-emission technologies at a rapid pace. Cummins CEO Tom Lineburger stressed the need 'to
move faster for the sake of our kids and grandkids,' 165 and Navistar CEO Mathias Carlbaum
suggested that '[b]y 2030... 50% of all trucks by volume will be BEVs.'166 Navistar's CEO
1387
-------
reiterated to reporters that '[w]e believe 50% of our sales will be electric by 2030,' and
that 100% of sales would be ZEVs by 2040.167 EPA should consider manufacturers' vehicle
offerings, plans, and commitments when estimating baseline HD ZEV market penetration for the
final rule, as well as when considering more stringent emissions standards that drive adoption of
zero-emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.39-40]
165 Jack Roberts, Cummins CEO: Get on the Path to Net-Zero Emissions, HDT
Truckinginfo (May 12, 2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170751/cummins-ceo-
get-on-the-path-to-net-zero-emissions.
166 Jack Roberts, Navistar CEO Calls for Long-Term Commitment to Net Zero, HDT
Truckinginfo (May 12, 2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170459/navistar-ceo-
calls-for-long-term-commitment-to-get-to-net-zero.
167 Alan Ohnsman, Big Rigs Going Electric as Navistar, Cummins, Daimler Rev Up
Next-Generation Trucks, Forbes (May 13,
2022), https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/05/13/big-rigs-going-electric-as-
navistar-cummins-daimler-rev-upnext-generation-trucks/? sh=5daf4f25419d.
According to ACEEE, 'growing numbers of electric truck and bus models are reaching the
market or are scheduled to be on the market soon, with models ranging from heavy-duty pickup
trucks to 18-wheel tractor-trailers.' 168 The pace of innovation in this sector has accelerated in
recent years. In 2016, Oak Ridge National Laboratory identified just eight commercially
available medium- and heavy-duty ZEV options. 169 By 2019 this number had grown more than
tenfold. EPA's DRIA includes 'a snapshot of BEVs in the heavy-duty truck and bus markets as
of 2019,' based on 2019 research by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). According to this
'snapshot,' by 2019 there were already at least 82 different HD ZEV models: 34 trucks and 48
buses. See DRIA at 58-59.170 And by MY 2020, the market had grown even larger. EPA's own
research conducted for the Proposal and contained in EPA's Memorandum to Docket reveals that
by 2020, the number of ZEVs available for purchase climbed again to 177 unique makes and
models from 52 producers in regulatory classes 3-8.171 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1,
P-40]
168 Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to
18-Wheelers at iv, ACEEE (June 2021).
169 Paige Jadun et al., Electrification Futures Study: End-Use Electric Technology Cost
and Performance Projections through 2050 20, NREL (2017),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/70485.pdf (citing Alicia K. Birky et al., Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Transportation Electrification Beyond Light Duty: Technology and
Market Assessment (Sept. 2017),
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub72938.pdf).
170 See also UCS, Ready for Work: Now Is the Time for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles
(2019), https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ready-work.
1388
-------
171 See Angela Cullen, HD2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Emissions—Memorandum to Docket 2 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055) (Nov.
2021), https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0880; 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17,595.
These numbers are certain to increase further, but EPA's grossly underestimated 1.5% baseline
HD ZEV market penetration fails to reflect this anticipated growth. As EPA notes, 'given the
dynamic nature of the BEV market, the number and types of vehicles available are changing
fairly rapidly,' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,595, as evidenced by the increasing frequency of new HD
ZEV product announcements and commitments by manufacturers. Some of these are included
below in Table 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.40]
Table 3: Manufacturer Commitments for HD ZEV Production [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.41-43]
• Daimler Trucks
o Announced goals of selling carbon neutral commercial vehicles across all markets
by 2039.172
o Freightliner division currently taking orders for all-electric eCascadia and eM2
trucks. 173
o Freightliner division has developed electric versions of Cascadia Class 8 tractor,
M2 Class 6 medium-duty chassis, and MT50 medium-duty step van. 174
o Freightliner Electric Innovation Fleet has been operating at customer sites,
totaling over one-million miles of operation as of October 2021.175
o Partnered with NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power in
January 2022 to invest approximately $650 million to design, develop, install, and
operate a nationwide charging network for M/HD BEV and hydrogen fuel cell
trucks. 176
o Full line of ZEV commercial vehicles could be ready by 2027.177
o Daimler's Mercedes-Benz division unveiled a new electric model, the eActros
LongHaul, expected to be ready for production by 2024, and an electric-fuel cell
truck, the GenH2, which has potential to drive more than 600 miles before
refueling and should be commercially available by 2025.178
172 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
173 Id.
174 Id.
175 Id.; Daimler Truck, One Million Real-World Electric Miles: Freightliner's Battery
Electric Customer Fleets Reach Important Milestone (Oct. 5,
2021), https://northamerica.daimlertruck.com/PressDetail/one-million-real-world-
electric-miles-freightliner-s-2021-10-05.
1389
-------
176 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Heavy Duty Trucking, Daimler Plans to Create Nationwide Truck Charging Network,
HDT Truckinginfo (Jan. 31, 2022), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10160673/daimler-
truck-plans-to-create-nationwide-truck-charging-network.
177 Reuters, Daimler Trucks Labour Chief Wants Clean Tech Investments in Germany
(Feb. 13, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-daimler-trucks-divestiture-
idUSKBN2ADOEO.
178 Mike De Socio, Keep Your Eyes on These 9 Electric Truck and Van Companies in
2021, GreenBiz (Jan. 4, 2021), https://www.greenbiz.com/article/keep-your-eyes-these-9-
electric-truck-and-van-companies-2021.
• Envirotech Vehicles Inc
o Investing $280.7 million in manufacturing all-electric, zero-emission vehicles
and zero-emission drive trains for medium to heavy-duty commercial vehicles.
179
179 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 58, Appendix D, EDF (Apr.
2022); Andrew Moreau, Electric-Vehicles Firm Going to Osceola Plans to Invest
Millions, Hires 800 Workers, Arkansas Democrat Gazette (Feb. 23, 2022),
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/feb/23/electric-vehicles-firm-going-to-
osceola/.
• General Motors
o In January 2021, launched BrightDrop, which focuses on electric first-to-last-mile
products, software, and services. Working with FedEx to add up to 20,000 ZEVs
to the fleet. 180
o Will release two all-electric models in 2021.181
180 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022); General
Motors, GM Launches BrightDrop, a New Business That Will Electrify and Improve the
Delivery of Goods and Services (Jan. 12, 2021),
https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2021/jan/ces/
0112-brightdrop.html.
181 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
• Lion Electric Company
o Started work on a new factory in early 2022 that will 'represent the largest
dedicated production site for zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles in
the U.S. upon its completion, with an expected annual production capacity of up
to 20,000 vehicles per year,' 182 a nine-fold increase in production capacity. 183
182 Id.
1390
-------
183 Alejandro de la Garza, U.S. School Buses May Never Be the Same Thanks to
Biden's Infrastructure Plan, Time (Nov. 15, 2021), https://time.com/6117544/electric-
school-buses/.
• Mack Trucks
o Added production of Mack LR Electric model as part of $84 million site
overhaul. 184
184 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 61, Appendix D, EDF (Apr.
2022); Pamela Stroka-Holzmann, Mack Trucks Completes $84M Plant Renovation in
Lehigh County, Lehigh Valley Live (Oct. 2, 2020),
https://www.lehighvalleylive.eom/allentown/2020/10/mack-trucks-completes-84m-plant-
renovati on-in-1 ehigh-county. html.
• Navistar
o Launched NEXT eMobility solutions unit to focus on electrification in truck and
school bus markets. 185
o Developed prototype electric school bus and electric truck. 186
o Launched fully electric International eMV series in August 2021.187
o Developing properties in Texas that will invest more than $275 million in
electrification efforts. 188
185 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
186 Id.; Navistar, Navistar Launches New Business Unit, NEXT eMobility Solutions
(Oct. 28, 2019), https://news.navistar.com/2019-10-28-Navistar-Launches-New-
Business-Unit-NEXT-eMobility-Solutions.
187 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Navistar, Navistar Launches New Electric International eMV Series, Now in Production
and Available to Order (Aug. 31, 2021),
https://news.navistar.com/2021-08-31-Navistar-Launches-New-Electric-International-R-
eMV-TM-Series,-Now-in-Production-and-Available-to-Order.
188 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
• Nikola Motor Company
o Has over 9,000 orders for its hydrogen semi trucks. 189
189 Sebastian Blanco, Anheuser-Busch's Order for 800 Nikola Hydrogen Trucks is a
Play for Younger Beer Drinkers, Forbes (May 3, 2018),
https://www.forbes.eom/sites/sebastianblanco/2018/05/03/anheuser-busch-800-nikola-
hydrogen-trucks/?sh=3f74aba74d4c.
• PACCAR's Kenworth & Peterbilt divisions
o Partnering with Dana for electric truck powertrain development. 190
1391
-------
o Kenworth, Peterbilt, and DAF brands now have over 60 alternative-fuel trucks
being tested in real-world applications across North America and Europe. 191
o Has delivered hydrogen fuel cell Kenworth T680 trucks for field and performance
testing. 192
o Orders in the last three months of 2021 tripled over previous orders, with
customers in 44 states. 193
190 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
191 Josh Fisher, Paccar Tests More Zero-Emission Trucks Ahead of 2021 Production,
FleetOwner (July 30, 2020), https://www.fleetowner.com/emissions-
efficiency/article/2113795 l/paccar-tests-more-zeroemission-trucks-ahead-of-2021-
production.
192 Id.
193 Scooter Doll, Kenworth Says Electric Truck Orders Have Tripled the Past Three
Months, Quoting Customers in 44 States, Electrek (Jan. 14, 2022),
https://electrek.co/2022/01/14/kenworth-says-electric-truck-orders-have-tripled-the-past-
three-months-quoting-customers-in-44-states/.
• Proterra
o Announced a $76 million investment in new zero-emission electric transit and
commercial ZEV manufacturing operations. 194
194 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 62, Appendix D, EDF (Apr.
2022); South Carolina Office of the Governor, Proterra Expanding South Carolina
Operations with New EV Battery System Manufacturing Facility in Spartanburg County
(Dec. 14, 2021), https://governor.sc.gov/news/2021-12/proterra-expanding-south-
carolina-operations-new-ev-battery-system-manufacturing.
• Tesla
o Investing $1 billion in Gigafactory, to produce a range of ZEVs including the
Tesla Semi Truck. 195
o As of 2018, Tesla had about 2,000 Semi pre-orders,196 and pre-orders have
continued. 197
195 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 41, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Rebecca Hennes, Tesla's New $lb 'Gigafactory' Will Open Near Austin, with Musk
Calling it an 'Ecological Paradise,' Houston Chronicle (July 23, 2020),
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Tesla-Texas-gigafactory-Austin-
Abbott-Musk-15428792.php.
196 Luke Stangel, Tesla Semi Picks Up Another Big Backer, the Country's Second-
Largest Grocery Chain, Silicon Valley Business Journal (Nov. 19,
1392
-------
2018), https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/ll/19/tesla-semi-big-customers-
albertsons-tsla.html (noting pre-order announcement by Elon Musk).
197 See, e.g., Suvrat Kothari, Tesla Semi: Everything We Know in May 2022,
TopElectricSUVs (Apr. 30, 2022), https://topelectricsuv.com/news/tesla/tesla-semi-all-
we-know-feb-2022/#Large_order_book (noting Tesla's 'large order book' including
orders for 100 trucks by PepsiCo, 40 trucks by Anheuser-Busch, 130 trucks by Walmart,
at least 150 trucks by Pride Group Enterprises, and 50 trucks plus plans to reserve
'thousands more' by EV Semi-Fleet).
• Volvo
o Using nearly $45 million in CARB grant funding, launched Volvo LIGHTS,
focused on 'providing a range of vehicle, charging, and workforce development
innovations' in the HD ZEV market. Innovations include 'new lithium-ion battery
chemistries that increase energy density by more than 20 percent and prevent
premature degradation to reduce cost, as well as multiple truck configurations
with all-electric ranges of up to 250 miles.' 198
o Currently taking orders for the electric Mack refuse truck. 199
o Committed to selling 50% zero-emission trucks globally by 2030.200
198 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022);
Volvo LIGHTS, About Volvo LIGHTS (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://www.lightsproject.com/about/.
199 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 29, EDF (Apr. 2022).
200 Deborah Lockridge, Volvo: Take the Leap in Electrification, Truckinginfo (Oct. 12,
2021), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10153752/volvo-take-the-leap-in-electrification.
While the above table includes a sample of relevant product announcements and commitments,
CALSTART's Zero-Emission Technology Inventory (ZETI) offers information regarding HD
ZEV commercial availability. According to the ZETI tool, the growth of zero-emission medium-
and heavy-duty models in the United States and Canada has been rapid, with more manufacturers
entering the market and the number of available ZEV models exceeding 200.201 The progress
and potential in the manufacturing sector further underscores that EPA's proposed baseline HD
ZEV market penetration of 1.5% in MY 2027 is an underestimate, and that much higher
deployment is eminently feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.44]
201 CALSTART, Model Availability to Follow Upward Trajectory, ZETI Analytics,
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-analytics/ (see table titled 'Growth of Models
Available by Region and OEMS by Region Trending Upwards').
Declining costs for HD ZEVs also support a baseline market penetration rate much higher than
1.5%), as well as the feasibility of including HD ZEVs in EPA's standard-setting analysis. EPA
notes that '[t]he lifetime total cost of ownership (TCO)...is likely a primary factor for heavy-duty
fleets considering BEV purchases.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,596. Numerous cost studies—including
1393
-------
those cited by EPA—estimate that at least some categories of HD ZEVs have already reached
TCO parity with their diesel counterparts, and more categories will reach TCO parity prior to
2027. EPA should consider these favorable TCO projections in its estimates for baseline HD
ZEV market penetration, which would support much higher penetration rates in MY 2027 and
beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.44]
In addition to the ICCT (2019) estimate cited by EPA, which concluded that at least some HD
ZEVs could reach cost parity in the 'early 2020s,' see 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,596, several other
recent studies that EPA did not consider estimate when various classes of HD ZEVs will reach
cost parity with their conventional counterparts. These studies generally show that transit buses,
refuse trucks, school buses, and Class 4-7 short-haul rigid trucks such as delivery and utility
vehicles—all of which are covered by the Proposal and make up approximately 47% of the entire
HD market—either have already reached cost parity with their diesel counterparts for some
vehicle categories, or will do so by 2027 for nearly all categories. Table 4 below [Table 4
includes footnotes 202 and 211] includes TCO parity estimates from the key recent
literature. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.44]
202 Dale Hall & Nic Lutsey, Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the
Launch of Zero-Emission Trucks, ICCT (Aug. 2019), https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/202 l/06/ICCT_EV_HDVs_Infrastructure_20190809.pdf.
203 Dan Welch et al., International ZEV Alliance, Moving Zero-Emission Freight
Toward Commercialization, (Oct. 2020), https://www.zevalliance.org/zero-emission-
freight-2020/.
204 Ehsan Sabri Islam et al., Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), A Detailed Vehicle
Modeling & Simulation Study Quantifying Energy Consumption and Cost Reduction of
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Through 2050 (Oct. 1, 2021),
https://anl.app.box.eom/s/xzhqi4x5sw3anw6rbgz7f6716ti0qikd (using ANL's BEnefit
ANalysis modeling); see also ANL, Vehicle Systems & Mobility Group, BEAN (last
accessed May 10, 2022),
https://vms.es.anl.gov/tools/bean/.
205 Chad Hunter et al., NREL, Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of
Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks (Sept. 2021),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf.
206 Andrew Burnham et al., ANL, Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership
Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains (Apr. 2021),
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2021/05/167399.pdf.
207 Dana Lowell & Jane Culkin, M.J. Bradley & Associates, Medium- & Heavy-Duty
Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness (July 2021),
https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul2
l.pdf.
1394
-------
208 These CARB estimates include California incentives. CARB, Draft Advanced Clean
Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document, Advanced Clean Fleet Workshop
(Sept. 9, 2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf.
209 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027-2030, Roush Industries for EDF (Feb. 2, 2022).
210 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, NREL (Mar. 2022).
211 Id. at 21. NREL investigated different cost-parity situations. For most scenarios,
medium-duty Class 4-6 trucks reached cost parity well before 2035, often before 2030.
Each of these cost studies contains slightly different parameters, leading to some variation in the
projections based on factors such as the study's estimated battery pack price or the inclusion of
infrastructure costs. However, the variation is small and the studies all indicate that TCO is not
far from favoring HD ZEVs for the classes that have not yet already achieved TCO parity. ICCT
considered many of these cost studies to develop a summary of literature that includes consensus
estimates for when HD ZEVs will reach TCO parity, as shown in the table below:212 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.46]
212 This table summarizing ZEV cost literature is from: Sara Kelly et al., ICCT
Comments on EPA's Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards at 23.
One reason for these favorable TCO projections is that upfront HD ZEV prices have been
declining as '[bjattery prices have been consistently reducing more rapidly than projections,' and
lower battery prices mean that HD ZEVs will reach cost parity sooner.213 As battery costs and
HD ZEV prices decline, more fleet managers will seek to add ZEVs to their heavy-duty fleets. In
2010, battery pack costs were over $l,000/kWh, but have fallen dramatically to approximately
$132/kWh in 2021.214 Costs are expected to continue this downward trajectory, 'reaching
$100/kWh between 2023 and 2025 and $61-72/kWh by 2030. Auto manufacturers have
endorsed these projections.'215 Other analysis has found battery costs in the range of $59-
68/kWh by 2027.216 BNEF projects battery pack prices will drop to approximately $80/kWh in
2026 and $60/kWh in 2029, and Ford has targeted $80/kWh by 2030.217 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, pp.46-47]
213 Amol Phadke et al., Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for
Electrification Now 8, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Mar. 2021), https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pdf.
214 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 10, EDF (Apr. 2022). These
2021 battery pack price estimates are based on BloombergNEF. Id. at 20.
215 Id. at 10.
1395
-------
216 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030 36, Roush Industries for EDF (Feb. 2, 2022).
217 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 20, EDF (Apr. 2022); Colin
McKerracher, Hyperdrive Daily: The EV Price Gap Narrows, Bloomberg (May 25,
2021), https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/newsletters/2021-05-25/hyperdrive-daily-the-
ev-price-gap-narrows; Todd Gillespie, Rising Battery Costs Hit Carmakers, Threaten
Climate-Change Path, Bloomberg Green (Nov. 30, 2021),
https://www.bloomberg.eom/news/articles/2021-ll-30/even-the-battery-boom-can-t-
escape-world-s-supply-chain-woes.
Battery prices have fallen largely due to a rise in the search for and extraction of key raw
materials, greater manufacturing scale, and technological improvements such as improved
quality and material substitution. Because of significant commitments to the development of a
domestic battery raw material and manufacturing industry, temporary changes in battery raw
material prices or supply chain issues should not have a significant impact on these longer-term
cost projections and trends.218 There are substantial industry and government investments in
developing the battery manufacturing sector and lowering battery costs. Many manufacturers are
making strides toward significant domestic battery production, with an expected 13 new battery
cell gigafactories opening in the United States by 2025,219 further supporting this downward
trend. Automakers have also announced research and production partnerships aimed at securing
ready supplies of batteries and developing less expensive batteries.220 For example, Daimler
recently announced a battery technology partnership through which the company will work with
lithium-ion battery manufacturer and developer Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.
Limited (CATL) for its supply of lithium-ion battery packs and to jointly work toward designing
and developing next-generation battery cells and packs specifically for trucks.221 Additionally,
in its Energy Storage Grand Challenge, DOE announced a goal to reduce battery cost to
$80/kWh by 2030 for 300-mile range EVs.222 The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also includes
additional funds aimed at 'expanding] the processing and manufacturing of advanced batteries,
including for EVs and the electric grid.'223 These federal funds include: $3 billion for battery
material processing; $3 billion for battery manufacturing and recycling; $10 million for the
Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Prize; $60 million for Battery Recycling RD&D; $50 million for
state and local programs; and $15 million for Collection Systems for Batteries.224 The White
House has also issued Executive Order 14,017, directing the Secretary of Energy and the relevant
agencies to identify and address any risks to the battery supply chain.225 Advances in battery
recycling technology are likely to lead to additional decreases in battery prices. A report by
Roush Industries also details additional advancements in battery systems, such as lithium iron
phosphate batteries, dry battery electrode coating processes, and tabless anodes, that will lead to
greater efficiency and reduced costs for ZEVs.226 Finally, sustained high diesel and gasoline
prices would likely make HD ZEVs more attractive and could allow for TCO parity even
sooner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.47-48]
218 See, e.g., Laurence Iliff, At a Toxic Lake in California, Enough Lithium to
Transform North America's EV Industry, Automotive News (Nov. 29, 2021),
https://www.autonews.com/manufacturing/salton-sea-california-has-enough-lithium-
transform-north-americas-ev-industry (noting that as more ZEVs come to the market, the
1396
-------
demand for lithium and other minerals will increase, making the value and development
of domestic mineral extraction projects more certain); DOE, Vehicle Technologies
Office, Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries (FCAB),
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/federal-consortium-advanced-batteries-fcab (DOE
and ANL project aimed at long-term competitiveness in the global battery value chain).
219 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 21, EDF (Apr. 2022); Fred
Lambert, 13 Battery Gigafactories Coming to the US by 2025—Ushering New Era of US
Battery Production, Electrek (Dec. 27, 2021), https://electrek.co/2021/12/27/13-battery-
gigafactories-coming-us-2025-ushering-new-era/.
220 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 23, EDF (Apr. 2022).
221 Cristina Commedatore, Daimler Trucks to Ramp Down ICE Spending, Focus on
ZEVs, FleetOwner (May 25, 2021),
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21165073/daimler-truck-to-ramp-down-
ice-spending-focus-on-zevs.
222 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 20, EDF (Apr. 2022); DOE,
Department of Energy Releases Energy Storage Grand Challenge Roadmap (Dec. 21,
2020),
https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-releases-energy-storage-grand-
challenge-roadmap.
223 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 17, EDF (Apr. 2022).
224 Id.
225 The White House, Executive Order on America's Supply Chains, Executive Order
14,017 3(b)(ii) (Feb. 24, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/02/24/executive-order-on-americas-supply-chains/.
226 Vishnu Nair & Gary Rogers, Reducing Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Consumption
and Criteria Pollutants, Roush Industries (Sept. 2021).
Moreover, charging infrastructure is developing alongside ZEV demand. The Biden
Administration has already allocated $7.5 billion toward charging infrastructure,227 and
manufacturers are investing as well. For example, Daimler Truck North America recently
partnered with NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock Renewable Power to invest
approximately $650 million to design, develop, install, and operate a nationwide charging
network for medium- and heavy-duty BEV and hydrogen fuel cell trucks.228 Cost studies such
as Roush (2022) and ICCT (2019) have found that even if fleets bear high infrastructure costs,
overall vehicle ownership cost parity is not far off, with ICCT (2019) concluding that overall
fleet ownership costs will generally favor electric trucks over conventional trucks by
2030.229 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.48]
1397
-------
227 Rachel Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 25, EDF (Apr. 2022).
228 Id. at 29; Heavy Duty Trucking, Daimler Truck Plans to Create Nationwide Charging
Network, HDT
Truckinginfo (Jan. 31, 2022),
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10160673/daimler-truck-plans-to-create-nationwide-truck-
charging-network.
229 Dale Hall & Nic Lutsey, Estimating the Infrastructure Needs and Costs for the
Launch of Zero-Emission Trucks
at i, ICCT (Aug. 2019); Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-
Duty Electrification Costs for
MY 2027-2030, Roush Industries for EDF (Feb. 2, 2022).
We urge EPA to comprehensively consider these numerous relevant studies pointing to
transformative cost projections for HD ZEVs in the classes and time periods covered by the
Proposal. The cost studies show that many HD ZEVs are already both technologically feasible
and cost effective, or will be so prior to MY 2027, meaning that they will be independently
attractive to HD truck purchasers. As Daimler Truck AG's chief technology officer explained,
'In the very moment that the customer starts benefiting more from a zero-emission truck than
from a diesel truck, there is no reason to buy the diesel truck anymore.'230 By failing to consider
the full literature of cost projections, EPA assumes inappropriately low HD ZEV adoption and,
as a result, proposes standards that are too lenient. These favorable cost projections provide
additional support for EPA to reconsider its baseline HD ZEV market penetration rates for MY
2027 and beyond in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.48]
230 Cristina Commendatore, Daimler Truck to Ramp Down ICE Spending, Focus on
ZEVs, Fleetowner (May 25, 2021),
https://www.fleetowner.com/technology/article/21165073/daimler-truck-to-ramp-down-
ice-spending-focus-on-zevs.
In sum, EPA's proposed 1.5% baseline HD ZEV market penetration for MY 2027 vastly
underestimates the number of HD ZEVs that will enter the market. EPA must reconsider its
estimates to account for current market projections; federal, state, local, and private sector
actions and commitments; and recent cost estimates, all of which point to baseline HD ZEV
market penetrations in the range of 8-11% for MY 2027 and 19-27% for MY 2030. Failure to
adjust the proposed emissions standards to account for these more accurate baseline figures will
undermine the goals of the criteria pollutant and GHG programs. More accurate and reasonable
baseline HD ZEV market penetration rates will support more stringent standards at levels that
fulfills the Agency's duty to protect public health and welfare. Moreover, the recent cost studies
outlined in Table 4 and in the separate comments on this Proposal submitted by MFN, EDF, and
ICCT—along with the numerous public and private commitments detailed above—offer a strong
record to support inclusion of zero-emission technologies in the technology packages underlying
the criteria pollutant and GHG standards. EPA should revise the Proposal accordingly. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.49]
1398
-------
The feasibility analysis underlying EPA's proposed NOx, PM, HC and CO emissions standards
does not address the reductions achievable through zero-emission technologies, including hybrid
electric vehicle (HEV), BEV, or FCEV technologies. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,458. EPA bases that
decision on 'current market penetration of BEVs (0.06 percent in MY 2019) or projected
penetration rate in the MY 2027 timeframe (1.5 percent),' concluding that assessment of those
technologies would not 'meaningfully impact [EPA's] analysis for developing the numerical
level of the proposed Option 1 and 2 standards.' Id. But EPA recognizes that 'information
showing higher BEV/FCEV market penetration in the MY 2027 or later timeframe' could
require 'including] HEV, BEV and/or FCEV technologies in [its] feasibility analysis,' and that
it may have to 're-evaluate [its] approach' in the final rule. Id. (requesting comment on revising
numeric standards to include HEV, BEV and FCEV technologies). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.51]
EPA should revise its emissions standards to reflect both the feasibility and the baseline market
penetration of zero-emission technologies. The Agency's reason for excluding those
technologies—a projected market penetration rate of no more than 1.5% by MY 2027—is a
gross underestimate. An updated, more accurate record indicates that by MY 2027, zero-
emission technologies will be (and in many cases are already) cost-effective and feasible across
the heavy-duty fleet, and are capable of providing deep reductions in NOx, PM, and HC
emissions. See Section III, supra. The Clean Air Act's core command—that standards 'reflect the
greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of technology' which
'will be available for the model year to which the standards apply,' 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i)—therefore requires EPA to consider and include these technologies
within its standard-setting analysis. That is especially so in light of the statute's technology-
forcing nature. Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n, 287 F.3d at 1140 (noting that the statute
does not require 'present availability'). EPA cannot consequently base its standards solely on
'currently available technologies'—and even if it could, zero-emission technologies are currently
available. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,418, 17,458 (characterizing updated standards as reflecting
'technology improvements which have become available over the 20 years since' EPA's prior
standards were promulgated). Rather, its standards must be based on a reasonable assessment of
the technologies that 'will be available for the model years to which [the] standards apply.' 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(A)(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.51]
Just as EPA must strengthen its criteria pollutant proposal to carry out its statutory mandate
under the Clean Air Act, Commenters urge EPA to improve its proposed GHG standards. EPA
proposes to make targeted adjustments to the existing HDV GHG Phase 2 standards and
advanced technology incentives finalized in 2016 for certain vocational vehicles and
combination tractors. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598-609. EPA predicated these existing standards and
incentives on an assumption that it was unlikely that ZEV options would be available for HDVs
during Phase 2's timeframe (MY 2021 through MY 2027 and later). Id. at 17,595. That
assumption has been proven incorrect in the intervening years. Id. at 17,595-98. EPA notes the
increasing number of manufacturers now producing electric HDVs along with state legislation
and commitments for zero-emission trucks. Id. In light of these developments, EPA proposes to
revise C02 emissions standards for a subset of MY 2027 vehicles and adjust the advanced
technology multipliers. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598-609. While these revisions are directionally
necessary, the Agency continues to dramatically underestimate both baseline HD ZEV market
1399
-------
penetration and the feasibility of zero-emission technologies to achieve increasingly stringent
emissions standards. In doing so, it fails to 'utiliz[e] emission standards to prevent reasonably
anticipated endangerment from maturing into concrete harm.' Coal, for Responsible Regulation,
684 F.3d at 122 (describing 'the job Congress gave [EPA] in 202(a)'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.64]
Significant improvements in zero-emission technologies and the rapid growth of HD ZEV sales
have brought about a critical need for updates to the Phase 2 GHG standards. The Phase 2
standards were not based on hybrid, fuel cell, or battery electric vehicle technology. 87 Fed. Reg.
at 17,594. Instead, EPA premised the vocational vehicle standards on controls including
improvements in powertrain and driveline technology. Id. at 17,593. The standards for
combination tractors were based on improvements in the tractor's powertrain, aerodynamics,
tires, idle reduction, and other vehicle systems. Id. at 17,594. However, considering the
improvements and growth in zero-emission technologies described above in Section III, EPA
should in this rulemaking reconsider the technology package underlying the Phase 2
standards.246 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.64-65]
246 Comments on this Proposal submitted by MFN, EDF, and ICCT also detail the
feasibility of achieving significantly greater deployment of zero-emission technologies
within the HD fleet.
The Agency's mandate and stated intent was, and continues to be, to ensure that all regulated
vehicles must install some combination of GHG emission reduction technology. 87 Fed. Reg. at
17,602-03. Because manufacturers comply with the standards on a fleetwide average basis,
every additional ZEV (which is counted at a 0 g/mi C02 emissions level) means that the
remainder of the fleet can do less to reduce its GHG emissions. Id. at 17,601. In 2016, EPA
dramatically underpredicted the level of future ZEV production, especially for school buses,
transit buses, delivery trucks, and short haul tractors, which, according to EPA's estimates in the
Proposal, now means that 'approximately five percent of conventional heavy-duty vehicles
would be able to meet the current HD GHG Phase 2 standards without installing emission-
reducing technologies because the standards apply as a fleet-average.' Id. (citing EPA, Memo to
Docket, HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Nov. 2021)).
While Commenters support EPA's plan to increase the stringency of 17 of the 33 MY 2027
vocational vehicle and tractor standards in line with updated baseline HD ZEV market
penetration estimates, id. at 17,598, basing those updates on the Agency's proposed
underestimate would result in standards that remain far too lenient—continuing the same
problem EPA currently seeks to fix. Moreover, in light of Commenters' cost and market
projections described in Section III, the record now supports including zero-emission
technologies in the technology package underlying the GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, p.65]
EPA estimates that ZEVs will make up just 1.5% of HD sales in MY 2027. Id. at 17,601. At this
level, the Agency estimates that 5% of the conventional HD fleet would not need to do anything
to meet the fleet-average standards. Id. This calculation demonstrates how imperative it is to get
the baseline ZEV penetration estimate right: without correction, for every 1.5% of additional
ZEV penetration, roughly an additional 5% of the fleet will install no GHG emission controls,
1400
-------
counter to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1) (requiring standards
that 'prevent or control' pollution). To update the stringency of the proposed standards, EPA
merely applied the technology packages finalized in Phase 2 to the 5% of the conventional fleet
it predicts would otherwise not install any technology due to the increased ZEV penetration. 87
Fed. Reg. at 17,601. Therefore, an accurate baseline ZEV penetration estimate, at minimum, is
imperative to properly strengthening the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.65]
As described in detail above in Section III, EPA's estimates are significantly and demonstrably
incorrect. Its proposed 1.5% baseline ZEV penetration estimate is based on outdated data and a
flawed methodology, and fails to consider recent, relevant studies and to take into account real-
world ZEV sales commitments. Commenters' analysis provides support for at least 8-11% HD
ZEV penetration by 2027 and 19-27% HD ZEV penetration by 2030. Failing to increase the
stringency of the standards in line with this already conservative estimate would result in
approximately 27-37% of the fleet installing no GHG emission controls in MY 2027, and 63-
90% of the fleet installing no GHG emission controls in MY 2030.247 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1302-A1, pp.65-66]
247 8% -h 1.5% = 5.33 x 5% = 26.66%; 11% - 1.5% = 7.33 x 5% = 36.66%; 19% - 1.5%
= 12.67 x 5% = 63.3%; 27% - 1.5% =18x5% = 90%
Given the data presented in Section III above, the Agency has a long way to go to 'provide a
reasoned explanation of its basis for believing that its projection is reliable... [and] defen[d],. .its
methodology for arriving at numerical estimates.' Bluewater Network, 370 F.3d at 22 (internal
citations omitted). Emissions standards must properly account for 'the rapid pace of progress,
and the industry's own forecasts,' NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d at 333—factors that here support a
baseline HD ZEV penetration rate much higher than 1.5%, as well as incorporating zero-
emission technologies into the standard-setting analysis. EPA must therefore update the record in
accordance with these comments and examine the relevant data and demonstrate that the data is
accurate and defensible. See Dist. Hosp. Partners v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
Courts require agencies to use 'the best information available,' Catawba County v. EPA, 571
F.3d 20, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2009), which the Agency failed to do in the Proposal. The market for
ZEVs is accelerating rapidly with changes in technology, consumer demand, regulatory
requirements, and fleet and manufacturer commitments, and '[a]gency reasoning.. .must adapt as
the critical facts change.' Flyers Rights Educ. Fund, Inc. v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738, 745 (D.C. Cir.
2017). The Agency's baseline HD ZEV market penetration estimate must exhibit a 'sufficient
linkage between theory, reality, and the result reached.' API v. EPA, 862 F.3d 50, 68 (D.C. Cir.
2017). Considering that even the known commitments for ZEV production—including state-level
commitments related to the ACT rule—far outpace EPA's estimate, the linkage between reality
and result must be corrected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.66]
EPA recognizes the gravity of the climate crisis and acknowledges that some sectors of the HD
market are transitioning to zero-emission technologies at rates exceeding the Agency's original
expectations. However, the Proposal continues EPA's history of significantly underestimating
the future of ZEVs. This flawed forecast results in standards that do not comport with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and are not responsive to the dire effects of climate change,
the transportation sector's outsized impact, or the available information indicating significantly
1401
-------
higher baseline HD ZEV penetration and the further advancement of zero-emission
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.66]
In addition to fixing the insufficiencies in the Proposal, we urge EPA to consider zero-emission
technologies in establishing its GHG emissions standards, both now and when the Agency sets
Phase 3 standards for MY 2030 and later. Already, baseline HD ZEV market penetration will
reach 19-27% by 2030.272 Analysis conducted by ICCT finds that new HD ZEV sales of 45%
or higher by 2030 is necessary to avoid greater than 2a„/ of warming, and policies that allow
greater than 2a„/ of warming will fail to protect health and welfare.273 EPA must set standards
now with these goals and obligations in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.73]
272 See Appendix A.
273 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United
State, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022); Arijit Sen & Josh Miller, Emissions Reduction Benefits of a
Faster, Global Transition to
Zero-Emission Vehicles, ICCT (Mar. 2022),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Accelerated-ZEV-transition-wp-final.pdf.
Accelerating the deployment of zero-emission technologies is feasible, cost-effective, and
necessary in order to achieve the United States' climate goals and protect public health and
welfare. There are additional advancements in zero-emission technologies that EPA should
consider, as detailed in a recent analysis by Roush Industries.274 Manufacturers have also
acknowledged that regulations help provide the motivation needed to achieve goals. For
example, Daimler's general manager for product strategy and market development explained that
'[regulations provide motivation—and we all need some of that sometimes,' and that '[ijt's
always easier to just do what you've always done. So we see the need for things like
[California's Advanced Clean Trucks Rule] to help us along.'275 Moreover, considering zero-
emission technologies in the standard-setting analysis fulfills Congress's expectations that
'[w]hen a breakthrough occurs....standards can be toughened.' See 116 Cong. Rec. S20598 (daily
ed. Dec. 18, 1970) (statement of Sen. Muskie); see also 116 Cong. Rec. H5348, H5358-59 (daily
ed. June 10, 1970) (statement of Rep. Farbstein) (expressing the belief that the internal
combustion engine was unsustainable and that alternative power sources were necessary and
achievable). There has been such a 'breakthrough' in zero-emission technologies, across all
HDV classes and applications. EPA must acknowledge these developments and set standards
accordingly, now and in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.73]
274 Vishnu Nair & Gary Rogers, Reducing Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Consumption
and Criteria Pollutants,
Roush Industries (Sept. 2021).
275 Jack Roberts, On the Glide Path to Net Zero, Truckinginfo.com (May 10, 2022),
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10170224/on-the-glide-path-to-net-zero.
1402
-------
In proposing updates to the GHG standards, EPA focuses on four vehicle types (school buses,
transit buses, delivery trucks, and short-haul tractors) 'because they will likely have the highest
EV sales of all heavy-duty vehicle types between now and 2030.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598. While
these sectors are likely to transition to zero-emission technologies the fastest, there is also
increasing potential in long-haul sectors beyond MY 2027. Several long-haul ZEVs are currently
in development, and cost studies find that TCO parity is not far off for even the largest HD ZEVs
that travel long distances. As shown in Table 4 in Section III.C, several studies estimate that
TCO parity will be achieved as early as 2030-2035 for long-haul rigid trucks and 2025-2030 for
long-haul tractors.276 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.74]
276 ICCT (2019), ZEV Alliance (2020), ANL (2021), EDF/MJB (2021), CARB (2021),
and NREL (2022) all find
TCO parity reached for long-haul tractors at least by 2035. Only BEAN (2021) and
NREL (2021) find TCO parity
for long-haul tractors to be achieved later than 2035 (between 2040 and 2050). For long-
haul rigid trucks, both
studies that provide estimates find similar timelines for TCO parity—EDF/MJB (2021)
estimates after 2030 and
NREL (2022) estimates between 2030-2035.
EPA believes 'that it is not appropriate to propose updates to the sleeper cab tractor standards in
this action because the typical usage and daily miles traveled by these vehicles is beyond the
range available in current electric tractors under development.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,600. In fact,
however, 'many manufacturers are now road-testing electric tractor prototypes for hauls
significantly longer than 100 miles.. .Daimler, Peterbilt, Tesla, and Volvo seem to be furthest
along, but several other companies are also developing products.'277 EPA should at least
consider these developments for the Phase 3 standards, as reducing criteria pollutants and GHG
emissions from these larger vehicles is necessary for protecting public health and welfare. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.74]
277 Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to
18-Wheelers 18, ACEEE
(June 2021).
The pattern of driving for many long-haul routes also supports a potential path to achieving zero
emissions. 'The estimated average distance traveled between 30-minute driver breaks is 150
miles and 190 miles for regional-haul and long-haul trucks respectively in the U.S. Thirty
minutes of charging using 500 kW or mega-Watt scale fast-chargers would add sufficient range
without impairing operations and economics of freight movement.'278 According to a recent
report by the North American Council for Freight Efficiency, about half of all Class 8 tractors
engaged in regional-haul applications (range of about 200 miles) could already switch to battery-
electric technology 'with minimal or no impact on operations, productivity, or efficiency.'279
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration also has several restrictions on the driving
hours for long-haul trucks. The maximum continuous driving allowed without a 30-minute
mandatory break is 8 hours (approximately 450 miles), meaning that 'a range of 500 miles will
be sufficient to cover the maximum allowed continuous driving.'280 Long-range tractor models,
1403
-------
including at least one with a range of up to 500 miles, are scheduled to enter the market soon.281
For example, Tesla's Semi, expected to hit the market next year, will have a range of 500 miles
at highway speed, and will be powered by a new solar-powered high-speed DC charging system
that will supply about 400 miles of electricity in 30 minutes.282 Moreover, nearly 80% of freight
in the United States is transported less than 250 miles, meaning that 500-mile range is not
necessary for all long-haul applications.283 Daimler's Mercedes-Benz brand has started
customer testing a new long-haul truck, the Actros LongHaul, which has a 310-mile range and
should be ready for production by 2024.284 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.74-75]
278 Amol Phadke et al., Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for
Electrification Now, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (Mar. 2021).
279 Jack Roberts, Half of All Regional-Haul Trucks Could Go Electric Now, HDT
Truckinginfo (May 5, 2022),
https://www.truckinginfo.com/10169971/half-of-all-regional-haul-trucks-could-go-
electric-now; see also North
American Council for Freight Efficiency, Electric Trucks Have Arrived: The Use Case
for Heavy-Duty Regional
Haul Tractors (May 2022),
https://nacfe.org/wp-content/uploads/edd/2022/05/HD-Regional-Haul-Report-
FINAL.pdf.
280 Amol Phadke et al., Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for
Electrification Now 5, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (Mar. 2021).
281 Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to
18-Wheelers, ACEEE (June
2021).
282 John O'Dell, Elon Musk Unveils Superfast, 500-mile Range Tesla Semi-Truck,
trucks.com (Nov. 17, 2017),
https://www.trucks.com/2017/ll/17/elon-musk-unveils-tesla-electric-semi-truck/.
283 Id.
284 Mike De Socio, Keep Your Eyes on These 9 Electric Truck and Van Companies in
2021, GreenBiz (Jan. 4, 2021),
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/keep-your-eyes-these-9-electric-truck-and-van-
companies-2021.
Long-haul fleet managers are likely to find zero-emission technologies advantageous for other
reasons as well. 'Electric motors can deliver peak torque almost instantly, allowing them to do
very well in towing large loads from a dead start or up a gradient.'285 While battery packs add
additional weight to the truck, electric drivetrains are 'substantially lighter relative to a diesel
1404
-------
drive train, which offsets a significant amount of battery pack weight.'286 And even the
additional battery pack weight is unlikely to be an issue for trucks, 'since most truck trips tend to
be limited by volumetric capacity of payload as opposed to payload weight,' meaning that any
minor weight added by electrification 'is likely to be acceptable for most trucks.'287 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.75]
285 Steven Nadel & Peter Huether, Electrifying Trucks: From Delivery Vans to Buses to
18-Wheelers 10, ACEEE (June 2021).
286 Amol Phadke et al., Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for
Electrification Now 5, Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory (Mar. 2021).
287 Id.
Regardless of whether EPA considers more stringent emissions standards for long-haul trucks in
this rulemaking, the Agency should consider these and future developments in this sector as
promising evidence of the technological and economic feasibility of heavy-duty zero-emission
technologies on a broad scale. In order to achieve the United States' climate goals and carry out
the Clean Air Act's mandate to protect public health and welfare, EPA must consider paths
toward greater deployment of zero-emission technologies in the entire heavy-duty sector,
including long-haul trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.75]
The heavy-duty truck market is rapidly innovating, and EPA should consider all of these
innovations in setting emissions standards, including developments in hydrogen fuel cell
technology. For medium- and heavy-duty long-haul trucks, full transition to zero-emissions may
require some use of hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen FCEVs are scheduled to enter the heavy-
duty tractor market in 2022, and will provide an alternative to BEVs that may be attractive in
long-haul applications.288 For long-haul trucks, a hydrogen tank can be fueled approximately 15
times faster than a battery can be charged, takes up significantly less cargo capacity, and has a
longer range.289 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.75-76]
288 Chris Randall, Hyzon to Deliver 18 FC Trucks to Hylane, Electrive.com (Apr. 11,
2022),
https://www.electrive.com/2022/04/ll/hyzon-to-deliver-18-fc-trucks-to-
hylane/#:~:text=Delivery%20of%20the%20
vehicles%20is,part%20of%20Hylane%27s%20mobility%20model.
289 Thomas Walker, Why the Future of Long-Haul Heavy Trucking Probably Includes
Lots of Hydrogen, GreenBiz
(June 15,2021),
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-future-long-haul-heavy-trucking-probably-
includes-lots-hydrogen.
EPA recognizes FCEV potential, stating that '[i]f additional data on FCEV sales is available
when we are conducting analyses for the final rulemaking, then we would likely evaluate using
1405
-------
those data.' DRIA at 56. And manufacturers are currently developing FCEV models. Daimler's
Mercedes-Benz brand, for example, has recently announced the GenH2, an electric-fuel cell
truck that promises to drive more than 600 miles before needing to refuel.290 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.76]
290 Mike De Socio, Keep Your Eyes on These 9 Electric Truck and Van Companies in
2021, GreenBiz (Jan. 4, 2021).
Several recent studies have also considered the entry of FCEVs into the market, including NREL
(2022) (projecting that FCEVs will make up 2% of heavy-duty sales by 2030 and 21% by
2040)291 and BNEF EV Outlook (2021) (projecting that FCEVs will comprise 3% of heavy-
duty sales by 2040 in the Economic Transition Scenario and 10% of heavy-duty sales by 2050 in
the Net Zero Scenario).292 DOE has explained that '[d]ue to advancements for fuel cells and
clean hydrogen production, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles are expected to become cost-
competitive for long-haul heavy-duty trucks with greater than 500-mile range by 2035.'293 EPA
should consider all feasible zero-emission technologies, including both battery electric and fuel
cell technologies, both now and when setting the upcoming Phase 3 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.76]
291 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost
Analysis, NREL (Mar. 2022).
292 BNEF EV Outlook (2021).
293 DOE, DOE Projects Zero Emissions Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electric Trucks Will
Be Cheaper than
Diesel-Powered Trucks by 2035 (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-duty-
electric-trucks-will-be-cheape
r-diesel.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
The Proposal underestimates baseline HD ZEV market penetration in several ways. First, EPA
bases its estimate on the number of HD ZEVs it expects as a result of California's regulatory
requirements for HDVs in 2027, extrapolated to a national level, but its methodology is flawed
for several reasons. In particular, EPA relies on HD ZEV projections from California's ACT58
rulemaking in 2019, which are based on projected 2027 HD sales that are significant
underestimates—notably lower than EPA's own projections in its MOtor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model and when compared to historical HDV sales data, as
discussed in more detail below. As a result, the Proposal's baseline ZEV sales projections for
California in 2027 are unreasonably low and out of line with other, more accurate data and
information. In calculating its baseline HD ZEV penetration estimate, EPA should rely on its
1406
-------
own up-to-date MOVES data (which is also more in line with historical sales data) rather than
California's 2019 projections. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.20-21]
58 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation—Final Regulation Order (Mar. 15, 2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
Further, in extrapolating to the national level, EPA relies on a ratio from a 2021 report by ICCT
on U.S. and Canada ZEV sales. But there is no reason to believe that this ratio will continue to
hold in the future. Moreover, EPA ignores the HD ZEV sales that will result in other states that
have already adopted the ACT rule, as well as those that have signed the Multi-State Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),59 which
targets ZEV sales and commits to ZEVs achieving 30% of all HDV sales by 2030 and 100% of
all HDV sales by 2050. If EPA used MOVES data and looked at these existing state-level
commitments, the baseline HD ZEV market penetration for 2027 would be significantly higher
than that calculated in the Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.21]
59 See NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle
Memorandum of Understanding (NESCAUM MOU) (last accessed May 10,
2022), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/.
EPA's approach to calculating national HD ZEV sales in 2027 is flawed because it relies on
outdated data and fails to capture the impact of state policies driving additional HD ZEV sales.
In its proposed approach, EPA begins by estimating MY 2027 HD ZEV sales in California. To
do this, EPA takes into consideration the ACT rule passed by CARB in June 2020. 87 Fed. Reg.
at 17,600.62 The ACT rule requires that HD ZEVs make up a certain percentage of a
manufacturer's California sales. For example, in MY 2027, 20% of Class 4-8 vehicles and 15%
of Class 7-8 tractors sold in California must be ZEVs. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,597 Tbl.XI-2 &
17,600.63 EPA then scales to a national estimate of HD ZEV market penetration for MY
2027 using a static assumption that California will represent 42% of national HD ZEV sales.
This approach is problematic for several reasons detailed below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.23-24]
62 See also CARB, Notice of Decision: Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation (June 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/nod.pdf.
63 See also CARB, Appendix A - Proposed Regulation Order: Advanced Clean Trucks
Regulation 5-6 (May 2020), https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/act2019/30dayatta.pdf.
First, EPA underestimates the number of vehicles impacted by California standards by relying on
inaccurate sales projections used in the ACT rulemaking. EPA uses estimates from the ACT
rulemaking of the total Class 4-8 on-road vocational vehicle and tractor sales in California in
MY 2027 of 20,938 (15,945 Class 4-8 vehicles and 4,993 tractors).64 These sales estimates are
well below the on-road Class 4-8 vocational vehicle and tractor sales in California derived from
several other sources and are inconsistent with actual sales and registration data. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.24]
1407
-------
64 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,600, Table XI-3 (citing CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation
Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis 25 (Aug. 8, 2019),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appc.pdf.).
According to the California DMV, 50,000 MY 2018 HDVs were registered as of October 2018;
52,688 MY 2019 HDVs were registered as of January 1, 2020; and 59,758 MY 2020 HDVs were
registered as of January 1, 2021.65 These real-world new model year registrations are more than
double those EPA estimated for MY 2027 in the Proposal. CARB's estimate of 20,938 HDV
sales in MY 2027 is based on data from the EMFAC2017 modeling tool with an adjustment to
'remove out-of-state sales' as explained in the ACT Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis
(SRIA).66 In its documentation, CARB states that 84-90% of new registrations for Class 4-8
vehicles of model year age -1 or 0 were first sold in California. 67 CARB states that it applied
this factor to the EMFAC2017 projections to estimate new in-state sales of HDVs in MY 2027,
but even applying this factor to EMFAC2017 projections still results in higher estimated MY
2027 sales than what CARB presents in the SRIA. Furthermore, if the out-of-state sales factor
were applied to real-world California DMV registration data, new HDV sales would still be
significantly higher than CARB's EMFAC2017-based estimates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.24]
65 California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV), Vehicle Fuel Type Count by
Zip Code (May 5, 2022), https://data.ca.gov/dataset/vehicle-fuel-type-count-by-zip-code.
66 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis
at 24.
67 CARB, Attachment D: Emissions Inventory Methods and Results for the Proposed
Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation Proposed Modifications 3 (2019),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/30dayattd.pdf.
Furthermore, a retrospective analysis by CARB has found that EMFAC2017 significantly
underestimated future HDV sales compared to real-world sales.68 For instance, analysis by
CARB found that EMFAC2017 projected sales for heavy-duty trucks and buses in 2018
underestimated real-world sales by 15,633 in calendar year 2018.69 CARB has updated its
estimates of in-state HDV sales in its EMFAC2021, which projects higher sales for
2027.70 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.24]
68 See CARB, EMFAC202x Updates 34, 68, 94 (July 30, 2020),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
07/EMF AC202x_2nd_Workshop_07302020_ADA.pdf (showing EMFAC2017
projections underestimated HD sales in California).
69 Id. at 68.
70 CARB, Emissions Inventory, EMFAC, https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory
(last accessed May 10, 2022) (attached to these comments as an Excel spreadsheet).
1408
-------
In addition, EPA has developed its own sales projections using its MOVES3 modeling tool,
which finds much higher sales for the relevant vehicles in California. The sales projections in
MOVES3 are more consistent with California vehicle registration data. EPA's MOVES 'is
a state-of-the-science emission modeling system'71 that 'undergoes major updates and review
every few years,'72 including significant peer-reviewed updates for the most recent MOVES3
version. In MOVES3, EPA put substantial effort into estimating vehicle populations by source
type and calendar year, acknowledging that vehicle population is 'a critical input' that is 'ever
changing as new historical data becomes available and new projections are generated.'73 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.24-25]
71 EPA, Overview of EPA's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES3) 3 (Mar.
2021), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P101 lKV2.pdf.
72 EPA, Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in MOVES3 8 (Apr.
2021), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P101 lTF8.pdf.
73 Id. at 7-8.
In the Proposal, EPA relies on MOVES for all HDV sales and inventory projections, except
those used in estimating the 2027 HD ZEV sales.74 However, even when using MOVES sales
and inventory data in the Proposal, EPA is inconsistent with versions, mixing data from the most
recent MOVES3 version with data from previous MOVES versions. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,600-
01 (basing MY 2027 projections on vehicle population data from the 2016 HD GHG Phase 2
rulemaking, which used a previous version of MOVES, but basing short-haul tractor sales share
on MOVES3 data). EPA should be consistent in the data source used for the sales and inventory
projections. For these reasons, EPA should rely on its own and most current MOVES3 data
rather than outdated MOVES versions or California's previous projections. Sales estimates by
MOVES3 and other sources are significantly higher than what EPA assumes in the Proposal, as
shown in Table 1 below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.25]
74 See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,492 (MOVES data used for inventory analysis when
considering feasibility of standards); id. at 17,568 ('MOVES-projected sales volumes
were used to determine first-year sales and cumulative sales' when calculating direct
manufacturer costs); id. at 17,608 (MOVES data used to project sales in MY 2027 to
model emissions impact and technology costs of GHG standard revisions); DRIA at 204
(MOVES was used to 'estimate emission inventories for air quality monitoring'); 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17,600 (MOVES3 used to determine the fraction of short-haul tractors relative to
overall tractor sales for MY 2027). EPA also used MOVES projections of total HD sales
for MY 2027 but used EMFAC for California sales to extrapolate ZEV penetration rates,
and then applied those to MOVES-based national sales numbers to arrive at a national
percentage ZEV sales number). See 17 Fed. Reg. at 17,600-01 (noting that total national
HDV sales numbers are based on sales split by vehicle category used in HD GHG Phase
2 rulemaking); EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles-Phase 2 at 7-
49, Tbl. 7-55 (Aug. 2016) (noting that sales estimates are based on MOVES).
1409
-------
Table 1 Comparison of California HD Sales Estimates by Source, Class 4-8 Vocational and
Tractor Sales in California [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.26]
• EPA Proposal
o 2020 - blank
o 2025 - blank
o 2027 -20,938
o 2030 - blank
• CA DMV (actual registrations)75
o 2020 - 59,758
o 2025 - blank
o 2027 - blank
o 2030 - blank
75 CA DMV, Vehicle Fuel Type Count by Zip Code (May 5, 2022),
https://data.ca.gov/dataset/vehicle-fuel-type-count-by-zip-code. These are California
DMV registrations for MY 2020 'Heavy' vehicles as of January 1, 2021. The California
DMV does not provide which vehicle classes are included in this category.
. MOVES376
O 2020 - 60,421
o 2025 - 61,003
o 2027 - 62,047
o 2030 -63,614
76 Calculated using EPA MOVES3 version 3.0.2, https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-
version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves. See Appendix A for details.
. EMFAC2021 77
O 2020 -43,161
o 2025 - 44,397
o 2027 - 45,326
o 2030 - 47,809
77 CARB, Emissions Inventory, EMFAC.
. EMFAC2017 78
o 2020 - 36,642
o 2025 - 40,459
o 2027-42,013
o 2030 - 43,486
78 CARB, EMFAC2017 Web Database (last accessed May 10, 2022),
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/ (attached to these comments as an Excel spreadsheet).
1410
-------
Second, EPA wrongly assumes that California will continue to represent an oversized share of
national HD ZEVs sales by failing to accurately capture the impact of other states' policies on
HD ZEV sales. The Proposal correctly points out that numerous states 'have announced plans to
shift the heavy-duty fleet toward zero-emission technology.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598.79 Yet when
calculating baseline HD ZEV market penetration, EPA fails to discuss or account for the full
range of state policies and commitments, particularly those from outside of California.
Considering them would lead to substantially higher and more accurate baseline HD ZEV
penetration rates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.26]
79 See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,595, n.813, n.814 (citing states' and cities' expansion of
electric bus fleets); id. at 17,596-97 (noting that the 'BEV market for transit and school
buses continues to grow,' and identifying several
cities with ZEV transit bus programs); id. at 17,597 (listing several states with ZEV
school bus programs); id. at 17,598 (explaining the ACT rule and states that have signed
a related MOU).
EPA notes that' [ojutside California, several states have signaled interest in shifting to heavy-
duty ZEV technologies and/or establishing specific goals to increase the heavy-duty electric
vehicle market.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598. EPA further explains that 15 states and the District of
Columbia have signed the MOU targeting ZEV sales equaling 30% of all HDV sales by 2030
and 100% of all HDV sales by 2050. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598. The Proposal fails to include both
Virginia and Nevada as MOU signatories, and these two states bring the total MOU signatories
to 17 states and the District of Columbia.80 HDV sales in MOU states, including California,
make up a significant portion of national HDV sales—about 36.5%.81 In March 2022, Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the MOU states issued a
comprehensive and detailed draft Action Plan to meet their goals.82 Despite mentioning the
MOU, the Proposal does not factor into its baseline HD ZEV market penetration the fact that
ZEVs will be added to the heavy-duty fleet more rapidly in these 17 states and D.C., which make
up more than a third of national HDV sales.83 An analysis by ICCT estimates that 36% of HDV
sales in MOU states (excluding California) would be ZEVs in 2030 if all states implement the
goal set out in the MOU.84 ICCT estimates that this would translate to 153,820 HD ZEV sales in
MOU states (excluding California) in 2030.85 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.26-27]
80 Electrification Coalition, Nevada Joins Multi-State Agreement to Electrify Trucks and
Buses (Mar. 31, 2022), https://www.electrificationcoalition.org/nevada-joins-multi-state-
agreement-to-electrify-trucks-and-buses/; Sierra Club, Governor Northam Signs Virginia
onto Multi-State Agreement to Electrify Trucks and Buses (Dec. 9, 2021),
https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2021/12/governor-northam-signs-virginia-
multi-state-agreement-electrify-trucks-and.
81 Claire Buysse, et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the UnitedStates, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022). This is consistent with
MOVES3 projections for MY 2027, which show 219,092 heavy-duty sales in all the
MOU states, as compared to 606,659 total heavy-duty sales nationally, or 36% of all
sales. See Appendix A for the relevant MOVES3 sales projections.
1411
-------
82 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action
Plan: A Policy Framework to Eliminate Harmful Truck and Bus Emissions, Draft for
Public Comment (NESCAUM Action Plan) (Mar. 10, 2022),
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhd-zev-action-plan-public-draft-03-10-2022.pdf.
83 The MOU signatories are: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of
Columbia. See NESCAUM MOU.
84 Arijit Sen et al., Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-
Emission Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding 5, ICCT (Apr. 2022),
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-mou-benefits-apr22.pdf.
85 Id. at 5, Figure 1; id. at 15, Table A4, excluding 2b/3 vehicles.
In addition to the MOU, EPA cites the adoption of the ACT rule in three states—New York,
New Jersey, and Washington, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598 nn.846-48—but in fact, five states in
addition to California have adopted the ACT rule,86 which with California would comprise
20%87 of total HDV sales in 2027.88 Other states also have relevant legislation underway. In
May 2022, Connecticut passed legislation authorizing the state's Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection to adopt the ACT rule.89 Maine has also made progress toward
adopting ZEV standards for the state's HDVs and is currently seeking additional public and
stakeholder comment on its proposed ACT rule.90 The Proposal correctly notes the expectation
that more states will follow,91 and Colorado, Illinois, and Vermont have 'signaled plans to
weigh the new regulations' as well.92 HD ZEV sales in ACT-adopting states will need to reach
between 30% (Class 7-8 tractors) and 50% (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2030, and 40% (Class 7-8
tractors) to 75% (Class 4-8 trucks) by 2035 in order to meet the ACT targets.93 But again, EPA
fails to account for the fact that the states that have adopted the ACT rule have committed to
ZEV adoption at a more rapid pace than EPA projects, even absent any additional federal
regulation, and that others are already taking action to join them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.27-28]
86 States that have adopted the ACT rule include New York, New Jersey, and
Washington, as cited in the Proposal, along with Oregon and Massachusetts.
87 Calculated using EPA MOVES3, https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-
vehicle-emission-simulator-moves. See Appendix A for the relevant MOVES3 sales
projections.
88 Laura Bliss, How Six States Could Transform the U.S. Trucking Industry, Bloomberg
(Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-
emission-laws-will-reshape-u-s-trucking.
89 See Electric Trucks Now, States Are Embracing Electric Trucks (last accessed May
10, 2022), https://www.electrictrucksnow.com/states; Governor Ned Lamont, State of
1412
-------
Connecticut, Governor Lamont Applauds Final Passage of Climate Legislation That
Includes New Emissions Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Apr. 29,
2022),
https://officeofthegovernor.cmail20.eom/t/ViewEmail/j/74D52C48B1231B922540EF23F
30FEDED/BC5917CDF0297FE1025DA65DC0D0F53A?alternativeLink=False.
90 State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection, Meeting Minutes (Jan. 20, 2022),
https://www.maine.gov/dep/bep/calendar.html.
91 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598 (noting that 'we anticipate more states to follow with similar
proposals' to the states that have adopted California's ACT rule).
92 Laura Bliss, How Six States Could Transform the U.S. Trucking Industry, Bloomberg
(Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-
emission-laws-will-reshape-u-s-trucking.
93 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, Final Regulation Order, Table A-l at 5
(Mar. 15,2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf; Rachel
Macintosh et al., Electric Vehicle Market Update 15, EDF (Apr. 2022),
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april20
22.pdf.
Instead of factoring these state policies directly into its calculations, EPA takes an approach that
leads to a significant underestimate of baseline HD ZEV market penetration by MY 2027. In the
DRIA, EPA cites a 2021 analysis by ICCT that notes that 42% of cumulative HD ZEVs sold
through 2020 in the U.S. and Canada have been in California.94 This leads EPA to conclude that
42% of annual national HD ZEV sales will be in California in MY 2027. But this will not be the
case in 2027. While California represents 42% of cumulative HD ZEV sales in the United States
and Canada, it only comprises 10% of U.S. HDV registrations.95 As noted above, states that
have signed the MOU, including California and other ACT-adopting states, represent 36.5% of
HDV registrations.96 As these policies take effect in these states, the relative share of HD ZEV
sales in California will fall, even as national sales increase. California would only represent 28%
of total HD ZEV sales nationally if all MOU states achieve the ACT targets (with the MOU
states representing 72% of total HD ZEV sales). 97 And these figures do not account for the high
possibility that other states beyond the MOU states also see growth in HD ZEV sales, as detailed
in Section III.C below. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.28]
94 Ben Sharpe & Claire Buysse, Zero-Emission Bus and Truck Market in the United
States and Canada: A 2020 Update 5, ICCT (May 21, 2021),
https://theicct.org/publication/zero-emission-bus-and-truck-market-in-the-united-states-
and-canada-a-2020-update/.
95 For MY 2020. See Appendix A for details on these calculations.
1413
-------
96 Claire Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, ICCT (Apr. 8, 2022). See also MOVES3
projections for MY 2027.
97 See Appendix A for details on these calculations. Calculated using EPA MOVES3,
https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
There has been a similar trend of other states making up a larger share of light-duty ZEV sales.
In 2015, a total of 64,175 light-duty ZEVs were sold in the United States, with 53% sold in
California.98 However, as of 2021, California's relative share has fallen to 35% as light-duty
ZEV sales have dramatically accelerated nationally, driven by other federal and state policies and
significant consumer interest in ZEVs (Figure 2). As of 2021, new light-duty ZEV sales totaled
166,582 in California (nearly 5 times higher than in 2015) and 473,426 nationally (nearly 7 times
higher than in 2015).99 These trends demonstrate not only how quickly ZEV sales
have accelerated but also how they have grown in states beyond California. Over the long term,
with other state policies and federal incentives taking effect, regional differences in ZEV sales
will diminish for HDVs, just as they have for light-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.28-29] [Figure 2 has footnote 100]
98 Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard (last accessed
May 10, 2022), https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/electric-vehicle-sales-
dashboard.
99 Id.
100 Developed using data from the Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard. See id.
In light of this data, EPA should not calculate forward-looking national HD ZEV sales using
outdated HDV sales estimates and backward-looking sales shares. Instead, EPA should factor in
the impact of policies in other states beyond California in the Agency's estimate of baseline HD
ZEV market penetration. This should include states that 1) have adopted the ACT rule; 2) have
committed to the MOU; and 3) are taking actions to deploy zero-emission transit and school
buses (where it is possible to separately quantify those actions). This would result in a baseline
HD ZEV market penetration estimate of at least 8% by 2027 and 19% by 2030.101 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.29]
101 This assumes MOU states adopt ACT targets for 2027 and 2030. For detailed
description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see Appendix A.
Still, even these more accurate baseline estimates would fail to reflect growing HD ZEV
deployment in states that may adopt regulatory policies in the future or deployment that is driven
by local government programs and private sector investments, as discussed below in Section
IHC. As such, a baseline HD ZEV market penetration of 8% by 2027 and 19% by 2030 would
be conservative. Accounting for modest additional state and private sector actions would
bring baseline HD ZEV market penetration to at least 11% by 2027 and 27% by 2030.102 In
addition, the faster-than-expected gains in the cost-competitiveness of HD ZEVs, as detailed
1414
-------
below in Section III.D, offers additional evidence that HD ZEV uptake will continue to increase
and that a MY 2027 HD ZEV penetration rate of between 8% and 11% by 2027 is a feasible and
conservative baseline estimate. 103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.29-30]
102 This assumes MOU states adopt ACT targets for 2027 and 2030 and non-MOU states
achieve 4% HD ZEV penetration by 2027 and 11% HD ZEV penetration by 2030. For a
detailed description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see Appendix A.
103 For a detailed description of the methodology to develop these estimates, see
Appendix A.
Current market analyses project rapid growth in HD ZEVs by the late 2020s, further illustrating
that EPA's proposed baseline market penetration is a significant underestimate and that standards
that further drive adoption of zero-emission technologies are clearly feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
In discussing advances to the HD ZEV market, EPA cites two modeled projections: the Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2021 ('AEO 2021') and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Electrification Futures Study (2018). EPA
also requests comment on sources for estimates and projections of the HD ZEV market. There
are additional and up-to-date projections that demonstrate much higher baseline national HD
ZEV penetration than the limited information that EPA considered in the Proposal, as shown in
Table 2 below. These include:
• Boston Consulting Group discusses the fact that 'change is unfolding at electrifying
speed in the commercial vehicle industry,' driven by economics and policies. 104 The
report predicts BEV sales in the range of 19-23% and FCEV sales in the range of 3-6%,
with a central estimate of 25% ZEVs by 2030 (and 10% ZEVs by 2025). Even in its
conservative scenario, zero-emission commercial vehicle sales would reach 6% in 2025
and 15% in 2030 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
104 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (Mar. 22, 2022),
https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2022/what-the-shift-to-zero-emission-vehicles-
means-for-commercial-transportation.
• NREL's 'Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles' report finds that
'zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) can reach total-cost-of-driving parity with conventional
diesel vehicles by 2035 for all medium- and heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicle classes,' with
smaller trucks and short-haul trucks achieving cost parity soon. 105 The analysis
concludes that 'demand for ZEV could rise rapidly...once cost parity is reached' and that
ZEV sales could reach 42% by 2030.106 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.30]
105 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis 2, NREL (Mar. 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
1415
-------
106 Id. at 3.
• ACT Research's 'Charging Forward Update' report projects that BEVs will reach 21% of
Class 4-8 sales by 2027.107
107 Jennifer McNealy, ACT Research Releases Updated BEV and FCEV Study &
Adoption Forecasts for NA CV Markets, ACT Research (Feb. 7, 2022),
https://content.actresearch.net/blog/nacev-act-research-releases-updated-bev-and-fcev-
study-adoption-forecasts-forna-cv-markets.
• The International Energy Agency's Global EV Outlook 2021 projects that due to federal
and state policies incentivizing ZEVs and charging infrastructure, ZEV sales for buses
and trucks will reach 20% and 8%, respectively, by 2030.108
108 IEA, Prospects for Electric Vehicle Deployment (2021),
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/prospects-for-electric-vehicle-
deployment (IEA's definition appears to include Class 2b/3 categories).
• BNEF's Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 states that 'in urban duty cycles, battery electric
trucks of any size become the cheapest option for several use cases in the 2020s,' with
'battery electric trucks becoming a viable option for heavy-duty long-haul operations' by
the late 2020s.109 BNEF's Economic Transition Scenario projects that U.S. HD ZEV
sales will reach 5% in 2027 for commercial HDVs and 38% in 2027 for buses. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.31]
109 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021), https://about.bnef.com/electric-
vehicle-outlook/.
The AEO 2021 report that EPA cites in the Proposal projects that HD ZEVs will only make up
0.12% of new truck sales in 2027.110 This projection is substantially lower than other available
market-based projections and should not be relied upon for the rulemaking. The model projects
that only 485 electric medium- or heavy-duty vehicles will be sold in 2027, which is completely
inconsistent with existing state policies and private sector commitments. Ill Importantly, the
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), the model used for the AEO 2021 report, does not
consider the impact of California and other states adopting the ACT rule or signing the MOU.
NEMS also does not factor in total cost-of-ownership in calculating vehicle sales demand, 112
does not appear to reflect the latest projected battery costs, and imposes exogenous maximum
zero-emission technology penetration of 10%. 113 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.31]
110 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,596
111 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2021, Table 49. Freight Transportation Energy Use
(last accessed May 10, 2022), https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo21/tables_ref.php
(attached to these comments as an Excel spreadsheet).
1416
-------
112 EIA, Transportation Sector Demand Module of the National Energy Modeling
System: Model Documentation (Dec. 2020),
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/transportation/pdf/m070(2020).p
df.
113 National Energy Modeling System input file 'Max Share of Each Fuel Type'
corresponding to parameter 'EFSHXG' for formula (199) as discussed in id. at 108.
NEMS input files can be found at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/info_nems_archive.php
For its second source, EPA cites the NREL Electrification Futures Study (EFS).l 14 Compared to
AEO 2021, NREL projects a greater market penetration of HD ZEVs, but the analysis is still
dated compared to more recent analyses. NREL EFS projects 2027 HD ZEV sales shares of 5%
for Class 3-6, 2% for Class 7-8, and 9% for buses in its Medium Scenario; and 10% for Class 3-
6, 7% for Class 7-8, and 45% for buses in its High Scenario. As NREL's analysis was completed
in 2017, it does not account for all the significant advancements in the HD ZEV market that EPA
proposes to take into account in this rulemaking. For instance, the NREL EFS assumes that
battery costs decline such that they reach $135/kWh by 2050. This is a much slower pace than
has been demonstrated in the real world. In fact, according to BNEF, the average lithium-ion
battery pack cost was $137/kWh in 2020, down from $295/kWh in 2016.115 Projected battery
costs have fallen significantly to such an extent that a report by Roush Industries notes that
'battery cost projections made in 2017-2018 are already obsolete.' 116 Analysis conducted by
Roush finds that battery costs could reach $59-68/kWh by 2027. Other analyses have cited costs
of $100/kWh by 2025.117 Furthermore, the NREL EFS pre-dates California's ACT program and
the MOU signed by 17 states, so it does not consider the impact that these policies will have on
market evolution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.31-32]
114 Trieu Mai et al., Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Electric Technology
Adoption and Power Consumption for the United States, NREL (2018),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/71500.pdf.
115 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021).
116 Vishnu Nair et al., Technical Review of: Medium and Heavy-Duty Electrification
Costs for MY 2027- 2030 44, Figure 15, Roush Industries for EDF (Feb. 2, 2022),
http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf.
117 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (March 22, 2022); Chad Hunter,
NREL, Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8
Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks 10 (Sept. 2020),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf.
1417
-------
Accordingly, EPA should place greater weight on recent studies that more accurately reflect a
current assessment of the HD ZEV market, and which project more rapid market penetration of
HD ZEVs in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.32]
Table 2: Recent Studies with Market Projections for HD ZEVs
• ACT Research ' Charging Forward Update' 118
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 24% by 2027 for Class 4-8 commercial vehicles
118 Jennifer McNealy, ACT Research Releases Updated BEV and FCEV Study &
Adoption Forecasts for NA CV Markets, ACT Research (Feb. 7, 2022),
https://content.actresearch.net/blog/nacev-act-research-releases-updated-bev-and-fcev-
study-adoption-forecasts-forna-cv-markets.
• NREL 'Decarbonizing Medium and Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles' 119
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 42% by 2030 for Class 3-8 vehicles
119 Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis 2, NREL (Mar. 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
• Boston Consulting Group 'What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicles Means for
Commercial Transportation'120
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 25% by 2030 (range of 21% to 29%)
120 Peter Wiedenhoff et al., What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicle Means for
Commercial Transportation, Boston Consulting Group (Mar. 22, 2022).
. IEA Global EVOutlookl21
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 8% for trucks and 20% for buses by 2030 under
Stated Policies Scenario
121 IEA, Prospects for Electric Vehicle Deployment (2021),
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/prospects-for-electric-vehicle-
deployment.
• BNEF Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021122
o Percent National HD ZEV Sales: 5% for trucks and 38% for buses by
2027 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.32]
122 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (2021).
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Given the use of older ZEV heavy-duty sales projections in the proposed rule that don't take into
account more recent manufacturer commitments and state action, it is likely that heavy-duty
1418
-------
ZEV sales will be higher than EPA's projections (see more below on Colorado's estimated
sales). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
EPA proposes to increase the stringency of GHG limits by 1.5% in MY 2027 based on sales-
weighted average projections of electric school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short-
haul tractors. These projections are based on outdated data and significant market, technical, and
policy developments that have occurred since, including reductions in battery costs,
improvements in range, and the introduction of numerous new models for different vehicle
classes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.2]
We recommend EPA update its estimates of heavy-duty ZEV sales based on more recent
technology and market trends, as well as policy development and investments occurring at the
state level. Colorado has developed a comprehensive Clean Truck Strategy that includes goals
for 30% of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sales to be ZEV by 2030, and to achieve 35,000
ZEV M/HD vehicles on the road by 2030.7 To achieve these goals, Colorado intends to pursue
adoption of the Advanced Clean Trucks and Low NOx Omnibus rule, implement new vehicle
incentive and replacement programs that have been funded by legislative action, invest in M/HD
charging infrastructure, support workforce development, work with our utilities to invest in
make-ready and other needed infrastructure investments, and numerous other strategies.
Projected Class 4-8 Colorado ZEV sales for MY 2027-2029 based on adoption of the Advanced
Clean Trucks rule, if no trading between classes occurs, are included below: [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1297-A1, p.3] [See docket numberEPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-Al, p.3 for table
of CO ZEV Sales.]
7 This goal includes classes 2b and 3, and includes additional actions beyond adoption of
the ACT and Low NOx rules.
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
The proposed rule significantly underestimates the future market penetration of ZEVs, and
overlooks existing and reasonably foreseeable future ZEV technology. In doing so, the rule fails
to set sufficiently stringent standards, and fails to encourage the adoption of ZEVs. As such, the
EPA is not meeting its mandate under the Clean Air Act (CAA). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1285-A1, p.3]
Existing ZEV technology can meet the needs of most local and regional operations. Studies show
that most straight trucks,22 in particular those used for local deliveries, do not travel more than
100 miles per day.23 There are a number of zero-emission trucks and buses commercially
available today that already exceed 100 miles in range. Moreover, there are several battery and
fuel cell models being demonstrated that can exceed 200 miles per day.24 With a number of
companies such as Amazon, FedEx, and UPS committing to purchasing electric delivery
vehicles, the possibility for a significant increase in adoption of ZEVs for this class is
promising.25 The ZEV outlook for other classes of heavy-duty vehicles is also promising. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.4]
22 Trucks designed with all axles on a single chassis
1419
-------
23 California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the
Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, (October 22, 2019). Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/isor.pdf
24 Id.
25 Environmental Defense Fund, Ready for Delivery, (March 6, 2020) Available at:
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/03/06/ready-for-delivery-electric-package-
trucks/?_gl=l *khvyat*_ga*ND
Q2MzkxMDgwLjE2NDU2MzQyMjg.*_ga_2B3856Y9QW*MTYlMTE20TA2MC4xLj
EuMTY lMTE20TA4NC4zNg.. *_ga_WE3BPRQKW0*MTYlMTE2OTA2MC4xMC4x
LjE2NTExNjkwODQuMzY.*_ga_Q5CTTQBJD8*M
TY lMTE20TA2MC4xLj EuMTY lMTE20TA4NC4zNg.. *_gcl_aw*RONMLj E2ND Y z
Mj YzNzYuQ2owS0NRaUE2NEdSQmhDWkF S SXNB SE9McmlMMjNtX3ZrVEI5X25L
ZmZodWFOZTNHQmRDZmNvLUlzT lRuUONmaGl 1
clpzdElDMilBVFpBY2FBb3dSRUFMdl93Y0I.*_gcl_dc*R0NMLjE2NDYzMjYzNzYu
Q2owS 0NRaUE2NEd S QmhD WkF S SXNB SE9McmlMMj NtX3 ZrVEI5 X2 5LZmZ odWF
OZTNHQmRDZmNvLUlzT lRuUONmaGl lclpzdElDMi IB VFpBY2FBb3 dSRUFMd 193
YOL; Amazon, Climate Pledge Fund Investments, Available at:
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-pledge/the-climate-pledge-fund
Manufacturers are planning to commercialize regional-haul ZEV trucks in the coming years.26
Finally, as seen in CALStart's 'Drive to Zero' zero-emission technology inventory, a number of
class 8 models, including battery-electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel-cell-electric vehicles (FCEV)
that can travel over 300 miles on a single charge will be available in the coming model
years.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.5]
26 Seth Clevenger. (2019, Dec. 6). The Dawn of Electric Trucks, Transport Topics. See
https://www.ttnews.com/articles/dawn-electric-trucks
27 CALStart, Zero-Emission Technology Inventory. Available at:
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventory/
State policies such as California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) establish zero-emission sales
requirements for heavy-duty vehicles.28 These regulations will further push the market and
technology towards electrification as manufacturers work to comply with the regulation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.5]
28 13 C.C.R. 1963 et seq.
Heavy-duty vehicles account for 23% of transportation-related GHG emissions. 56 The EPA is
proposing to update existing heavy-duty GHG standards to better reflect the increase in
electrification beyond what was anticipated when the GHG standards were initially set. Because
the current standards do not accurately capture electrification, manufacturers are able to produce
ICE vehicles without installing any GHG emission reducing technologies.57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1285-A1, p.9]
1420
-------
56 EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020, EPA-430-
R-22-003 (April 14, 2022).
57 87F.R. 17440.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is authorized to prescribe standards applicable to the
'emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor
vehicle engines... which in his judgment cause or contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'54 The EPA has issued numerous
findings showing that GHGs are reasonably anticipated to both endanger public health and to
endanger public welfare.55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.9]
54 42 U.S.C. 7251(a)(1).
55 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gasses Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule 74 F.R. 66495 (January 14. 2010).
Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-15/pdf/E9-29537.pdf.
However, by continuing to underestimate the ZEV market, the proposed standards do little to
address the issue, nor do they help set the U.S. on a path to achieve President Biden's goal of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% compared to 2005 levels by 2030.58 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.9]
58 White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Announces Actions to Accelerate
Clean Transit, Buses, School Buses and Trucks,(March 07, 2022). Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gOv/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/07/fact-sheet-
vice-president-harris-announces-actions-to-accelerate-clean-transit-buses-school-buses-
and-trucks/
EPA should set GHG gas standards that more accurately reflect the current and future heavy-
duty ZEV market, and that drive technology towards zero emission heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.2]
As written, the proposed rule assumes a ZEV sales share of only 1.5% in key market segments in
2027.2 This is lower than the current requirements of state level policies, which would result in a
market penetration of at least 3% by 20273, and underestimates current market trends. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, pp. 1-2]
2 87 F.R. 17414, 17458.
3 Claire Buysse, Sara Kelly Ray Minjares, Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for
Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, International Council on Clean
Transportation (April 8, 2022). Available at:
https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/
The EPA should establish standards that not only assume a higher market share of ZEVs, but that
also push the market towards increased electrification. The Clean Air Act (CAA) is intended to
1421
-------
be technology forcing 4 and the EPA should rely on this authority to encourage faster adoption
of ZEV technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.2]
4 42 U.S.C. 7521
As written, the proposed rule assumes a ZEV sales share of only 1.5% in key market segments in
2027.29 As discussed below, this assumption is lower than requirements in state level policies,
and underestimates market trends. The EPA should establish standards that not only assume a
higher market share of ZEVs, but that also push the market towards increased
electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.5]
29 87F.R. 17414, 17458.
On June 25, 2020, California adopted ACT which requires increasing percentages of heavy-duty
trucks sales to be ZEVs starting in 2024. By 2035 the rule requires manufacturers to sell 55%
Class 2b- 3 ZEV, 75% Class 4-8 ZEVs, and 40% class 7-8 ZEVs.30 Since California passed
ACT, six additional states have adopted the regulation.31 In total these states represent around
one-fifth of heavy-duty trucks nationwide.32 In addition, 17 states and the District of Columbia
signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) targeting 30% of all new trucks and buses by
2030.33 These states(and D.C.) represent 36.5% of heavy-duty vehicles nationwide.34
Combined, these state-level policies alone will result in a 3% market share of ZEVs by 2027 and
an 8%> market share by 2030.35 EPA's baseline calculations do not account for the passage of
ACT in states outside California, and do not take into consideration the MOU. At the very least,
EPA's baseline should reflect state regulations and policies that require the adoption of ZEV.
However, even these percentages likely underestimate market trends. In fact, a study by the
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), estimates that 42% of heavy-duty vehicle sales will be
zero emission by 2030.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, pp.5-6]
30 13 C.C.R. 1963.1.
31 Recently, Connecticut passed legislation that will allow the state to adopt ACT.
32 Claire Buysse, Sara Kelly Ray Minjares, Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for
Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, International Council on Clean
Transportation (April 8, 2022). Available at:
https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/; This number includes the projection that
2% of buses nationwide will be zero-emission by 2030 as a result of California's
Innovative Clean Transit Rule.
33 Multistate medium and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding. Available at: https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-
20220329.pdf/.
34 Claire Buysse, Sara Kelly Ray Minjares, Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for
Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, International Council on Clean
1422
-------
Transportation (April 8, 2022). Available at:
https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
35 Id.
36 NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission
Vehicles Cost Analysis, (March 2022). Available at:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
Standards for both NOx and GHG should reflect a higher ZEV market penetration, more than 3%
in 2027 and increasing to more than 8% by 2030, and should work with state policies and
regulations to push the heavy-duty market on a faster trajectory towards zero emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.6]
As the EPA notes, it is updating current GHG standards because the previous standards
underestimated the impacts of the ZEV market.59 While the updates are needed, the current
proposal simply repeats EPA's error of underestimating the ZEV market, and subsequently
undermines the effectiveness of the GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.9]
59 87F.R. 17594.
As discussed in detail in Section I, the EPA's baseline assumption of 1.5% ZEV market
penetration underestimates market trends. As a result, more ZEVs will be on the road than
predicted by the rule, and manufacturers will have to do less to reduce GHG emission from ICEs.
Therefore, the proposed standards will do little to reduce GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1285-A1, p.10]
EPA should set GHG standards that accurately reflect ZEV market penetration as a result of state
laws and policies. Furthermore, the EPA should do more, and set stringent standards that will
drive further investment in clean vehicle technologies. Doing so is necessary to set the U.S. on
track for achieving the President's goal of 50-52% net economy-wide greenhouse gas emission
reductions below 2005 levels in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
Agency Request / Topic: We also are considering whether to establish more stringent standards
beyond MY 2027, specifically in MY 2028 and MY 2029 using the methodology described in
Section XI.C.l. We request comment on appropriate stringency and supporting data for each of
those model years [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p. 11]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: The approach to calculating new GHG standards is sound,
but it is highly dependent on the market dynamics that are uncertain. Since the creation of the
NPRM, more states finalized the NESCAUM MOU and the IIJA heavily subsidized the school
bus market in 2023 - 2027. At a minimum, the EPA should assume ACT volumes across all
NESCAUM MOU states, and separately, an approximate 20% EV market share in school and
transit buses. However, the EPA should also consider the effect of simultaneous NOx and C02
1423
-------
reduction on conventional powertrains that will also drive approximately 2% additional GHG
improvement on the conventional fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.11]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA includes a discussion in its preamble to this rule noting its long-term regulatory focus on
driving the electrification of the transportation sector via future rulemakings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 5]
87 Fed. Reg. 17,421. This discussion also builds on EPA's statements in its 2021 final
rule on light duty vehicles, which included a significant discussion of the major
announcements by every major automaker regarding new EV sales goals and cites the
growing prevalence of EV penetration globally. Revised 2023 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434 (Dec. 30,
2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 6]
These discussions and acknowledgments provide important market and regulatory signals to all
interested stakeholders—in particular, to the electric sector. States such as California, a leader in
vehicle electrification, often include these kinds of discussions in their long-term planning
documents, which have provided critical direction to California electric companies in building
the infrastructure necessary to support increased electrification of the transportation sector. These
types of broad market and regulatory signals will be helpful to all of EEI's members as they
engage with their state commissions to move quickly to deploy EV infrastructure. Specific
language regarding upcoming likely moves by EPA to set further regulatory standards to
incentivize an increase in transportation electrification can send these signals effectively and
should be included in any final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 6]
EEI member companies are leading the charge to ready the market for widescale adoption of
light-, medium- and heavy-duty EVs. EEI members are making investments and offering
programs designed to help their customers overcome barriers to EV adoption, while also
supporting existing EV users and year-over-year growth in the EV market. Many of
these programs help to deploy and/or offset the cost of EV charging infrastructure in homes,
workplaces, public locations, as well as for fleet operators. To date, more than 30 states and the
District of Columbia have approved customer programs and investments totaling more than $3.4
billion. 14 Furthermore, EEI members are leading by example with their own fleets by setting
individual fleet electrification goals that put them on track to electrify more than a third of their
fleet vehicles by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, pp. 6 - 7]
14. See EEI, Electric Transportation Biannual State Regulatory Update,
https ://www. eei. org/-/media/Proj ect/EEI/Documents/Issues-and-Policy/Electric-
Transportation/ET-Biannual-State-Regulatory-Update.pdf.
Electric company investments coupled with those of other companies and stakeholders have
dramatically increased access to charging in the U.S. Electric company investments have the
potential (pending regulatory approval) to support more than 300,000 new charging stations. 15
As of September 2021, there were more than 108,000 public charging ports, not including home
1424
-------
chargers. 16 This represents a more than 2000 percent increase in the number of public charging
ports since 2011.17 The National Electric Highway Coalition, administered by EEI, is made up
of more than 60 electric companies that are committed to fill in gaps in the public fast
charging network needed to ensure long distance EV travel. 18 While initially focused on light-
duty passenger cars, this type of collaboration among electric companies is critical to lay the
groundwork for EV charging infrastructure that can support other vehicle types that may have
charging needs outside of fixed-route, return to base EV charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1282-A1, p. 7 - 8]
15. Atlas EV Hub, Electric Utility Filings Dashboard,
https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/electric-utility-filings/ (last visited September 21,
2021).
16. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center, Alternative Fueling Station
Counts by State, https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/stations_counts.html (last visited
September 21, 2021).
17. See Electric Vehicle Charing Association, State of the Charge: Report of the
Northeast's Electric Vehicle Charging Industry at 3 (May 2018),
http://www.evassociation.Org/uploads/5/8/0/5/58052251/evca_stateofchargereport_2018.
pdf.
18. EEI, https://www.eei.org/issues-and-policy/national-electric-highway-coalition.
Electric companies are also collaborating on infrastructure specific to medium- and heavy-duty
electrifications. Efforts such as the West Coast Clean Transit Corridor Initiative and private
partnerships like that between Daimler Truck North America and NextEra Energy Resources are
laying the groundwork for dedicated medium- and heavy-duty EV charging infrastructure. In
short, electric companies are preparing for a growing wave of fleet electrification and are eager
to partner with both corporate and public fleet customers to ensure a seamless transition. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 8]
These investments are substantial and demonstrate that the industry—with the support of
stakeholders necessary to authorize and enable these investments—are ready and willing to help
facilitate America's shift towards EVs. The Agency should continue to be clear about its
regulatory commitment to increased transportation electrification in this rule. As the electric
sector continues its progress on and leadership on clean energy, EEI's members continue to
make progress as they continue to propose and implement even more EV infrastructure projects
across their service territories (to be augmented by the funds from the bipartisan infrastructure
bill signed into law in 2021). EPA should look to leverage the progress the electric sector is
making, and the investments being made, to choose electrification pathways in its regulatory
regimes that match this progress. Agency comments regarding future electrification
both acknowledges this progress while also laying out the roadmap on how future standards will
provide a clear path for increasing electrification in the transportation sector—and send a strong
signal about the need to build even greater EV infrastructure to meet an electrified future. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, pp. 8 - 9]
1425
-------
EPA's role is consistent with both the Administration's and broad electrification stakeholder
community's objectives and will be helpful to EEI's members as they continue to propose and
implement even more EV infrastructure projects across their service territories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Elders Climate Action
HDVs that are commercially available today with zero emission power trains obviously satisfy
the available technology requirement for MY 2027. A large fraction of the C02 comes from HD
vehicle types that are NOW commercially available with zero emission power trains. These
include transit and school buses, drayage vehicles linking ports and airports with distribution
centers, delivery vans, service trucks, and shuttles serving airports, hotels and resorts. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 4]
EPA improperly estimates the zero emission HDVs that will likely be available in 2027 as a
result of current incentive policies and state regulations. EPA does not estimate the potential
availability of zero emission HDVs that could be produced and sold if EPA were to promulgate
zero emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 4]
Instead EPA assumes that the rule will marginally improve the efficiency of IC engines and
"induce" enough ZEV sales to reduce C02 emissions less than 1% from new HDVs sold in 2027
and subsequent years. By failing to require the production and sale of zero emission HDVs along
with a fleet averaging rule that allows engine manufacturers to sell "dirty" uncontrolled HDVs
through the use of emission reduction credits obtained by selling zero emission vehicles in
California and section 177 states, EPA is effectively allowing engine manufacturers to capture
the benefits of clean zero emission vehicles for themselves while increasing the exposure of at
risk communities to harmful pollutants in non-177 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1,
p. 5]
By setting zero emission standards for NOx beginning in 2027 for the vehicle types currently
available as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), EPA could avoid an estimated 20,440 tons of NOx
in South Coast and 22,630 tons in San Joaquin Valley. A zero emission standard for C02 would
avoid 54 million MT of C02 from these three model years between now and 2050. The urgency
of the public health and climate crises demands that the U.S. must not forego those
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 5.]
EPA must start now with a zero emission standard for short haul vehicles in 2027 to put our
nation's heavy duty vehicle fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emissions sales by 2035. Allowing
more vehicles that emit particulate and ozone precursor pollutants also fails to reflect the urgent
need for ending particulate and ozone nonattainment within the Clean Air Act's statutory
deadlines for attainment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 5]
EPA has not answered the question Congress directed the agency to address with respect to the
availability of zero emission technologies in MYs 2027-29 for most if not all HDV classes
covered by the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 10]
1426
-------
In the rule documents, EPA undertakes a detailed analysis of the technical feasibility of SCR
technologies to control emissions from engines, the degree of reduction achievable, and an
analysis of the cost to add such control technology. EPA concludes that we found that the fuel
savings significantly exceed the costs associated with the technologies over the lifetime of the
vehicles, with payback occurring in the fourth year of operation for vocational vehicle and in the
second year for tractor-trailers.\870\ This same payback analysis would apply to the proposed
revised standards, again as we are applying the same technology packages with the same costs
and fuel saving to conventional vehicles that were originally intended to have these packages
under the existing HD GHG Phase 2 program but would not with the current rise in
electrification, absent these changes we are proposing in this action. 87 FR 17602. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 10-11]
EPA does not perform a similar detailed updated analysis of the availability of zero emission
power trains or the cost of deploying such technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
11]
EPA does not contend that zero emission power trains are not "available" within the statutory
context of section 202(a)(3). On the contrary, EPA acknowledges in the NPR that - EPA's
heavy-duty vehicle GHG certification data shows that EV products are being certified in most of
the compression-ignition vocational vehicle subcategories, including the school buses and transit
buses optional custom chassis subcategories, and the day cab tractor subcategories (about half of
the total tractor subcategories). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 11]
87 FR 17601. EPA also cites "a report by international agency International Energy
Agency (IEA) [that] provides a comprehensive accounting of recent announcements
made by UPS, Fedex, DHL, Walmart, Anheuser-Busch, Amazon and PepsiCo for fleet
electrification." EPA acknowledges that tens of thousands of zero emission vehicles are
on order. Id., 17597. Based on these data, the Agency concludes that "the heavy-duty
BEV market seems to be growing fastest in the areas of school buses, transit buses,
delivery trucks, and short haul tractors." Id. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 11]
EPA discusses the availability of zero emission vehicles in MYs 2027-29 for the purpose of
granting credits that allow manufacturers to sell more diesel and gasoline vehicles with higher
NOx or C02 emissions greater than the nominal standard. EPA discusses these credits as
inducements to sell ZEV technologies, but does not explore in any significant degree the
inducement that would be created by setting a zero emission standard for a share of new vehicle
sales intended for duty cycles that are currently being served by vehicles certified as EVs. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 11]
EPA faulted the US Postal Service (USPS) for not evaluating the climate, air quality and public
health benefits and the fleet total cost of ownership benefits that would flow from the purchase of
battery electric vehicles for 75% of its delivery vehicle fleet as a "reasonable alternative" to the
90% ICE/10%) BEV scenario evaluated in the EIS.10 But EPA has not proposed or even
seriously analyzed the climate, public health and other environmental benefits that would flow
from a regulatory strategy that requires fleet operators (such as the USPS) to purchase ZEVs for
such service. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 11 - 12]
1427
-------
10. EPA Comment Letter to U.S. Postal Service in re Final EIS for NGDV Acquisitions,
downloaded 5/10/22 (available at Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Database|USEPA).
Throughout the proposed rule EPA makes frequent references to the fact that HDVs with electric
power trains have increased significantly in sales, and have become a larger portion of the on-
road fleet than was expected in the projections made as part of the 2016 C02 standards
rulemaking. EPA identifies the CARB Advanced Clean Truck rule as the reason for this
penetration of EVs into the HDV sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 12]
The necessary conclusion is that EPA has found zero emission HDVs to be "available
technology" within the meaning of those terms as used in section 202(a)(3)(A). But EPA offers
no detailed analysis to explain why, based on any of the relevant factors identified by Congress,
zero emissions should not be the standard for some or all HDV classes or categories. The
necessary conclusion is that EPA has found zero emission HDVs to be "available technology"
within the meaning of those terms as used in section 202(a)(3)(A). The failure to propose and
consider zero emission standards for significant portions of the HDV market is arbitrary and
capricious, and not consistent with the statutory obligation to set standards that reflect greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 12]
For these reasons, Elders Climate Action asks that EPA adopt zero emission standards for NOx,
PM and C02 for HDVs that EPA has identified in short-haul duty cycles for which zero
emission power trains are currently available, and for which zero emission power trains are
expected to be available by 2027. At a minimum, zero emission standards should apply to the
share of HDVs covered by the ZEV requirement in the CARB ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 13.]
EPA acknowledges that under the fleet averaging rule, 5% of HDVs can meet the current C02
standard without installing any emission reduction measures because they can take credit for the
reductions achieved by replacing 1.5% of the HDV fleet with zero C02 emission EVs. 87 FR
17601. In other words, EPA acknowledges that the C02 reductions achieved by CARB's more
aggressive regulatory approach have been used to allow manufacturers to sell dirty trucks
without emission reduction technologies in other states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p.
12]
In this admission, EPA acknowledges that engine manufacturers have aggregated to themselves
the benefits of CARB's Clean Truck rule and stolen those benefits from the public they were
intended to protect. EPA could remedy this inequitable impact on frontline communities most
exposed to HDV emissions by requiring that CARB's ZEV mandates for trucks be applied
nationally. But instead of accelerating the production of HDV ZEVs to deliver their climate and
public health benefits to the remainder of the Nation, EPA is proposing only to modify the fleet
averaging program to allow more dirty trucks to take credit for the C02 reductions required by
CARB and the other states that have, or will soon, are adopt the CARB clean truck rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 12]
1428
-------
This result has two outcomes that violate the Clean Air Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and
various Executive Orders: 1) it shifts the inequity experienced by frontline, BIPOC communities
exposed to HDV pollutants in CA to similar communities in other parts of the country rather than
reducing emissions to protect the public health; and 2) it fails to implement the CAA mandate to
set "standards that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the model
year to which such standards apply." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 12]
In addition, it defeats President Biden's promise to the American people in E.O. 14008 to
address the Climate Crisis by transitioning the Nation to a zero emission economy by 2050 to
ensure that the U.S. takes the actions needed to stabilize the global economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
We ask EPA to revise the rule set a zero emission standard for all new HDVs by 2035, and
establish a phase-in schedule for the standard that includes ZEV sales targets for MYs 2027-29
that are the same as the CARB ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 18]
As discussed above in section II, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set emission standards for
HDVs that "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable... " [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
Given the science informing the world that the climate cannot be stabilized short of achieving
"net zero" GHG emissions, and the Presdient's commitment to achieving a net zero economy by
2050, we ask the Administrator to make the determination that emissions of both GHGs and
precursors to the criteria pollutants PM and ozone emitted from light duty vehicles must be
reduced to zero to protect the public health and welfare from the many adverse effects of climate
warming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
The Act provides that "[a]ny such [standard] under this subchapter may provide for a phase-in of
the standard." 13 We ask the Administrator to begin phasing in a zero emission standard by
establishing a sales mandate that requires each manufacturer to achieve ZEV sales during the
2027 MY that are comparable to CARB's ACT rule with the goal of achieving 100% HDV ZEV
sales by 2035 in order to achieve zero emissions from on-road vehicles by 2050. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
13.Id.
Commenters understand that additional rulemaking will be required to establish a zero emission
standard and phase-in schedule for HDV classes not addressed by this rule. However, the current
proposal can be revised to incorporate this approach for the HDV classes and categories
addressed by this proposal. We ask that the Administrator not delay completion of the current
proposed rule so that it can apply to 2027-29 MY vehicles. We ask that the Administrator open a
rulemaking for the additional vehicle classes to promulgate a zero emission standard and a
phase-in schedule that begins with the 2027 MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 19.]
ZEV sales targets are needed now -
1429
-------
• to establish benchmarks for all engine manufacturers to create a level playing field that
promotes competitive market conditions for zero emission vehicles based on
performance, reliability and cost;
• to ensure a market for ZEVs that will justify early investment by third parties in the
development of supply chains needed for production of batteries and fuel cells;
• to ensure the capacity of the industry to ramp up to 100% of sales to ensure that ZEVs
will be available in time to replace on-road ICE vehicles by 2050;
• for MY 2027 to give the industry enough lead time to develop supply chains, plan the
conversion of production facilities and develop marketing campaigns designed to assure
public acceptance of their products. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 18]
EPA does not investigate a ZEV sales mandate for the years 2027-2029 with respect to GHG
emissions reductions, but the Rhodium Group estimates that light duty ZEV sales would need to
reach 99% of total LDV sales by 2030 to achieve a zero emission fleet by 2045 (Fig. 2). Since
HDVs have longer useful lives than LDVs, converting the HDV fleet to zero emission will
require more aggressive regulatory approaches. Assuming the electric power sector achieves
zero emissions by 2035 as President Biden has proposed, the HDV portion of the transport sector
could achieve zero emissions by 2050 if a zero emission standard applies to all new HDVs by
2031. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 26 - 27]
In its Regulatory Impact Assessment for the SAFE 2 rule, at 2-15, EPA acknowledges that
long-term GHG reduction goals will require a far greater penetration of ZEVs than this proposal
would require through MY2026. The need for substantial increases in fleet penetration of ZEVs
over the long term is supported by the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences,
which states in its 2021 Light-duty Vehicle Technology Assessment: "The agencies should use
all their delegated authority to drive the development and deployment of ZEVs, because they
represent the long-term future of energy efficiency, petroleum reduction, and greenhouse gas
emissions reduction in the light-duty fleet". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 27]
But EPA does not disclose what its "long-term GHG reduction goals" are for either LDVs or
HDVs, how it intends to achieve them, or whether and how the current rulemaking contributes to
achieving those goals. The reasonableness of the current proposal turns on whether EPA 1) is
committed to achieving the GHG reductions identified by the IPCC as necessary to avoid the
dire public health and environmental consequences of warming greater than 1.5°C, 2) recognizes
that zero emissions from on-road vehicles are a necessary component of the President's national
policy of transforming the U.S. into a zero emission economy by 2050, and 3) can establish how
the current proposal contributes to a strategy designed to achieve those objectives. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 27]
In the absence of any consideration of these factors and an explanation by the Agency of how it
has addressed those factors in developing its proposed decision in this rulemaking, the current
proposal fails to consider relevant factors, fails to provide a rational basis for the proposal, and is
arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 27]
Based on these data and other available evidence, we petition the Administrator to find that -
1430
-------
1) climate warming already caused by GHG emissions harms the public health and is causing
unacceptable adverse impacts on public welfare and the human environment, and
2) the expected increase in the severity and frequency of harms to health and the public welfare
that will be caused by more extreme events that will occur as the global mean temperature
advances toward and above the 1.5°C level resulting from growing GHG concentrations in the
atmosphere, establish the need for a zero GHG emissions standard for HDVs pursuant to section
202(a)(1) and (3)(A) of the Clean Air Act. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 27.]
We petition the Administrator to make this finding as the predicate for re-opening this
rulemaking for the purpose of promulgating a zero emission standard for HDVs, and a phase-in
schedule that prescribes for each automaker a share of total HDV sales that must be ZEVs
beginning with the 2027 MY. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, pp. 27-28.]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
Such trends are inconsistent with a climate stable future and must be reversed as quickly as
possible. The EPA can and should promulgate more stringent GHG tailpipe standards that align
with the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Climate Agreement and
achieve the emissions reductions in 2030 required for a 1.5°C trajectory. Strong tailpipe
standards will also ensure compliance with Executive Order 14037, Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, aimed at making zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including
EVs, 50 percent of all new cars sold in 2030.v They will help achieve the goals of Executive
Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, as well, reducing economy-wide
GHGs by 50 to 52 percent by 2030.vi [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.2]
v Executive Office of the President, Executive Order 14037 of August 5, 2021:
Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Administration, August 10, 2021,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/10/2021-17121/strengthening-
american-leadership-in-clean-cars-and-trucks; and White House, FACT SHEET:
President Biden Announces Steps to Drive American Leadership Forward on Clean Cars
and Trucks, August 5, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/08/05/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-steps-to-driveamerican-
leadership-forward-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/.
vi White House, Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S.
Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies, April 22, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-
president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-
good-payingunion-
jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/; and Executive Office of
the President, Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021: Tackling the Climate Crisis at
Home and Abroad, Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration,
1431
-------
February 1, 2021 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-
02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad
It has been six years since the EPA last updated Phase 2 GHG standards, yet the proposed rule
falls far short of what is needed to meaningfully address the urgency of the climate crisis. Given
the long life of vehicles and the lead time required for market transformation, the standards set
for MY 2027-2029 should expedite the shift to zero-emission electric vehicles (EVs). Waiting
until 2030 to meaningfully reduce the GHG emissions from heavy duty trucks (HDTs) will
significantly hinder efforts to combat climate change. Fortunately, electrification is a known
climate solution that can quickly cut emissions from the transportation sector. The standards for
MY 2027- 2029 will either put the U.S. on a path to achieve rapid transportation decarbonization
or will prevent the necessary market transformation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.2]
In response to the EPA's request for comment and data on higher penetration rates, which
could serve as the basis for increasing stringency of the C02 standards for specific Phase 2
vehicle subcategories,xi we offer the following additional supporting information: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.4]
xi EPA Proposed Rules, 17419.
While the proposed rule does not aim to enact percentage sales requirements, the EPA should
exercise its authority to set tailpipe GHG standards that reflect emissions reductions consistent
with percentage sales standards that would put the U.S. on a climate stable path, such as those
outlined in the previously mentioned studies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.4]
The EPA projects a zero-emission vehicle penetration rate of 1.5 percent in the MY 2027
timeframe, with nominal gains of market share before 2030.xii Yet several studies combined
with current market trends suggest that HDEV growth could be much higher in that timeframe.
For example: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p. 4]
xii EPA Proposed Rules, 17438
• According to CALSTART's Advanced Technology Truck Index, between 2019 and
2021, the U.S. market saw a 625 percent increase in Class 2b to Class 8 zero-emission
trucks available for purchase, growing from 20 models in 2019 to 145 models in 2021.
They anticipate 165 models available by 2023, and 30 of which will be heavy-duty
models.xiii Notably, the CALSTART analysis shows available HDEV models span
anywhere from 100 to 500 miles of range, which covers the vast majority of trucking
operational ranges—research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
shows 70 percent of HDTs operate primarily within 100-mile ranges, and 80 percent
operate primarily within the 200-mile range.xiv [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.
4]
xiii Baha M. Al-Alawi, Owen MacDonnell, Ross McLane, and Kevin Walkowicz,
Zeroing In On Zero-Emission Trucks, The Advanced Technology Truck Index: A U.S.
1432
-------
ZET Inventory Report, CALSTART, January 2022, 8, https://calstart.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-II.pdf.
xiv Catherine Ledna, Matteo Muratori, Arthur Yip, Paige Jadun, and Chris Hoehne,
Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, March 2022, 38-40,
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
• Energy Innovation, the University of California, Berkeley, and GridLab's 2035 2.0
Report illustrates the technoeconomic feasibility of 100 percent EV sales for passenger,
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2035 which, if achieved, would translate to around
40 percent HDEV sales by 2027, and around 80 percent HDEV sales in 2030. Notably,
electrifying all new cars and trucks by 2035 would (by 2050) save consumers $2.7
trillion, prevent 150,000 premature deaths, avoid $1.3 trillion in environmental and health
costs by reducing air pollution, and would support a net increase of over 2 million jobs in
2035.xv [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p. 4]
xv Amol Phadke, N. Abhyankar, J. Kersey, T. McNair, U. Paliwal, D. Wooley, O.
Ashmoore, R. Orvis, M. O'Boyle, R. O'Connell, U. Agwan, P. Mohanty, P. Sreedharan,
and D. Rajagopal, Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can
Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future, University of California, Berkeley Goldman
School of Public Policy, Energy Innovation, and Grid Lab, April 2021,
http://www.2035report.com/transportation/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2035Report2.0-
Lpdf?hsCtaTracking=544e8e73-752a-40eeb3a5-
90e28d5f2e 18%7C81 c0077a-d01 d-45b9-a3 3 8-fcaef78a20e7.
• California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule requires 75 percent of class 4 to class 8
truck sales in the state to be ZEVs by 2035.xvi The six states 1 that have adopted the ACT
Rule to date represent approximately 20 percent of the heavy-duty market.xvii According
to an ICCT analysis, these states will constitute at least 8 percent of heavy-duty zero-
emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2030.xviii Additional states2 have indicated they are
working toward adopting ACT rules,xix with governors from 17 states and the District of
Columbia signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to work collaboratively to
achieve 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty EV sales by 2050, with an interim target
of 30 percent by 2030.xx Combined with existing state adoption of the ACT rules, the
MOU could increase the heavy-duty ZEV market to 11 percent by 2030.xxi Although
state action remains critical, national leadership is necessary to scale HDEV growth more
quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, pp. 4-5]
1 California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington.
2 Connecticut, Colorado, and Rhode Island.
1433
-------
xvi California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet: Accelerating
Zero-Emission Truck Markets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-
clean-trucks-fact-sheet.
xvii Buysse, Racing to Zero.
xviii Buysse, Racing to Zero.
xix Adam Hsu, 'California Leads, States Follow on Zero-Emission Rules for MD, HD
Trucks, Advanced Clean Tech News, February 8, 2022, https://www.act-
news.com/news/california-leads-states-follow-on-zero-emission-rules-for-md-hd-trucks/.
xx Buysse, Racing to Zero and California Air Resources Board, '15 states and the District
of Columbia join forces to accelerate bus and truck electrification,' July 14, 2020,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/15-states-and-district-columbia-join-forces-accelerate-bus-
and-truckel ectrifi cati on.
xxi Buysse, Racing to Zero.
• A growing number of truck manufacturers have announced new EV modelsxxii and/or
have made commitments to sell a certain percentage of zero-emission trucks by
2030.xxiii Stronger standards would send the signal to all manufacturers to forge ahead
with plans to develop and sell more electric models for the heavy-duty sector sooner than
later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p. 5]
xxii Daimler Truck North America, 'Daimler Truck Electric Commercial Vehicles,'
https://northamerica.daimlertruck.com/emobility; Mark Vaughn, 'Electric Big Rigs are
Coming—We Drive Four of Them,' Autoweek, May 24, 2021,
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a36506185/electric-big-rig-semi-trucks/;
and Caleb Miller, 'General Motors Will Launch Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks by 2035,'
Car and Driver, January 7, 2022,
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38696855/general-motorselectric-heavy-duty-
trucks/.
xxiii Volvo, 'Taking the Lead: Embracing a Cleaner Mobility,'
https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrification; and Ben Preston and
Jeff S. Bartlett, 'Automakers Are Adding Electric Vehicles to Their Lineups. Here's
What's Coming,' Consumer Reports, May 13, 2022,
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-
market-a9006292675/.
Another factor very likely to shift the market to favor HDEVs in the near-term is the economic
advantage HDEVs hold over their diesel counterparts (especially as gasoline and diesel prices
remain high and subject to increasing volatility due to reliance on unstable international
markets). Several analyses confer on the savings advantage of HDEVs over the vehicle's
lifetime:
1434
-------
• The 2035 2.0 Report found HDEVs are already cheaper than their diesel counterparts, on
a total cost of ownership (TCO) basis (as shown in Figure 4), and this advantage grows to
$0.22 per mile in 2030 and $0.25 by 2035. This translates to roughly $200,000 in savings
across the vehicle lifetime, xxiv [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.5]
xxiv Amol Phadke, et al., Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries
Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future.
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory research shows a Class 8 electric truck,
compared to a diesel truck, can offer about 13 percent lower TCO per mile when
operating 300 miles per day with a 375-mile range.xxv Operating fewer miles per day
further improves this cost advantage. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.5]
xxv Amol Phadke, Aditya Khandekar, Nikit Abhyankar, David Wooley, and Deepak
Rajagopal, Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 2021, 1,
https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pd
f.
• A meta-analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists of three independent studies
(from California Air Resources Board, ICF, and ICCT) suggests the TCO of electric
trucks in 2030 will be less expensive than diesel for both Class 6 delivery trucks and
Class 8 short-haul/drayage trucks.xxvi [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.5]
xxvi Union of Concerned Scientists, Ready for Work: Now is the Time for Heavy-Duty
Electric Vehicles, December 2019, https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-
12/ReadyforWorkFullReport.pdf.
• A recent study from the Department of Energy (DOE) shows by 2030, 'nearly half of
medium- and heavy duty trucks will be cheaper to buy, operate, and maintain.. .than
traditional diesel-powered combustion engines.'xxvii In addition, DOE's recently
released supply chain strategyxxviii along with President Biden's invocation of the
Defense Production Act will set the U.S. on a path to procure the foundational materials
that drive a clean energy economy, including the components necessary for electric and
zero-emission transportation and charging technologies, in order to bring upfront costs
down overtime (while also improving America's competitiveness). [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1310-A1, pp.5-6]
xxvii U.S. Department of Energy, 'DOE Projects Zero Emissions Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Electric Trucks Will be Cheaper than Diesel-Powered Trucks by 2035,' March 7,
2022, https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-
duty-electrictrucks-will-be-cheaper-diesel.
xxviii U.S. Department of Energy Office of Policy, 'Securing America's Clean Energy
Supply Chain,' https://www.energy.gov/policy/securingamericas-clean-energy-supply-
chain.
1435
-------
With the opportunity for significant cost savings over the life of heavy-duty vehicles, more large
fleet owners are making commitments to electrify their vehicles within the decade. Amazon, for
example, has already started using an electric delivery van and has placed an order for 100,000
custom EVs from Rivian.xxix Nearly two dozen other companies have announced plans to
switch to electric fleets.xxx And, at the state level, there has been a significant uptick in state
policies regarding commercial fleets, government fleets, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
since Q4 2021.xxxi [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxix Mary Meisenzahl, 'Amazon's first electric delivery vans are now making
deliveries—see how there were designed,' Business Insider, February 3, 2021,
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-creating-fleet-of-electric-delivery-vehicles-
rivian-2020-2.
xxx Christine Lellis, 'These 21 Companies Are Switching to Electric Vehicle Fleets,'
EHS Management Blog, Perillon, October 26, 2021, http://www.perillon.com/blog/21-
companies-switching-to-electric-vehicle-fleets.
xxxi NC Clean Energy Technology Center, 'The 50 States of Electric Vehicles:
Transportation Electrification Plans, Fast Charging Networks, & Underserved
Communities in Focus During 2021,' February 9, 2022,
https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/2022/02/09/the-50-states-of-electricvehicles-transportation-
electrification-plans-fast-charging-networks-underserved-communities-in-focus-during-
2021/.
Finally, the billions of dollars of federal investments in EVs and EV charging infrastructure
supported by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA),xxxii combined with other
federal efforts and existing state leadership on charging infrastructure, will provide further
support for an expanded HDEV market in the near-term. Expanded charging will help
prospective owners and operators gain confidence in their ability to charge their vehicles as they
travel throughout the country. According to an NREL analysis, if charging infrastructure is
deployed to support EV adoption, sales of medium- and heavy-duty EVs could reach 42 percent
by 2030 and greater than 99 percent by 2045.xxxiii Numerous charging infrastructure efforts are
underway that will likely transform the market in the next few years: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxxii M. Moaz Uddin, 'Electric Vehicle Programs in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,'
Great Plains Institute, December 6, 2021, https://betterenergy.org/blog/electric-vehicle-
programs-in-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill/.
xxxiii Ledna, et al., Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, 2.
• The IIJA provides $7.5 billion for EV charging network across America, including
increased charging in rural areas and historically disadvantaged and frontline
communities.xxxiv The funding also supports the 6th round of Alternative Fuel Corridors
1436
-------
designations to recognize highway segments that offer EV charging.xxxv [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxxiv White House, Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Electric Vehicle Charging Action Plan,
December 13, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/12/13/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-electric-vehicle-charging-actionplan/.
xxxv U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center,
http s ://afdc. energy. gov/ stati ons/#/corri dor s.
• California's 2021-2023 Investment Plan allocated $690 million across medium- and
heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure, including for electric charging and hydrogen fueling.
This includes funding for charging infrastructure for 1,000 zero-emission school buses,
1,000 zero-emission transit buses, and 1,150 zero emission drayage trucks.xxxvi [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxxvi Dan Mihalascu, 'California Investing $1.4B In EV Charging And Hydrogen
Stations,' Inside EVs, November 26, 2021, https://insideevs.com/news/550670/california-
zev-infrastructure-investment/.
• NREL is working in partnership with automotive industry group Charln to develop new
high-powered charging standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, known as the
Megawatt Charging System (MCS), which will allow for charging capacity seven times
greater than current LDEV fast charging technology.xxxvii This effort will help address
the current challenges of interoperability and inconsistent standards across the current
network of over 100,000 public chargers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
xxxvii NREL, 'Industry Experts, Researchers Put Charging Systems for Electric Trucks
to the Test,' August 30, 2021, https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/industry-experts-
researchers-put-charging-systems-for-electric-trucks-to-test.html.
In summary, current trends and compelling cost savings data suggest the HDT market segment is
ripe for technology innovation and the introduction of more all-electric models in the next few
years, along with a substantial expansion of charging infrastructure to meet demand for cleaner
trucks. However, the standards set in this rulemaking have the potential to accelerate these
developments and achieve the rapid GHG emissions reductions that are needed to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change. A strong standard will incentivize greater private sector
innovation and compel broader market changes that lead to faster uptake of clean, all electric
trucks within this decade—which must occur to align with a 1.5°C to 2°C climate stable
trajectory. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.6]
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
EPN recommends that the GHG proposal be significantly strengthened. The proposal lacks any
ambition whatsoever and reinforces that EPA is now the laggard in reducing HD GHGs rather
than the leader. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report makes
1437
-------
clear that now is the time for strong action to address the climate crisis. EPA's proposal fails to
step up to this challenge and is an important lost opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-
Al, p. 2]
There is a wealth of information available to EPA that supports this approach to the GHG
standards. The recent government-funded National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
report projects that ZEV sales could reach 42% of all medium-duty (MD)/HD trucks by 2030,
reflecting lower combined vehicle purchase and operating costs (see Decarbonizing Medium- &
HD On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis. The International Council on
Clean Transportation is an important source of technical and other information on the transition
to electrification in the HD and other sectors. For example, see Racing to zero: The ambition we
need for zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles in the United States. These are just a few examples
of the wealth of information available to EPA showing the potential for HD EVs to support a
more aggressive regulatory approach to this sector. We expect many organizations and States
will provide comprehensive sources of information to EPA in their comments. EPA's final
decision needs to address the need for a much more aggressive but practical set of near-term
GHG standards for this sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, pp. 3-4]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
Momentum for electric vehicle development and production is accelerating rapidly, both globally
and in the United States. Numerous recent studies highlight key automaker commitments
and deployments, the dynamic and growing market for ZEVs, decreasing battery costs and the
opportunity for new American jobs. States and business coalitions are taking the lead in
supporting the industry in its transition to electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
pp.7-8]
ERM recently released its fifth Electric Vehicle Market Update, which tracks the current status
and projected growth of the U.S. electric vehicle industry.31 The April 2022 report found robust
growth indicators for the electric vehicle sector just since the last update was published one year
prior. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and fleets are making substantial
commitments to zero-emitting vehicles. Daimler Trucks North America, the leading
manufacturer of class 8 trucks in the U.S., has committed to offering only carbon-neutral trucks
in the U.S. by 2039,32 and expects that by 2030, as much as 60 percent of its sales will be
ZEVs.3 3 Volvo Group, owner of the Mack truck brand, has set a goal of having 100 percent of
its truck and bus sales be zero-emission by 2040.34 Navistar recently announced its goal of
having 50 percent sale of its sales volume be ZEVs by 2030, its commitment to achieve 100
percent zero emissions by 2040 across all operations and carbon-neutrality by 2050.35 Both
FedEx and Walmart have committed to transition their entire global truck fleets to ZEVs by
2040.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.8]
31 Rachel Macintosh, Sophie Tolomiczenko, Grace Van Horn. April 2022. Electric
Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy Initiatives
Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, ERM for EDF, Version 6.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april20
22.pdf The original report was released in May of 2019.
1438
-------
32 David Cullen, 'Daimler to Offer Carbon Neutral Trucks by 2039,' (October 25, 2019).
https://www.truckinginfo.com/343243/daimler-aims-to-offer-only-co2-neutral-trucks-by-
203 9-in-key-markets
33 Deborah Lockridge, 'What Does Daimler Truck Spin-off Mean for North America?,'
Trucking Info (November 11, 2021). https://www.truckinginfo.com/10155922/what-
does-daimler-truck-spin-off-mean-for-north-america
34 https://www.oemoffhighway.com/trends/electrification/press-release/21203695/volvo-
group-global-volvo-group-focuses-on-electrification-and-emissions-reduction-strategy
35 Navistar presentation at the Advanced Clean Transportation (ACT) Expo, Long
Beach, CA (May 9-11, 2022).
36 Fed Ex Newsroom, 'FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040,' March
3, 2021. https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/Sustainability2021 Doug McMillon,
President & CEO, Walmart, 'Walmart's Regenerative Approach: Going Beyond
Sustainability,' September 21, 2020.
https://corporate.walmart.eom/newsroom/2020/09/21/walmarts-regenerative-approach-
going-bey ond-sustainability
According to ERM, the labor market is also benefiting from the transition to electrification.
Manufacturers have announced new investments in the United States of almost $2 billion in
medium and heavy-duty assembly plants, investments that will support approximately 15,000
new direct U.S. jobs over the next decade.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.8]
37 Rachel Macintosh, Sophie Tolomiczenko, Grace Van Horn. April 2022. Electric
Vehicle Market Update: Manufacturer Commitments and Public Policy Initiatives
Supporting Electric Mobility in the U.S. and Worldwide, ERM for EDF, Version 6.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/04/electric_vehicle_market_report_v6_april20
22.pdf
The numbers of electric trucks and buses already on the roads is growing, in part because of the
increased selection of model availability. According to CALSTART, as of December 2021,
1,215 Class 2b through Class 8 ZEVs have been deployed in the United States across over
163 fleets.38 CALSTART has developed an interactive online tool that tracks available and
soon-to-be-available medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission trucks (ZETs).39 In 2019, there
were only 20 models of Class 2b-8 ZETs available for purchase in the United States. Today there
are more than 400 models available across all classes and CALSTART estimates that could
increase to 544 total models by the end of 2022. EPA also conducted an analysis of the
manufacturer-supplied end-of-year production reports and found that out of the 380 BEVs
certified in MY 2020, a total of 177 unique makes and models were available for purchase by 52
producers in classes 3-8.40 For example, General Motors launched a new business unit,
BrightDrop, in January 2021 that focuses on electric first-to-last-mile delivery trucks. FedEx
signed an agreement reserving 2,500 delivery vans and is working with BrightDrop to add up to
20,000 more vehicles in coming years.41 UPS and DHL ordered 950 electric trucks and 63
1439
-------
delivery vans, respectively, from Workhorse42 and Amazon has ordered 100,000 zero-emitting
vehicles from Rivian.43 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp.8-9]
38 Baha, Al-Alawi, et al. 'The Advanced Technology Truck Index: A U.S. ZET
Inventory Report.' CALSTART. Jan 2022. https://calstart.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-II.pdf.
39 CALSTART's Zero Emission Technology Inventory (ZETI) tool.
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zero-emission-technology-inventory/
40 EPA memorandum from Angela Cullen, Center Director, Assessment and Standards
Division to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, 'HD2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-
Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions,' (November 2021).
41 'BrightDrop Announces Walmart as New EV Customer and Expands Collaboration
with FedEx at CES.' 5 Jan. 2022.
https://media.gm.eom/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2022/j
an/ces/0105 -brightdrop .html
42 Hanley, Steve, 'UPS Places Order For 950 Workhorse N-GEN Electric Delivery
Vans.' CleanTechnica, 20 June 2018, https://cleantechnica.eom/2018/06/20/ups-places-
order-for-950-workhorse-ngen-electric-delivery-
vans/#:~:text=UPS%20Places%200rder%20For%20950%20Workhorse%20N-
GEN%20Electric,to%20UPS%2C%20bringing%20the%20total%20order%20to%201%2
C000 ; DHL. 'DHL Expands Green Fleet with Addition of New Electric Delivery Vans.'
7 Feb 2019, https://www.dhl.com/us-en/home/press/pressarchive/2019/dhl-expands-
green-fleet-with-addition-of-new-electric-delivery-vans.html
43 Andrew J. Hawkins, 'Amazon unveils its new electric delivery vans built by Rivian,'
The Verge (Oct. 8, 2020). https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21507495/amazon-
electric-delivery-van-rivian-date-specs
Leading businesses have also recognized the importance of pollution standards and
complementary policies in hastening ZEV deployment. The Zero Emission Transportation
Association (ZETA) - a coalition of major businesses including electric vehicle manufacturers,
power companies, and many others - has urged adoption of ambitious policies to support
medium- and heavy-duty electrification, including multi pollutant standards under the Clean Air
Act.44 The National Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Coalition is a group of America's biggest truck
equipment manufacturers, suppliers and key stakeholders, such as Cummins, Daimler,
PACCAR, Eaton, Tesla and Rivian, advocating for federal charging and refueling infrastructure
and increased federal investments and incentive programs to help drive the near-term production
of ZEV trucks and buses in the United States.45 And the European Automobile Manufacturers
Association - which includes Scania, Daimler Truck AG, Ford Trucks and Volvo Group,
among others - together with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has pledged
that by 2040 all new commercial vehicles sold must be fossil free.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1265-A1, pp.9-10]
1440
-------
44 https://www.zeta2030.org/
45 Calstart. 2020. National Zero-Emission Truck Coalition Statement of Principles.
https://calstart.org/zet-statement-of-principles-6-17-20/
46 Joint statement, ACEA and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 'The
Transition to Zero-emission Road Freight Transport,' December 2020.
https://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/acea-pik-joint-statement-the-transition-to-zero-
emission-road-freight-trans.pdf
Importantly, California also adopted more protective heavy-duty low NOx emissions standards
to help the state meet national ambient air quality standards and vital state public health and
environmental justice goals. In August 2020, California adopted the Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Omnibus Regulation, which substantially tightens the NOx emission standard for on-
road heavy-duty engines by 75 percent beginning in 2024 and ramping up to 90 percent
in 2027.56 Once fully phased in by 2031, the rule is expected to reduce harmful NOx emissions
in California by more than 23 tons per day - the equivalent of taking 16 million light-duty cars
off the road in 2031. The emissions reductions will result in 3,900 avoided premature deaths and
3,150 avoided hospitalizations statewide over the life of the rule (2024 - 2050), and lead to
estimated statewide health benefits of approximately $36.8 billion.57 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1265-A1, pp.12-13]
In November 2021, Oregon became the first state outside of California to adopt both the ACT
rule and the Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule, which will apply to model years 2025 and beyond.58
Four other states - New Jersey, New York, Washington and Massachusetts - have all adopted
the Advanced Clean Trucks rule.59 These states, together with California and Oregon are
estimated to contain more than 20-percent of the national fleet of medium- and heavy-duty
trucks.60 And many other states, including Connecticut,61 Colorado and Maine are currently
contemplating adoption of the ACT rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 13]
56 ARB press release, 'California adopts strong new regulation to further reduce smog-
forming pollution from heavy-duty diesel trucks,' (August 28, 2020).
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-adopts-strong-new-regulation-further-reduce-
smog-forming-pollution-heavy-duty
57 Id.
58 Work Truck staff, 'Oregon Adopts Clean-Trucks Rules; Other States May
Follow,' Work Truck (November 18, 2021).
https://www.worktruckonline.eom/10156330/oregon-leads-convoy-of-states-toward-
cleaner-trucks Oregon will see a projected $21.2 billion in net societal benefits, including
saving fleet owners over $1 billion annually, preventing 160 premature deaths and
avoiding 84,000 respiratory illnesses by 2050 with the adoption of these two rules. Dana
Lowell et. al. 2021. Oregon Clean Trucks Program: An Analysis of the Impacts of Zero-
Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks on the Environment, Public Health, Industry,
and the Economy, M.J. Bradley & Associates for the Natural Resources Defense Council
1441
-------
and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
https://staticl.squarespace.eom/static/613127fc91a6b76873be6446/t/61561514cf312212c
5dceee6/l 633031446406/MJ+Bradley_MHD+Clean+Trucks+Report_Oregon+2021.pdf
59 Laura Bliss, 'How Six States Could Transform the U.S. Trucking
Industry,' Bloomberg (January 26, 2022).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-emission-laws-will-
reshape-u-s-trucking
60 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019, Truck and Truck-Tractor
Registrations (2019).
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/mv9.cfm
61 With passage of Connecticut Senate Bill 4 in May 2022, which authorizes the state's
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to adopt California medium and
heavy-duty motor vehicle standards, Connecticut is expected to join these states soon.
As part of its statewide strategy to reduce transportation emissions, California is also developing
the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation, which aims to accelerate the market for zero-emission
trucks and buses by requiring fleets that are well suited for electrification to transition to
ZEVs.62 The regulation would set requirements for new ZEV sales as well as in-use fleet
composition, and would apply to fleets performing drayage operations, public agencies, federal
governments, and high-priority fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 13]
62 ARB fact sheet, 'Advanced Clean Fleets: Accelerating Zero-Emission Truck Markets,'
(March 3, 2022). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
03/ACF%20Fact%20Sheet_ADA.pdf
The draft regulation includes setting a requirement that all new medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
sales be ZEVs starting in 2040 - a target that is faster than that finalized in the ACT rule - and
proposed to help contribute to the state's goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and the Governor's
executive order that 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles where feasible be ZEVs by
2045. Under the draft regulation, public fleets would be required to purchase 100 percent ZEVs
by 2027; all new drayage trucks would be ZEVs beginning in 2024 and by 2035 every
drayage truck on the road would be a ZEV; and high priority and federal fleets would be required
to meet ZEV targets as a proportion of their total fleet. The Air Resources Board (ARB) will
hold additional public workshops on the draft regulation in May 2022 and it is scheduled to go to
the Board for final action in late Summer 2022.63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp. 13-
14]
63 ARB website, 'Advanced Clean Fleets - Meetings and Events,' (last accessed May 11,
2022). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/advanced-clean-
fleets-meetings-events
In addition to state rulemakings, a diverse collection of seventeen states and the District of
Columbia joined a multi-state initiative to advance and accelerate the market for electric
1442
-------
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. 64 Together, the signatories account for 35 percent of the
nation's medium- and heavy-duty fleet.65 The voluntary initiative set a target of 30 percent of
new truck and bus sales being ZEV by 2030 and 100 percent ZEV sales by 2050 with an
emphasis on the need to accelerate and prioritize deployment in disadvantaged communities. The
agreement could result in an estimated reduction of up to 740 million barrels of oil by 2045,
which is equivalent to more than 300 million metric tons of C02 pollution.66 A more recent
report from ICCT estimates a cumulative emissions reduction of 646 million metric tons of C02
from 2020-2050.67 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 14]
64 The current signatories are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. 'Multi-
State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding,' (July 14, 2020), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-
20220329.pdf/
65 Arijit Sen, Ray Minjares, Josh Miller, and Caleb Braun. April 2022. 'Benefits of the
2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding,' ICCT Briefing, https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-
mou-benefits-apr22.pdf
66 Emily Wimberger, Hannah Pitt, Kate Larsen, and Maggie Young. 2020. States Pave
the Way for a Zero-Emission Vehicle Future, Rhodium Group.
https://rhg.com/research/states-zero-emission-vehicles/
67 Arijit Sen, Ray Minjares, Josh Miller, and Caleb Braun. April 2022. 'Benefits of the
2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding,' ICCT Briefing, https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/md-hd-
mou-benefits-apr22.pdf
Moreover, states have adopted policies and already made significant investments related to
charging infrastructure to support their adoption of the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) regulation
and accelerate ZEV deployment. For instance, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
and Washington have all developed, or are developing, complementary policies and investments
to support the rule.68 In addition, charging infrastructure costs are rapidly declining and utilities
and fleets are innovating to help further reduce charging costs and more immediately unlock the
substantial fuel saving benefits of ZEVs. EDF has developed and plans to separately submit
more detailed information on these solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 14]
68 With passage of Connecticut Senate Bill 4 in May, which authorizes the state's
Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to adopt California medium and
heavy-duty motor vehicle standards, Connecticut is expected to join these states soon.
All of these state initiatives are critical drivers for the adoption of ZEV technology and help
alleviate statewide pollution burdens. However, heavy-duty vehicles and their pollution do not
always stay within state borders. For example, over half of the heavy-duty vehicle miles traveled
1443
-------
in California are by federally certified vehicles that are not required to meet California's
more protective standards.69 A durable EPA medium- and heavy-duty greenhouse gas and NOx
rule will further encourage the investments needed to transition to a fully zero-emitting medium-
and heavy-duty fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp. 14-15]
69 Letter from Richard W. Corey, ARB Executive Officer to Liane Randolph, ARB
Board Chair, 'Accelerating California's Transition to Zero-Emission Trucks,' (January 10,
2022). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
02/ZE%20Trucks%20Board%20Memo_ADA.pdf
EPA has clear authority to set an emission standard at a level that ensures greater deployment of
ZEVs. Doing so in this rule is critically important to ensure we are making needed progress prior
to 2030, and accordingly, we urge EPA to ensure performance-based pollution standards help to
achieve 80 percent sales for new school and transit buses by MY 2029 and 40 percent sale of
new class 4-7 vehicles and class 8 short haul vehicles by that year. New analysis from ERM
evaluated aspects of the ZEV sales baseline EPA failed to consider, including a range of
scenarios, from very conservative to more optimistic, with midpoint scenarios projecting
medium- and heavy-duty ZEV deployment in excess of 20 percent in 2029 and more
optimistic scenarios projecting M/HD ZEV sales of over 33 percent of all class 4-8 single unit
trucks, short-haul tractor trailers and school and transit buses in 2029.72 These estimates far
exceed EPA's assumption in the proposal, and underscore that standards achieving these levels
of ZEV deployment are both feasible and reasonable. However, they also make clear that it is
absolutely critical for EPA to establish protective, pollution standards in this rulemaking to
achieve this level of pollution reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, pp. 16-17]
72 Ellen Robo and Dave Seamonds, 'Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-duty
Zero-Emission Vehicle Baseline Scenarios,' Technical memo by ERM for EDF (May 12,
2022).
Developing a robust charging infrastructure for medium and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles
(ZEVs) is important to support wide-spread electrification. The vehicles that are most ready for
electrification in the 2027-2029 timeframe are those that rely on depot charging, a technology
that is widely available today. These vehicles include delivery vans, transit buses, box trucks,
refuse haulers and last-mile-delivery trucks among other market segments.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 1]
2. M.J. Bradley & Associates, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles Market structure,
Environmental Impact, and EV Readiness, July 2021.
EPA has manifest legal authority to adopt greenhouse gas emission standards for new medium
and heavy-duty vehicles. Additionally, the authority established under Section 202(a)(1) and
202(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to set protective standards that secure
deep pollution reductions based on the increased deployment of available zero-emission
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 17]
1444
-------
As demonstrated above, EPA has clear authority under Section 202(a)(1) to establish standards
that drive the uptake of technology that currently exists, or can feasibly be developed. It follows
that EPA has authority under 202(a)(1) to promulgate standards that ensure the increased uptake
and development of ZEV technology. As established above, EPA may set technology-forcing
standards under 202(a)(1) driving the uptake of a particular existing technology; and zero-
emission technologies are not only clearly established but are increasing in popularity and
development across the vehicle market.88 Consistent with the technology-forcing history of
Section 202, EPA can and should establish protective performance standards requiring GHG
emissions reductions sufficient to drive increased development of ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1265-A1, p.19]
88 See supra Section I.B
Charging costs are declining, and numerous technologies and approaches are continuing to lower
those costs. Fleets have a range of options to consider when designing a depot charging
infrastructure, including different kilowatt (kW) capacities for electric vehicle supply equipment
(EVSE). Fleets also have access to detailed guidance on how to optimize their charging set-up to
meet their operational needs. 3 Fleets can maximize the economic benefit of this transition
through managed charging software, on-site battery storage and on-site electricity
generation, which enable fleets to minimize peak-power demand for their depot.4 There are also
a variety of state and utility infrastructure programs emerging that are driving down the total cost
of charging for fleets and providing technical support to achieve mass deployment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 1 - 2]
3. See, e.g., San Diego Gas & Electric, Electric Vehicles Charging Guidebook for
Medium and Heavy-Duty Fleets, 2020.
4. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification
Summary Report, March 2020.
By finalizing strong multi-pollutant standards that reflect the increasing availability and
desirability of zero-emission medium and heavy-duty vehicles, EPA can send a powerful signal
to help support and accelerate the many infrastructure investments and programs already under
development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 2]
A number of studies have found that current depot charging technology can cover the needs of
fleets that return their trucks to a hub each night. For example, a study by Gladstein Neandross
and Associates (GNA) evaluated the driving needs of two drayage fleets in California. They
found that most of the trips performed by the two companies could have been completed with
todays' electric truck models and charging equipment, without having to modify any fleet
operations.5 Another similar study evaluated five Class 3 through 7 fleets based in New Jersey,
finding that electric trucks could serve over 88% of their needed routes when only charging a
single time, and 95% when including time for an additional charging session, either at the depot
or en route.6 A report by M.J. Bradley & Associates looked at all Class 2b-8 vehicles to assess
the readiness of zero-emitting technologies based on usage patterns and market status. The
analysis found that 60% of all vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty fleet will generally be
1445
-------
able to use depot charging, and of these vehicles, more than 80% can meet their charging
requirements with an inexpensive Level 2 charger. These examples indicate that the
technology available on the market today can already cover a majority of the charging needed to
electrify. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 2]
5. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification
Summary Report, March 2021.
6. Emerging Futures, New Jersey Medium Duty Fleet Electrification Infrastructure
Summary Report, May 2022.
Further significant work has been done to demonstrate that charging technology is capable of
covering industry needs to transition to electric. Here are a few examples of the various utility
and industry activities supporting charging infrastructure and underscoring its current capabilities
to meet operational constraints:
• In New Jersey, 8 BYD refuse trucks are operational with a 280+ kWh battery pack and "a
range of 600 pick-up plus 60 miles." They can be recharged in two and a half hours with
DC fast charging.7 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 2]
7. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/07/jersey-city-receives-its-5-byd-battery-electric-
refuse-trucks/
• Volvo Lights project in California demonstrated the ability for 53 heavy-duty, battery
electric trucks and equipment to reliably move freight between the city's two major ports
and warehouses throughout the region with less noise and zero emissions. Key charging
innovations demonstrated in this project were: networked chargers integrated with
vehicle telematics to balance the needs of the vehicle, facility, and utility grid; the
integration of onsite solar panels to mitigate grid impacts and energy costs; and use of
second-life batteries to improve grid and facility resiliency, provide load management,
and offset total cost of ownership.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 3]
8. VolvoLights, About Volvo Lights Project, accessed May 2022.
• The South Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board and
the California Energy Commission are leading an effort to deploy 100 battery-electric
regional haul and drayage trucks across California. The battery-electric trucks will be
deployed through a partnership with NFI Industries and Schneider as part of a project
known as the Joint Electric Truck Scaling Initiative that aims to demonstrate scaling fleet
electrification of class 8 trucks. NFI and Schneider are collectively installing 50 electric
vehicle chargers, warehouse upgrades, on-site energy storage and rooftop solar. 9 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 3]
9. Heavy Duty Trucking, Electric Truck Project Deploys 100 Trucks in California,
August 31, 2021.
1446
-------
• FedEx is installing 500+ charging stations to service their electric delivery truck fleets
across California. These stations alone have the potential to support more than 1,000
electric vehicles. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 3]
10. FedEx, Charged Up About Electric Vehicles, accessed May 2022.
• Manhattan Beer Distributors has installed three Level 3 DC fast chargers at its Bronx
facility that can fully recharge its 8 Volvo VNR Electric trucks up to 80 percent in 70
minutes. Lessons learned from this demonstration project will help the company build
charging plans to accommodate its more than 400 delivery trucks to service customers
throughout New York City, Long Island, and the surrounding counties. 11 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 3]
11. VolvoTrucks, Volvo Trucks delivers the first of five VNR Electrics to New York
customer Manhattan Beer Distributors, August 13, 2021.
The market for fleet charging solutions is highly dynamic with new innovations and technologies
coming to the market rapidly. Just this month, over two dozen companies exhibited charging
solutions at the ACT Expo. 12 Charging solutions are available for companies that want to
provide depot charging for their own fleet of trucks solely, while other solutions are
being installed at facilities where depot charging can be shared across numerous fleets. For
example, WattEV and the Port of Long Beach just announced development of a charging
plazal3 while Penske and Shell Recharge announced a collaboration to expand fleet charging to
six states. 14 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 3 - 4]
13. Heavy-Duty Trucking, WattEV and the Port of Long Beach announced plans to build
a charging plaza for heavy-duty electric trucks inside the port complex, May 11, 2022.
14. Fisher, Joel, Shell to install vehicle chargers at 33 Penske locations in 6 states, Fleet
Owner, May 10, 2022.
Fleets have hundreds of charging station options currently available. As noted above, most fleets
will likely meet their charging needs through a Level 2 charger, while others may want or need a
faster charger. EnerglIZE Commercial Vehicles (Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-
Emission Commercial Vehicles), a fleet infrastructure incentive project funded by the California
Energy Commission's Clean Transportation Program and implemented by CALSTART, released
a list of over 140 makes and models of EVSE designed for charging commercial vehicles and
available today. 15 Most chargers range in max power output from 1.4kW to 1,200 kW with the
majority being around 7kW to lOOkW. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 4]
15. Calstart Energiize Commercial EV Eligible Technology, Technology Catalogue,
accessed May 16, 2022.
Some of the choices currently available include:
• Nuvve EVSE-B-P1-H1, 19.2 kW chargerl6
1447
-------
• Tellus Power TP5 30-480, 30 kW chargerl7
• ABB Terra 54, 50 kW DC Fast chargerl8
• Tellus Power TP3 60-480, 60 Kk DC fast chargerl9
• ChargePoint Express 250, 62.5 kW DC charger20
• Tritium RTM75, 75 kW DC charger21
• BTC Power L3R-100-480, 100 KW DC fast charger22
• Power Electronics NBD180, 180 KW DC fast charger23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2855-A2, p. 4]
16. https://nuvve.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/nuvve-powerport-spec-sheet-
2.20.19.pdf
17. http://telluspowergreen.com/usa/dc-chargers/
18. https://new.abb.com/ev-charging/dc-fast-chargers/terra-54-cjg
19. http://telluspowergreen.com/usa/dc-chargers/
20. https://www.chargepoint.com/products/commercial/cpe250
21. https://tritiumcharging.com/product/rtm-75/
22. https://www.btcpower.com/single-product/13r-100
23. https://power-electronics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/DATASHEET_NBIl 80.pdf
There are also high-powered charging depots of 350 kW per port with new higher powered
charging stations coming to the market soon.24 While the vast majority of fleets do not require
this level of power, a few examples of the highest-powered choices that fleets currently have
available are:
• Proterra 1.5 MW charging system.25
• Tesla 1 MW charging station. 26
• ABB High Power enclosures27
• Heliox 600 kW ultra-fast charger28
• Signet 350 kW DC fast charger29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 5]
24. Calstart Energiize Commercial EV Eligible Technology, Technology Catalogue,
accessed May 16, 2022.
25. Proterra, 1.5 MW Charging System spec sheet, accessed May 16 2022.
26. Lambert, Fred, Tesla is deploying the first Megacharger to charge its Tesla Semi
electric truck, electrek, October 12, 2021.
1448
-------
27. ABB, E-Mobility high-power enclosure, accessed May 16, 2022.
28. Heliox, Ultra Fast Charging Station, accessed May 16, 2022.
29. Signet, 350 KW DC fast charging cabinet, accessed May 16, 2022.
Fleet choices will further expand between now and 2027. There are many projects advancing
new, more powerful charging options. These include:
• NREL developing and testing a 3.75 MW charging station, intended to enable extremely
fast charging of a single vehicle, in partnership with CharIN and evaluation from four
original equipment manufacturers.30
• Roadway Wireless charging being tested in Detroit to see if charging while driving is
feasible. Currently also tested in Europe and Asia. 31
• Research and piloting of using box truck roofs to solar charge trucks while driving.
32 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 5]
30. Greencar Congress, NREL researchers, industry partners testing Megawatt Charging
Systems; up to 3.75MW, September 2021.
31. Lambert, Fred, Tesla is deploying the first Megacharger to charge its Tesla Semi
electric truck, electrek, October 12, 2021.
32. Sono Motors, Sono Motors and MAN Truck & Bus Want to Jointly Analyze
Applications of Solar Technology in Commercial Vehicles, May 7, 2021.
The technologies, solutions, and approaches fleets are employing today underscore the
availability of charging solutions and create a strong foundation for deeper electrification,
particularly in those segments that will rely on depot charging and so are most ready for near
term electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 5]
Much attention has been given to the current cost of installing charging equipment. Current
projections likely overstate the costs fleets will face when installing equipment between 2027
and 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 6]
In a study of light-duty vehicle charging infrastructure, ICCT recently found that average
charging costs decline per electric vehicle sold, number of factors lead to the decreasing costs.
Higher utilization of chargers, in terms of hours of active charging per day per charger, results in
fewer chargers needed per electric vehicle. And installation costs decline as the number of
chargers per site increases with growing market penetration. ICCT also found a modeled 3%
decline in per-charge hardware cost occurs per year. The figure below shows that while
installation and hardware costs increase from approximately $110 million to $165 million dollars
in 2025, the average cost per electric vehicle (blue line), calculated by dividing public and
workplace charging costs in each year by the number of electric vehicles sold in that year,
declines from $480 in 2019 to $300 in 2025.33 This study evaluated cost of LI, L2, and DC fast
charging stations for public and workplace charging rated up to and including 350kW. Given
1449
-------
fleets will similarly be charged with L2 and similarly rated DC fast chargers, this downward
trend of cost as utilization increases for the light duty vehicle sector can be translated to the
heavy duty sector and similar cost reductions would be expected as medium and heavy duty ZEV
sales increase. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 6]
33. Nicholas, Michael, Estimating electric vehicle charging infrastructure costs across
major U.S. metropolitan areas, August 2019.
It is also important to recognize that in the 2027-2029 timeframe, fleets will benefit from nearly
a decade of experience in how to minimize charging costs through operations and system design.
In the few years that fleets have been operating electric trucks and buses, many best practices
have already been developed to maximize the economic benefit fleets gain from operating these
vehicles. While difficult to precisely project, we should expect fleets will continue to improve
charging costs as they become more familiar with operating electric fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 7]
As fleets have begun to electrify, more insights into the solutions for charging infrastructure are
being gleaned. One area that is evolving is shared charging hubs for commercial vehicles located
in key corridors. This allows fleets to share the upfront cost of charging infrastructure, reducing
the cost of charging, especially for smaller fleets. For example, Portland General Electric and
Daimler Trucks North America (DTNA) are co-developing a large public charging site for
medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks, known as Electric Island. The island will host up to
nine charging stations with charging levels of up to 5 MW.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-
A2, p. 7]
34. Lewis, Michelle, Portland and Daimler team up for 5MW electric semi public
charging 'Island', electrek, December 1, 2020.
New ownership models such as Transportation-as-a-Service (TaaS) are allowing fleet operators
to use battery electric vehicles without being responsible for the full upfront cost of the vehicles
and charging equipment. Instead, under a TaaS model, an operator pays a recurring fee to the
service provider, who in exchange provides zero-emitting trucks (ZETs), vehicle maintenance,
installation and management of charging infrastructure, and vehicle charging management. For
example, Zeem Solutions provides leasing, servicing, parking, charging, and energy storage for
small- and medium-sized fleets looking to adopt Class 3-8 ZEVs but avoid their upfront costs.3 5
As one example, Highland Fleets is utilizing the TaaS model with their electric school buses.
Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland has contracted with Highland Fleets to use
326electric buses over the next four years.36 Forum Mobility aims to provide similar services for
drayage trucks and has broken ground on an electric truck charging station in
California.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 7]
35. Zeem Solutions, Zeem Solutions, accessed May 16, 2022.
36. Green Tech Media, Highland Electric Raises $235M, Lands Biggest Electric School
Bus Contract in the US, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/on-heels-of-
253m-raise-highland-electric-landsbiggest-electric-school-bus-contract-in-the-u.s.
1450
-------
37. Forum Mobility, Forum Mobility, accessed May 16, 2022.
A variation of the TaaS business model also coming to market is Charging as a Service (CaaS),
being pioneered by companies like AMPLY Power and Electrada, which provide fleet charging
infrastructure installation and management in exchange for a recurring fee. AMPLY Power is
demonstrating its CaaS approach for an all-electric school bus fleet of 5 in New York
City together with Logan Bus Company and Black and Veatch.38 Similar to TaaS providers,
CaaS providers can lower the upfront capital costs and provide the expertise needed to transition
to aBEV fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 7 - 8]
38. Amply Power, AMPLY Power & Logan Bus Announce Demonstration Project to
Simplify Electric Transportation for Fleets, February 4, 2020.
Alongside industry trends, there are a number of technology developments and industry practices
available today that can significantly lower the cost of charging, including managed charging,
use of on-site distributed energy resources, and open-source communication standards. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 8]
One of the most significant technologies lowering the cost of charging, both in terms of
infrastructure and electricity costs, is managed charging. Managed charging allows fleets to use
real-time utility data like grid load or electricity cost to optimize charging schedules, lower the
cost of charging, reduce stress on the grid and reduce emissions. The study that evaluated the
cost of charging fleets in New Jersey showed significant savings for both upfront capital costs
and electricity cost when fleets managed their charging. The figure below shows the difference
in capital cost for one of the evaluated fleets, a food service fleet. The study found upfront
capital cost savings of over $50,000 per vehicle, largely due to spreading the charge overnight
when vehicles are parked, lowering maximum charger requirements and minimizing equipment
costs. By utilizing the same charging hardware for multiple vehicles or lowering the peak power
requirements, the cost of infrastructure can be significantly lowered.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2855-A2, p. 8]
39. Emerging Futures, New Jersey Medium Duty Fleet Electrification Infrastructure
Summary Report, May 2022.
The study also assessed the impact of managed charging on five different fleet market segments
covering Class 3 through 7 trucks. The figure below shows that regardless of the electricity rate
to which the fleet subscribed, significant electricity cost savings are seen, with net present value
per vehicle electricity cost savings ranging from -$15,000 to -$175,000 depending on the rate
structure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 9]
A similar study in California from GNA showed managed charging can increase affordability of
charging for fleets and reduce grid needs. In some of the cases evaluated, managed charging
resulted in annual savings of upwards of $130,000 compared to unmanaged charging, where
trucks charge at any time that is convenient for the owner or business, often immediately upon
return to the depot site. Not only can managed charging improve the economics of electrifying
1451
-------
fleets, but the analysis suggests that optimized managed charging programs could be much more
powerful than they are today.40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 9]
40. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification
Summary Report, March 2021.
Onsite distributed energy resources (DERs) such as solar and battery storage are another
important solution to reducing charging costs for medium and heavy-duty fleets, which often
experience short but high energy demand events that significantly increase their impact on the
grid and energy bills. The California GNA study examined two types of clean DERs: on-site
solar panels and on-site energy storage, or batteries. When added to the managed charging
scenarios, DERs produced additional annual electric savings of $625,000 (Schneider)
and $835,000 (NFI). Moreover, managed charging and DERs reduced annual on-peak load by
611 kW for the Schneider fleet and 4 MW for the NFI fleet. This would not only reduce costs for
the truck companies, but the utility, as well.41 If scaled to all trucks in a utility's territory, these
load reductions could drastically decrease the amount of grid upgrades needed to accommodate
electric fleets. If leveraged for resiliency, DERs also offer the possibility for fleets to have power
security in moments when the grid power is down. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 9 -
10]
41. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, California Heavy-Duty Fleet Electrification
Summary Report, March 2021.
States and utilities offer a number of programs and policies to support truck and bus
electrification. For example, EnerglIZE Commercial Vehicles (Energy Infrastructure Incentives
for Zero-Emission Commercial Vehicles) is a commercial vehicle fleet infrastructure incentive
project funded by the California Energy Commission's Clean Transportation Program and
implemented by CALSTART.42 EnerglIZE provides incentives for ZEV infrastructure
equipment for medium- and heavy-duty battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in
California. The project provides a user-friendly and streamlined process for participation by
breaking down infrastructure deployment barriers through targeted incentives and specialized
assistance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 10]
42. Calstart Energiize Commercial Vehicles, https://www.energiize.org/
Below is a selection of other programs and policies that support electrification
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 11]
Make-Ready Support:
Under make-ready programs, some of the infrastructure costs are paid for by the utility, reducing
the cost of electrification to customers and fleets. Utilities typically recover the cost by adding it
to the rate base or through another recovery mechanism. Make-ready costs can be divided into
two components: the utility-side make-ready costs associated with upgrading grid components
such as the power lines, transformer, and meter to accommodate new load; and the customer side
make-ready or "behind the meter" upgrades, such as trenching to upgrade or extend a line,
1452
-------
electric panels, conduits, and switch gear. Programs and policies that reduce these costs can help
fleets transition to electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 11]
In California, the Public Utility Commission released new rules requiring utilities to provide
make-ready infrastructure, up to the meter and including trenching, to support electric vehicles
charging at no cost to the typical customer.43 Utilities in New York launched a make-ready pilot
program for commercial trucks and buses that participate in the New York Truck Voucher
Incentive Program or the New York City Clean Trucks Program, to cover up to 90 percent of the
utility side make-ready costs for L2 and fast chargers.44 Programs such as these reduce the costs
of installing charging stations, fundamentally improving the economics of electrifying the
transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 11]
43. California Public Utilities Commissions, Resolution E-5167, October 7, 2021.
44. Joint Utilities of New York, Medium and Heavy Duty Make Ready Pilot, accessed
May 20th, 2022.
Electricity Rates:
Electricity rates and their structure have a large impact on the cost of charging. Compared to
passenger vehicles, commercial trucks and buses are a tremendously diverse segment that
varies by vehicle type, duty cycle, fleet size, business model and experience with complex
electric pricing. As such, there are a number of rate structure developments occurring that are
helping lower the cost of charging for fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 11 - 12]
One of the largest portions of a fleet's bill, in particular in its early transition stage when
utilization of charging equipment is low, is the demand and capacity ($/kw) portion. New rate
structures are available to fleets to help alleviate this cost:
Demand Holidays: This approach eliminates the demand charge component for commercial EV
rates for a specified amount of time (recovering delivery costs through volumetric pricing in the
meantime), and phases them back in over time. Some utilities are exploring this approach to help
ease transition until fleets reach a higher utilization. For example, Southern California Edison
offers a seven-year demand holiday rate after which a demand charge is slowly
reintroduced.45 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 12]
45. California Public Utilities Commissions, Application of San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (U 902E) for Approval of SB 350 Transportation Electrification Proposals,
June 6, 2018.
Subscription Rate: Customers subscribe in advance for a particular level of demand and pay a
fixed monthly amount for service. The actual subscription rates now coming online are based on
a pre-subscribed coincident peak demand maximum. This is often complemented with a grace
period: if a customer exceeds their "allotted" demand, they will have a set amount of time to
adjust their usage before their bill rises to a higher level and stays there.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 12]
1453
-------
46. See, e.g. California Public Utilities Commissions, Application for Approval of
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Commercial Electric Vehicle Rate. (U39E). October
28, 2019.
Time of Use (TOU) Rate: Customers are charged based on their highest demand level that
coincides with system peak conditions. For the energy or dollar per kWh portion of the bill,
offering a variety of TOU and real time prices will enable fleets to lower their charging costs by
allowing them to charge when generation costs are lowest. Many utilities already offer TOU-
based prices for demand and energy - and when coupled with managed charging, it can result in
significant fuel cost savings for fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 12]
Rate Reduction: Fixed rate reductions also ease the upfront cost when utilization is low. For
example, Con Edison offers an electric rate reduction ranging from 34% to 39% for businesses in
New York City and Westchester County that install a publicly accessible direct current (DC) fast
electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 12]
47. Con Edison, Business Incentive Rate, accessed May 16, 2022.
Technical and Planning Support: As fleets enter the BEV space, it is important to understand the
needs for charging, how to build a charging infrastructure plan and the types of financial support
programs available. A number of utilities and states offer programs tailored to address technical
and feasibility concerns for fleets. For example, National Grid in New York and Portland Gas
and Electric currently offer fleet charging site feasibility analysis, technical support for charging,
and electricity rate advice.48,49 Financial support for a charging site feasibility study and design
is also part of SB 372 in California.50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 13]
48. National Grid, Electric Vehicle Charging Station Programs, accessed May 16, 2022.
49. Portland General Electric, PGE Fleet Partner, Fleet Charging, accessed May 16, 2022.
50. Leyva, Connie, SB-372 Medium- and heavy-duty fleet purchasing assistance
program: zero-emissionvehicles.(2021-2022), October 8, 2021.
Transit agencies are also getting support from utilities and states to electrify their fleets and build
necessary charging networks. Southern California Edison's Charge Ready program provides
fleets with technical knowledge and significantly reduces the upfront cost of infrastructure,
making electrification more feasible for transit agencies.51 New York's Metropolitan Transit
Authority finalized a $39 million agreement with the New York Power Authority to install more
than 50 overhead chargers to power new electric buses as part of their goal of transitioning to a
zero-emitting bus fleet by 2040.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 13]
51. Southern California Edison, Charge Ready Transport Program: Case Studies,
accessed May 2022.
52. Metropolitan Transportation Authority , MTA Announces Plans to Increase Number
of Electric Buses Purchased in 2021, May 25, 2021.
1454
-------
On Bill Financing and Tariffs: Some utilities offer Pay As You Save (PAYS) programs for
certain market segments that allow utilities to invest in the charger and some of the additional
costs needed to procure an electric vehicle. The utility's investment is recovered through a
charge on their monthly electricity bill, and when the cost of the equipment is paid off, the fleet
owns the vehicle and charging infrastructure. An example of this is the Duke Energy school bus
program, which offers a PAYS program for school districts.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2855-A2, p. 13]
53. DSIRE, Duke Energy - EV School Bus Program, October 9, 2021.
While many PAYS programs are being developed in support of school bus fleets, there are also
loan and financing programs being offered to help assist small businesses develop their charging
infrastructure. For example, the Capital Access Program (CalCAP) helps small fleets design,
develop, purchase and install electric charging stations at small business locations in
California. 54 These kinds of programs not only help overcome financial barriers of small
businesses but also aid in developing the industry knowledge for expanding broader charging
infrastructure coverage to support mass fleet electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-
A2, p. 13]
54. California Pollution Control Financing Authority, California Capital Access Program
(CalCAP) Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS) Financing Program, accessed May
16, 2022.
Rebate Programs:
Fleets can benefit from rebate programs offered by utilities and local governments, among
others. These programs can significantly reduce the upfront costs of installing charging
infrastructure, particularly for small businesses. Depending on the region, there are currently a
variety of charging infrastructure rebate programs, including rebates for make-ready, charging
stations, smart chargers, and onsite renewables. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 14]
Between now and 2027, it is reasonable to expect a significant expansion in the number of rebate
programs available to fleets while also increasing the effectiveness of these programs for
addressing fleet needs - as utilities and others benefit from several years of further learning and
exploration that will enable them to sharpen these programs. Below is an illustrative list of
current rebate programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 14]
Charging Infrastructure and Make Ready: Rebates offset the cost of installation and
associated service upgrades needed to meet a fleet's growing need for electricity.
• Saratoga county offers rebates for charging infrastructure and tax incentives. 55
• Massachusetts covers up to 60 percent of the cost for LI and L2 chargers. 56
• PG&E's EV Fleet program offers infrastructure incentives up to $9,000 per vehicle and
charger rebates up to 50 percent of the cost of level 2 and DC fast chargers. 57
• SDGE offers a rebate of up to 80 percent of the cost of "customer-side infrastructure".58
1455
-------
• Atlantic City, New Jersey offers commercial customers rebates covering up to 50 percent
of eligible installation costs up to $2,500 per port, for a maximum of 10 ports.59 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 14]
55. Sarasota County, Electric Vehicles, accessed May 16, 2022.
56. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Apply for MassEVIP
Workplace & FleetCharging Incentives, January 31, 2022.
57. Pacific Gas & Electric, EV Fleet program, accessed May 16, 2022.
58. San Diego Gas & Electric, Power Your Drive for Fleets, accessed May 16, 2022.
59. Atlantic City Electric, EVsmart Residential, Multi-family, Public, Workplace & Fleet
Rebates, May 2021.
Smart Charging: Fleets can be incentivized to utilize software that guides them when to charge.
This can help fleets minimize increases in peak-load while also enabling utilities to manage their
generation.
• PGE Long Island offers a $300 rebate for installing a smart charger.60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 14]
60. PSEG Long Island, Smart Charger Rebate, accessed May 16, 2022.
Disadvantaged Communities: Reflecting the significant health benefits of replacing diesel and
other combustion vehicles with ZEVs, some agencies provide fleets with incentives for replacing
or operating ZEV in frontline communities.
• Colorado offers grants for EVSE in disadvantaged communities61
• New Jersey Department of Environment offers incremental cost rebates, including
charging equipment, to shuttle bus, school bus, garbage truck, and transit bus fleets
operating in disadvantaged communities.62
• In California, transit agencies can apply to a voucher program to relieve costs for buses,
charging equipment and design. 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, pp. 14 - 15]
61. Clean Air Fleets, ALT Fuels Colorado, accessed May 16, 2022.
62. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, RGGI Funding for
Transportation Electrification, accessed May 16, 2022.
63. Clean Mobility Options, Providing funding for zero-emission carsharing,
carpooling/vanpooling, bikesharing/scooter-sharing, innovative transit services, and ride-
on-demand services in underserved communities, accessed May 16, 2022.
1456
-------
Solar and Storage: Leveraging distributed energy resources, such as on-site solar and battery
storage, can lower peak electricity demand at fleet depots. This can have significant cost savings,
especially when it helps fleets avoid or reduce demand charges.
• Commercial property owners in Asheville, North Carolina, can receive a rebate on their
building permit by installing solar.64
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) offers rebates to businesses to install behind the meter
generation and storage. 65
• New York State Energy Research and Development (NYSERDA) is offering financing
and upfront rebates to businesses to install solar.66 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2,
p. 15]
64. Energy Sage, North Carolina solar incentives, accessed May 16, 2022.
65. Pacific Gas & Electric, Clean energy incentives and programs, accessed May 16,
2022.
66. NY-Sun, Commercial Solar Incentives and Financing, accessed May 16, 2022.
Utility Charging Station Ownership: Some utilities are exploring owning and operating charging
infrastructure in certain demographic areas and market segments. In North Carolina, Duke
Energy will install and own the charging equipment, provide funding to offset 30 electric school
bus purchases, gather operational data, and explore vehicle-to-grid technology's technical
capabilities.67 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 15]
67. North Carolina Utilities Commission, Application by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
and Duke Energy Progress, LLC, for Approval of Proposed Electric Transportation Pilot,
November 24, 2020.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program: In these programs, a rebate is offered for
participation in programs that require advanced technology, such as smart charging. For
example, Baltimore offers a BYOD rebate of $300 to entities that use a smart charger and enroll
in a TOU rate.68 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2855-A2, p. 15]
68. Baltimore Gas and Electric, EVsmart® Vehicle Charging Time of Use Rate, accessed
May 16, 2022.
Other BYOD programs are performance based and continually reimburse owners of the
advanced technology for providing a grid service such as critical peak load reduction. Currently
this is only offered for onsite solar and storage, often co-located with MHDV charging
infrastructure, but programs like these could also be expanded to include smart
charging services. Green Mountain Power's BYOD program offers a performance-based
incentive for utilizing customers' behind-the-meter storage for grid services.69 Similarly,
National Grid offers a BYOD device program for solar and storage.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2855-A2, pp. 15 - 16]
1457
-------
69. Green Mountain Power, Rebate Program: Bring Your Own Device, accessed May 16,
2022.
70. National Grid, ConnectedSolutions Program, accessed May 16, 2022.
Another report developed by M.J. Bradley & Associates for Environmental Defense Fund shows
a large and growing opportunity to expand America's zero-emission freight trucks and buses.
The report evaluates four factors in assessing the readiness of zero-emitting medium and heavy-
duty vehicles in different applications - the availability of electric models from manufacturers,
the requirements for charging, the ability of electric models to meet operating requirements, and
the business case for zero-emitting vehicles. It finds that a large number of market segments have
favorable ratings across at least three of these categories, which indicates strong potential for
near-term zero-emitting vehicle deployment. These market segments, which represent about 66%
of the current in-use fleet, include heavy-duty pickups and vans, local delivery and service trucks
and vans, transit and school buses, class 3 to 5 box trucks, class 3 to 7 stake trucks, dump trucks
and garbage trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 12]
Market sources clearly show that the medium- and heavy-duty industry has embraced zero-
emitting vehicle technology and momentum is growing. Strong and durable federal emissions
standards are needed to signal our nation's steadfast commitment to reducing truck emissions
and support the industry in its transition to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 12]
In June 2020, California adopted the world's first zero-emission truck rule. The Advanced Clean
Truck (ACT) rule will require manufacturers to start selling new heavy-duty ZEVs by 2024 and
require 55 percent of class 2b - 3 truck sales, 75 percent of class 4-8 straight truck sales, and 40
percent of truck tractor sales to be zero-emission by 2035 at the latest.54 This landmark rule is
expected to prevent more than 900 premature deaths, save the state economy up to $12 billion
over the next 20 years and create thousands of new jobs by 2035.55 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1265-A1, p.12]
54 ARB press release, "California takes bold step to reduce truck pollution," (June 25,
2020). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-takes-bold-step-reduce-truck-pollution
55 Jamie Fine, 'Report: California's clean truck rule will save the economy billions,
eliminate vast amounts of pollution,' EDF blog (June 17, 2020).
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/06/17/report-californias-clean-truck-rule-will-
save-the-economy-billions-eliminate-vast-amounts-of-pollution/#more-20253
EDF supports substantially strengthening the Phase 2 GHG standards. However, EPA's proposed
adjustment to the standards not only dramatically underestimates the likely market penetration of
ZEVs in the coming years; it fails to achieve any additional deployment of zero emission
technologies. We urge the agency to set protective, performance-based GHG standards that more
accurately reflect the likely baseline levels of ZEVs in the 2027 to 2029 time frame, and that also
ensure greater deployment of zero-emissions technologies well beyond that baseline. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.16]
1458
-------
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
Electric vehicles (EVs) play an important role in achieving major NOx reductions in our country.
EVs are a critically important component of a multi-pollutant emissions control strategy. The HD
sector is already transitioning to EVs, with new announcements almost every day of plans to
build and buy EVs for the HD sector. Progress is sure to accelerate given the immense public and
private investments taking place. This includes support at the federal level, such as the recently
passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as well as many states providing financial and
other support for this transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
EPA properly includes EVs in its technology basis for setting the level of the revised GHG
standards. EPA properly recognizes that many important circumstances have changed since the
Phase 2 GHG standards were adopted—the quickening pace of EV development and use,
adoption of regulations by California and other states, actions by countries across the world, and
the immense investments being made and planned by industry and governments for the transition
to EVs in the US and elsewhere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 3]
EPN agrees and supports that now is the time to use this technology as part of the basis for
setting the level of the GHG emissions standards. The problem is EPA appears to aim at a level
that does no more than codify business as usual and, in fact, likely underestimates near-term EV
sales in the HD sector. EPA's traditional approach to standard-setting analyzes the need for
emissions reductions and the kinds of technologies that could achieve reductions, including the
history of prior use, advances to date, cost, feasibility, lead time considerations, and other
factors. EPA then sets the standard at a level that reflects a projection of technology penetration
that could occur and reasonably balances the various factors. This projected rate of penetration is
almost always more than what industry and the market already plan to do. EPA's proposal does
not take this approach. It is a missed opportunity to promote the degree of near-term EV
penetration necessary to begin to address the climate crisis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-
Al, p. 3]
EPN recommends that EPA set standards that aim for very high ZEV penetration for school
buses and urban transit buses by MY 2029. For delivery vans and short-haul tractors, EPN
recommends EPA aim for a much more aggressive, but practical, penetration rate by MY 2029
than proposed. More ambitious GHG standards will accelerate the introduction of zero-emissions
technologies for all pollutants and set the stage for the standard setting in the next, longer-term
rulemaking. The country can't rely on business as usual, whether for MYs 2027-29 or for MYs
2030 and later. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
While the proposed rules are a good start, they must be strengthened. Specifically
o On GHG part of rule, the agency's minor adjustments to existing Phase 2 greenhouse gas
standards are weak and reflect neither the urgency of the climate crisis nor the rapid
advancement in zero-emission truck technology. These adjustments must be strengthened. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
1459
-------
Organization: Evolving Electric Motor Company
The optimum reduction in GHG emissions from all vehicles, smallest to largest, is via electric
vehicles charging at electric power stations using electricity generated solely via renewable
methods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2488,p.l]
That optimal advance will require many trillions of dollars in infrastructure to generate and
distribute said renewable electricity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2488, p.l]
Full Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles (FSHEV)...
This technology has been demonstrated by: the RST-V (a.k.a., Shadow) from General Dynamics
Land Systems; the Ultra AP from Georgia Tech's Research Institute; the Nissan Note, E-Power,
available only in Japan. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2488, p.l]
Large reductions in GHG emissions, accomplished by the vehicles listed above, have been
possible for more than two decades. It will take more than a bit of insistence by the EPA, and
other regulatory agencies, or nothing will continue to be done. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2488, p.l]
As was the case with seat belts... Little, to nothing, happens without significant regulatory
pressure. In this case the EPA must take the lead as the agent of enforced progress. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2488, p.l]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
Ford supports Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model (GEM)-based stringency changes. The GEM-
based standards need to account for ZEVs that are expected to enter the heavy-duty fleet in the
future. We believe that the targeted GEM-based standard reductions in 2027 model year and later
reflect a reasonable assumption of the fraction of ZEVs that are expected in the heavy-duty fleet
in that timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA)
However, regulatory efforts by the federal government to increase deployment of heavy-duty
zero-emission vehicle transportation are only one piece of the puzzle needed to unlock greater
investment and adoption in this sector. The hydrogen truck industry also needs sustained federal
investment in developing a national hydrogen refueling infrastructure network, as well as
incentives to encourage station development, vehicle adoption, and reductions in the cost of
hydrogen fuel. The federal government can work to build adoption by encouraging government
agencies to switch to zero-emission vehicle alternatives for their own operations. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1187-A2, p. 2]
1460
-------
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
ICCT research shows that the U.S. must achieve at least 45% zero-emission truck sales in 2030
and 100% no later than 2040 to meet domestic and global climate goals to limit warming to
below 2 degrees Celsius. Limiting global warming to below 2°C would require the U.S. HDV
sector to mitigate its projected cumulative C02 emissions through 2050 by roughly 4 billion
metric tons. Our analysis of EPA's proposal finds it is inadequate to meet domestic and global
climate goals. EPA risks not meeting these goals if the agency waits until 2030 to require zero-
emission HDV sales. Our modeling shows that EPA has the opportunity in this rulemaking to
accelerate ZEV uptake in high priority vehicle segments to remain on a pathway consistent with
2°C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 4]
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA adopt GHG standards for MY2027, MY2028 and
MY2029 consistent with achieving the following market shares of zero-emission vehicles—and
to do so by the end of this year. This level of ZEV deployment falls between the ambition of the
targets set by the Advanced Clean Trucks rule adopted by several U.S. states and those set out in
a draft Advanced Clean Fleets rule also under discussion at the state level. This level of ambition
is necessary, based on our analysis, to maintain an emissions pathway consistent with limiting
warming to 2°C. Even higher ZEV deployment would be needed to reduce the gap with
1.5°C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 4. See Table 1.]
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA achieve these targets by requiring vehicle
manufacturers to meet a zero-emission standard for C02 for a minimum percentage of
production in each segment. A zero emission C02 standard would apply only to zero-emission
vehicles only and would be in addition to current GHG standards. Such an approach represents a
'dual-averaging' set. If EPA chooses not to adopt this approach, we recommend EPA revise its
GHG standards to reflect the combination of projected internal combustion engine and zero-
emission vehicle technology needed to meet climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 4]
The EPA proposal includes baseline ZEV uptake assumptions that do not currently reflect the
benefits of adopted state policies that require zero-emission truck sales. A more accurate
reflection of baseline ZEV uptake resulting from already adopted state-level policies, based on
ICCT estimates, is 3.8% in MY 2027 and 7.2% in MY 2029 in the 17 early-adopting segments
for which EPA proposed revisions. ICCT estimates that implementation of the Advanced Clean
Trucks regulation among all U.S. signatories to the Multi-State Memorandum of Understanding
would increase this baseline to 6.7% in MY 2027 and 12.7% in MY 2029 in the same 17
segments. At the federal level, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocates up to $5
billion in funding for zero-emission school buses. 1 In addition, the Biden administration has
directed the federal government to transition to 100% ZEV acquisition by 2035.2 Both of these
federal actions are expected to supplement state-level actions and lead to higher heavy-duty ZEV
uptake than considered in EPA's baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 5]
1. The White House, "Fact Sheet: Competitive Infrastructure Funding Opportunities for
Local Governments," accessed 13 May 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/01/B IL-Factsheet-Local-Competitive-Funding.pdf
1461
-------
2. The White House, "Fact Sheet: President Biden Signs Executive Order Catalyzing
America's Clean Energy Economy Through Federal Sustainability THE WHITE
HOUSE, accessed 13 May 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-
releases/2021/12/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-catalyzing-
americas-cleanenergy-economy-through-federal-sustainability/
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA accurately reflect business-as-usual projections of
ZEV sales, taking into consideration the requirements adopted in at least six U.S. states (as of
this writing) who have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and providing for further
evolution of the baseline as more states take similar actions in coming years and as federal
actions further accelerate deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 6]
EPA has the opportunity in this rulemaking to accelerate zero-emission uptake in high priority
vehicle segments to remain on a pathway consistent with 2°C.37 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 26]
37. Buysse, Kelly, and Minjares, "Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-
Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States."
Achieving at least 45% heavy-duty ZEV sales by 2030 will require setting progressively
stringent regulations beginning as soon as model year 2027 to ensure nationwide ZEV model
availability for all HDV segments at production volumes consistent with achieving this ambition.
HDV electrification is moving fastest in the most market-ready segments—transit buses, short-
haul rigid trucks, and short-haul tractors—which are characterized by favorable total costs of
ownership, dedicated parking facilities, and predictable low-cost overnight charging. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
Long-haul tractors are the single largest contributor of HDV C02 emissions (Table 9) and will
rely upon a national publicly accessible network of charging and refueling infrastructure
necessary to support zero emissions operation. Ensuring adequate density and distribution of
infrastructure to support its flexible long distance operational profile requires a nationwide effort,
which the Biden administration has initiated with the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act.3 8 Previous ICCT research has identified a need for $6 billion in cumulative public charging
infrastructure investments by 2030 and $52 billion by 2040 to support a transition to 100% zero-
emission long-haul tractor sales by 2040.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
38. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act..
39. Minjares et al., "Infrastructure to Support a 100% Zero-Emission Tractor-Trailer
Fleet in the United States by 2040."
To understand how EPA could strengthen its proposal, we developed scenarios for C02
emissions from Class 4-8 vehicles that explore a combination of ZEV pathways, GHG
standards, and ZEV crediting schemes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 27]
1462
-------
We developed several ZEV sales pathways to represent how we expect OEMs may choose to
comply with future sales requirements. These pathways are shown below in Figure 9. See
Attachment 1 - Appendix A for a detailed description of these scenarios. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 27. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A2 for Appendix
A.]
We also modeled three policy scenarios for GHG standards:
• Current represents the original Phase II rulemaking, which includes ZEV super credits through
MY 2027 (advanced technology credit multiplier of 4.5 for battery-electric vehicles);
• Proposal tightens MY 2027 GHG standards by 1.5% and retains ZEV super credits through
MY 2027;
• ICCT assumes EPA adoption of minimum production requirements of zero-emission vehicles
as explained in a previous ICCT paper.40 Under such an approach, minimum production
percentage requirements are established for vehicles that meet a zero-emission C02 standard,
average GHG limits apply to other vehicles, and ZEVs cannot generate super credits. More
detailed modeling methodology and scenario descriptions can be found in Attachment 1-
Appendix A. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 27 - 28. See Docket Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A2 for Appendix A.]
40. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/HDV-US-adapting-vehicle-emission-
stds-zero-emissioncommercial-truck-bus-fleet-feb22.pdf
We recommend EPA revise its proposal to accelerate heavy-duty ZEV uptake before 2030 in
order to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
28]
Shown in Figure 11, our most ambitious scenario would reduce cumulative 2027-2050 well-to-
wheel C02 emissions by 6.4 Gt from current policies, well in line with the 4 Gt reduction
compatible with a 2°C global climate target. These emission benefits result from ZEV
deployment in our Alternative 3 pathway as well as alignment with our recommended GHG
policy scenario, ICCT, which assumes the stringency of Phase II standards would be preserved
for ICE vehicles regardless of ZEV deployment. Harmonizing federal ZEV
sales targets with those set out in the ACT regulation, represented by our Alternative 2 pathway,
also achieves this target with a 4.8 Gt reduction in cumulative emissions. A 3-year lag in
harmonizing with the ACT regulation, represented in our Alternative 1 pathway, only achieves a
3.5 Gt reduction in cumulative emissions. Such a delay in accelerating heavy-duty ZEV
deployment would reduce cumulative emissions benefits by 1.2 Gt compared to federal
harmonization with the targets set out in the ACT regulation and would not be aligned with a
2°C-compatible future—steeper emissions reductions would be needed to maintain a chance of
limiting warming to 1.5°C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 29]
1463
-------
3. We recommend EPA revise its proposal to reflect at least 20% zero-emission HDV
sales in MY 2027, 30% in MY 2028, and 40% in MY 2029 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 30]
To align with domestic and global climate targets, we recommend that EPA adopt annual MY
2027-2029 GHG standards that put the U.S. heavy-duty vehicle fleet on pace to achieve at least
a 45% ZEV sales share in 2030.41 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 30]
41. Buysse, C., Kelly, S., and Minjares, R. (2022). Racing to zero: The ambition we need
for zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles in the United States. Washington, D.C.:
International Council on Clean Transportation. 8 April, https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-
hdv-us-apr22/
We recommend that EPA adopt MY 2027 GHG standards that reflect an average emission level
for the combination of 20% production of zero-emission vehicles and 80% production of
vehicles using internal combustion engines. We further recommend that EPA also adopt MY
2028 GHG standards that reflect an average emission level for the combination of 30%
production of zero-emission vehicles and 70% of vehicles using internal combustion engines, as
well as a set of MY 2029 GHG standards that reflect an average emission level for the
combination of 40% production of zero-emission vehicles and 60% of vehicles using internal
combustion engines. Manufacturers can take advantage of averaging, banking, and trading
(ABT) crediting flexibility to comply with annual targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1,
p. 31]
We recommend EPA establish minimum production requirements for heavy-duty ZEVs in the
form of 'dual averaging sets' to provide certainty the ZEV transition will occur at the pace
required to meet climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 31]
In his August 2021 Executive Order, President Biden called upon the EPA Administrator to
consider establishing newNOx standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles "in consideration
of the role that zero emission heavy-duty vehicles might have in reducing emissions from certain
market segments"; and to consider new greenhouse gas emission standards beginning as soon as
MY 2030. 42 If designed appropriately, these actions by EPA could jump-start the national
transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles and take advantage of the infrastructure
investments and fiscal policies the president is pursuing through legislation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 31]
42. The White House, "Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Clean
Cars and Trucks," (August 5, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/presidential- actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on- strengthening-american-
leadership-in-clean-carsand-trucks/.
For decades, EPA set new vehicle emission standards under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act,
focusing on the incremental improvement of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.
Standards for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter have encouraged the widespread adoption of
diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, and selective catalytic reduction. Standards on
1464
-------
greenhouse gases have encouraged the adoption of more efficient engines and transmissions, low
rolling-resistance tires, improved vehicle aerodynamics, and low-GWP refrigerants. These
emission standards have increased in stringency, generating fleet-wide emission reductions over
time. The result has been steadily cleaner ambient air and significant public health and welfare
benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 31]
But the urgency of the climate crisis requires deeper, more rapid, and more sustained emission
reductions than those delivered by incremental vehicle and engine standards. This need points to
the role of zero emission powertrains as a leapfrog solution over continued incremental
improvements. Transitioning to zero emission powertrains in the commercial truck and bus fleet
requires an effective adaptation of the existing U.S. regulatory framework for internal
combustion engines vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 31]
We recommend that EPA require vehicle manufacturers to meet a zero-emission standard for
C02 for a minimum percentage of production in each segment.43 This new zero-emission C02
standard would be in addition to current GHG standards; for example, limits on emissions of
refrigerants would still apply to these vehicles. For the purposes of this discussion, the vehicles
subject to this minimum percentage requirement are called "transition" vehicles. This standard
would require a vehicle to be powered by an electric motor and not have an internal combustion
engine, resulting in no tailpipe emissions of GHGs. The multi-pollutant coverage of this control
technology also means the transition vehicles would produce no emissions of NOx or PM. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
43. Minjares, Ray, and John Hannon. 2022. "Adapting US Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission
Standards to Support a Zero-Emission Commercial Truck and Bus Fleet." Washington,
D.C.: International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/us-
hvs-standards-ze-fleet-feb22/.
As part of the vehicle certification and production process, manufacturers would designate their
vehicles as either transition vehicles, subject to the percentage requirements, or non-transition
vehicles. A manufacturer would need to show that the transition vehicles were zero-emission
vehicles and met the applicable percentage of production, as well as other applicable
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
The emissions standards for each group would be distinct and separate, and the requirements for
each group would be based on the nature of their projected emissions control technology. For
transition vehicles, this would reflect technology that produces zero tailpipe emissions for
multiple pollutants. Non-transition vehicles would be subject to standards based on technology to
control emissions from vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
The engines used in non-transition vehicles would be subject to the new, more stringent NOx
standard finalize by EPA in this rulemaking and would remain subject to current GHG and PM
standards. The current provisions for categorization and averaging, banking, and trading would
apply to non-transition vehicles and engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
1465
-------
Credits generated by producing more zero-emission transition vehicles than required could be
banked to meet that segment's percentage requirement in future MYs or used to show
compliance with the percentage requirement for transition vehicles in another segment. For
example, a manufacturer that produces more than the minimum zero-emission vehicles in
Segment A in MY 2027 could bank those credits for use in that segment in future MYs, or could
use the credits to show compliance with the percentage requirement for Segment B in MY 2027.
EPA could establish appropriate adjustments for the transfer of these transition credits from one
segment to another to account for differences in emissions and other variables. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
Transition vehicles and non-transition vehicles would be distinct and separate averaging sets.
Credits from producing more zero-emission transition vehicles than the required percentage
could not be used to show compliance with the standards for non-transition vehicles, and vice
versa. This would best ensure that the overall emissions reduction and zero-emission vehicle
production goals are achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 32]
However, manufacturers would retain flexibility in designating vehicles as either transition or
non-transition vehicles. A manufacturer that produces greater zero- emission vehicles than the
required percentage could certify some or all those extra zero-emission vehicles as non-transition
vehicles and include them to demonstrate compliance with the standards for non-transition
vehicles. This provides manufacturers flexibility while preserving the goals of overall emission
reductions and production of zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
32]
EPA could consider treating PHEVs as non-transition vehicles that do not meet the zero-
emission vehicle percentage requirements. Designating PHEVs as non-transition vehicles would
provide manufacturers with significant flexibility in achieving the more stringent engine and
vehicle standards. This approach would avoid undercutting the critical goal of transitioning the
vehicles in each segment to the desired percentage production of zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 32 - 33]
EPA could consider how vehicles subject to standards set by California and Section 177 States
are addressed. If the standards adopted by California and Section 177 states for internal
combustion vehicles are more stringent or require a greater percentage of zero-emission vehicles
compared to EPA's corresponding standards, then EPA may consider not including vehicles
certified to the California and Section 177 state standards in demonstrating compliance with
EPA's corresponding standards. For example, assume California and Section 177 states require a
greater percentage requirement of zero-emission vehicles for Segment A than EPA. In that case
EPA's percentage requirement would only apply to vehicles that are not certified to the
California and Section 177 state standards. If the California and Section 177 state standards are
the same as EPA's or provide that compliance with the federal standards is deemed to be
compliance with the state standards, then EPA could apply its standards to the entire national
fleet. In any case, we recommend the federal standard ensure that the appropriate percentage of
ZEVs are produced above and beyond any production called for by California and the Section
177 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 33]
1466
-------
It is critical that we achieve the long-term goal of broadly transitioning to zero- emission
vehicles with their elimination of tailpipe criteria pollutant, air toxic, and greenhouse gas
emissions over the full life of the vehicle. Treating zero-emission vehicles as a separate group,
with standards set to reflect the use of zero emissions technology, provides high certainty that the
projected transition to a percentage of zero-emission vehicles will occur. It also provides high
certainty that the overall level of projected GHG, NOx, and PM reductions would be
achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 33]
If EPA chooses not to establish a zero-emission standard for C02 for a specified percentage of
production in each segment, we recommend EPA retain the current program structure of GHG
regulation and revise standards to reflect the combination of projected internal combustion
engine and zero-emission vehicle technology needed to meet climate goals. Under this approach,
EPA would set MY2027 GHG standards that reflect an average emission level for the
combination of zero-emission vehicle targets given in Table 11. There would be no requirement
under this approach that manufacturers produce zero-emission vehicles. Credits from any
segment would be banked or transferred to another segment, subject to the appropriate
adjustments set by EPA to account for differences among segments and usage patterns. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 33]
EPA could adopt a bin structure that sets standards achievable by zero-emissions technology; a
near-zero emissions standard, achievable by long-range plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles; and a
stringent NOx bin achievable by engines in internal combustion-powered vehicles. Hybrid
vehicles could be certified using a test procedure that appropriately reflects usage. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 33]
To ensure additionality, we recommend EPA consider only allowing ZEV credits for ZEV sales
in excess of state or federal requirements. In the absence of federal action to require a minimum
share of ZEV sales, this approach would effectively incentivize ZEVs only in non-ACT
states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 35]
Under EPA's proposal, if MOU states continue to adopt the ACT regulation, ICE vehicles would
not need to attain any of the reductions originally envisioned by Phase II in model year 2027. To
ensure that these ICE efficiency improvements are achieved, we recommend EPA minimize the
impact of ZEV crediting on the stringency of the Phase II standard for ICE vehicles by
establishing separate averaging sets, as detailed in section 3. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 35]
We estimate that tightening the Phase II standards to reflect expected state action on ZEVs
(MOU ZEV pathway) could reduce cumulative well-to-wheel C02 emissions from model year
2027 and later vehicles through 2050 by 372 Mt. If federal action drives additional ZEV
deployment, represented in our Alternative 1-3 ZEV pathways, and ZEV crediting is limited to
ZEV sales in excess of production requirements, cumulative emissions would be further reduced
by 2.8 Gt (Alternative 1) to 5.2 Gt (Alternative 3). Failing to maintain the stringency of the
original Phase II rule for ICE vehicles would result in a 143-194 Mt loss of these emissions
reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 35]
1467
-------
The EPA's baseline ZEV uptake assumptions are too low to account for currently adopted and
likely state action, as well as support at a federal level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
35]
The EPA proposal currently assumes roughly 1.5% ZEV penetration among 17 early adopting
market segments in model year 2027. With six states having adopted the ACT regulation and
with the ICT regulation in California, we estimate that minimum ZEV sales requirements in
these same 17 market segments would drive national ZEV sales shares of 3.8% in model year
2027, 5.5%) in model year 2028, and 7.2% in model year 2029. Further adoption of the ACT
regulation by MOU signatories would increase national ZEV sales shares in those market
segments to 6.7%, 9.7%, and 12.7% for model years 2027-2029, respectively. Further, federal
actions to fund zero-emission school buses and transition the federal fleet to 100% zero-emission
vehicle acquisitions by 2035 would supplement state-level action to accelerate deployment of
heavy-duty ZEVs.44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 35]
44. The White House, "Fact Sheet: Competitive Infrastructure Funding Opportunities for
Local Governments"; The White House, "Fact Sheet: President Biden Signs Executive
Order Catalyzing America's Clean Energy Economy Through Federal Sustainability."
We recommend EPA accurately reflect business-as-usual projections of ZEV sales, taking into
consideration the requirements adopted in at least six U.S. states (as of this writing) who have
adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and providing for further evolution of the
baseline as more states take similar actions in 2023 and 2024 and with federal action to
accelerate deployment of heavy-duty ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 35]
We hold the view that market trends support the rapid electrification of most on-road medium-
and heavyduty vehicle applications during the period covered by this rule. We attempt to
summarize here the research and data that inform our views. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-
Al, p. 36]
Technology readiness
California Air Resources Board staff undertake an annual review of battery-electric and
hydrogen fuel cell readiness. This exercise informs the Long-Term Heavy-Duty Investment
Strategy staff use to guide decisions on targeted technologies and project categories that merit
funding to help the state reach its air quality and climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 36]
The most recent strategy was made available to the public on 19 November 2021.45 A summary
of technology status for on-road battery electric vehicles is found in Figure 6 on page D-42. The
figure shows that heavyduty delivery, medium-duty delivery (cargo van), drayage, shuttle bus,
school bus, transit bus, refuse truck, and medium-duty delivery truck categories have all reached
a technology readiness level of nine out of nine. This level reflects readiness to transition to
commercial market entry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 36]
45. California Air Resources Board (2022). Appendix D: Long-term heavy-duty
investment strategy," Sacramento, CA: California Air Resources Board, accessed 12 May
1468
-------
2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/fy21-
22_fundingplan_appendix_d.pdf
The technology readiness of on-road fuel cell technology is behind that of battery-electric
technology. Technology readiness of on-road fuel cell electric vehicles is visible in Figure 7
found on page D-46. Among the five use cases evaluated, transit buses are the only one to
achieve a technology readiness level of 9. The other evaluated use cases, including heavy-duty
delivery, medium-duty delivery, drayage, and shuttle bus are undergoing advanced technology
demonstrations and pilots, reflecting a technology readiness level between 7 and 8. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 36]
Product availability
The ICCT most recently surveyed available zero-emission heavy-duty products in 2020.46 At
that time, zero emission transit buses were available from every major legacy OEM, including
Volvo, NFI Group, and Gillig as well as from zero-emission OEMs including Proterra, BYD,
GreenPower, and Lion Electric. Volvo, NFI Group and Gillig represent nearly 90% of the transit
bus market in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 36]
46. Sharpe, B., Buysse, C., Mathers, J., and Poudelet, V. (2020) How manufacturers are
positioned for zero emission commercial trucks and buses in North America.
Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation,
https://theicct.org/publication/race-to-zero-how-manufacturers-are-positioned-for-zero-
emission-commercial-trucksand-buses-in-north-america/
School bus models were also well represented, including products from Thomas Built (Daimler
Trucks), Navistar, Blue Bird, GreenPower and Lion Electric. We find that Thomas Built,
Navistar, and Blue Bird control nearly 100% of the school bus market in the United
States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 36]
Electric coach buses, which travel longer average distances than school or transit buses, were
represented in our 2020 survey by products from NFI Group, Van Hool, and BYD. These
companies represent more than 90% of the coach bus fleet in the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 36]
The Class 4-6 rigid truck category in our survey contains the greatest number of models and
market players. Ninety percent of the market is dominated by Ford, Daimler, Isuzu, Navistar and
Toyota. Ford products are developed in partnership with powertrain suppliers, including
Lightning Systems, Motiv, Phoenix Motors, and SEA Electric. SEA Electric also partners with
Isuzu and Toyota. Daimler also offers products in this category. Navistar is the one major market
player not to announce a product. In the Class 6-8 refuse trucks category, PACCAR and Volvo
Group through their MACK brand have introduced electric products, as have BYD and Lion
Electric. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 36 - 37]
The Class 7-8 tractor truck category is dominated almost entirely by four manufacturers -
Daimler, PACCAR, Volvo, and Navistar. At the time of publication, all companies except for
Navistar had announced product plans. Since that time, we are aware of orders and deliveries
1469
-------
that all companies who announced product plans have made. This segment faces competition
from new market entrants with electric products, including Hyundai, Hino (Toyota), Xos, Tesla,
and Nikola. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 37]
A more recent update of model availability was published by CalStart in January 2022.47 Across
Class 2b-8 categories, they estimate total models have grown to 145 in 2021 (Class 2b-8). They
anticipate a further increase to 165 models by 2023. Manufacturers who produce the entire
vehicle and only produce EVs account for 22 percent of models. Legacy manufactures, such as
Daimler, Volvo, and Paccar, accounted for 13% of zero-emission models. The remainder are
models produced by manufacturers who may repower an existing chassis or produce their own
chassis for an existing vehicle frame. Medium-duty trucks were the largest share of available
models, accounting for 43%. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 37]
47. Al-Alawi, B.M., Macdonnell, O., McLane, R., and Walkowicz, K. (2022) Zeroing in
on zero-emission trucks. Pasadena, CA: CalStart, https://calstart.org/zeroing-in-on-zero-
emission-trucks/
A representation of truck models available as of the time of this writing can be found on the
website of the2022 Advanced Clean Trucks Expo.48 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
37]
48. "2022 Display Vehicles," ACT EXPO, accessed 12 May 2022,
https://www.actexpo.com/vehicles
To put the US market in context, consider the market in Europe.49 Battery-electric buses were
more than 97% of new electric HDV registrations in 2020. While three companies - Daimler,
CNH Industrial and Traton - were responsible for 70% of bus registrations in 2020, seven
companies compete in the electric bus space. The market leader is BYD with their K9 model,
followed by Volvo Group with their 7900 E. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 37]
49. Basma, H., and Rodriguez, F. (2021) Race toz ero: How manufacturers are
positioned for zero-emission commercial trucks and buses in Europe." Berlin, Germany:
International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/race-to-
zero-ze-hdv-eu-dec21 /
The state of the Chinese market provides additional context.50 China is the world's largest
electric vehicle market and home to more than ninety percent of all electric buses and trucks on
the road today. Eight manufacturers are responsible for 70 percent of all ICE vehicle sales while
more than ten manufacturers control less than 70 percent of all zero-emission truck and bus sales.
The Chinese market is unique in having more than 900 OEMs in the ICE truck and bus market.
More than 200 of these were capable of offering an electric model in 2019. The only Chinese
OEM listed in the top five for ICE vehicles and zero-emission vehicles is Foton. Foton also has a
joint venture with both Daimler and Cummins, who have a strong presence in the US
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 37]
1470
-------
50. Mao, S., and Rodriguez, F. (2021) Race to zero: How manufacturers are positioned
for zero-emission commercial trucks and buses in China. Beijing, China: International
Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/race-to-zero-how-
manufacturers-are-positioned-for-zero-emission-commercial-trucksand-buses-in-china/
Total cost of ownership
The potential for zero-emission sales growth is affected by the cost to purchase and own the
vehicle. These costs are captured in estimates of upfront cost parity and total-cost-of-ownership
parity with ICE vehicles. Table 14 summarizes the results of recently published total-cost-of-
ownership studies. 51 Additional information can be found in Attachment 1 - Appendix B
included with these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 38. See Docket Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A3 for Appendix B.]
51. Argonne National Laboratory, "BEAN Techno-Economic Impact of Individual
Technologies"; Hunter et al., "Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of
Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks"; Ledna et al.,
"Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles"; Lowell and Culkin,
"Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles Market Structure, Environmental Impact, and EV
Readiness"; Burnham et al., "Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for
Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains"; Welch et al., "Moving Zero-
Emission Freight toward Commercialization"; CARB, "Draft Advanced Clean Trucks
Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document"; Nair et al., "Medium and Heavy-Duty
Electrification Costs for MY 2027- 2030."
ICCT has sorted the data reflected in these studies into 9 different use cases, aligned with
regulatory source categories defined in MOVES.52 We then grouped use cases according to
three broad groupings of cost and market readiness, as shown in Table 15. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 41]
52. MOVES is the U.S. EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, a state-of-the-science
emissions modeling system that estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national,
county, and project level for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. For
more visit https://www.epa.gov/moves.
This organization of cost and market readiness of each use case leads to several conclusions. The
segments in the 'fast' group are expected to reach TCO parity before MY 2027 and will all see an
upfront cost ratio under 1.5 by the same year. Combined, these segments make up over 40% of
annual Class 4-8 vehicle sales. School buses share these characteristics with the fast group, and,
along with transit busses, are one of only two segments where the EV market is already mature.
However, we place them in the 'medium' group as a reflection of the financing challenges school
bus programs can face and the additional time they may need to secure appropriate funds for
ebus purchases. The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides up to $5 billion to
finance the electrification of school buses.53 Vehicles in the 'slow' category currently include
long-haul rigid and tractor trucks, which will require publicly accessible infrastructure to enable
diesel equivalent performance. Navistar CEO Mathias Carlbaum has taken the view that battery-
1471
-------
electric long-haul tractors will achieve cost parity without subsidies between 2025 and 2030,
while fuel cell variants will achieve this by 2030.54 ICCT has conducted a meta-study of upfront
cost parity of tractor-trailers, including a bottom up virtual tear-down of component cost for day
cabs and sleeper cabs using a battery-electric or a fuel cell powertrain.55 Despite large
reductions in powertrain costs expected this decade, the ICCT understands public infrastructure
availability will dictate the pace of market penetration in this segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, pp. 41 -42]
53. "Investments in electric and low-emission school buses," EPA, accessed 13 May
2022, https://www.epa.gov/infrastructure/investments-electric-and-low-emission-school-
buses
54. Carlbaum, M. (2022). The journey of electric trucks and zero-emission vehicles with
Navistar CEO, Pres Mathias Carlbaum. Presentation to the 2022 ACT Expo, 10 May
2022. Accessible online at https://youtu.be/Uuq_Fg_F5XI
55. Sharpe, B., and Basma, H. (2021). A meta-study of purchase costs for zero-emission
trucks. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean Transportation,
https://theicct.org/publication/purchase-cost-ze-trucks-feb22/
Private sector commitments
Large global engine and vehicle manufacturers have adopted ambitious plans for producing new
zero emission bus and truck models. In 2021 Daimler announced its goal to "phase down" the
internal combustion engine from its product line within 10 to 15 years. The TRATON Group, the
parent company of brands including MAN, Scania, and Navistar, aims to reduce conventional
engines to just one-fifth of all product development by 2025. These commitments do not include
the sizable number of all-electric products to be produced by new manufacturers. These
commitments are also complemented by those of large customers of HDVs and fleet owners who
are shaping the demand for ZEVs. Table 16 highlights a few such commitments to provide a
sense of the expected pace of private sector activity in the ZE HDV market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 44]
Public sector commitments
Governments around the world are committing to transition sales of new trucks and buses
towards zero emission powertrains.65,66 President Biden signed an executive order on 8
December 2021 directing the federal government to acquire only zero-emission vehicles,
including medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, from 2035.67 The United Kingdom is among
fourteen countries to endorse the goal of 30% zero-emission truck sales in 2030 and 100% in
2040.68 On 12 May 2022 the national government became the first to translate this into an
enforceable national policy.69 The Chilean Ministry of Economy has endorsed a non-binding
goal to achieve 100% zero-emission new medium- and heavy-duty truck sales in the same
year.70 Sub-national governments are also making commitments. New York State Governor
Kathy Hochul has signed Senate Bill 2758 setting this goal into law, and has reached an
agreement to electrify all school bus sales in 2027 and school bus operations in 2035.71,72 The
State of California has begun a public consultation on a requirement to end ICE truck sales in
2040.73 This policy would deliver on Governor Newsom's executive order to achieve 100%
1472
-------
zero-emission drayage operations by 2035 and heavy-duty vehicles, where feasible, by 2045.74
The California Air Resources Board adopted a 100% zero-emission bus purchase requirement in
2018 to be fully implemented in 2029.75 Large volume transit bus purchases are becoming
common, particularly in emerging economies. Convergence Energy Services Limited (CESL), a
joint venture with the Indian Ministry of Power, recently closed a tender for 5,450 zero-emission
buses to be leased within one year to five Indian cities at a cost of 43.49 INR per km (-0.35 USD
per mile).76 The Metropolitan Transport Department of Santiago, Chile currently operates the
largest electric bus fleet outside of China, including 776 buses with 991 ordered, 10 electric bus
depots in operation, and 11 under development.77 Figure 13 and Figure 14 illustrate these
political commitments recently announced as of December 2021.
65. Wappelhorst, S., and Rodriguez, F. (2021). Global overview of government targets
for phasing-out internal combustion engine medium and heavy trucks. Washington, DC:
International Council on Clean Transportation. Accessible at https://theicct.org/global-
overview-of-government-targets-for-phasing-out-internal-combustion-enginemedium-
and-heavy-trucks/
66. Wappelhortst, S., and Rodriguez, F. (2021).Decarbonizing bus fleets: Global
overview of targets for phasing-out combustion engine vehicles. Washington, DC:
International Council on Clean Transportation. Accessible at
https://theicct.org/decarbonizing-bus-fleets-global-overview-of-targets-for-phasing-out-
combusti on-engine-vehi cl e s/
67. "Fact Sheet: President Biden signs executive order catalyzing America's clean energy
economy through federalsustainability," THE WHITE HOUSE, accessed 13 May 2022,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-releases/2021/12/08/fact-sheet-
president-biden-signs-executive-order-catalyzing-americas-cleanenergy-economy-
through-federal-sustainability/
68. "Global memorandum of understanding on zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles," GLOBAL COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DRIVE TO ZERO, accessed 13 May
2022, http s: //gl ob al drivetozero. org/mou-nati ons/
69. "Heavy-goods vehicles: ending the sale of new non-zero emission models,"
UK.GOV, accessed 13 May 2022,https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/heavy-
goods-vehicles-ending-the-sale-of-new-non-zero-emissionmodels
70. Government of Chile (2022). National Electromobility strategy. (In Spanish).
Santiago, Chile: Ministry of Energy, Government of Chile. Accessible online at
https://energia.gob.cl/sites/default/files/documentos/estrategia_nacional_de_electromovili
dad_2021_0.pdf
71. New York State Senate (2021). An act to amend the environmental conservation law,
in relation to providing that one hundred percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars
and trucks shall be zero-emissions by two thousand thirty-five. Endorsed bill text
accessible online at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s2758
1473
-------
72. "STATEMENT: New York enacts first-in-nation plan to electrify all state school
buses," WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE, accessed 13 May 2022,
https://www.wri.org/news/statement-new-york-enacts-first-nation-plan-electrify all-state-
school-buses
73. California Air Resources Board (2022). Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation, Proposed
draft regulation language: 2040 100 ZEV sales requirement. Advanced Clean Fleets
Workshop, 2 May 2021. Accessible online at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/220502acfdraftl00zevsales_ADA.pdf
74. "Governor Newsom announces California will phase-out gasoline-powered cars and
drastically reduce demand for fossil fuel in California's fight against climate change,"
OFFICE OF GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM, accessed 13 May 2022,
https://www.gov.ca.gOv/2020/09/23/governor-newsom-announces-california-will-phase-
out-gasolinepowered-cars-drastically-reduce-demand-for-fossil-fuel-in-californias-fight-
against-climate-change/
75. "Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation Fact Sheet," CALIFORNIA AIR
RESOURCES BOARD, accessed 13 May 2022, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-
sheets/innovative-clean-transit-ict-regulation-fact-sheet
76. "Lowest-ever prices in e-buses tender: CESL," THE TIMES OF INDIA, 27 April,
2022, accessed 14 May 2022, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/lowest-ever-
prices-in-e-buses-tender-cesl/articleshow/91112542.cms
77. "World Bank. 2020. Lessons from Chile's Experience with E-mobility : The
Integration of E-Buses in Santiago. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34435 License: CC BY3.0 IGO."
Infrastructure
Vehicles and fuels are a single system, and so the electrification of medium- and heavy-duty on-
road vehicles requires investments in the enabling power delivery infrastructure to support their
operation. Our view is that infrastructure needs differ across vehicle use cases, and that first-
mover segments benefit from less demanding infrastructure requirements. Table 15 represents
our view of the pace of electrification of each segment and is informed by our understanding of
infrastructure needs and availability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 48]
In our view, certain enabling characteristics define first-mover segments:
Duty Cycle: Buses, refuse trucks, urban delivery trucks and other first-mover segments have
predictable return-to-base operations, featuring predefined routes and schedules that change
infrequently. Relatively narrow distribution of vehicle range and route variability translates to
high predictability of energy needs and battery size requirements. These characteristics allow
manufacturers to design products with diesel equivalent performance for a wide range of use
cases, and they allow fleets to accelerate electrification on the basis of battery-electric
powertrains. Local and regional-haul tractor-trailers, such as daycabs performing drayage
operations near ports, share these characteristics. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 48]
1474
-------
Long overnight dwell time: Fleets whose vehicles operate on a single daytime shift will have a
long overnight dwell time in which to re-charge the vehicle. This period allows fleets to take
advantage of lower charging costs typical over nighttime periods. Fleets without long periods in
which to re-charge would need to utilize fast or ultra-fast charging that can deliver power in a far
shorter period of time but at higher cost to the fleet and to the utility sector. The utility sector will
be a key partner, designing of electricity rates, building physical infrastructure, and balancing the
utility system's own reliability, performance, and costs.78 In the interim, battery-electric HDVs
whose recharging needs can be met without additional upgrades to the electric power system will
be able to deploy even faster. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 48 - 49]
78. Yihao Xie and Felipe Rodriguez, "Zero-Emission Integration in Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Regulations: A Global Review and Lessons for China," (ICCT: Washington, DC, August
31, 2021) https://theicct.org/publication/zero-emissionintegration-in-heavy-duty-vehicle-
regulations-a-global-review-and-lessons-for-china/.
Dedicated parking: Fleets with a reliable location to park their vehicles will have a clear
advantage. Such locations allow fleets to be certain that opportunities to re-charge or re-fuel their
vehicle will exist at the end of each day. Fleets that own or lease a yard or depot facility have
greater freedom to establish charging or refueling equipment at the pace they require. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 49]
Investments in publicly accessible charging infrastructure will enable electrification of those
segments who are not first-movers. Currently more than 7,400 publicly accessible DC fast
chargers exist in the United States and Canada, equal to around 35 percent of the total we expect
will be needed by 2030 to support overnight public charging up to 350 kW for tractor-trailers
alone. This number does not take into consideration the challenges such vehicles may have
accessing chargers - which may be designed exclusively for private vehicle access - nor does it
account for higher power needs up to 1 MW to enable the shortest dwell times. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 49]
In September 2021, ICCT estimated the number of charging points and hydrogen refueling
stations needed to enable the transition to 100 percent sales of zero-emission Class 7 and Class 8
tractor-trailers by 2040 in the United States.79 We found that by 2030, approximately 127,000
charging points and 220 hydrogen refueling stations will be necessary to support a fleet of
103,000 zero-emission tractor-trailers. The cumulative investment needed to install publicly
available infrastructure is $6.4 billion, beginning in 2021. Of 32,000 publicly accessible
chargers, 14,000 will require a charging speed of 350 kW or greater. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 49]
79. Minjares, R., Rodriguez, F., Sen, A., and Braun, C. (2022) Infrastructure to support a
100% zero-emission tractor-trailer fleet in the United States by 2040. Washington, DC:
International Council on Clean Transportation,
https://theicct.org/publication/infrastructure-to-support-a-100-zero-emission-tractor-
trailer-fleet-in-the-united-statesby-2040/
1475
-------
We found that by 2050, the network of national charging points will need to support a fleet of 2.4
million zero-emission tractor-trailers. This will require 2.5 million charging points and 6,900
hydrogen fueling stations, while the cumulative investment in publicly accessible infrastructure
will need to equal approximately $122 billion. Most of the investments required will need to
satisfy overnight charging needs. Most of these chargers will be installed in privately owned and
operated depots, meaning public access to these chargers will be limited. The cumulative private
investment in this depot charging infrastructure will amount to approximately $116 billion
through 2050. Overnight chargers at publicly accessible truck stops by 2050 would require a
cumulative investment of approximately $20 billion. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p.
49]
But due to the nature of long-distance operations of Class 7 and Class 8 tractor-trailers, overnight
chargers alone will not be sufficient to satisfy the charging needs of this fleet. Publicly accessible
fast chargers at trucks stops with power levels of up to 1 MW will be required. The cumulative
infrastructure investment to 2050 on these 350 kW and 1MW chargers represents $76 billion.
For the longest-range tractor-trailers, that is those traveling more than 650 miles per day, a
network of hydrogen refueling stations at a cumulative cost of $26 billion, or 21% of the total,
may be necessary, although we project just 12% of the fleet would utilize them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 49]
Public investment in this infrastructure will accelerate its deployment. Most of the estimated
investment cost, particularly after 2030, can come from the private sector. However, government
incentives for the purchase and installation of infrastructure, as well as public guarantees along
critical corridors, will jump start the deployment of this infrastructure before 2030. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 50]
In 2021 President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which
provides for $7.5 billion in funding towards the National Electric Vehicle Formula Program
administered by the Joint Office of
Energy and Transportation. This office has issued guidance to states to apply for funding,
including the stipulations that (1) all EV charging infrastructure be installed along a designated
Alternative Fuel Corridor (b) infrastructure along Alternative Fuel Corridors must be complete
before states can install infrastructure along other corridors (c) and each corridor is considered
fully constructed when charging infrastructure is installed every 50 miles, each station includes
at least four 150 kW DC fast chargers, and the minimum installed capacity at each station is 600
kW. A concern we have with these guidelines is they do not require that stations accommodate
medium- and heavy-duty truck charging needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 50]
For context, the European Commission proposed an Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation
(AFIR) in July 2021. The regulation would set mandatory targets for the deployment of
infrastructure for charging and hydrogen refueling for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. The
provisions concerning heavy-duty vehicles would set minimum requirements for the roll out of
infrastructure serving zero-emission HDVs across the Trans-European Network for Transport
(TEN-T), as well as related urban nodes and overnight truck parking areas. The proposed
regulation sets targets for the minimum capacity and maximum distance between charging and
hydrogen refueling points to be met by member states. The proposal has not been adopted by the
1476
-------
European Parliament or Council and the timeline of adoption is uncertain.80 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 50 - 51]
80. Ragon, P, Mulholland, E., Basma, H., and Rodriguez, F. (2022). A review of the
AFIR proposal: Public infrastructure needs to support the transition to a zero-emission
truck fleet in the European Union. Washington, DC: International Council on Clean
Transportation, https://theicct.org/publication/afir-eu-hdv-infrastructure-mar22/
Whatever the future direction of public investment in the United States, private sector investment
is emerging to complement these public investments. On January 31, 2022, Daimler Truck North
America announced it signed an MoU with NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Renewable Power to start a joint venture to develop a nationwide charging network for both
battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The first charging sites are expected in 2023
with funding of approximately 650 million dollars.81 Similarly, Volvo Group has established a
new division called Volvo Energy, which will provide energy services. Volvo Group has formed
a joint venture in Europe with Traton and Daimler with funding of 500 million Euros to install
and operate at least 1,700 charging points along highways and at other key points in the road
network.82 No similar announcement has been made for the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 51]
81. "Daimler Truck North America, NextEra Energy Resources and BlackRock
Renewable Power announce plans to accelerate public charging infrastructure for
commercial vehicles across the U.S.," DAIMLER TRUCK, accessed 12 May 2022,
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Daimler-Truck-North-
America-NextEra-Energy-Resources-and-BlackRock-Renewable-Power-Announce-
Plans-To-Accelerate-Public-Charging-Infrastructure-For-Commercial-Vehicles-Across-
The-US ,xhtml?oid=51874160
82. "Volvo Group, Daimler Truck, and the Traton Group plan to pioneer a European
high-performance charging network for heavy-duty trucks," VOLVO, accessed 12 May
2022, https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-andmedia/news/2021/jul/news-
4017125.html
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
We support the EPA's focus on school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short-haul
tractors as being the four major vehicle categories that will experience the most EV growth
during the outlined time frame starting in model year (MY) 2027. However, it is also important
to consider that fleets that utilize these vehicles may be smaller, operating in underserved
communities, have minimal time and resources, or a any new emission standards to
accommodate disadvantaged fleets that may not be able to comply as quickly as a larger fleet
with more resources. This can take the form of a longer compliance timeframe or larger
incentives for smaller fleets, which are often underrepresented in funding considerations. While
expediting the transition to zero-emission technology is an exciting and important goal, it is
crucial that we consider options for these fleets for whom the transition is currently less
accessible. Prioritizing small fleets and disadvantaged communities in current and future EPA
1477
-------
grant programs is a great way to ensure that these diverse industries are not lost or left behind as
we strive to protect the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, pp. 1-2]
We support the EPA's consideration of incorporating the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)
regulation into the final rule. To meet the proposed Option 1 goal of reducing NOx emissions by
over 50 percent by 2040, existing manufacturers will need to focus more of their operations on
zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) production. While a variety of zero-emission vehicles are already
available to the public, Lion believes that implementing this regulation on a federal level will
provide further direction to this growing industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
Organization: Lor en Marz
I also support EPA declining to establish a "ZEV" mandate at this time (Page 25). HD EVs may
reduce NOx emissions in most cases, but that comes at the expense of significantly higher PM10,
PM2.5, and SOx emissions, even in urban locations, from a complete vehicle life-cycle (LCA)
perspective in long- haul operations, and even short-haul operations in some regions of the U.S.,
per Argonne National Laboratory's latest version of its GREET model (GREET 2021). That's
more or less reflected in the peer- reviewed paper - Lui et al., "Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Zero-
Emission Plug-In Battery Electric Vehicle Technology for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks"
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 538-546 (Figure 4). Even GHG emissions are roughly the same
for long-haul diesel ICEV and BEV in that study, and even higher for BEV on a freight ton-mile
basis when taking into account the lower payload capacity of BEVs (Figure 7). That study
considers only well-to-wheels (WTW) emissions, not full LCA as GREET 2021 does.
Projections for 2045 do not change this trade-off per GREET 2021 even if this proposed rule is
not implemented (LCA PM2.5 emissions are still ~2 times higher in long-haul BEV operations
in both total and urban shares under the assumptions in GREET).
Mandates, or even incentives, for "ZEVs" are dubious proposals at this time, and may be for the
foreseeable future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1394]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (22,659)
- Cleaner trucks are not only available and ready now, they also are projected to deliver critical
cost savings for operators and drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
- Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be
cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
On the greenhouse gas portion of the rule, the proposed adjustments to existing Phase 2
greenhouse gas standards are weak and reflect neither the urgency of the climate crisis nor the
rapid advancement in zero-emission truck technology. EPA should put our nation's heavy duty
1478
-------
vehicle fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emissions sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1192-A1, p.3]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Neighbors for Clean Air and Elders
Climate Action (43)
Thank you for proposing to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution from medium and heavy-duty
trucks and buses. However, we are concerned that the proposal fails to prevent the worst impacts
of the climate crisis and is not adequate to protect our children and communities from the
diseases of air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-Al,p .1]
We, the undersigned Oregon community organizations, elected officials and community
members are joining together to request that you withdraw your proposal that allows millions
more new diesel trucks and buses in 2027-29, that reduces C02 from these vehicles by less than
1% and will lock-in over the next 20 years 1.7 billion tons of additional C02 and thousands of
tons of harmful particulate, NOx and toxic air emissions that could be avoided by requiring
manufacturers to transition to commercially available zero emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.l]
The transportation sector is the leading source of climate pollution in the US, but the proposal
fails to make any progress toward ending C02 emissions from the transport sector to avoid the
worst consequences of a warming climate. The proposed rule also fails to achieve the public
health benefits that will flow from requiring trucks and buses to emit zero particles, NOx and
toxic pollutants that cause urban smog, childhood asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases, and premature deaths. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.l]
We ask that you withdraw the proposed C02 standards that will allow millions more diesel
vehicles during model years 2027-29. These vehicles will remain on the road for at least 20
years, add to C02 in the atmosphere and prevent the U.S. from achieving the C02 reductions
identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as necessary to keep within
the 1.5 C target to avoid a climate catastrophe. Instead we ask you to propose zero emission
standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles in short-haul applications that would require
manufacturers to sell zero emission vehicles that are already commercially available with zero
emission power trains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.l]
To protect our children's health, their future on a livable planet, our large Senior citizen
population, and to address environmental injustice, EPA needs to immediately take urgent and
bolder action. Please strengthen the proposed rule for heavy duty vehicle pollution by -
1) revising the NOx portion of the rule to match California's Heavy Duty Omnibus rule for
vehicles not subject to a zero emission standard, which should be the baseline for smog and
particulate matter reduction goals.
2) withdrawing both the NOx and greenhouse gas (C02) portion of the rule for vehicles intended
for short haul applications, and proposing zero emission standards for those vehicles beginning
in 2027. A zero emission standard will eliminate all pollutants, including deadly particulates and
air toxics as well as NOx and C02. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, pp.2-3]
1479
-------
Zero emission vehicles satisfy the Clean Air Act's directive that emission standards for heavy
duty vehicles must provide "the greatest emission reduction achievable with [available]
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-A1, p.3]
School and transit buses, delivery vans, passenger vans, utility service vehicles, garbage trucks
and cargo trucks conveying goods from ports and airports to local distribution centers are all
available now with zero emission power trains. Proposed adjustments to existing Phase 2
greenhouse gas (C02) standards and proposed NOx standards are not acceptable for vehicles that
are now commercially available with zero emission power trains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1619-A1, p.3]
Standards that allow, rather than prevent, more vehicles that burn fossil fuels fail to reflect the
urgency of the climate crisis and the need to promote the rapid transformation of the transport
sector to zero emission technology. Allowing more vehicles that emit particulate and ozone
precursor pollutants also fails to reflect the urgent need for ending particulate and ozone
nonattainment within the Clean Air Act's statutory deadlines for attainment. EPA must start now
with a zero emission standard for short haul vehicles in 2027 to put our nation's heavy duty
vehicle fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emissions sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1619-A1, p.3]
We urge these changes to demonstrate EPA's dedication to protecting public health, achieving a
zero emission economy by 2050 to stabilize the climate, and to advancing environmental justice
and equity for communities at risk.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1619-Al, p.3]
Organization: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum
The trucks included under this rule will be around for decades; therefore, heavy duty trucks must
be cleaned up as soon as possible. Zero-emissions technology for heavy- and medium-duty
trucks is already available. Additionally, a new study from the Department of Energy shows that
within the timeframe of this rule, "nearly half of medium- and heavy-duty trucks will be cheaper
to buy, operate, and maintain as zero emissions vehicles than traditional diesel-powered
combustion engine vehicles." 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131-A1, p. 1]
1. NREL Study: Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road ...,
https://reglobal.co/decarbonizing-medium-and-heavy-duty-on-road-vehicles-in-us/.
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Per EPA's request for information on heavy-duty electric vehicle sales projections,
including for what HD vehicle types, to help inform their HD electric vehicle sales
projections in the MY 2024 through MY 2029 timeframe, MEMA urges the EPA to
avoid regulations that allow backsliding on ICE technologies to make sure that ICE
vehicles are as clean as current technology will allow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-
Al, p. 9]
1480
-------
Organization: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnesota supports the goals of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) portion of the program and
encourages the EPA to adopt these standards as quickly as possible. Minnesota has supported
heavy-duty electrification through Volkswagen settlement funds and other programs and believes
accelerating heavy-duty electrification can help the state meet its climate and air pollution
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1044-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Zero Emission Solutions Are Widely Available Today, Making These Health Consequences
Even More Unconscionable. The electric vehicle landscape has changed dramatically since EPA
adopted its Phase 2 GHG rule in 2016, and in astounding ways since EPA last updated its Heavy -
Duty NOx standards some twenty years ago. Today, there are already a staggering number of
zero-emission heavy-duty models available. In fact, there are over 100 models of battery-electric
heavy-duty vehicles available for purchase - nearly twice the amount EPA cited in its Draft
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for this rulemaking.41,42 Moreover, the EPA's current
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and DRIA fail to cite critical technology developments
beyond 2019, even though the battery-electric truck market has seen significant growth since
then. A recent market assessment of the medium- and heavy-duty market by analysts at MJ
Bradley & Associates examines the in-use truck fleet to assess readiness for adoption of zero-
emission trucks.43 The analysis factors in charging patterns, operating requirements, market
status, and the business case. It relies on conservative assumptions (from a 2019 ICF study), but
nevertheless, finds that 66% of the truck fleet has "strong potential for near-term [pre-2025]
uptake."44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 12]
41. US Department of Energy - https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/search/
42. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis p. 57
43. MJ Bradley, Market Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Market Structure and EV
Readiness (July 2021) https://www.mjbradley.com/reports/medium-heavy-duty-vehicles-
market-structure-environmental-impact-and-ev-readiness.
44. Id.
According to the US Census Bureau's Vehicle In-Use Survey, 70 percent of HD vehicles travel
less than 50 miles daily, meaning that range is not the concern it once was.45 EPA correctly
notes in the DRIA that urban delivery vehicles are fully primed for electrification, but fails to
recognize that the potential to employ zero emissions regional haul tractors and vocational trucks
also exists today as a result of advances in battery technology and new availability of suitable
models.46 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 13]
45. US Census: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/economic-
census/2002/vehicle-inventory-and-use-survey/ec02tvus. pdf
1481
-------
46. Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis p. 54-55
Many heavy-duty trucks operate within 100-mile ranges (left), and many vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) are attributable to trucks with operating ranges less than 100 miles (right). These trucks
are particularly well suited to early electrification efforts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
p. 13]
Fleet operators and truck manufacturers themselves are already transitioning to zero-emissions
trucks. Indeed, industry is well ahead of most states, and especially the federal government, in
terms of zero emission heavy-duty truck adoption. This transition is significant, and speaks to the
technical feasibility and availability of zero-emission trucks today—yet this reality is not
reflected in EPA's current proposal. Well established truck manufacturers like Daimler Trucks48
and Volvo49 are preparing for a clean transportation future by shifting to a fully zero-emissions
product line by 2040 and models from newcomers like Nikola, Rivian, and Tesla are beginning
to hit the roads. Amazon made headlines with its order for some 100,000 Rivian electric delivery
vans and several of the nation's largest fleet owners including PepsiCo, Walmart, and JB Hunt
have piloted and placed orders for electric tractor and delivery trucks. 50,51,52 Sysco, one of the
largest food distribution companies in the world, has pledged to electrify 35 percent of its tractor
fleet by 2030.53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 13 - 14]
48. Daimler Press Release: https://www.daimlertruck.com/innovation/efficient-emission-
free/co2-neutral-transport.html
49. Volvo Press Release: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-
stories/insights/articles/2021/apr/electric-trucks-may-gomainstream- sooner-than-you-
think-here-i s-why. html
50. https://www.transportdive.com/news/pepsi-pepsico-electric-trucks-ev/619236/
51. https://corporate.walmart.eom/newsroom/2020/09/21/walmarts-regenerative-
approach-going-beyond-sustainability
52. https://www.jbhunt.com/content/dam/jbhunt/jbh/corporate-
responsibility/documents/210714_ESG_EnvironmentalSummary.pdf
53. https://www.sysco.com/dam/Sysco/About/Corporate-Social-Responsibility/Sysco-
2021-Corporate-Social-Responsibility- Report.pdf
To be sure, these companies are not transitioning to electric vehicles out of a sense of altruistic
social and environmental responsibility - electric heavy-duty vehicles offer significant economic
upsides for fleets. While the initial purchase cost for most zero-emissions models is currently
higher than their combustion counterparts, their total lifetime costs can be lower in many use
cases today. "The industry is moving quickly to deploy new technologies and the lifetime cost
parity of HDEVs are rapidly approaching that of their combustion counterparts."54 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 14]
1482
-------
54. NRDC blog: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/patricio-portillo/epa-its-time-act-we-need-
clean-trucks-now
As battery prices continue to decline, so will the upfront cost of electric trucks, furthering the
cost parity for zero-emissions models. A February 2022 study from Roush Industries shows that
electric class 5 delivery trucks will have the most favorable total cost of ownership (TCO) in the
next two years, well before the first compliance period under the proposed regulation. Similarly,
a total cost of ownership study by CARB, found that by 2030, ZEVs would be cheaper than
diesel across every vehicle type examined, including Class 8 Sleeper Cabs, even while
accounting for the costs associated with infrastructure and excluding rebates and incentives. The
Department of Energy's own cost analysis (released the same day as EPA's draft rule) concluded
that ZEVs can reach TCO parity with conventional diesel vehicles "by 2035 for all medium and
heavy-duty (MD/HD) vehicle classes (without incentives)."55 DOE concluded that if economics
alone drove adoption, ZEVs could reach 42% of all MD/HD trucks by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 14]
55. Catherine Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles
Cost Analysis (Mar. 2022) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf at 2.
Electric trucks have significantly reduced operating and maintenance costs compared to diesel
trucks - over 50 percent in some cases.56 Furthermore, the cost of electricity is far more stable
than that of oil, which gives fleet operators more certainty in planning their business. Instead of
worrying about the volatility of fossil fuels from geopolitics, our nation's trucks can do what
they do best - deliver goods and services. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 14]
56. Roush Industries Inc., Table 67: https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2022/02/EDF-
MDHD-Electrification-vl.6_20220209.pdf
Advancements in zero-emission truck technology are being propelled by state-level ambition to
tackle freight-related pollution. Six states that make up at least 17 percent of the U.S. medium -
and heavy-duty vehicle market share have already adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks
(ACT) rule - a manufacturer requirement to increase ZEV sales to between 30-50 percent by
2030 and 40-75 percent by 2035, depending on vehicle class. In addition, 17 states and the
District of Columbia (D.C.) - which make up 30 percent of the U.S. medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle market share - signed a memorandum of understanding to achieve 100 percent zero-
emission truck and bus sales by 2050, with an interim target of 30 percent ZEV sales by 2030.57
According to a recent analysis by ERM, if all the MOU states adopted the ACT rule, 27 percent
of the Class 4-8 U.S. fleet would transition to ZEV by midcentury.58 While state ACT rule
adoption is important, complementary federal action is critical to help address the remaining
threequarters of the fleet that must transition to ZEVs. These state actions demonstrate the
feasibility of requiring zero-emission trucks but cannot move the nation forward on
electrification alone - an analysis completed by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
estimates that ZEVs will account for roughly 1 in 8 of national heavy-duty sales in 2030 if all
California ZEV Standard states adopt the ACT. Other projections, like that from IEA's Global
EV Data Explorer, confirm this insufficient sales share, with HD ZE trucks at around 7 percent
in 2030 without federal intervention.59 The same analysis completed by UCS shows that, if EPA
1483
-------
adopted modest sales requirements like the ACT, it would more than double the anticipated
market share for electric heavy-duty trucks (Figure 2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp.
14 - 15]
57. NESCAUM Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicles: Action Plan
Development Process: https://www.nescaum.org/documents/medium-and-heavy-duty-
zero-emission-vehicles-action-plan-development-process/
58. Robo, E., D. Seamonds, and M. Freeman. 2022. Federal Clean Trucks Program: An
analysis of the impacts of low-NOx and zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks
on the environment, public health, industry, and the economy. Report developed by ERM
for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
("ERM report")
59. IEA Global EV Data Explorer: https://www.iea.org/articles/global-ev-data-explore
Estimate of the share of new truck sales driven under different state and federal ZEV policy
requirements under a conservative assessment of status quo market adoption.60 While state
commitments are helping to drive the HDZEV market, even a nationwide adoption of the ACT
would fall short of the level of sales needed to meet climate, health, and equity goals. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 15]
60. IEA World Outlook 2021: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021
Throughout EPA's technological and market assessments in the NPRM and DRIA, the Agency
notes the varying outlooks for HDZEV adoption in the coming years. What it does not do,
however, is recognize that federal regulations, including mandates and incentives, are key to
accelerating the national HDZEV market.61,62 This is despite some of the key literature relied
upon in the DRIA pointing towards the inclusion of government actions in rapid technology and
adoption scenarios.63 EPA cannot afford to waste this consequential opportunity to accelerate
the market for HDZEVs within this rulemaking. It is beyond time for EPA to be part of the
solution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 15 - 16]
61.Ibid.
62. Resources for the Future, An Analysis of US Subsidies for Electric Buses and Freight
Trucks - https://www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/an-analysis-of-us-subsidies-for-
electric-buses-and-freight-trucks/
63. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Electrification Futures Study, p. 3:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl8osti/70485.pdf
EPA requested how to best consider the potential for ZEV technologies to significantly reduce
air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.64 Put simply, vehicle electrification is the best
method for controlling nitrogen oxide pollution from heavy-duty vehicles over the long term.
Compliance for this rulemaking begins in MY 2027, roughly four years from its anticipated
1484
-------
promulgation. HDZEVs have seen rapid technological growth and significant cost reductions
over the past four years, and these are likely to accelerate even further in the near term. By
excluding HDZEVs as the centerpiece of this regulation, EPA is all but guaranteeing that the
regulation will be outdated before the first compliance period even begins. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 16]
64. 87 FR 17420
As noted above, there is ample evidence to expect that by model year 2027, 20 percent of new
truck sales could be ZE trucks, and that number could increase year-over-year by roughly 10
percent to reach 100 percent by 2035. EPA's truck-wide standard therefore should be reduced to
account for this feasible growth in ZE truck sales. Using 0.02 g/hp-hr as the conservative starting
point for the emissions achievable by combustion engines (as noted, MFN believes even lower
emissions are feasible), the combined standard for MY2027 should be no higher than 0.016 g/hp-
hr to reflect that 20 percent of sales could feasibly be met with ZE trucks. To address stability
requirements, EPA should set three-year standards that reflect the three-year average of projected
ZE sales. Thus, for model years 2027 through 2029, EPA should assume an average of 30
percent ZE sales and set the three-year average standard at 0.014 g/hp-hr. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 20]
To project forward growth in the Class 4-8 ZEV market, we have conservatively assumed a rate
of adoption consistent with the International Energy Agency's baseline policy case for 2030 in
the United States, 189 the majority of sales which are the result of California adopting the
Advanced Clean Truck rule. We have then further adjusted the sales of EVs upward to reflect the
additional adoption of the Advanced Clean Truck rule by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, and Washington, which the IEA baseline did not account for, using the regulatory
requirements and registration data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 52]
189. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021
This baseline scenario is meant to represent a conservative but reasonable assessment of
adoption of zero emission trucks in order to better assess the impacts of the crediting provisions
on conventional internal combustion engine trucks (Figure 9). As noted elsewhere in our
comments, the actual future adoption of zero-emission trucks is likely to be much higher, owing
to incentives, the cost-effectiveness of the technology, and additional state action like the
MOU. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 52]
For all these reasons, this analysis is likely an underestimate of the impact of the ZEV crediting
program. Furthermore, we have not considered in the below analysis any attempt by the agency
to actually drive sales of zero-emission vehicles, because the agency did not do so in its
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 52]
A conservative estimate of status quo deployment finds that electric trucks would achieve an 11
percent marketshare by 2030, with just over 6 percent of that market coming from conventional
vehicles powered by engines (HDO, LHDD, MHDD, or HHDD) transitioning to zero-emission
1485
-------
powertrains in states that have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule (ACT), representing 15
percent of total vehicle sales. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 52]
"EPA requests comment on whether and how to consider including specific sales requirements
for ZE trucks." (87 FR 17420) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 17]
MFN urges EPA to finalize standards that include a separate standard for ZE trucks and require
an increasing annual minimum number of ZE truck sales. 66 Studies have consistently found that
clear regulatory market signals are necessary to spur investment in the manufacturing, supply
chains, and supporting infrastructure necessary to support the transition to ZE vehicles. A study
of California's transportation policies points to the ZEV sales requirement as sending a strong
"signal, effectively channeling innovation activities towards ZEV development and increasing
the availability of ZEVs for sale, where supply constraints have proven to be a major barrier to
widespread uptake."67 Multiple forward-looking models confirm that stringent ZEV mandates
can play a large role in reducing emissions in the U.S.68 Noting the clear evidence of ZEV
mandates' effectiveness in the passenger vehicle space in California, researchers advised: "ZEV
mandates should also be more actively considered for freight, drawing inspiration from
California's recent [Advanced Clean Trucks] policy."69 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1,
pp. 17- 18]
66. The preamble explains that EPA is not proposing this sort of sales mandate but EPA's
invitation for comment on sales requirements, and the overwhelming public testimony on
such sales requirements suggest such requirements are well understood to be within the
ambit of options for the final rule. See, e.g., Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Mine Safety & Health
Admin, 512 F.3d 696, 699 (D.C. Cir. 2008); City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706, 715
(D C. Cir. 2007); Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
67. John Axsen et al., Crafting strong, integrated policy mixes for deep C02 mitigation in
road transport Nature Climate Change (Aug 24, 2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
020-0877-y.
68. See, e. g. J.B. Greenblatt, Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas
emissions (Feb. 2015) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9n62b5xv; and David Greene et
al., Public policy and the transition to electric drive vehicles in the U.S.: the role of the
zero emission vehicles mandate (Dec. 2014) https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.ESR.2014.10.005.
69. John Axsen et al., Crafting strong, integrated policy mixes for deep C02 mitigation in
road transport Nature Climate Change (Aug 24, 2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-
020-0877-y.
Clear regulatory requirements prime the investment pump and can bring ZE truck production to
scale, which in turn will advance technologies and drive down prices in a virtuous feedback
loop.70 California's experience just in developing the sales requirements of the Advanced Clean
Truck rule was to see a rapid increase in the commercialization of ZE trucks, reinforced with
strong fleet commitments to purchase the required ZE trucks and improved planning for the
buildout of supporting charging infrastructure. Within the course of the CARB's rulemaking for
1486
-------
the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, new manufacturer announcements enabled CARB staff to
revise upward their ZEV targets for manufacturers.71 In their updated analysis on increasing
sales requirements, Staff noted that "the large number of ZEVs launched before the regulation
begins [and] the more established ZEV marketplace... support higher ZEV sales requirements in
the earlier years and is consistent with Board direction and many public comments seeking to
increase the number of ZEVs deployed."72 Having a separate requirement for the deployment of
ZE trucks also ensures that the transition to ZE trucks does not undermine the stringency of
combustion standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 18]
70. "[A ZEV mandate] sends the strongest transformational signal of all the policies
examined, receiving a score of 5/5. As a regulatory policy, it is likely to be reasonably
durable and it also provides clear directionality with respect to investment in PEVs" Noel
Melton et al., Which plug-in electric vehicle policies are best? A multi-criteria evaluation
framework applied to Canada (Dec. 2019) https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101411.
71. CARB, Updated Analysis Regarding Increased Manufacturer Zero-Emission Vehicles
Sales Requirements - Attachment B (2019)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/30dayattb.pdf
72. CARB, Updated Analysis Regarding Increased Manufacturer Zero-Emission Vehicles
Sales Requirements - Attachment B (2019)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gOv/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/30dayattb.pdf
Manufacturers have acknowledged that the transition to ZE trucks is underway (press release
pages for major truck manufacturers are dominated by news and stories about their electric
trucks73). Industry experts testing ZEV trucks in real-world demonstrations concluded that "four
market segments - vans and step vans, medium-duty box trucks, terminal tractors, and heavy-
duty regional haul tractors - are ready to go electric," and specifically, that "half of heavy-duty
regional haul tractors are electrifiable now." 74 As documented extensively in the previous
section, there is widespread agreement, confirmed across multiple independent analyses, that
these trucks already represent lower total costs of ownership in a large share of use
cases.75 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 18]
73. See, e.g., Volvo, "News and Stories" https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/news-
stories.html; Daimler, "Global Media Site"
https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/ko/Start.xhtml?oid=4836258;
Traton, Press Releases" https://traton.com/en/newsroom/press_releases.html;
74. NACFE, Electric Trucks Have Arrived, Documenting a Real-World Electric
Trucking Demonstration (Jan 2022) https://nacfe.org/heavy-duty-regional-haul-tractors/.
75. CARB, Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document
(Sept. 2021) https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/210909costdoc_ADA.pdf.
But the transition to ZE trucks is not happening at the pace necessary to address the public health
crises created by truck pollution. As the Department of Energy's study highlights, "it is possible
1487
-------
that demand for ZEVs could rise rapidly in MD/HD trucks once cost parity is reached" but
"manufacturing capacity.. .will need to increase commensurately to support vehicle adoption."76
Conventional manufacturers are incentivized to extend production of combustion trucks on
existing manufacturing lines as long as possible to maximize the return on those old
investments.77 Their current business model also relies on selling diesel trucks at a low cost with
lucrative service and maintenance agreements.78 Setting a strong, feasible sales target in the
final rule is critical to accelerate the transition to ZE trucks. The aforementioned ERM report
found that a national ZEV sales requirement-with a schedule commensurate with the ACT rule-
would result in 45 percent of the Class 4-8 fleet turning over to ZEV by 2040 and 73 percent by
2050.79 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 18 - 19]
76. Id. at 3.
77. See, e.g., Peter Wiedenhoff et al., "What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicles Means
for Commercial Transportation" (Mar. 22, 2022) https://www.bcg.com/en-
us/publications/2022/what-the-shift-to-zero-emission-vehicles-means-for-commercial-
transportation ("Most incumbents face the dual challenge of ensuring that their existing
businesses remain profitable even as they tackle the investment-heavy challenges of
developing electric powertrains")
78. See, e.g. McKinsey&Company, Route 2030 - A Regional View of Truck Industry
Profit Pools (Dec. 2018) at 7 ("[o]ur research reveals that advanced markets already
exhibit greater profitability in aftersales than in new truck sales")
https://www.mckinsey.eom/~/media/mckinsey/industries/automotive%20and%20assembl
y/our%20insights/a%20regional%20view
%20of%20truck%20industry%20profit%20pools/a-regional-view-of-truck-industry-
profit-pools-web-final.pdf.
79. Robo et al. 2022.
In terms of how to include a sales requirement, MFN recommends setting a separate ZE truck
standard and phasing that standard in over time.80 This proposal is separate and additive to
EPA's heavy-duty combustion engine requirements to ensure maximum emission reductions are
achieved from new combustion engines. This structure is the preferred pathway to getting to
zero-emissions, as it guarantees emission reductions from both the combustion engines and
deployment of ZEVs. It also provides certainty to the market by identifying a clear schedule for
the percentage of ZEVs that must be sold nationally. This market signal can help unlock
additional resources from the public and private sector, such as charging infrastructure
investments. By separating ZEV requirements from combustion engine requirements, this
structure also avoids promoting "false solution fuels" such as natural gas vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 19]
80. For another example of a similar regulatory design, see Ray Minjares and John
Hannon, ICCT, "Briefing: Adapting US heavyduty vehicle emission standards to support
a zero-emission commercial truck and bus fleet" at 6-7 (Feb. 2020) (describing Dual
Averaging Sets option) (available at: https://theicct.org/wp-
1488
-------
content/uploads/2022/02/HDV-US-adapting-vehicle-emission-stds-zeroemission-
commercial-truck-bus-fleet-feb22.pdf). The key to whatever design option EPA chooses
is to ensure that the standard provides a clear signal to manufacturers that they must
begin ramping up production of ZE trucks, and that by 2035 the expectation is that all
trucks can and will be zero-emissions.
The proposal currently sets standards for all trucks, including ZE trucks, see NPRM at 17458
(noting proposed 40 CFR 1036.104), but does not set the ZE standards based on what is
achievable by ZE technology. The proposed standards are indefensible under the CAA because
they fail to set standards that reflect the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable by ZE
trucks and allow ZE trucks to undermine the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable
by combustion engine vehicles. The appropriate criteria pollutant standard for ZE trucks is 0
g/hp-hr. EPA should set a ZEV standard and phase that standard in, over time, similar to EPA's
approach for phasing in the Tier 2 standards for small volume manufacturers of light duty
vehicles and trucks. See 40 C.F.R. § 86.181 l-04(k). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 19]
MFN believes 20 percent of new sales in model year 2027 being ZEV is a feasible target, and
that those targets can reasonably increase 10 percent each year, such that 50 percent of sales
would need to meet the ZEV standard in model year 2030, and 100 percent by model year 2035.
To comply with the stability requirements of Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(C), EPA could
finalize a phase-in schedule using the three-year average sales target, and increase that target
every three years in line with a 100% target beginning model year 2035. Thus, the first round of
the ZEV standard would apply to 30% of sales for MY 2027- 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, pp. 19-20]
This initial round is consistent with the targets adopted by California, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon in the Advanced Clean Truck Rule, which requires
between 15 and 30% of truck sales to be ZEVs between MY 2027-2029.81 It is in line with
deployment rates projected in Europe82 and truckmakers' own voluntary commitments there to
sell 100%) zero-emission vehicles by 2040.83 Moreover, the fleet operators that are members of
the Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance have already made commitments to purchase 330,000
commercial ZEVs, which would represent roughly 9 percent of truck sales over the first three-
year compliance period of MY27-MY29.84 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 20]
81. Claire Buysse et al., California's Advanced Clean Trucks regulation: Sales
requirements for zero-emission heavy-duty trucks (July 2020) at 9
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CA-HDV-EV-policy-update-
jul212020.pdf.
82. "If Europe can deliver on its green Deal, with emission-cut targets rising to around
50% in 2030, the demand for green trucks will rise to as much as 50%> of all the new ones
sold." Peter Wiedenhoff et al., "What the Shift to Zero-Emission Vehicles Means for
Commercial Transportation" (Mar. 22, 2022) https://www.bcg.com/en-
us/publications/2022/what-the-shift-to-zero-emissionvehicles- means-for-commercial-
transportation.
1489
-------
83. ACEA - PIK, Joint Statement - The Transition to Zero-Emission Road Freight
Transport (Dec. 2020) https://www.acea.auto/files/acea-pik-joint-statement-the-
transition-to-zero-emission-road-freight-trans.pdf.
84. CERES, "Major companies with large fleets release new electric vehicle 'blueprint'
for car and truck manufacturers" (Jan 20, 2022) https://www.ceres.org/news-center/press-
releases/major-companies-large-fleets-release-new-electric-vehicle-blueprint-car.
In the proposed rule, EPA requests comment on how the agency can best consider the potential
for ZEV technology to significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector,
including but not limited to whether and how to consider including specific sales requirements
for [heavy-duty] ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 58]
While incentivizing zero-emission vehicle sales would be best incorporated into the NOx portion
the EPA's final rule, it is possible to incentivize this transition through targeted revisions to the
GHG Phase 2 program, as well, especially since these targeted updates are being crafted to
reflect the "outlook for heavy-duty electric vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp.
58 - 59]
Similar to our proposal above, in which a fleet averaging requirement that goes to zero g/bhp-hr
emissions for spark ignition, light-, medium- and heavy heavy-duty engines through intermediate
useful life and full useful life no later than 2035 proposed in the NOx section of our comments,
EPA could make use of a fleet averaging requirement that increases in stringency and eventually
goes to zero g of C02/ton-mile. This structure would allow ZEVs to play a larger role in
"enabling stringent emission standards" and "balance further incentivizing zero and near-zero
emissions vehicle development [while] ensuring that the standards achieve an appropriate fleet-
wide level of C02 emissions reductions," both of which are stated considerations of EPA's, per
the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 59]
Additionally, the EPA should further explore the relationship between the proposed rule and its
Phase 2 stringency updates and the rapid electrification of the vehicle sectors the proposed
updates intend to target. Ideally, EPA should set GHG stringency targets based on what the ICE
engines are capable of meeting on their own, without averaging in zero-emission vehicles for
compliance. Without taking this into account, the agency will be setting up many of the ICE
vehicles in these sectors to backslide and avoid real-world emission improvements by allowing
manufacturers to use ZEVs that were already expected to come to market for compliance -
especially since EPA's proposal currently undercounts the ZEV market in MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 59]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
In addition to the NOx portion of this NPRM, EPA includes proposed "targeted updates" to the
existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 program. The agency proposes to
adjust the HD Phase 2 vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards by sales-weighting the
projected heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) production levels of school buses, transit buses,
commercial delivery trucks and short-haul tractors - four vehicle types EPA expects will have
1490
-------
the highest EV sales of all HD vehicle types between now and 2030 - and by lowering the
applicable emission standards in MY 2027 accordingly. EPA says that these updates are
appropriate given the growing HD EV market and, considering other factors, including lead time
and cost, would not fundamentally change the HD GHG Phase 2 program as a whole. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 16]
In addition to the NOx portion of this NPRM, EPA includes proposed "targeted updates" to the
existing Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 program. The agency proposes to
adjust the HD Phase 2 vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards by sales-weighting the
projected heavy-duty electric vehicle (EV) production levels of school buses, transit buses,
commercial delivery trucks and short-haul tractors - four vehicle types EPA expects will have
the highest EV sales of all HD vehicle types between now and 2030 - and by lowering the
applicable emission standards in MY 2027 accordingly. EPA says that these updates are
appropriate given the growing HD EV market and, considering other factors, including lead time
and cost, would not fundamentally change the HD GHG Phase 2 program as a whole. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 16]
For the past seven years, NACAA has urged EPA to develop and adopt a strong, technology-
forcing rule to reduce NOx emissions from HD trucks. We welcomed President Biden's August
5, 2021, EO calling upon EPA to propose in January 2022 and finalize in December 2022 NOx
standards for HD trucks for MYs 2027 through at least MY 2030 and begin work on a rule under
the CAA, to be finalized by July 2024, to establish new GHG emission standards for HD engines
to take effect as soon as MY 2030. In that same EO, the President called on EPA to consider the
role zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles might have in reducing emissions from certain market
segments and consider updating the existing GHG emissions standards for heavy-duty engines
and vehicles beginning with model year 2027 and extending through and including at least model
year 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, pp. 16 - 17]
NACAA's expressed preference was for EPA to reserve action on reducing GHG emissions from
HD trucks for the July 2024 final rule so that EPA could focus on the immediate need for
overdue HD NOx reductions and a final rule by not later than December 2022. While we support
reducing HD truck GHG emissions, we do not want anything to impede the timely adoption of a
final HD truck NOx rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 17]
Although NACAA's highest priority with this rule continues to be NOx reductions, we recognize
that EPA's proposed updates can provide benefits in the form of increased fuel efficiency and
reduced fuel consumption and pave the way for a more ambitious rule to be implemented as soon
as MY 2030. Provided adopting EPA's proposed "targeted updates" to the Phase 2 truck
provisions in no way slows the finalization of the NOx portion of the rule, impedes adoption of
the NOx portion of the rule this year or undermines the rigor of the NOx program that NACAA
recommends, NACAA supports the proposed targeted GHG updates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1232-A1, p. 17]
1491
-------
Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
NACWA also supports EPA's approach to allow both ZEVs and NZEVs. POTWs must use
certain types of heavy-duty vehicles to repair and maintain their critical infrastructure. These
vehicles must be able to cover long distances and operate for many hours, and often must be
outfitted with specialized equipment or be capable of towing additional equipment. Heavy duty
vehicles are also used to transport the biosolids produced by the wastewater treatment process for
beneficial reuse as fertilizer or soil amendments, or for disposal in landfills. Since there are
currently no ZEV options that can provide the necessary level of service for utilities, some
NACWA members have already started purchasing NZEVs that are immediately available and
emit 90 percent less NOx that current standards for heavy duty vehicles. EPA's approach to
balance ZEV and NZEV development, while ensuring that vehicle options are available that can
meet the needs of communities and the functions of POTWs, is both practical and
environmentally protective. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1343-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
EPA's GHG emissions standards incentivize and support investment in the development and
deployment of electric vehicles, other advanced low-emission and zero-emission vehicles and the
infrastructure to support them. Federal vehicle standards have helped drive investment in electric
vehicle manufacturing and technology because performance standards incentivize manufacturing
vehicles with lower GHG and criteria pollutant emissions. Federal standards also play a key role
in catalyzing major infrastructure and economic development plans. EPA's longer term GHG
emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles will play an important role by providing
benchmarks to give manufacturers, state air agencies, public utility commissions and consumers
a sense of long-term clarity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 2]
NCAT's members collectively have invested, or are in the process of investing, billions of
dollars in manufacturing electric vehicles and deploying charging-related infrastructure. NCAT
members are making those significant investments and implementing long-term business
strategies, in large part, to support the implementation of vehicle GHG emissions regulations.
The regulations and resulting investments will stimulate technology innovation and market
competition, enable consumer choice, attract private capital investments, and create high quality
jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 3]
Electric vehicles and other advanced technology vehicles and supporting infrastructure play a
critical role in supporting U.S. global competitiveness, economic growth, energy security, and
cost-effective protection of public health and environmental quality. To remain a leader in the
global automotive market, the U.S. must continue to support policies that encourage adoption of
electric and other advanced technology vehicles and related infrastructure to serve the needs of
American consumers. Charging infrastructure providers continue to expand charging networks
across the country and utilities are investing in the grid and transportation electrification
infrastructure programs to support and complement those efforts. NCAT supports EPA adopting
strong standards that continue to advance electric vehicle deployment and infrastructure
investment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 3]
1492
-------
The number of public and private electric vehicle chargers has increased dramatically. There are
now more than 44,000 public charging stations across the U.S. with over 108,000 ports.4
Notably, this includes nearly 20,000 DC fast chargers nationwide.5 On average, the number of
public chargers increased 30% from 2015 to 2019 in the top 50 most populous metropolitan
areas.6 This trend of charging infrastructure build out is only accelerating. For example, Shell
announced plans to build 500,000 charge points globally by 2025.7 Tesla's global network has
grown to include over 3,000 Supercharger Stations with more than 27,000 individual connectors,
as of August 1, 2021.8 In 2020, Tesla opened 743 new Supercharger locations around the world,
which is an average of two new locations every day. Tesla's charging network also includes over
14,000 Destination Charging locations and over 28,000 Destination Charging connectors.9
Electrify America plans to invest $2 billion in charging infrastructure through 2026.10 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, pp. 3- 4]
4. U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, 'Alternative Fueling Station Counts by State,'
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/states (last updated Sept. 18, 2021).
5. Id.
6. Anh Bui, Peter Slowik, & Nic Lutsey, International Council on Clean Transportation,
Update on Electric Vehicle Adoption Across U.S. Cities (August 2020) at 4-5, available
at https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-cities-update-aug2020.pdf.
7. Shell, 'Shell Accelerates Drive for Net-Zero Emissions with Customer-First Strategy,'
https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2021/shell-accelerates-drive-for-
net-zeroemissions-with-customer-first-strategy.html (Feb. 11, 2021).
8. See Tesla, Supercharger, https://www.tesla.com/supercharger (last visited Sept. 24,
2021).
9. See Tesla, Destination Charging, https://www.tesla.com/destination-charging (last
visited Sept. 24, 2021).
10. Electrify America, Our Investment Plan, https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan/
(last visited Sept. 24, 2021).
Utilities are investing significantly in the build out of infrastructure related to electric vehicle
charging. 'Throughout 2020, approved utility investment in transportation electrification
increased three times over the amount approved in 2019' and almost $3 billion in utility electric
vehicles programs have been approved through February 2021.11 Utilities have long-term
planning horizons for considering investments in improvements to the electricity grid to support
transportation electrification. In addition to preparing the grid to support increased electric
vehicle adoption, utilities across the country have been planning and implementing significant
transportation electrification infrastructure programs. As an example, in August of 2020, the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved NCAT member Southern California
Edison's Charge Ready 2 program, a $437 million program that will fund the installation of
approximately 38,000 charging ports. 12 This program builds upon Southern California Edison's
1493
-------
initial $22 million Charge Ready pilot in 2016, supporting the installation of 1,300 light-duty
electric vehicle charge ports. NCAT member Exelon is part of the Electric Highway Coalition, a
partnership among 14 U.S. utilities to create a seamless network of rapid electric vehicle
charging stations connecting major highway systems, across the country from the Atlantic Coast
through the Midwest, South and into the Gulf and Central Plains regions. Through approved
programs at its utilities, Exelon will enable the installation of more than 7,000 residential,
commercial and/or utility-owned charging ports across Maryland, D.C., Delaware and New
Jersey. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 4]
11. Atlas Public Policy, supra note 42, at 13.
12. CPUC, Decision Authorizing Southern California Edison's Charge Ready 2 Programs
https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M345/K702/345702701.PDF
(2020).
13. Exelon, Exelon Joins Electric Highway Coalition; Encourages EV Adoption,
https://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/exelon-joins-electric-highway-coalition-
encourages-ev-adoption (July 26, 2021).
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
EPA's proposed revisions to the Phase II GHG Standards to tighten existing standards in 2027
by 1.5% for school and transit buses, delivery vans, and short-haul tractors would result in only a
.4% reduction in C02 emissions for class 4-8 vehicles between 2027-2050.37 This level of
reduction is drastically inadequate and falls far short of what is needed to limit global
temperatures below the 2° C, which in itself is .5° C above the IPCC's stated goal of limiting
warming to 1.5° C. NPCA thus requests that EPA make additional improvements to the Phase II
GHG standards for HD vehicles to drastically reduce GHG emissions and expand ZEV
penetration in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.7]
37 Sara Kelly, et. al, ICCT comments on EPA's proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle
standards, at slide 14, available at public-webinar_10May2022.pdf (theicct.org).
Analysis conducted by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that new
heavy-duty ZEV sales of 46% or higher by 2030 are necessary to avoid a greater than 2° C
increase in warming.38 To achieve this vital target of 46% or higher HD vehicle sales by 2030,
we suggest EPA take a phased in approach to require sale mandates of 20% HD ZEV sales 2027,
30% in 2028, 40% in 2029, and 46% or greater in 2030, with an ultimate goal of achieving 100%)
HD ZEV sales in 2035. We believe this strategy is not only necessary to meet our climate goals
but is also technologically achievable given recent advances in both short and long-haul HD
vehicle technologies. Waiting until Phase III GHG standards will be too late. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1314-A1, p.7]
38 C. Buysse et al., Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for Zero-Emission Heavy-
Duty Vehicles in the United States, International Council on Clean Transportation (Apr.
8, 2022), https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
1494
-------
The approach taken by EPA in the in this rulemaking is far too conservative, and severely
underestimates potential HD ZEV sales that will take place starting in 2027. For instance, EPA's
analysis looks only at outdated projections conducted by CARB regarding HD ZEV adoption in
California and fails to take into consideration additional factors such as dropping costs,
improving technology, and growing public interest in HD ZEVs. Moreover, EPA's California
focused analysis of HD ZEV potential fails to account for the growing list states that have
adopted ACT, Omnibus, or HD Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), nor does it consider
additional commitments at the federal, state, local, and private level. This underestimation of
ZEV potential not only diminishes justifications for the feasibility of stringent ZEV
advancements in the coming years, but when mixed with EPA's proposed ZEV credit scheme
will incentivize industry to trade ZEVs that likely would already be purchased for additional
NOx pollution harming localized communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.7]
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
With the projected adoption of ZEVs in the waste industry, we ask that EPA work with U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) to resolve the issue of heavier battery vehicles needing
to reduce the amount of mass they can haul to comply with truck weight restrictions. EPA and
USDOT should work together to minimize pollution without sacrificing cargo carrying capacity
of vehicles. This potential reduction of cargo capacity should also be included in EPA's
economic analysis of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1242-A1, p. 2]
NWRA also asks that EPA work with the Department of Energy to understand the electrical load
that would be needed to electrify the heavy-duty truck fleet. NWRA members are concerned that
the electrical infrastructure is not expanding fast enough to support an electrified fleet. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1242-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
In its notice, EPA addresses the historic opportunity related to electric vehicles. However, we
believe some caution should be exercised when it comes to evaluating the potential for electric
vehicles to deliver significant emission reductions or to rapidly overtake the transportation
sector. The successes to date have not been entirely a result of technology break-through and
economics, but rather in our view have arisen in large part from the benefits of regulatory
mandates, generous regulatory credits, and significant subsidies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1330-A1, p.7]
There are many concerns related to the expectations surrounding battery electric vehicles. One
concern, when it comes to plans to electrify everything, is the fact that the U.S. is a long way
from being self-sufficient when it comes to sourcing and supply of the metals needed to support
batteries. The New York Times and other media outlets have highlighted the concerns over
becoming reliant on China and others for rare earth minerals and other critical components for
batteries.13 Not only are these materials largely not available in the U.S. but the extraction and
processing of these materials produces significant greenhouse gas emissions. Before moving
further to increase reliance on battery electric vehicles it is important to understand how these
negative consequences will be addressed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.7]
1495
-------
13 'A Power Struggle Over Cobalt Rattles the Clean Energy Revolution,' New York
Times, November 20, 2021. This article highlights that China dominates the production
and processing of clean energy metals.
Another issue of concern is the recent increase in costs of battery components, which like almost
everything else are going up. 17 But there is a difference with respect to battery costs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.7]
17 Precious Metal Values are Raising Battery Prices and Slowing EV Uptake, Newsweek
April 4, 2022; Rising Battery Costs Hit Carmakers, Threaten Climate-Change Push,
Bloomberg Nov. 30, 2021; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-ll-30/even-
the-battery-boom-can-t-escape-world-s-supply-chain-woes; Rising Battery Prices Add
Uncertainty to Electric-Vehicle Costs: Demand for lithium outstrips supply, ending
yearslong price declines, WSJ Feb 5, 2022.
The significant increase in demand at some point was always going to impact supply and costs.
With mandates for light duty vehicles and now also heavy-duty vehicles, and with increased
efforts to install battery storage as a means of storing and then supplying renewable energy, there
was going to be an impact on pricing. It has long been presumed that battery prices would keep
falling but few appear to really be looking at whether that is truly a reasonable
assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.8]
Another concern with the push for electric vehicles in trucking is that that this technology is
largely unproven from the standpoint of deployability, scalability, dependability, and cost-
effectiveness. Many of the companies touting the ready availability of electric trucks are new
market entrants with no track record of manufacturing, servicing, or supporting motor vehicles in
actual use. Regarding their claims that the technology will be less costly to operate, there is
insufficient data to support the argument because the vehicles are only now starting to be
deployed. Another claim is that over time these trucks will cost less to purchase as the cost of
batteries comes down, despite the significant increase in demand for battery materials and
batteries. Consider the views expressed recently by Daimler Truck, a company that has many
years of experience in manufacturing and supporting trucks. Daimler Truck CEO, Martin Daum
stated, 'The first truth is, in heavy-duty commercial vehicles you need such a huge amount of
energy, meaning you need such large batteries, that such a truck always will cost significantly
more than a combustion engine powered truck.'18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.8]
18 Meghana Kandra, 'Daimler CEO Talks About Advancements in Heavy Electric Duty
Truck', https://www.cnbc.com/2021/ll/12/too-risky-to-not-use-battery-and-hydrogen-
tech-daimler-truck-ceo.html, November 13th, 2021.
Claims regarding cost-effectiveness almost always overlook factors such as range, utility, and
fleet turnover. In many cases, it appears that fleets deploying shorter-range electric vehicles will
need to deploy more trucks to move the same amount of freight. The implications of this are
huge (especially in case of upstream emissions associated with vehicle and battery production) as
trucking fleets will need more trucks and more drivers in some cases if they deploy electric
trucks. These factors appear to be ignored in cost-comparisons and emission comparisons, but
1496
-------
they have significant implications. For shorter range trips and vehicles that do not accumulate
significant daily mileage, electric trucks may be an excellent option, but it is also true that in
these applications there is less opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and offset pollution. Few
assessments acknowledge the additional monetary investments required and enormous
challenges associated with the establishment of statewide heavy-duty vehicle charging
infrastructure - including the build out of charge points, mandatory grid upgrades, and the
expansion of transmission capacity - that must complement these new battery electric vehicle
purchases once they are market ready and deployable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.8]
A number of recent reports have highlighted concerns regarding whether the electricity grid is
ready for electric vehicles. One recent review of this issue by the Washington Post focused
on the issues specific to New York state. 19 Based on that report it appears that there are some
very serious challenges to preparing the grid so that it can transport renewable electricity to the
locations it will be needed to serve electric vehicles, and additional challenges installing
necessary charging equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.8-9]
19 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/13/electric-vehicles-grid-upgrade/
The infrastructure issue and challenges of getting electricity to where it is most needed goes to
the issue of scalability and deployability which could significantly frustrate electrification plans
even if vehicles become readily available and are lower in cost. An article published recently by
Oregon Public Broadcasting highlights the very real concerns expressed by representatives of the
trucking industry. Here are excerpts from that article: Oregon Trucking Associations President
Jana Jarvis said there are opportunities for new technologies for the trucking industry but she's
not sure if electric trucks are the fuel for the future, especially for medium- to heavy-duty
trucks.. .it's unclear what the future holds when it comes to batteries and charging stations along
transportation routes to ensure that trucks can deliver freight efficiently. 'Then you think about
having to stop and recharge — if there was a charging infrastructure and if there was enough grid
capacity. And both of those are questions today,' she said. 'You start thinking about doing that
every couple hundred miles and you realize the inefficiencies the trucking industry would be
subject to by conversion to electric vehicles.' Jarvis said some of her association's larger
companies are trying to use electric trucks but getting the charging infrastructure installed in
their terminals has been difficult, depending on their location. 'In many parts of the state there
just isn't the grid capacity to accommodate that,' she said.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-
Al, p.9]
20 M. Samayoa, OPB.org, Zero emissions trucks could be soon be required in Oregon
(Nov. 15, 2021); https://www.opb.org/article/2021/ll/15/zero-emissions-trucks-could-
soon-be-required-in-oregon/
Even if electric vehicles become the dominate technology in coming years, there will continue to
be applications and uses that are not a good fit for electric vehicles. For example, commercial
pickup trucks operated in rural and remote parts of the country requiring extended range could
continue to be an excellent niche market for natural gas. It also is unlikely that electric trucks
will satisfy the needs of longer-range, medium- and heavy-duty trucks operating in challenging
conditions or operating with a full load. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 12]
1497
-------
Organization: Nikola Corporation
[From Hearing Testimony, April 14, 2022, Alana Langdon, Nikola Corporation] I am the head
of government affairs and global policy at Nikola Corporation. On behalf of Nikola, we
appreciate the opportunity to express our support for reducing pollution and the carbon emissions
footprint from heavy-duty trucks through this EPA rulemaking process. Founded in 2015, Nikola
has now grown over to 1,000 employees headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, with manufacturing
operations in Coolidge, Arizona. Nikola is a leading manufacturer of heavy-duty zero-emission
commercial battery-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles and energy solutions. Nikola's mission
is to transform the transportation industry while improving our employees' lives and leaving the
world a better place. This includes doing our part to increase the health and well-being of
communities impacted by heavy trucking. Our products and services are built to deliver on those
core commitments by manufacturing BEV and fuel cell electric vehicle trucks plus working with
strategic business partners and suppliers to build a complete infrastructure ecosystem that will
support the transition to zero-emissions trucking. Operating as both a zero-emissions OEM and
an energy company, Nikola is a game changer in the marketplace, transforming the future of the
heavy-duty transportation sector, focused on addressing the entire value chain to deliver an
economic total cost of ownership to fleets, which includes access to trucks, fuel, service, and
maintenance for our customers. Nikola's truck portfolio of BEV and fuel cell offerings aims to
address the short-, medium-, and long-haul applications of heavy trucking. Our current
manufacturing capacity in Coolidge is up to 2,400 trucks per year and we are in the process of
expanding our manufacturing facilities to be capable of manufacturing up to 20,000 trucks per
year in late 2023. We delivered the first of several pre-series battery electric Tre BEV class eight
trucks to our launch customer, Total Transportation Services, in December 2021 at the Port of
Los Angeles, and started production of the Tre BEVs at our manufacturing facility on March
21st, 2022. Nikola has begun delivering the Tre BEV to customers in our dealer network across
the country, anticipating between 300 to 500 Tre BEVs to be completed this year. The battery
electric vehicle has a 753-kilowatt battery onboard with a 350-mile range. The battery pack is
modular and can be reduced for shorter distances and to maximize payloads customized for our
customers' operational needs and use cases. The next vehicle to market, the Nikola Tre fuel cell
vehicle, has 70 kilograms of hydrogen on board with a 500-mile range. The Nikola fuel cell
vehicle will enter production in 2023, and earlier this year, we delivered two of these alpha fuel
cell vehicles to our launch customer, Anheuser-Busch, just in time for delivery of their first zero-
carb beer for the Super Bowl. These vehicles were fueled at our headquarters facility in Phoenix
and made the over 350-mile trek to Ontario, California, with hydrogen fuel to spare, showing
that hydrogen fuel cell heavy-duty trucks are just around the corner. And finally, the Nikola Two
sleeper cab fuel cell will arrive in 2025, addressing the long-haul commercial needs supported by
a national hydrogen network of production and fueling facilities being developed by Nikola and
our partners. In closing, we look forward to providing more details in our written comments in
response to the proposed rule. However, we did want to take the opportunity to convey our
support during these public hearings. As an American company, Nikola is excited about the role
our innovative vehicle truck technology is and will play to advance cleaner transportation and
energy technologies that will yield a healthier tomorrow while also creating jobs that will
contribute to our nation's economic prosperity for generations to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2867]
1498
-------
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: EPA estimated the percent sales of HD ZEVs in the baseline to be 1.5
percent ZEV sales in 2027. We urge EPA to update this estimation in the final rule to reflect
recent substantial changes in heavy-duty ZEV technology, the regulatory landscape, and the
market for heavy-duty ZEVs. EPA relied on the "medium" projection case from the NREL
Electrification Futures study and EIA's 2018 Annual Energy Outlook for its heavy-duty ZEV
sales estimate for 2027. Since the 2018 EIA Outlook and the Electrification Futures study have
been published, CARB finalized the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation and five states outside of
California have adopted the regulation as of April 2022 - Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, and Washington. Taken together, registered trucks and buses in these six states
comprise over 20 percent of registered trucks and buses in the U.S.39 In addition, CARB has
proposed the Advanced Clean Fleets rule40 that will increase the percent requirement for heavy-
duty ZEVs above and beyond the ACT requirement in California. As a result of these regulatory
actions, NESCAUM estimates a minimum of 30,000 class 4 to 8 heavy-duty ZEVs will be
required to be sold in 2027 in California and states that have finalized the ACT regulation
combined. In 2028, the number of class 4 to 8 heavy-duty ZEVs that will be required to be sold
in the states that have adopted the ACT regulation will exceed 45,000 vehicles. This estimate
likely underestimates the number of ZEVs that will be introduced as it does not account
for heavy-duty ZEV sales in states outside of Section 177 states that have adopted ACT. It also
does not account for the adoption of ACT in states that are currently proceeding with ACT
adoption but have not yet finalized the regulation. Nor does it account for state specific heavy-
duty zero emission sales requirements and goals above and beyond ACT requirements.41 As
noted above, heavy-duty ZEV sales in years subsequent to 2027 will increase significantly as
required by the ACT regulation. These requirements should be taken into consideration in EPA's
baseline assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, pp. 12- 13]
39. Federal Highway Administration, "Highway Statistics 2019." Available at Highway
Statistics 2019 - Policy | Federal Highway Administration.
40. California Air Resources Board, "Advanced Clean Fleets" Regulation." Available at
Advanced Clean Fleets | California Air Resources Board.
41 An example is New York State Education Law §3628 that requires no later than July
1, 2027, every school district shall only purchase or lease zero-emission school buses
when purchasing or leasing new buses.
In addition to changes in the regulatory landscape, much has changed from a cost and technology
standpoint since the studies EPA relied on in its analysis were published. The Electrification
Futures study was published in 2017 and relied on studies published in 2016 for battery cost
information. Since that time, significant improvements in battery technology have occurred.
Rapid advances in battery chemistries, increased energy density, and more efficient pack design
have driven sharp reductions in battery costs, which are the single largest factor influencing ZEV
purchase prices. During the last decade, battery prices declined by nearly 90 percent and a steady
decline in battery prices is forecasted through 2030. Declining battery costs and technology
1499
-------
advances will be reflected in lower prices and longer ranges for vehicles, leading to an improved
business case for electrification and making zero-emission trucks and buses more
affordable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-A1, p. 13]
EPA asks for comment on whether or not the "medium" NREL Electrification Future study
assumptions should be used in the Agency's assessment of heavy-duty ZEV sales in 2027. For
the above reasons, NESCAUM recommends EPA not rely on the NREL "medium" scenario. We
urge EPA to conduct a more up-to-date analysis to estimate heavy-duty ZEV sales in model
years 2027 and later. An up-to-date analysis would estimate heavy-duty ZEV sales resulting
from ACT regulation adoption in California and Section 177 states, quantify sales resulting from
additional state heavy-duty ZEV requirements, and use more recent projections of heavy-duty
ZEV sales, such as NREL's March 2022 study and ACT Research's 2021 analysis.42,43 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1249-A1, p. 13]
42. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty
On-Road Vehicles: Zero Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis," March 2022. Available at
Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission Vehicles
Cost Analysis (accessed May 12, 2022).
43. ACT Research, "Charging Forward 2020-2040 BEV & FCEV Forecast & Analysis,"
updated December 2021. Available at CV Electrification Study - ACT Research Co.,
LLC (accessed May 12, 2022).
Organization: Our Children's Trust
Decarbonization of the transportation sector and other combustion engines is critical to achieving
greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Experts have opined that '[transportation
electrification is the most critical sector to achieve these electrification goals in due to the
volume of liquid fuels it currently consumes.'6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.3]
6 Ben Haley et al., Evolved Energy Research, 350 PPM Pathways for the United States
38 (2019).
EPA must increase the stringency of its Phase 2 MYs 2027-2029 and beyond standards. These
should be as stringent as possible and strive for electrification of the heavy-duty truck industry
by 2030 and no later than 2035. It is EPA's job to do as much as it can to push the transition to
zero emissions to protect the air and climate for children and future generations. These standards
need to go further faster so that the entire transportation sector, and supporting industrial sectors,
can plan and respond as quickly as feasible. The technology is there to expedite the transition
away from the internal combustion engine and eliminate their sales by 2030 for heavy duty
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, pp.3-4]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
EPA should support an accelerated transition of the trucking industry toward zero emissions
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 4]
1500
-------
Heavy Duty vehicle manufacturers need to eliminate tailpipe emissions. The only way that we
see this achieved is through the widespread adoption of zero emissions vehicles. Zero-emission,
battery electric technology will address public health and the climate crisis without the risk of
emissions cheating or SCR failure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 4]
This EPA Proposal changes standards for school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short
haul tractors because EPA believes that the battery electric vehicle market is changing most
rapidly in these areas. We believe that EPA should take a more proactive stance in moving
forward zero emission heavy duty vehicles across the board. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-
A2, p. 4]
While the market penetration of zero emission heavy-duty vehicles is still quite low, deployment
is expected to ramp up quickly, according to Calstartl3. The report states, "A complete transition
to ZET technology would not only help mitigate the impacts of climate change and poor air
quality but could eventually lower total cost of ownership (TCO) for fleets and create job growth
in the United States." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 4]
13. https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
Il.pdf
A recent Department of Energy 14 study echoed these findings and showed that costs of zero
emissions vehicles are decreasing. According to the study, by 2030, about half of the market-
ready zero emissions medium- and heavy-duty trucks will cost less to purchase, maintain, and
operate than medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks. The study further states that zero emissions
vehicles can be a boon to the US economy. US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm states:
DOE is showing a clear pathway for trucking companies to make the switch from diesel to
electric that will help them cut costs and pollution for their customers, while combating climate
change. The Biden Administration's comprehensive approach is working to make clean
transportation a reality—by reducing exposure to volatile fuel prices, investing in American
manufacturing and creating a national charging network to support more electric vehicles on the
road. 15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 4]
14. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
15. https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-
duty-electric-trucks-will-be-cheaper-diesel
Because battery prices are dropping swiftly and the energy intensity of batteries is improving,
zero emission battery electric trucks are primed to accelerate in adoption-if they can acquire the
strong policy support needed to overcome higher upfront costs 16. This is why it is necessary for
the EPA to lay out a strong foundation for the adoption and implementation of zero emission
battery electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 4]
16. https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/publications/why-regional-and-long-haul-trucks-are
1501
-------
Some states are moving forward with their own policies to reduce harmful NOx emissions, like
California, which set a goal for engines to cut NOx by 75% below current standards starting in
2024 and by 90% in 2027.17 This rule sets progressive electrification targets to help achieve
these reductions. 18 Because all components of the new rule will be phased in, engine
manufacturers will have time to prepare for compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2,
pp. 4 - 5]
17. https://www.greencarcongress.eom/2020/08/20200829-carb.html
18. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-passes-historic-clean-truck-
rule/
Several states and the District of Columbia have set targets to advance zero emission trucks and
buses, aiming for 100% of sales to be zero emission by 2050. The interim goal is for 30% of
vehicle sales to be zero emission by 2030.19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 5]
19. Ibid 12.
However, given both the contribution of the greenhouse gas emissions from the trucking industry
and the urgency of the climate crisis, we call on the EPA to reach 100% zero emission truck
sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1417-A2, p. 5]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
As EPA discusses in its proposed rule, the previously unanticipated acceleration towards
electrification for heavy-duty (HD) zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) will inherently reduce the
aggregate GHG emissions from HD vehicles, even if the HD non-ZEVs do not exhibit emission
reductions. EPA's proposed shift to more stringent heavy-duty 'phase 2' GHG emissions
standards can therefore be viewed positively, as it responds to the quickened pace for the
emergence of HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, pp.6-7]
As a supplement to these standards comments, EPA is encouraged to also review RILA's
February comments submitted to FHWA/DOT in response to their Request for Information:
Development of Guidance for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment for more
information about the RILA's views and suggestions concerning:
• accelerating fleet operational efficiency,
• enabling the role of fleet transition fuels and technologies,
• adapting regulatory processes to meet the needs of a widescale charging infrastructure
rollout,
• pursuing public-private partnerships,
• investing in infrastructure designed to surpass the design and performance of current
transportation refueling networks and facilitate the collaboration necessary for their
success, and
• expediting adoption and availability of medium- and heavy-duty low and zero emission
vehicles (ZEVs) by lowering upfront costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.6]
1502
-------
One of the factors expected to drive adoption of HD ZEVs is California's development and
adoption of Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) rules, that require manufacturers to increase the
promotion of HD ZEVs sold within the state as a share of their overall HD vehicle sales annually
over an annual implementation schedule. These ACT rules have also been adopted by five other
states and been proposed for adoption in several others. The states that have adopted ACT rules
account of over 20 percent of medium-duty and heavy-duty3 (MDHD) 2019 vehicle
stock,4 while states that have proposed ACT rules account for nearly three percent more.
Additionally, a total of 17 states and the District of Columbia have signed a joint memorandum
of understanding (MOU) to join a Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emissions
Vehicle (MHD ZEV) initiative to develop a MHD ZEV Action Plan for rapid electrification of
trucks and buses. Jurisdictions within the United States that are signatory to this MOU account
for more than 36 percent of MDHD 2019 stock 4. This multi-jurisdictional MOU is anticipated
to further accelerate the adoption of electrified heavy-duty trucks.[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-
1189-A2, p.7]
3 Vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class 2b-8
4 IHS Markit, 2019 United States stock data
Although the anticipated effectiveness or success of ACT rules and the MHD ZEV Action Plan
against their stated objectives will not be known for at least several years to come and that
enticing a rule in of itself does guarantee future market feasibility, their presence is expected to
induce an increased presence of HD ZEVs across the United States. EPA's proposed rule
mentions California's adoption of ACT rules. Similarly, the count of states having signed the
MOU to join the MHD ZEV initiative has increased by three since EPA drafted the proposed
rule. This signals both that the acceleration of HD ZEV adoption is likely to increase, and that
EPA's proposed rule changes for HD GHG emissions still underestimates the full extent of the
actual HD ZEV market penetration by 2027. EPA is therefore encouraged to review its estimates
against these recent developments to identify if a more stringent GHG emissions standard is
warranted. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.7]
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
EPA could likely adopt an even more stringent standard than Option 1, which should serve as a
floor in agency deliberations on a final rule. This is because EPA has "not relied on the use of'
hybrid or ZEV technologies in the development of the co-proposals offered in the NPRM.
Seemingly, this was justified by the agency's assessment that ZEV uptake will remain low
enough through the MY2027 timeframe as to not "meaningfully impact" the analysis or proposal
development.9 Rivian believes this fails to account for existing trends in the MHD ZEV market
and underestimates the likely ZEV penetration rate in the second half of the decade. EPA
currently predicts that just 1.5 percent of truck and bus sales will be battery-electric vehicles
("BEVs") in MY2027. However, six states, representing 20 percent of national MHD vehicle
registrations, have already adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks ("ACT") standard, which sets a
minimum level of zero-emission vehicle sales in these states. Additional states are likely to
follow suit in the coming months and years. The ACT rule requires that ZEVs comprise 20
percent of Class 4-8 sales in MY2027 and 15 percent in other truck classes. 10 This regulation
1503
-------
alone appears highly likely to drive ZEV uptake well above 1.5 percent nationally by that time.
Wider deployment of ZEVs than EPA currently anticipates could support a standard stronger
than Option 1 and we encourage the agency to analyze that possibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1229-A1, pp.3-4]
9 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 59, 17,458 (Mar. 28, 2022) (revising 40 C.F.R. Parts 2, 59, 60,
80, 85, 86, 87, 600, 1027, 1030, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051,
1054, 1060, 1065, 1066, 1068, and 1090).
10 13 C.C.R. §1963.
EPA rightly notes major progress in electrifying MHD vehicles and describes the current
moment as an "historic opportunity" to achieve even greater emissions reductions from the
sector. It is also important that the agency capitalize on the progress already seen to position the
industry for what will necessarily be even more ambitious rulemakings later in the decade. To do
so, Rivian encourages EPA to more fully account for the expected rate of truck and bus
electrification in a B AU scenario. Stated industry commitments and strong state-level policy all
suggest that this proposal has underestimated where the MHD ZEV market will be by
MY2027.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.7]
Organization: Sierra Club, NJ Chapter
EPA's proposed rule has requirements that do not come into effect until 2031 in order for
technology to be fully available. Plenty of data shows, however, that this technology is already
here and ready for use. Currently, there are over 100 models of zero emissions trucks and buses
available and more coming in the future. The technology is here, now we just need the policy
and standards to match it. As further evidence of this, there are already 6 States in the country
that have adopted clean truck policies that go above and beyond the EPA's proposal. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2558, p. 1]
These states, my State being one of them, to name them: California; Oregon; Washington; New
York; New Jersey; and Massachusetts, account for 20% of the truck market. However, the
proposed EPA rule would only yield 1.5% of zero-emission new truck sales by 2027. To be
specific, these 6 State policies will yield 40 to 75% of new zero-emissions truck sales by
2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2558, p. 1]
The US EPA can and must do more, because of three main reasons: 1) the technology is
available; 2) other States are already doing it; and 3) most importantly, so all communities in the
country, not just the ones from States with adequate clean truck policies, and especially those
communities that are overburdened with pollution and economically disadvantaged, benefit from
the same targets towards cleaner air. It is what is fair, equal clean air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2558, pp. 1 - 2]
New Jersey's transportation sector accounts for 42% of greenhouse gas emissions, the largest
contributor, to which medium duty and heavy duty vehicles, aka buses and trucks, account for a
1504
-------
significant portion. Of course, that equally means a huge contribution of co-pollutants: NOx,
Particulate Matter (PM), black carbon, a subset of PM, and other air toxics like benzene. The
latest available data by NJ's State Department of Environmental Protection indicates that the
highest carcinogenic risk driver in our State is diesel PM with a maximum predicted risk of
1,447 in a million, and a range of 100 to 300 in a million risk in the heavily trafficked areas like
those surrounding 1-95. These risk estimates are based on EPA's NATA or National Air Toxics
Assessment data, your data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2558, p. 2]
Although New Jersey will benefit from the clean truck rule recently adopted, federal action is
absolutely necessary in order to move the manufacturers into a zero-emissions market. When we
holistically move the market, everything else follows. Climate action cannot wait, and this
proposed rule, if done correctly, will significantly deliver to the effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2558, p. 2]
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
EPA's proposal underestimates ZEV penetration rates in light of declining costs and state
requirements and initiatives, which results in less-stringent standards that do little to accelerate
ZEV adoption in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.l]
As discussed further below, proposed Option 1 for the criteria pollutant emissions standards and
the revised Phase 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards do not go far enough. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.l]
The standards should also be fully aligned with the California Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation
in 2027, establish minimum ZEV production requirements, and preserve the stringency of GHG
emissions requirements for internal combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1247-A1, p.l]
At a minimum, EPA should fully align its criteria pollutant emissions standards with the
California Heavy-Duty Omnibus Regulation in in 2027, establish minimum ZEV production
requirements, and preserve the stringency of GHG emissions requirements for internal
combustion engine vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.8]
The stringency of both the proposed criteria pollutant emissions standards and the revised Phase
2 GHG emissions standards is undermined because EPA underestimates ZEV market
penetration. When analyzing the feasibility of the proposed standards, EPA projects that only
approximately 1.5 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be ZEVs in model year
2027.20 Based on this estimate, EPA did not consider ZEV technologies when developing the
criteria pollutant standards since the low ZEV market penetration would not 'meaningfully
impact [the] analysis of the proposed [standards],'21 Similarly, this low projection influenced the
stringency of the revised GHG Phase 2 emissions standards because the proposed reduction in
the numeric standards is equal to 'the projected percentage of electric vehicles' in certain vehicle
subcategories.22 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.4]
1505
-------
20 Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17458, 17601 (proposed Mar. 28, 2022).
21 Id. at 17458.
22 Id. at 17599.
In developing its ZEV market penetration rate, EPA failed to consider the full scope of
regulations and policies adopted by states related to medium- and heavy-duty ZEV deployment.
EPA included data from the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) rulemaking in its projections,23 but the estimate does not seem to account for the
six other states—Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
Connecticut—that have also adopted the ACT regulations. The ACT regulations establish
binding requirements that progressively increase the percentage of medium- and heavy-duty
ZEVs that must be sold in these states starting in model year 2025.24 By model year 2035, ZEVs
will be required to make up approximately 55 percent of Class 2b-3 vehicle sales, 75 percent of
Class 4-8 Group sales, and 40 percent of Class 7-8 tractor sales in these states,25 which make up
over 20 percent of the national fleet of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1247-A1, p.4]
23 Id. at 17600.
24 ELEC. TRUCKS NOW, States Are Embracing Electric Trucks,
https://www.electrictrucksnow.com/states (last visited May 9, 2022).
25 See CAL. AIR RES. BD., Updated Informative Digest, 5 (Jan. 20, 2021),
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/ act2019/uid.pdf. The ACT regulations provides
some compliance flexibility through the use of credits. Id. at 6.
26 Press Release, Earth Justice, New York State Advances Clean Trucks Rule to
Electrify Vehicles (Dec. 30, 2021), https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/new-york-
state-advances-clean-trucks-rule-to-electrify-vehicles.
EPA also does not seem to consider the impact of commitments made in the Multi-State
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) when calculating
national ZEV market penetration. In addition to the states that have adopted the ACT regulations,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, and Washington D.C. have signed the MOU.27 These 18 jurisdictions
have committed to a goal of having at least 30 percent of all new medium- and heavy-duty
vehicle sales be ZEVs by no later than 2030, and 100 percent of sales being ZEVs by no later
than 2050.28 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.4-5]
27 Press Release, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Mgmt., NESCAUM
Welcomes Nevada's Participation in the Multi-State Zero-Emission Electric Trucks
Initiative (Mar. 31, 2022), https://www.nescaum.org/documents/ nescaum-welcomes-
nevada-s-participation-in-the-multi-state-zero-emission-electric-trucks-initiative/.
1506
-------
28 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Memorandum of
Understanding, https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/ (last
updated Mar. 29, 2022).
Finally, declining costs and other economic forces are also likely to drive higher deployment of
medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs in coming years. A study by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory found that ZEVs in all medium- and heavy-duty vehicle classes could reach cost
parity with diesel vehicles by 2035, even without incentives.29 Coupled with the deployment of
charging and refueling infrastructure, this could result in ZEVs accounting for 42 percent of
medium- and heavy-duty sales by 2030, and over 99 percent of sales by 2045.30 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.5]
29 Catherine Ledna et al., NAT'L RENEWABLE ENERGY LAB'Y, Decarbonizing
Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles Cost Analysis (Mar. 2022),
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
30 Id.
These factors will have significant impacts on the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle market and
will likely drive national ZEV market penetration rates higher than EPA's projected 1.5 percent.
EPA should therefore re-evaluate the stringency of its proposed standards after accounting for a
higher ZEV market penetration rate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.5]
Although EPA characterizes the current rulemaking as a minor revision of the Phase 2 GHG
emissions standards, bold action is needed to put the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fleet on
the path to eliminating GHG tailpipe emissions and to set the stage for increasingly
stringent standards in model year 2030. Establishing minimum ZEV production requirements—
similar to requirements in the ACT regulations—is one of the best ways to accelerate the
transition to ZEVs. EPA should therefore consider setting fleetwide minimum ZEV production
requirements to achieve 20 percent ZEV sales by model year 2027, 30 percent ZEV sales by
model year 2028, and 40 percent ZEV sales by model year 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1247-A1, pp.6-7]
As manufacturers increasingly rely on ZEVs to meet the Phase 2 GHG emissions standards,
manufacturers may continue to produce more-GHG-polluting internal combustion engines.
Modeling shows that the currently proposed revisions to the GHG standards could result in
internal combustion engine vehicles emitting more GHGs in model year 2027 than they did in
model year 2017.40 For this reason, any revisions to the Phase 2 GHG emissions standards
should preserve the original standard's stringency for internal combustion engine vehicles.
Introducing ZEV production requirements could help to separate the regulation of ZEVs and
internal combustion engines and allow EPA to better ensure that gains in ZEVs deployment do
not erode the stringency of the requirements intended for internal combustion engine
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.7]
40 Sara Kelly et al., INT'L COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSP., ICCT Comments on
EPA's Proposed Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standardsl7 (May 10, 2022),
1507
-------
https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/publicwebinar_
10May2022.pdf.
Strong tailpipe emissions standards are one of the best ways to address the harmful impacts of
vehicle pollution. Ultimately, EPA's current proposals fail to accelerate the transition of
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to ZEVs—readily available technology that eliminates tailpipe
pollution altogether. EPA should therefore reassess its ZEV penetration rates in light of
economic factors and state requirements and initiatives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1,
p.8]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The Proposed Rule would also further tighten the Phase 2 GHG standards for model year 2027 in
certain segments of the heavy-duty vehicles sector based on the better-than-anticipated
deployment of zero-emitting vehicles (ZEVs) in certain heavy-duty vehicle classes, especially
buses and delivery vans. The States support EPA's general methodology for updating the Phase
2 GHG standards, which preserves their environmental integrity and comports with EPA's legal
duties of rational decision-making. However, the States urge EPA to base its update on a more
robust projection of ZEVs in the heavy-duty sector that reflects multiple States' ZEV mandates
and market conditions that increasingly favor heavy-duty ZEVs. The States also encourage EPA
to prioritize new GHG standards for the heavy-duty sector based on proven, cost-effective ZEV
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 3]
The States support the Proposed Rule's revisions to the HD Phase 2 GHG standards as an
important step in ensuring the heavy-duty vehicles sector continues to reduce its GHG emissions.
Our comments concentrate on the following three observations: (1) EPA's approach to updating
to the Phase 2 standards is consistent with legal requirements and comparable agency practice for
fleetwide average standards where ZEVs make up an increasing share of the real-world fleet; (2)
EPA can improve the accuracy of its update by ensuring the estimated HD ZEV penetration rate
reflects other States' adoption of the California Advance Clean Trucks (ACT) rule and favorable
market conditions for HD ZEVs; and (3) EPA should take prompt action to develop "Phase 3"
GHG standards for the heavy-duty sector based on the enormous emission-reducing potential of
HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 24]
1. Even as EPA takes initial steps to develop next-generation GHG standards based on ZEV
technology, it is rational and consistent with the Clean Air Act to update Phase 2 GHG standards
to ensure they remain binding on the conventional heavy-duty fleet. Indeed, it is "patently
unreasonable" for agencies to ignore "dramatic[]" changes in their regulated industries. NRDC v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1408 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The Clean Air Act, in particular, is designed
so that EPA may respond to "changing circumstances and scientific developments" and "forestall
. . . obsolescence." Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 532 (2007). The projections that HD
ZEVs will reach cost parity with, and then achieve cost advantage over, conventional heavy-duty
engines within the next three to eight years is surely one such change. It is therefore appropriate
for EPA to forestall obsolescence here by adjusting the Phase 2 GHG standards to respond to
increasing ZEV deployment in the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp.
24 - 25]
1508
-------
EPA's general methodology in updating the Phase 2 GHG standards is also consistent with
NHTSA's recent approach in developing new fleetwide fuel economy standards for light-duty
vehicles—a sector that is likewise seeing dramatic increases in ZEV sales. 109 There, NHTSA
projected automakers would comply with California's ZEV mandate in estimating the number of
ZEVs in the baseline light-duty fleet (i.e., in the absence of new fuel economy standards). 110
Doing so, NHTSA stated, "is consistent with guidance in OMB Circular A-4 directing agencies
to develop analytical baselines that are as accurate as possible regarding the state of the world in
the absence of the regulatory action being evaluated," in particular because baselines should
"reflect other legal obligations that automakers will be meeting during this time period." 111 In a
similar fashion, if EPA grants California's requested waiver for its ACT rule, then EPA's
baseline fleet should include at least the vehicles the heavy-duty sector will produce to comply
with ACT. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 25]
109. See Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 87 Fed. Reg. 25,710, 25,721 (May 2, 2022).
110. Id. at 25,744.
111. Id. Courts have upheld the inclusion of such obligations in regulatory baselines in a
variety of contexts. E.g., NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1224, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
(holding, in part, that using "[State-Implementation-Plan]-required emission rates as the
baseline" was "a quite reasonable interpretation" of relevant provision of Clean Air Act);
Cooling Water Intake Structure Coal. v. EPA, 905 F.3d 49, 81 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting
"environmental baseline" requirements for Endangered Species Act consultations as
including "the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions" and
distinguishing those from impacts resulting from agencies exercising discretion); Am.
Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding agency use of facility's
operations pursuant to terms and conditions of existing license as no action baseline).
2. However, the States take issue with EPA's estimated 1.5 percent penetration rate for HD
ZEVs in model year 2027, which likely underestimates HD ZEV deployment. EPA derives this
estimate by extrapolating the HD ZEV requirement for model year 2027 in the ACT rule to
national numbers based on California's 2020 share of the heavy-duty electric vehicle market. 112
This methodology omits two important factors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 25]
112. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,600 & n.858.
First, several other States have adopted or will likely adopt ACT under section 177 of the Clean
Air Act. Currently, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington, in addition
to California, have finalized adoption of the ACT requirements. 113 These States as well as the
District of Columbia, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia (and the Province of Quebec) have signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to promote the adoption of HD ZEVs. 114 A more robust
and realistic estimate would determine the heavy-duty market share of at least those States that
have formally adopted ACT and use this, in combination with the ACT schedule, to determine
the minimum national fleet of HD ZEVs required by state law in model year 2027. This
1509
-------
methodology would also avoid the inconsistency of modeling the heavy-duty sector to comply
with one State's legal obligations, but not with other States' equally binding regulations. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 26]
113. 310 Code Mass. Regs. 7:40 (2021); N.J. Admin. Code §§ 7:27-31 and 33 (2021);
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., tit. 6, §§ 218-1.1, 218-2.1, 218-4.1, 218-4.2 (2021); Or.
Admin. R. 340-257-0050(3) (2021); Wash. Admin. Code § 173-423-010 et seq. (2021).
114. Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Mem. of
Understanding (July 13, 2020; amended March 29, 2022), available at
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/mhdv-zev-mou-20220329.pdf/ and attached as
Exhibit 16.
Second, favorable market factors—especially fuel cost savings—are projected to make HD
ZEVs increasingly attractive to buyers, with several classes achieving cost parity by 2025 or
earlier. 115 Indeed, these market factors are even more significant the longer historically high and
volatile diesel prices continue. 116 Thus, EPA should base the updated GHG standards on
projected overcompliance with ACT in model year 2027. Indeed, the NREL's recent Cost
Analysis projects 42 percent of heavy-duty sales will be HD ZEVs in 2030, suggesting a 2027
penetration rate significantly higher than 1.5 percent. 117 EPA's preference for conservative
estimates is understandable, but given the importance of preserving the Phase 2 GHG standards'
integrity, EPA should base its revisions on the most accurate deployment estimates
available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 26]
115. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,562.
116. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update: May 9,
2022," available at https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/; ibid., "EIA expects
summer U.S. real gasoline and diesel prices to be the highest since 2014" (Apr. 19,
2022), available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52098 (last
accessed May 16, 2022).
117. NREL Cost Analysis, supra note 92, at 25, 61; see id. at 62 (7 percent under the
most conservative ZEV technology scenario).
3. While the States support EPA's choice to focus on the integrity of Phase 2 GHG standards in
this rulemaking, EPA should initiate a new rulemaking with a full record on HD ZEVs' potential
to reduce GHG emissions even further. As CARETs ACT rule shows, 118 and as the Proposed
Rule recognizes, 119 HD ZEVs are an available and cost-effective technology with enormous
GHG reduction potential. In California alone, these GHG reductions translate to $1.01 billion in
avoided climate-related costs from 2020 to 2040, in addition to $5.5 billion in health benefits
from NOx and PM2.5 co-reductions. 120 High rates of HD ZEV deployment are a critical
component of States' individual plans for reaching midcentury decarbonization targets set by
state law, with significant co-benefits for attaining and maintaining criteria pollutant
NAAQS. 121 These state decarbonization plans further support a national program for HD ZEV
adoption as part of the United States' path to achieving its Paris Agreement commitments. 122
1510
-------
Given the imperative to prevent the worst effects of climate change, and to secure GHG
reductions as fast as possible, EPA should make GHG standards based on HD ZEV technology a
high regulatory priority. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 26 - 27]
118. CARB, Staff Report, Initial Statement of Reasons - Public Hearing to Consider the
Proposed Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, at 10-17 (Oct. 22, 2019), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/isor.pdf and attached
as Exhibit 17 ("ACT ISOR"); id., App'x C, Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment,
at 50-53 (Aug. 8, 2019), EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0796; see generally id., App'x E,
Zero Emission Truck Market Assessment, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appe.pdf and
attached as Exhibit 18.
119. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,562 (recognizing maturity of HD ZEV technologies).
120. ACT Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, supra note 118, at 16-23 (using
current Interagency Working Group social cost of carbon metric and 2.5 discount rate).
121. See, e.g., id. at 12, 14; Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap, at
58-62 (Jan. 2021), available at https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/climate-energy/ghg-
pollution-reduction-roadmap; Mass. 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap, at 39-43 (Dec.
2020), available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-
roadmap/download; N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Protection, New Jersey's Global Warming
Response Act 80x50 Report, at 21-22, 28-29, 31 (Oct. 2020), available at
https://www.nj,gov/dep/climatechange/docs/nj-gwra-80x50-report-2020.pdf; N.Y. State
Climate Action Council, Draft Scoping Plan, at 104-106 (Jan. 2022), available at
https://climate.ny.gOv/-/media/Project/Climate/Files/Draft-Scoping-Plan.pdf.
122. See The United States' Nationally Determined Contribution: A 2030 Emissions
Target, at 4 (Apr. 15, 2021), available at
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%
20America%20First/United%20States%20NDC%20April%2021%202021%20Final.pdf.
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
In general, EPA's proposal fails to consider the depth and pace of electrification technology
deployment that has already occurred and will be accelerated through market forces and
numerous other state and federal policies. In its proposal, EPA assumes a zero-emission vehicle
(ZEV) sales share of only 1.5% in key market segments in 2027.61 This assumed baseline is
woefully low and cuts against many projections. Indeed, as EPA indicates, the BEV market is
dynamic and changing rapidly.62 For example, NREL has found economics will drive must
faster adoption with ZEV sales possibly reaching 42% of all medium- and heavy-duty trucks by
2030.63 It even projects out a scenario where ZEV sales reach >99% by 2045, and 80% of the
sector transitions to ZEVs by 2050, reducing C02 emissions by 69% from 2019.64 A new
analysis views the heavy-duty haul market as 50% electrifiable right now.65 The firm ACT
Research forecasted a 26% sales share of heavy-duty ZEVs nationwide in 2030.66 Yet, another
1511
-------
found that by 2030 25% of the global fleet will be electric.67 Still other analyses have found that
most 'market segments have the potential to be fully mature by 2025, with EV models available
from multiple companies, including the majority of major OEMs that currently have 90% market
share of the in-use fleet.'68 Further, it is predicted the paced of electrification will increase
rapidly over the next decade.69 Recent sales suggest this pace of adoption is already
occurring.70 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.9]
61 87 Fed. Reg. at 17458; 87 Fed. Reg. at 17601.
62 87 Fed. Reg. at 17595.
63 NREL, Decarbonizing Medium- & Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles: Zero-Emission
Vehicles Cost Analysis (March 8, 2022).
64 Id.
65 NACFE, Charting the Course for Early Truck Electrification (May 2022) (Analysis
shows that approximately 65 percent of medium-duty trucks and 49 percent of heavy-
duty trucks — are regularly driving short enough routes that they could be replaced with
electric trucks that are on the market today); See also, NACFE, Electric Trucks Have
Arrived: The Use Case For Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors (May 2022).
66 HDT Truckinginfo, ACT: Third of Class 4-8 Vehicles to be Battery-Electric in 10
Year (June 4, 2021).
67 Fleet Owner, Disruption in trucking technology (Jan. 13, 2020).
68 MJ Bradley, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental
Impact, and EV Readiness (Aug. 11, 2022) at 6
69 See, Wood Mackenzie, US electric truck sales set to increase exponentially by 2025
(Aug. 10, 2020) (finding there were just over 2,000 electric trucks on US roads at the end
of 2019 and project this to grow to over 54,000 by 2025); BNEF, EV Outlook 2021
(heavy-duty electric trucks become economically attractive in urban duty cycles by the
mid-2020s. Megawatt-scale charging stations and the emergence of much higher energy
density batteries by the late 2020s result in battery electric trucks becoming a viable
option for heavy-duty long-haul operations, especially for volume-limited applications.)
70 Fleet Owner, Pace of heavy EV sales quickens with two recent deals (Mar. 22, 2022).
As DOE has documented, there are over 100 models of heavy-duty ZEVs available.71 Indeed,
some OEMs predict BEV cost parity in 2025 well ahead of the proposed rule's 2027
implementation date.72 In the E.U., heavy duty manufacturers are poised for a complete phase
out of legacy technology by 2040.73 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.9]
71 DOE, Alternative Fuel Data Center, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Search
1512
-------
72 See, Trucknews.com, Standalone Daimler Truck business gives corporate update as it
prepares for public listing (Nov. 11, 2021) (Daimler estimating BEVs will achieve total
cost of operation parity with diesel by 2025, and fuel cells by 2027.)
73 Sennder, European truck manufacturers aiming for 100% electric by 2040 (July 6,
2021).
While EPA points to a handful of manufacturer statements (and there are many more) on near
term electrification plans,74 the agency did not account for the California's Advance Clean
Truck (ACT) regulation and the adoption of forward-looking heavy-duty electrification policies
in numerous other states.75 As EPA develops its final rule, the agency's analysis of the levels of
fleet electrification and its baseline for addressing NOx emissions must take these programs into
account.76 In doing so, the agency has the basis for finalizing more ambitious and protective
standards than those proposed in Option 1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp.9-10]
74 See HDT Truckinginfo, DTNA's O'Leary on Fast-Changing Trucking Technology
(Mar. 9, 2022)(Daimler North American Truck ambition is to produce 'exclusively C02-
neutral products in the U.S. by 2039' starting with the medium-duty battery electric eM2
in 2022 and the eCascadia early 2023); Inside EVs, GM to Launch All-Electric Heavy-
Duty Trucks In 2035 Instead of 2040 (Jan. 10, 2022); Fleet Owner, Volvo details electric
truck strategy (Oct. 13, 2021) (wants 50% of its truck sales to be electric vehicles by
2030—and 100% by 2040); See also, Iveco, Electric; MAN, Battery-electric trucks are
our future (Nov. 11, 2021); Electrek, Kenworth says electric truck orders have tripled the
past three months, quoting customers in 44 states (Jan. 14, 2022); Navistar, Battery
Electric Vehicles; Scania, Scania's commitment to battery electric vehicles (Jan. 19,
2021); See generally, Green Car Congress - Heavy Duty (highlighting many recent
announcements); HDT Truckinginfo, Volta Trucks to Enter U.S. Market with Electric
Class 7 (May 6, 2022); HDT Truckinginfo, Xos Unveils Two New Commercial Electric
Trucks (May 10, 2022).
75 87 Fed. Reg. at 17581.
76 Id.
In addition to the marketplace announcements, regulatory environment, and federal fleet
adoption driving significant electrification, cost-related issues will ensure that electrification of
the heavy-duty sector occurs rapidly. To that end, EPA's proposed rule points to one 2017 report
suggesting that battery costs may be a barrier to heavy duty fleet adoption.97 Further, the agency
assumes costs for the Phase 2 GHG regulations still hold that per vehicle cost for BEVs represent
approximately a 12% increase in tractor costs.98 Contrary to this assertion, as one analysis sums
up, 'Electrification is also making inroads into heavier vehicles. In urban duty cycles, battery
electric trucks of any size become the cheapest option for several use cases in the 2020s.'99
Similarly, other studies find that when considering upfront purchase price alone, by 2027 electric
freight trucks and buses will be less expensive than their combustion engine counterparts in
almost all categories. 100 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.12]
1513
-------
97 87 Fed. Reg. at 17596.
98 87 Fed. Reg. at 17602.
99 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021,
100 EDF, New Study Finds Rapidly Declining Costs for Zero-Emitting Freight Trucks
and Buses (Feb. 10, 2022).
In assessing the pace of electrification, the agency should consider the documented and projected
rapid decline in battery cell and pack costs. As DOE has recently documented, the energy density
of lithium-ion batteries Increased by more than eight times between 2008 and 2020 allowing for
BEVs to travel the same distance with a smaller battery pack, thus saving space, weight, and
manufacturing costs. 101 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 12]
101 DOE VTO, FOTW #1234, April 18, 2022: Volumetric Energy Density of Lithium-
ion Batteries Increased by More than Eight Times Between 2008 and 2020 (Apr. 18,
2022).
To the extent reductions seen in the light duty sector, the similarity in battery chemistries will
carry over to the medium and heavy-duty sectors. For example, UBS reports that leading
manufacturers are estimated to reach battery pack costs as low as $67/kWh between 2022 and
2024.102 Recently, others have also projected costs significantly lower than EPA's past
projections. BNEF's recent estimate is that pack prices go below $100/kWh on a volume-
weighted average basis by 2024, hit $58/kWH in 2030,103 and could achieve a volume-weighted
average price of $45/kWh in 2035.104 The National Academies of Sciences found high-volume
battery pack production would be at costs of $65-80/kWh by 2030105 and DNV-GL has
predicted costs declining to $80/kWh in 2025.106 The IPCC recently concluded similarly. 107
Reductions in battery costs are projected to lead to cost parity in many vehicle segments by
2025.108 Continued and expansive R&D in this sector can be expected to further drive down
costs. 109 Consistent with these declines, other key subsystems of BEV technology will continue
see cost reductions as manufacturers scale production. 110 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
pp.12-13]
102 UBS, EVs Shifting into Overdrive: VW ID.3 teardown - How will electric cars re-
shape the auto industry? (March 2, 2021) at 60.
103 BNEF, Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021 (June 9, 2021).
104 BNEF, Hitting the Inflection Point: Electric Vehicle Price Parity and Phasing Out
Combustion Vehicle Sales in Europe (May 5, 2021).
105 NAS, Assessment of Technologies for Improving Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy
-2025-2035 (March 31, 2021).
106 DNV-GL, Tesla's Battery Day and the Energy Transition (Oct. 26, 2020).
1514
-------
107 IPCC, AR 6, Working Group III, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate
Change (date) at 10-32 (For example, according to IEA, battery pack costs could be as
low as 80 USD per kWh by 2030 (IEA 2019a). In addition, there are clear trends that
now vehicle manufacturers are offering vehicles with bigger batteries, greater driving
ranges, higher top speeds, faster acceleration, and all size categories (Nykvist et al. 2019).
In 2020 there were over 600,000 11 battery-electric buses and over 31,000 battery-
electric trucks operating globally (IEA 2021a).)
108 MJ Bradley, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles: Market Structure, Environmental
Impact, and EV Readiness (Aug. 11, 2022) at 7. (EVs in most market segments have the
potential to achieve life-cycle cost parity with internal combustion engine vehicles by
model year 2025 or earlier if M/HD battery costs follow a similar trajectory as battery
costs for light-duty EVs).
109 See generally, Energy & Environment Sciences, Determinants of lithium-ion battery
technology cost decline (Jan. 3, 2022).
110 See generally, ICCT, A Meta-Study of Purchase Costs for Zero-Emission Trucks
(Feb. 17, 2022) (Finding, inter alia, by 2030 key subsystems can achieve up to 40% to
60% cost reduction driven by technology and manufacturing scalability).
Indeed, a recent LBNL study found that recent reductions in battery prices and improvement in
energy density have made long haul electric trucking viable in the near term. 111 More directly,
the study concluded: 'At the current global average battery pack price of $135 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) (realizable when procured at scale), a Class 8 electric truck with 375-mile range and
operated 300 miles per day when compared to a diesel truck offers about 13% lower total cost of
ownership (TCO) per mile, about 3-year payback and net present savings of about US $200,000
over a 15-year lifetime. This is achieved with only a 3% reduction in payload
capacity.'112 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 13]
111 LBNL, Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for Electrification Now
(Mar. 15,2021).
112 Id.
Further numerous studies have found that heavy duty BEVs outperform conventional trucks on a
total cost of ownership basis. 113 Tesla projects that its Semi will have energy costs that are half
those of diesel, provide over $200,000 in fuel savings, and have a two-year payback period. 114
Another manufacturer has found that BEVs could save fleets up to 80% on energy costs and 60%
on repair. 115 Yet another found that the benefits of electrifying heavy-duty truck fleets are
significant with recent studies showing that operating costs for electric trucks can be between 14
and 52 percent lower and repair costs around 40 percent lower than their combustion-powered
counterparts. 116 CARB has found that battery-electric vehicles appear cost competitive with the
established combustion technologies by 2025 in many use cases. 117 Real world demonstrations
have also proven this out.118 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.13]
1515
-------
113 See e.g., UC Berkley, 2035 Report: Transportation: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic
Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future (April 2021)
at 15 (finding BEV heavy-duty trucks already hold a TCO advantage today and, for
heavy-duty trucks, an EV advantage of $0.05/mi in 2020 that increases to $0.22/mi in
2030—magnified by the large number of miles traveled by this class of vehicles. In
absolute terms, in 2020 this translates to a $42,800 TCO advantage of electric heavy-duty
trucks, which increases to $200,000 in 2030. The TCO advantage of EVs continues to
grow through 2050).
114 See Tesla, Semi.
115 Utility Dive, Lion Electric: EVs save transport firms 80% on energy, 60% on repair
costs compared to diesel (Mar. 17, 2021).
116 Argonne National Lab, Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for
Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains (April 2021).
117 CARB, Draft Advanced Clean Fleets Total Cost of Ownership Discussion Document
(Sept 9, 2021) ; See also, Transport & Environment, Why the future of long-haul trucking
is battery electric (Feb. 18, 2022).
118 North American Council for Freight Efficiency, Electric Trucks Have Arrived:
Documenting A Real-World Electric Trucking Demonstration (Feb. 2, 2022).
In short, BEVs will offer the best compliance technology near term and dramatically decreasing
costs battery costs further support that BEV deployment support a much more stringent final
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 13]
Finally, the agency should be prepared to consider the role new state and federal incentives may
play in deployment of heavy-duty electric vehicles. Federally, numerous heavy duty
electrification grants, demonstration programs, incentives, and infrastructure incentives were
included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.119 Moreover, Congress is
actively considering significant (up to 30%) purchasing incentives for heavy-duty ZEV
vehicles. 120 If adopted, such an incentive could also substantially increase the cadence of
electrification in the trucking sector. For example, Rhodium has modeled that by 2030, a modest
10%) investment tax credit for medium- and heavy-duty BEVs and an excise tax exemption for
such vehicles would drive BEVs to or below TCO parity with conventional vehicles in some
smaller vehicle classes and reduce the gap in others. 121 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
P-14]
119See, DOE, Alternative Fuel Data Center, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act of 2021).
120 See e.g., S.1791 (117th Cong.), Fueling America's Security and Transportation with
Electricity Act of 2021 (expands the tax credit for plug-in electric drive motor vehicles to
include a 30% credit for additional electric transportation options capable of moving
1516
-------
passengers, cargo, or property and powered by an integrated, on-board electric propulsion
system.); H.R. 848 (117th Cong.), Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now Act
of 2021, at 403.
121 Rhodium, Pathways to Build Back Better: Investing in Transportation
Decarbonization (May 13, 2021).
EPA should also recognize that state incentives will create additional uptake of BEVs in the
medium- and heavy-duty sector. These incentives already exist in Californial22, Coloradol23,
Connecticutl24, Massachusettsl25, New Yorkl26, Utahl27, and Washington. 128 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 14]
122 California, HVIP, Carl Moyer, LCFS, and additional CARB programs not listed.
123 Colorado, Colorado Department of Revenue Innovative Truck Credits.
124 Connecticut, Public Act No. 22-25 (May 10, 2022).
125 Massachusetts, MOR-EV Trucks Program.
126 New York, New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program; New York City Clean
Truck Program.
127 Utah, Utah Code 59-7-618.1. Tax credit related to alternative fuel heavy duty
vehicles.
128 Washington, Clean Alternative Commercial Vehicle and Infrastructure Tax Credit..
Accordingly, as supported by this growing raft of data, Tesla recommends that the agency's final
rule do a far better job of recognizing the expected pace and deployment of BEVs and finalize a
standard that maximizes and accelerates this transition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
P-14]
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
The greenhouse gas segment of the rule does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis and the
disproportionate impacts it has on environmental justice communities. Moreover, it
underestimates advancements in electric truck and bus technology and state policies that are
already accelerating zero-emission vehicles. In particular, the California's Advanced Clean
Truck (ACT) rule,21 which has been adopted by 6 other states22, including most recently
Connecticut,23 and has additional states such as Maine and Maryland24 on a clear pathway to
adopting the ambitious rule. This would achieve at least 50% percent of zero-emission sales in
the U.S. by 2030, putting us on a pathway to 100% zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty truck
sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, pp.3-4]
21 https ://ww2. arb. ca. gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks
1517
-------
22 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-06/how-zero-emission-laws-will-
reshape-u-s-trucking
23 https://www.ctpublic.org/news/2022-05-03/connecticut-clean-air-bill-will-adopt-
stricter-standards-for-certain-trucks-and-buses
24 https://www.electrictrucksnow.com/states
The EPA should utilize its authority and seize the opportunity to strengthen and increase the
stringency of the greenhouse gas standard and spur the rapid transition to medium- and heavy-
duty vehicle electrification. An analysis by ICCT shows that EPA can do so by setting minimum
zero-emission production requirements for model years 2027 through 2029, utilizing an approach
that would ensure the transition occurs across all vehicle segments while also prioritizing
categories, such as transit and school buses that operate in areas of non-attainment and
environmental justice communities (See Table 1 [footnote 27 is listed in Table 1 too). This
would minimize greenhouse gasses in addition to bringing significant emissions reductions and
health benefits to vulnerable children and low-income communities of color overburdened by
harmful truck pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.4]
27 https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/HDV-US-adapting-vehicle-emission-
stds-zero-emission-commercial-truck-bus-fleet-feb22.pdf
We appreciate that the EPA has sought to revisit and tighten the Phase 2 greenhouse gas standard
for model year 2027 for several sub sectors, including school and transit buses, delivery trucks
and short-haul tractors. However, as it stands, the proposed rule would only yield 1.5% zero-
emission sales by 2027 and these market segments are already relatively mature and are expected
to rapidly grow.25,26 The ACT rule would have delivered three times the zero-emission vehicles
that this proposal calls for nationally by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.4]
25 https://rmi.org/insight/high-potential-regions-for-electric-truck-deployments/
26https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21
.pdf
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Rapid advances in zero-emissions technology for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles have led to
an array of commercially available makes and models, including for electric school buses and
transit buses. This means that transforming these fleets through electrification is both possible
and practical. In fact, electric school and transit buses in operation today could already meet the
strongest standards proposed. Momentum on electrification has been building across these
sectors, and billions of federal investment dollars soon to be available through a successfully
implemented Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will further accelerate the pace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
1518
-------
Adoption of electric school buses has grown considerably since the first generation of these
vehicles were first deployed in 2014. While electric school buses were once limited to a handful
of pilot programs, WRI's analysis and dataset indicate that as of April 2022 more than 300
school districts around the country have been awarded, ordered or are committed to nearly
12,000 electric school buses (this total includes newly manufactured as well as repowered
buses). According to this same dataset, nearly 600 buses have already been delivered or are in
operation around the country today. Responding to this increased demand, manufacturers now
offer more than 20 models of electric school buses, including newly manufactured and
repowered options, with more expected to enter the market in the near future (to be detailed in
WRI's forthcoming U.S. electric school bus market report). The performance and reliability of
these buses are also continuing to improve, as each generation of buses is more advanced than
the previous. Many manufacturers are on their second or third iteration, some even further along,
and the newest models have battery ranges that can serve more than 90% of school bus routes in
the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, pp.2-3]
Increased federal support is helping accelerate school bus electrification: funding from the
American Rescue Plan awarded nearly $7 million and 23 buses to schools around the country,
and $5 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will be awarded to school
districts through the forthcoming Clean School Bus Program. These successes at the federal level
are helping to drive positive outcomes in many states, as well. For example, New York State's
recent mandate requires all new school buses to be zero-emission by 2027 (with limited
exemptions until 2029) and will provide up to $500 million to facilitate this transition through a
bond act to be considered by voters later this year. At close to 50,000 vehicles, New York's fleet
is the largest of any state and represents more than 10 percent of the US school bus fleet. Adding
to past investments, Governor Newsom's budget proposal, currently being considered by the
California state legislature, would allocate $1.5 billion in one-time funding available over three
years to support school transportation programs with a focus on greening school bus fleets. In
Colorado, the legislature has approved the allocation of $65 million to fund electric school buses
across the state. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.3]
We expect high rates of electric school bus penetration by the end of the decade. Blue Bird has
seen 'unprecedented' interest in ESBs, causing a backlog of over 380 bus orders. In 2021,
Navistar/IC Bus stated that they believe 30-50% of new school bus purchases will be electric by
2030. Moreover, market experts anticipate that electric buses will achieve cost parity with diesels
on a lifetime total cost of ownership basis by the middle to end of this decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1298-A1, p.3]
School bus fleets aren't the only ones transitioning to electric: as transit operators take advantage
of zero-emission technology advances and available funding sources, electric transit buses
continue to increase in cities and municipalities around the country as well. In the United States,
more than 3,500 electric transit buses are currently in operation, representing 24% growth since
the 2020 count. With up to $10 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law being made
available to states and transit agencies to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase cleaner and or
electric buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, the number of electric
transit buses may increase rapidly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.3]
1519
-------
In short, the market is already moving; the regulatory framework should reflect and accelerate,
not hinder, this progress. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.3]
A further consideration for setting the strongest possible rule for medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles is to encourage investments in electric vehicle manufacturing and charging
infrastructure, creating jobs and building a more resilient and cleaner economy. Recent electric
school bus investment announcements in Illinois, West Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and the
Carolinas will result in increased production capacity of electric school buses specifically,
joining states like California, Michigan, and New York which are already home to a wide range
of medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicle manufacturing facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1298-A1, p.3]
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
There are profound benefits to advancing heavy-duty electric vehicles (HDEVs), which EPA
defines as electric vehicles in Classes 2b-8. With an average lifespan of 33 years, most heavy-
duty vehicles (HDVs) spend more time and miles on the road before retirement than light-duty
vehicles.2 As a result, failing to electrify these HDVs now means that fossil fuel-powered HDVs
rolling off the assembly line during this rulemaking will remain on the road well beyond 2050,
adding hundreds of thousands of vehicle miles and associated deadly emissions over the coming
decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.2]
2 https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/press-releases/polis-administration-releases-new-
colorado-medium-and-heavy-duty-vehicle-study
Electrifying this vehicle segment represents a prime and outsized opportunity to improve public
health, minimize GHG emissions, and reduce the country's fossil fuel reliance and net energy
consumption. As ZETA detailed in our white paper, 'Medium- and Heavy-Duty Electrification:
Weighing the Opportunities and Barriers to Zero-Emission Fleets,'3 HDVs comprise a mere 4%
of vehicles on the road, yet they disproportionately contribute to U.S. fuel consumption and
resulting air pollution and climate repercussions. Buses and freight trucks alone represent 10% of
all vehicle miles traveled (VMT), but they are responsible for 22% of all fuel used.4 Likewise,
HDVs produce 24.4% of all emissions across the transportation sector, making them the single
largest contributors to U.S. emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5), NOx, volatile organic
compounds (VOC), and carbon dioxide (C02). All of these elements are linked to long-term
respiratory, cognitive, and autoimmune impairment, and HDVs' emissions are getting worse:
between 1990 and 2019, GHG emissions from heavy-duty trucks and buses grew by 93% and
162%, respectively.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.2]
3 https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/8829857/ZETA-WP-MHDV-
Electrification_Opportunities-and-Barriers_Final3.pdf
4 https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/t2102. pdf
5 https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/ archives-fast-facts-us-transportation-sector-
greenhouse-gas-emissions
1520
-------
In its own analysis, EPA also found that HDEVs will own a 1.5% market share by 2027, which
is based on a 'business-as-usual' scenario rather than one in which regulations and incentives
push the market further towards zero-emission technologies. Using publicly available
information on available HDEVs, ZETA believes that assuming business-as-usual causes a
severe underestimate in adoption. Based on cutting-edge market research, our member
companies' public announcements, and other regulatory regimes, we assess that HDEV market
penetration will greatly exceed 1.5%. In our fleet electrification white paper, we found that
HDEVs will bring substantial economic advantages to fleet operators through total cost of
ownership savings, 17 in addition to HDEVs' environmental and public health benefits. 18
Batteries are the most expensive component in HDEVs, but their prices are dropping. Battery
prices have already dropped 89% in real terms from $1,200 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $132
per kilowatt-hour in 2021.19 A continued decline in battery costs would help further reduce
HDEV purchase costs in the coming years. The evidence suggests that the lower TCO of HDEVs
is driving fleet electrification, and it stands to reason that further HDEV price drops will
accelerate electrification. In a survey of fleet managers conducted by the Department of Energy's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 64% cited lower TCO as a motivation for
electrifying their fleets.20 For this reason and others, NREL predicts that 42% of all MHDV
sales will be MHDEV models by 2030.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, pp.3-4]
17 https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/8829857/ZETA-WP-MHDV-
Electrification_Opportunities-and-Barriers_Final3.pdf
18 Ibid
19 https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-to-an-average-of-132-kwh-but-
rising-commodity-prices-start-tobite/#_ftnl
20 https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/t2102. pdf
21 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
Likewise, a CALSTART report, 'Zeroing in on Zero-Emission Trucks,' assesses that HDEV
sales will skyrocket in the next few years.22 According to the report, while only 20 HDEV
models were on the market in 2019, 145 models are now available as of December 2021, and
more models are being announced and entering production each year, as highlighted in Figure 1.
CALSTART also notes that the more than 1,200 HDEVs deployed as of December 2021 are
merely the beginning of a large wave of HDEV deployments: active orders show that 146,102
HDEVs will be deployed in the next few years. The diversification of HDEV models goes to
show that manufacturers are recognizing and responding to market demands and that
electrification is financially possible in a broad variety of HDV applications, rather than just in
the 'easy-to-electrify' applications of just a few years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1,
P 4]
22 https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
II. pdf
1521
-------
It is worth noting that fears about range anxiety are outsized. The average HDV travels
approximately 101 miles per day;23 long-haul trucks generally have the longest routes of all
HDVs, maxing out at 600 miles per day and often averaging closer to 300 miles per day, as noted
in Figure 2. Considering that many HDEVs today have similar ranges, the electric models
currently available can meet up to 60% of the HDV sectors' needs.24 HDEVs capable of
traveling greater than the average distance of long-haul trucks are expected by the end of 2022,
and HDEVs with ranges exceeding 620 miles are expected after 2023.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1283-A1, pp.4-5]
23 https://
www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pdf
24 Ibid
25 https://calstart.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/How-Zero-Emission-Heavy-Duty-
Trucks-Can-Be-Part-of-theClimate-Solution.pdf
This exponential growth of the HDEV market is occurring before the timeframe in which EPA's
proposed standards are finalized. CALSTART's research shows that HDEVs will achieve price
parity with traditional fossil fuel-powered HDVs. In California, even in the absence of state
subsidies, HDEVs will be cheaper to own and operate than fossil fuel-powered HDVs by
2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.5]
That corroborates research from NREL, which found that HDEVs will be cheaper to purchase,
operate, and maintain than fossil fuel-powered HDVs by 2035.26 50% of HDEVs will be
cheaper by 2030—within the timeframe of EPA's rulemaking. Continuing improvements to ZEV
technologies will allow HDEVs to become even cheaper and more accessible over the next
decade.27 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.5]
26
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf&sa=D&so
urce=docs&ust=1651682526583368&usg=AOvVaw2fO_IyMdhtnFT-14P6iJeD
27 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-projects-zero-emissions-medium-and-heavy-
duty-electric-trucks-will-be-cheaper-
diesel#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%94%20The%20U.S.%20De
partment,diesel%2Dpowered%20combustion%20engine%20vehicles
Additionally, EPA's assessment is at odds with current fleet electrification announcements,
including the projections of ZETA member companies. While these companies will submit
confidential business information in their own comments, even from publicly available
information, it is clear that HDEVs will surpass a 1.5% market share by 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1283-A1, p.5]
ZETA member companies like Arrival, GreenPower Motor Company, Lion Electric, Proterra,
and Tesla are all working to manufacture sufficient HDEVs to meet demand. These companies
1522
-------
are capable of producing tens of thousands of HDEVs annually. These production capacities are
proven in part by these companies' investments in new manufacturing plants like Tesla's
Gigafactory in Texas, Rivian's plant in Georgia, Lion Electric's plant in Illinois, Proterra's
heavy-duty battery manufacturing facility in California and South Carolina, and GreenPower
Motor Company's plant in West Virginia. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.6]
While some of these companies are just initiating production, their pending orders from
customers help illustrate what the HDEV market landscape will look like in the next few years.
ZETA member company Rivian's partnership with Amazon is a noteworthy example: Amazon
plans to purchase 100,000 Rivian delivery vehicles produced in Rivian's manufacturing plant in
Normal, Illinois.28 In addition to reducing Amazon's GHG emissions by 4 million metric tons
per year by 2030, Amazon expects that these electric vehicles' fuel savings will significantly cut
down the company's last-mile delivery costs. Below, you will find several examples of ZETA
member companies developing, manufacturing, and delivering HDEVs across the
country: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.6]
28 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/09/19/amazons-multibillion-dollar-
bet-on-electric-delivery-vans-is-game-changer-for-startup-rivian/? sh=da6f73 edO 138
• Arrival will provide up to 10,000 delivery vehicles to UPS, which includes the Large Van
and XL Van. UPS also has the option to purchase up to 10,000 more delivery vehicles
from Arrival. UPS is one of the world's largest fleet operators, with 125,000 delivery
vehicles around the globe. 29 Arrival's delivery van is made of ultra-lightweight
composite materials that reduce the vehicle's weight, contribute to lower fueling and
maintenance costs, and can significantly lower the total cost of ownership when
compared to internal combustion engine vehicles. In addition, UPS now drives more than
1 million miles each business day using alternative fuel vehicles, which has saved more
than 60 million gallons of conventional fossil fuels since 2000. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1283-A1, p.6]
29 https://electrek.co/2020/01/30/ups-orders-10000-electric-delivery-vans-arrival/
• GreenPower Motor Company developed the 'battery electric automotive school
transportation,' vehicle or the BEAST. The BEAST's 194-kWh battery provides a range
of up to 150 miles. The vehicle is also equipped with a Thermal Management System and
anticorrosive E-coating, which can operate in the harshest climates, and has a turning
radius of 37.7 +/- 1.6 ft—the best out of all school bus types in the industry. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.6]
• Lion Electric will be providing electric school buses to school districts across the
country, and more than 600 are already operating throughout North America.30 Lion
Electric has seven purpose-built electric models with their own chassis, bus body and
truck cabin, and proprietary battery system technology. It has five new models coming
out by the end of this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.6]
30 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lion-electric-celebrates-10-million-miles-
driven-at-act-expo-301542386.html
1523
-------
• Proterra's electric transit buses offer the longest drive range of any 40-foot electric bus on
the market at 329 miles per charge. Proterra's offerings include transit buses, as well as
technology powering school buses, delivery trucks, port equipment, construction
equipment and shuttles. As a result, transit agencies across the U.S. and Canada have
purchased over 850 Proterra vehicles that have driven more than 25 million miles in
heavy-duty applications.31 Recently, Proterra also announced a multi-year agreement
partnership with Nikola Corporation to power Nikola's Class 8 semi-trucks with
Proterra's battery systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, pp.6-7]
31 https://www.proterra.com/about/
• Tesla will begin delivering its ' Semi' short-haul truck within the time frame of the rule,
which will transform the surface shipping industry. The Semi is projected to offer a 300-
mile and 500-mile range version. By lowering operating costs on high-mileage vehicles,
these Semis will deliver cost savings to their fleet operators and significantly reduce
pollution along interstate shipping corridors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.7]
A variety of other companies outside of ZETA's membership are also electrifying their HDV
fleets, and a host of companies are partnering with local governments to electrify their fleets:
• FedEx is electrifying its fleet of 87,000 vehicles. It plans to buy only EVs after 2025, and
its fleet will be 100% electric by 2040. FedEx says an electric fleet will cut maintenance
costs in half.32 Fedex's BrightDrop models will decrease the cost of fueling by 75%
compared to a fossil fuel-powered truck. 3 3
32 https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/fed-ex-largest-electric-truck-purchase-zero-
emission/.
33 https://www.cnbc.eom/2021/12/17/fedex-gets-first-of-500-electric-trucks-from-gms-
ev-unit-in-move-to-green-logistics.html
• Walmart also plans to buy 5,000 electric vans from BrightDrop, which are expected in
2023.34 Similar to FedEx, Walmart's BrightDrop vehicles will save dramatically on
operating costs.
34
https://media.gm.eom/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2022/j
an/ces/0105 -brightdrop .html
• DHL has already electrified 20% of its fleet, and it plans to decarbonize 70% of its first-
and last-mile delivery services by 2025.35
35 https://www.dhl.com/discover/en-global/business/business-ethics/future-of-electric-
vehicles
1524
-------
• IKEA is also electrifying all of its customer deliveries in thirty markets by 2025, and 25%
of its deliveries are already electric today. IKEA believes electrifying its delivery fleet
will create a competitive advantage and generate cost savings.36
36 https://evreporter.com/gati-and-ikea/
• Finally, EV100 brings together 121 companies around the world that have committed to
electrifying their fleets. By 2030, EVIOO's members will have electrified 5.5 million
vehicles, avoiding nearly 86 million metric tons of pollution.37 In its annual report,
EV100 stated that 'The business case for a transition to EVs is now stronger than ever,
and the associated running costs are considerably lower than traditional internal
combustion engine vehicles.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.7]
37 https://www.theclimategroup.org/evlOO-publications
Finally, EPA's assessment that HDEVs will achieve 1.5% market penetration by 2027 also
ignores the regulatory impacts of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule on technology
advancement and adoption, which will require a 40-75%) HDEV market penetration by 2035.38
17 states and the District of Columbia have signed a Joint Memorandum of Understanding that
pledges to achieve a 30% HDEV market penetration by 2030 in each state, scaling toward a
100%) HDEV market penetration by 2050.39 Five of these MOU states (in addition to the ACT
rule's home state of California) have also adopted the ACT rule, and many more of the MOU
states are expected to enact the ACT rule in the next few years.40 These MOU states represent
34% of all national HDV sales; if they all enacted the ACT rule, approximately 756,000 HDEVs
would be deployed between 2024 and 2035.41 That number corresponds to more than 6%> of all
HDVs currently driving on America's roads, with a far higher market penetration.42 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, pp.7-8]
38 https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
Il.pdf
39 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/15-states-and-district-columbia-join-forces-accelerate-
bus-and-truck-electrification
40 https://calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ZIO-ZETs-Report_Updated-Final-
Il.pdf
41 Ibid
42 https://fs.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/8829857/ZETA-WP-MHDV-
Electrification_Opportunities-and-Barriers_Final3.pdf
EPA's assessment similarly underestimates the impact of President Biden's executive order.43 If
the HDEV market penetration is 1.5% in 2027, then the United States will drastically undershoot
President Biden's transportation electrification goal. And we have already seen the introductory
impacts of President Biden's executive order on electrifying the federal fleet. The General
1525
-------
Services Administration (GSA) is increasingly electrifying its fleet, the Department of Defense
(DOD) is working to electrify some of its non-tactical vehicles, and the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS) just ordered 10,019 electric delivery vehicles. These government HDEV investments
will help build economies of scale for HDEV manufacturing to drive down their purchase prices,
and will send clear market signals that will facilitate greater HDEV uptake in the private
market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.8]
43 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/08/05/executive-order-on-strengthening-american-leadership-in-clean-cars-
and-trucks/
Based on market research, ZETA member companies' publicly available projections, and the
current regulatory landscape, it is evident that HDEVs will achieve a much higher market share
in 2027 than just 1.5%. For that reason, EPA should reconsider its analysis and enact more
stringent NOx and GHG standards for the MY2027-30 period than it has proposed in Option
1. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, p.8]
ZETA and our member companies stand ready to facilitate the transition to a fully electrified
heavy-duty vehicle market. The HDEV market is primed to accelerate in the coming years—
hundreds of thousands of vehicles have been ordered, the diversity of models available is
growing exponentially, and battery prices are falling rapidly. Regulatory certainty will ensure
that manufacturers continue to invest in HDEVs, which deliver marked environmental and public
health benefits in addition to their reduced cost of operation and, in many cases, ownership. EPA
should provide this regulatory certainty by adopting Option 1 at a minimum to reduce NOx
emissions from HDVs, and EPA should increase the stringency of the MY2027-2030 GHG
standards (including by eliminating the Phase 2 GHG standard's multipliers by MY2024). EPA
should make this rule even more stringent than it has already proposed because it should
consider the aforementioned expansion of the HDEV market and the other regulatory regimes
already in place, including, most notably, the ACT rule. Issuing a stringent standard in this
rulemaking will enable EPA to create strong—and environmentally and economically
necessary—Phase 3 HDV rules in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1283-A1, pp.9-
10]
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
28.1.2 Proposed Standards are too Stringent and/or Should not Reopen HD GHG Phase 2
1526
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE opposes technology mandates, including Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 4]
AVE consistently urges regulators develop technology neutral standards. Standards based on
performance are more likely to encourage broader investments into innovative technologies. A
ZEV mandate signals to manufacturers that there is little incentive to invest in new engine
technologies to meet future standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
In proposing targeted updates to the Phase 2 Heavy-Duty GHG program, EPA has requested
comment on ZEV sales projections to inform the level of GHG reductions that should be
considered for MY 2027 and later year vehicles.51 EPA has also requested comment on different
approaches that might be used to scale down the Advanced Technology Credit multiplier
program after MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.23]
51 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,599.
As a component supplier, EPA's GHG standards do not directly apply to Allison. However, we
hear our OEM customers' concerns about the importance of regulatory certainty to product
development and share similar concerns about the precedent and disruption that re-opening the
GHG Phase 2 Rule, finalized in 2016, can have to the industry. The commercial vehicle industry
benefits from advanced awareness of and certainty in regulations to guide research and
development and integration projects, and this foundation is important for reliable deployment of
emissions reducing technology.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.23]
Allison appreciates EPA acknowledgement of the importance to maintain four years of lead time
to meet standards and appreciates the challenge EPA faces in developing GHG fleet standards
based on projections of ZEV sales at this point in history where this is plenty reason for
optimism, as well as a great deal of uncertainty. In this regard, however, Allison would note that
EPA's analysis showed that the percentage of battery electric vehicles ("BEVs") certified for
MY 2019 was 0.06 percent of the total heavy-duty vehicle market. While EPA did not supply a
similar percentage for sales in MY 2020, with only 380 BEVs certified in that year versus 350
BEVs in the year prior, it would be clear that such vehicles are still a very small part of the
overall heavy-duty vehicle market. Elsewhere in the proposed rule, EPA cites additional
information concerning pronouncements by vehicle manufacturers and fleet operators, additional
studies and economic rationale (lower total cost of ownership) to support projecting increased
BEV sales in future years.52 California's various ZEV mandates are also cited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.23]
52 87 Fed. Reg. 17,595-7.
1527
-------
Based on such information, EPA is proposing an increase in vehicle (not engine-based) C02
emission standards which do not directly correspond to the vehicle categories used in the Phase 2
rule, resulting in an adjustment to 17 of the 33 vehicle categories defined in EPA regulations.
Based on several analytical steps, EPA estimated that approximately 1.5% of heavy-duty
vehicles in MY 2027 would be electric, and since these would theoretically "net out" vehicles
without technology that would otherwise reduce C02 emissions, an overall increase in
stringency of for certain vehicle categories was calculated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
p.23]
Allison believes that the Agency should consider several factors in arriving at any final increase
in the stringency of Phase 2 standards. First, EPA must recognize that its methodology is not a
"ground up" analysis that is of the same empirical quality as that contained in other rulemakings.
The nascent nature of the BEV market does not allow for such quantification and there remain a
range of uncertainties that cannot be fully quantified. In such a case, EPA should err on the side
of more conservative estimates of the level of BEV market penetration that will occur five years
from now.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, pp.23-24]
Allison supports OEM Vehicle GHG certification by providing components, software features,
and efficiency data for OEMs to use in the GEM model. Thus, a concern we hold regarding an
overly aggressive ZEV sales prediction is that, should the BEV market not develop in the manner
that some of the more optimistic projections indicate, OEMs would be placed in the position of
seeking non-ZEV alternatives to meet more aggressive emission requirements. This situation
would inevitably "trickle down" to component suppliers, increasing the pressure to quickly
develop alternative C02 reduction technology based on conventional engines/powertrains.
Concurrent elimination of Advanced Technology Credit Multipliers would only compound the
difficulties OEMs and suppliers would face if ZEV adoption rates do not materialize as quickly
as projected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.24]
In the NPRM, EPA did not propose to establish a heavy-duty ZEV mandate. At the same time,
the Agency recognized the important role that ZEVs may assume in the heavy-duty sector. EPA
based both the revision of Phase 2 stringencies on presumed ZEV uptake in the market as well as
accounted for ZEVs with regard to the control of heavy-duty criteria pollutants, e.g., through
proposing to allow the generation of NOx emission credits by ZEVs. Therefore, under all of
EPA's proposed options and alternatives, ZEVs will assume a more important place in EPA's
regulation of the heavy-duty sector. ZEVS will affect the stringency of GHG and criteria
pollutant standards and become an element of compliance flexibility for OEMs and indirectly,
component suppliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.32]
As noted in the introduction to our comments, Allison has invested in and continues to develop
several lines of products for the electrification of HDVs, including Allison's emerging eGen
Power® series which will be compatible with full battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles
as well as hybrid applications. Allison is currently engaged with OEM vehicle development
programs and is supporting integration activities around it's e-Axle systems. Additionally,
Allison is investing in a range of other technologies and product architectures to support the
nationwide shift to electrification. Our insight into numerous OEM programs helps ensure that
1528
-------
our program timing and pace of investments are aligned with OEM and end user
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.32]
To date, as a component supplier, Allison has not been directly regulated by CARB ZEV
mandates nor would Allison be directly regulated at the federal level. But clearly any rule that is
promulgated may serve as a reference point or the foundation for additional rulemakings,
particularly where such are contemplated pursuant to Executive Order 14037: Strengthening
American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.32]
Depending on how the final rules are structured at the federal and state level, even if Allison is
not mandated to produce or sell ZEVs, components for ZEVs, BEVs and HEVs that Allison
produces for other manufacturers may be affected by testing, certification and durability
requirements and its commercial relationships with other manufacturers may be implicated. This,
in turn, produces questions with regard to both compliance and regulatory flexibility (e.g.,
credits) that may be generated or available. Commercial issues also arise with respect to funding
necessary research and development as ZEV mandates and/or other regulatory requirements or
incentives are implemented and inevitably revised over time. In general, Allison favors
performance-based standards that do not dictate particular technological outcomes. Emission
standards should not be de facto mandates for specific technologies; rather they should be
designed in a manner and within a timeframe that different technological approaches to reducing
emissions can be pursued. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.32]
Allison, as a long-time leading manufacturer of hybrid vehicle systems and like many of our
competitors, is moving into components that will allow for greater electrification of the
vocational vehicle fleet. But development of these systems requires substantial investment and
verification of their performance, including evaluation of their durability. This necessary process
means that EPA should not project broad adoption of ZEV technology across the medium- and
heavy-duty fleet. And, while the Proposed Rule does not mandate the sale of any ZEV vehicles,
EPA should not impose stringencies and other regulatory requirements which would result in a
de facto requirement for ZEV vehicles. The vocational vehicle sector responds to the demands of
its customers and Allison and other vendors are working to meet anticipated demand for ZEV
and other alternatively-fueled vehicles with favorable GHG performance. EPA should be wary of
producing counter-productive results by favoring one technology (ZEV) over other potential
health and environmental solutions.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.37-38]
Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA sets a relatively modest penetration rate for BETs in this rule but is taking comments on
higher target levels. Higher BET penetration rates will result in a significant environmental
impact that must be fully considered. Processing commodities is an energy and environmentally
intensive activity and results in emissions that the agency cannot ignore, as indicated by the chart
from the IEA below. 10 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.3]
10 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report, at 17.
1529
-------
Increased use of BETs also creates security concerns. China has a dominant position in the
global supply chain for battery production as detailed in a recent report noting '[widespread
commercialization of EVs will only make the United States more susceptible to China's threats.'
11 Motor vehicle electrification can make the United States beholden to China and other nations
that control the minerals required to manufacture EV batteries, chips, and other
components. 12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.4]
11 See Securing America's Future Energy, The Commanding Heights of Global Transportation,
at 46, https://secureenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-Commanding-Heights-of-
Global-Transportation.pdf, last visited May. 16, 2022.
12 See https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-dominance-in-clean-energy-metals/, based on
data from the International Energy Administration, Executive Summary,
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-
summary
EPA must not ignore increased battery degradation (and earlier disposal and replacement)
associated with the 'fast-charging' that is most frequently utilized to minimize the hours of
charging time that would otherwise be required to place a commercial truck in service. 13 Studies
have shown that fast-charging a battery causes lithium plating and dendrite formation around the
anode, permanently reducing its capacity. At a pack level, it can cause cells to age at different
rates and pack overheating. 14 Further studies of light-duty vehicles reveal that vehicle hardware
improvements to enable these increased fast-charging speeds could cost approximately $1,000,
assuming no change in battery size.15 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, pp.4-5]
13 See Fast-charging damages electric car batteries, Univ. Calif. Riverside News (March 11,
2020), https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/03/ll/fast-charging-damages-electric-car-batteries, last
visited, May 16, 2022.
14 See The International Council on Clean Transportation, Lessons Learned on Early Electric
Vehicle Fast-Charging Deployments, White Paper (July 2018), at 6,
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ZEV_fast_charging_white_paper_final.pdf.
15 Id.
EPA must fully quantify the costs associated with fast-charging, including the adjustments to
battery replacement schedules, for heavy-duty vehicles and seek public comment on that analysis
before finalizing this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.5]
The trucking industry's driver shortage and its impact on supply chains and the price of
consumer goods has made national news. The trucking industry cannot afford to idle drivers for
long periods of recharging. 16 Most medium- and heavy-duty vehicles take less than 10 minutes
to fuel with petroleum-based liquid fuels, but even using a supercharging rate of 350 kW,17 a
BET would take over an hour. If the operator avoids supercharging to avoid degrading the
battery, charging would take even longer. Long charging times adversely impact trucking
productivity. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Hours of Service regulations
1530
-------
limit a driver's time on-duty, and increased charging time reduces the amount of time that a
driver can legally operate the vehicle. 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.5]
16 See, e.g., Truckers are getting big pay hikes, but there's still a shortage of drivers, CNN.com
(May 29, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/29/economy/truck-driver-shortage-pay-
hikes/index.html.
17 See How Does Electric Vehicle (EV) Public Charging Work?, Electrify America,
https://www.electrifyamerica.com/how-ev-charging-works/., last visited, May 16, 2022.
18 See 49 CFR Part 395.
EPA must account for and seek public comment on these real-world increased labor costs and
the impact on the cost of consumer goods before finalizing this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1262-A1, p.5]
The installation of charging stations will also require significant investment in additional
transformers, distribution circuits, conductors, substations, transmission lines, dependable
generating capacity, and other necessary grid upgrades. These costs can be staggering and EPA
must provide an analysis of the impacts of these electricity upgrades as truck electrification
increases. As an example, for modest light-duty EV penetration, the city of Sacramento
determined that approximately 12,000 transformers needed to be replaced at an average cost of
$7,400 each. The total investment would almost total $90 million. 19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1262-A1, p.5]
19 See Smart Electric Power Alliance, Utilities and Electric Vehicles: The Case for Managed
Charging, 13, available at http://emotorwerks.com/images/PR/Articles/sepa-managed-charging-
ev-report.pdf. last visited, May 16, 2022.
These infrastructure costs will increase ratepayer's costs if the utilities seek to include these costs
in their rate-base and, separately, will require businesses and government entities that rely on
BETs to make massive investments in onsite power distribution grid upgrades and charging
equipment. EPA must estimate these costs and seek public comment before finalizing this
proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.5]
Similarly, battery-powered trucks and buses may be uncompetitive and impractical for weight-
sensitive and many mid-range or long-haul routes.20 Weight limitations would require more
BETs to move an equivalent amount of cargo (as the vehicles weigh-out). Moreover, increasing
truck trips would only exacerbate existing congestion at the ports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1262-A1, p.6]
20 California Air Resources Board, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Advanced Clean
Trucks Regulation, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons at 1-9 (Oct. 22, 2019),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/isor.pdf ('ZEVs may not be
suitable for periodic towing of heavy loads which could be a problem for a vehicle with limited
range capability.'), last visited, May 16, 2022.
1531
-------
Additionally, temperature significantly impacts battery performance and vehicle range. EPA
should consider the significant and deleterious impacts that both hot and cold weather have on
EV battery performance and associated charging requirements and emissions, as these issues
would have a significant impact on the cost-benefit analysis supporting this proposal and a
consumer's vehicle selection choice.21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.6]
21 See American Automobile Association (AAA), Electric Vehicle Range Testing at fig. 68
(Feb. 2019), https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/AAR/files/AAA-Electric-Vehicle-Range-
Testing-Report.pdf (Percent change in cost for 1000 miles of combined urban/highway driving
relative to 75°F), last visited, May 16, 2022.
Medium-duty and heavy-duty electric trucks will increase tire wear and associated particulate
matter emissions in the areas where they operate. EPA's analysis does not evaluate these
emissions.22,23 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.6]
22 See Jim Park, Equipment: What Will Electrification Mean for Truck Tires?, Trucking
Info (Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.truckinginfo.com/10151115/what-will-electrification-
mean-for-truck-tires ('Torque loads on drive tires will increase not only thanks to the
higher output of electric motors compared to internal combustion engines, but also
because regenerative braking will impart torsional forces on tires in the opposite
direction. This will affect tire tread wear as well as sidewalls.'), last visited, May 16,
2022.
23 See International Council for Clean Transportation, Benefits of adopting California
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations in New York State at 6, Working Paper
2021-23 (May 2021), at 6, https://theicct.org/publications/nys-hdv-regulation-benefits-
may2021 ('STI did not apply any adjustment to particulate matter tire-wear emissions.'),
last visited, May 16, 2022.
EPA May Not Consider California's Advanced Clean Trucks Program
EPA relies on California's adoption of its Advanced Clean Trucks Program as evidence of a
trend toward truck electrification and a substantial basis of EPA's proposal. However, these rules
lack federal preemption approval39 and have not been implemented. EPA states 'these
developments have demonstrated that further C02 emission reductions in the MY 2027
timeframe are feasible,' although no such demonstration has occurred because, again, the rules
are yet to be implemented. EPA further states '[w]e also may incorporate the CARB Advanced
Clean Truck (ACT) Regulation into our final rule analyses.' Footnote 90 in the Proposal states
that 'EPA has received waiver requests under CAA section 209(b) from California for the
Omnibus or ACT rules; EPA is currently reviewing the waiver requests for the CA Omnibus and
ACT rules and may consider including these rules in our analyses for the final rule.' To do so,
EPA must first satisfy its obligations under 209(b), which provides '[t]he Administrator shall,
after notice and opportunity for public hearing, waive application of this section' if a list of
conditions is met by the State. EPA cannot consider the implications of fully implemented
California rules in its rulemaking until it approves California's waiver request and demonstrates
it as 'feasible.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.10]
1532
-------
39 42 U.S.C. 7543(b)
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
New GHG Standards: ATD categorically opposes increases to the stringency of the Phase 2
HDE/CMV fuel economy/GHG standards applicable through MY 2027 as they would undermine
the regulatory certainty that is critical to compliance. The technology-forcing Phase 2 standards
resulted from a carefully coordinated joint rulemaking with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), which is primarily responsible for administering the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA). 5 Indeed, NAD A suggests that it would be contrary to the intent of Congress for EPA to,
on its own, revise the Phase 2 HDE/CMV fuel economy/GHG standards. Moreover, EPA's
suggestion that the Phase 2 mandates should be tightened given potential HDE and CMV OEM
ZEV product plans is an arbitrary and unjustified "no good deed goes unpunished" policy
strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 3]
5. Section 102 of EISA specifically mandated that NHTSA coordinate with EPA to establish fuel
economy/GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. 49 U.S.C. §32902(b)(l)(C).
In addition, while ATD does not oppose work by EPA on a new (Phase 3) fuel economy/GHG
rulemaking for MYs 2030 and later, such rulemaking also must be conducted jointly with the
NHTSA, consistent with the statutory authority spelled out in EPCA, as amended by
EISA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 3]
As discussed above, ATD urges EPA to move forward with a single set of technologically
achievable and customer acceptable national HDE NOx standards for MY 2027 and later, while
relegating any consideration of new HDE GHG mandates to a separate "Phase 3"
rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 8]
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• HD2027 should not serve as a mechanism to amend the Phase 2 rule that was finalized in 2016
and supported by industry stakeholders. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 5]
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include: Recognition that NOx reductions should align with both EPA's Phase 2 and Phase 3
greenhouse gas ("GHG") implementation milestones to afford manufacturers the necessary lead-
time and ability to conduct thorough research and development to align competing regulatory
objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
ATA does not support the reopening of the EPA 2016 Phase 2 rule. Reopening any final rule that
was the culmination of years' worth of stakeholder discussions, input, data sharing, and
1533
-------
negotiation is simply not good public policy. After having worked with EPA in good faith,
changing a final rule mid-stream sets a bad precedent and upends the lead-time, planning, and
resources necessary for manufacturers to design technologies for the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 18]
Testimony presented on Phase 2 by several stakeholders during the April 12-14 EPA public
hearing encouraged the agency to not only tighten truck GHG standards in 2027, but also in
years 2028 and 2029 as well. Testimony called for Phase 2 revisions to mandate zero-emission
trucks. What became abundantly clear during the hearing was that none of the parties testifying
in support of accelerated decarbonization efforts purchased or operated trucks nor did they run
trucking companies. No testimony presented solutions as to how to pay for an accelerated "green
transportation" transition. With the cost of new Class 8 electric trucks costing over $400,000 per
vehicle, and fuel cell vehicles estimated to cost even more, trucking fleets simply cannot afford
the up-front costs to buy new trucks that are 3-4 times more expensive than their clean diesel
counterparts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 18]
While it is understood that HD2027 was a convenient mechanism to modify requirements under
a totally separate rulemaking, changes in circumstances not originally anticipated by the agency
under Phase 2 should not warrant more stringent standards. From a purely equitable standpoint,
the agency should also change the implementation of mobile source final rules that adversely
impact fleet operations due to changes in circumstances as well - such as pandemics, labor and
technician shortages, excessive inflationary rates, economic downturns, parts shortages, or
technological inability to comply. In other words, good public policy necessitates the door
swinging both ways. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 19]
President Biden's August 2021 Executive Order already requires the agency complete its Phase 3
rule by the summer of 2024. With initial discussions about to begin, there will be abundant
opportunities for stakeholder input on further tightening truck GHG standards in 2030 and
beyond. The trucking industry continues to support the pursuit of one nationwide zero-emission
vehicle plan that is reasonable, logical, affordable, and the least-disruptive to not impede the
nation's supply chains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 19]
Organization: Autocar, LLC (Autocar)
In supporting the spirit of the Proposed Rule, Autocar proposes the following modifications:
1. Maintain emission standards for 2027 and beyond at current levels for small
manufacturers, and provide credit opportunities for small manufacturers that are able to
produce and sell trucks that meet the more stringent standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1292-A1, p. 1]
Autocar produces specialized heavy-duty vocational trucks and yard tractors used across the
United States to collect and dump solid waste and recycling, sweep streets, mix and pump
concrete and shunt freight at warehouses, railroads and ports. Autocar has been a leader in refuse
truck industry adoption of environmentally-supportive vehicles and technologies. In recent years,
at least 40% of Autocar's refuse trucks sold for use in the U.S. were built with compressed
1534
-------
natural gas ("CNG") engines. Autocar has built and sold more than 8,000 CNG trucks. These
trucks reach the country's most disadvantaged and polluted communities, and lead to lower daily
emissions from mobile sources. CNG-fueled vehicles now comprise the largest portion of
Autocar's refuse truck production. No other refuse truck maker's product mix reflects a higher
concentration of clean-fuel burning vehicles. And while less viable in the marketplace, Autocar
also produced and sold hybrid refuse vehicles, from which the Company gained additional
experience in development of lower emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p.
2]
Over the last three years, Autocar accelerated and made great progress in its commitment to
environmentally-supportive vehicles through development of an all-electric, zero-emission
("ZEV") yard tractor. The time line for bringing to market heavy-duty ZEV refuse trucks and
other severe-duty applications is largely dependent on progress in heavy-duty battery
development, integration with body companies and installation of charging infrastructure.
Autocar is working hard to be ready with its own pieces of the puzzle so that it can incorporate
those other pieces when available. Nevertheless, as further described below, Autocar faces
unique challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 2]
Those unique challenges were recognized by EPA during GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rulemaking.
Small manufacturers were completely exempt from Phase 1. For Phase 2, Autocar worked
closely with the Heavy-Duty Diesel Standards team in Ann Arbor to provide flexibilities for
small manufacturers, including delayed imposition of Phase 2 standards (with incentives for
early Phase 1 opt-in) and opportunities for small manufacturers to generate emissions credits
during Phase 1 for use in Phase 2. When it became clear that large manufacturers would generate
emissions credits across their diverse, high-volume heavy duty vehicle lines, including over-the-
road trucks, and use those credits to certify their vocational trucks, the risk that small
manufacturers would not be able to certify and stay in business became very real. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 2]
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) recognizes that small business vehicle
manufacturers will be disproportionately impacted by the imposition of more stringent emission
standards. In general, the justification for increasing the stringency of the GHG standards for
heavy-duty vehicles in 2027 is the proliferation of certain heavy duty ZEV's, which EPA
anticipates will be accelerated by California's Advance Clean Trucks and Advance Clean Fleet
regulations (the "California ZEV Regulations"). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
The Proposed Rule as well as the California ZEV Regulations will impose disproportionately
high burdens on a small business like Autocar, which produces small volumes of a select few
product lines. The lack of product mix denies Autocar the benefit of averaging and aggregating
credits. The low overall volume denies Autocar the benefit of banking credits and prevents it
from spreading development and compliance costs across many vehicles. Specifically, Autocar's
development and compliance costs will be concentrated within its current volume of
approximately 3,000 vehicles annually. In contrast, Autocar's competitors will spread such costs
across tens of thousands of vehicles and multiple product lines, and with vertical integration and
robust purchasing power, the competition will gain a competitive advantage over its "small
town" competitor. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
1535
-------
Small manufacturers have less diverse product lines than large manufacturers. Autocar's main
product lines are refuse vehicles, yard tractors, street sweepers, dump trucks and a few other
severe-service applications. Unlike its large competitors, Autocar does not build chassis for any
of the "targeted subcategories" (school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks and short-haul
tractors) that are providing the perceived boost in ZEV demand and production. Therefore,
although the GHG standards for Autocar's trucks will be more stringent under the Proposed
Rule, Autocar will not benefit from any early industry shift to ZEV's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
Pandemic-related shortages of supply of parts and components for vehicles are challenging all
manufacturers, and it is unclear how or when those problems will be resolved. However, the
impact on small manufacturers is multiplied by their lower cash flows, lack of diversity of
product and lower relative purchasing power. In fact, when shortages occur, suppliers allocate
based on volume, which puts small manufacturers at the back of the line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
In particular, small manufacturers have experienced sourcing issues during ZEV development.
ZEV technology suppliers are demanding large capital investments that exceed what small
businesses can commit. And Autocar is not in a position to build a battery production plant or
acquire whole existing ZEV technology producers, like their large competitors are. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
Although California will compel fleets to purchase ZEV's, other states will not. And although
California is attempting to develop ZEV charging infrastructure, other states are not. Therefore,
small manufacturers who are compelled by the regulations to produce ZEVs may not be able to
sell those vehicles, thus increasing the risk of falling short of meeting the standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 3]
Autocar does not design or manufacture its own conventional engines or transmissions. Unlike
its vertically-integrated competitors, Autocar is entirely dependent on outside suppliers for these
major vehicle components. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 4]
The same is true for batteries and many other ZEV powertrain components. Therefore, it will be
more difficult for small businesses like Autocar to build trucks that meet the more stringent
standards. For example, because Autocar's product lines are limited, the supply base options for
ZEV components are limited, requiring more global shipments; specifically, battery cores for
Autocar applications are only available from China. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 4]
Autocar has strong relationships with its suppliers; however, they have compliance requirements
of their own, and they have much larger customers than Autocar. The market and order volumes
obviously drive their decision making on investment in development. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1292-A1, p. 4]
Recognizing that EPA may ultimately impose emission standards even more stringent than as
currently set forth in the Proposed Rule, Autocar offers a few simple modifications to the
1536
-------
Proposed Rule to alleviate the competitive advantage that more stringent GHG emission
standards bestow upon large manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
First, EPA should maintain emission standards for 2027 and beyond at current levels for small
manufacturers, and provide credit opportunities for small manufacturers that are able to produce
and sell trucks that meet the more stringent standards. That way, small manufacturers that do not
share the benefit of the ZEV development and sales that are prompting the changes to the
standards will meet the original 2027 standards and be incentivized to continue development to
earn credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
Small manufacturers are uniquely impacted by emission standards and changes to emission
standards. Autocar requests that EPA maintain emission standards for 2027 and beyond at
current levels for small manufacturers, and provide credit opportunities for small manufacturers
that are able to produce and sell trucks that meet the more stringent standards. An extension of
the interim provisions for credit generation for CNG trucks will help small business keep up with
credit generation by their large competitors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 6]
As set forth in the NPRM, EPA set the existing heavy-duty GHG Phase 2 standards at levels that
would require all conventional vehicles to install varying combinations of emission-reducing
technologies (the degree and types of technology can differ, with some vehicles that have less
being offset by others with more), leading to emissions reductions. In Autocar's experience, no
large manufacturers are offering these "Phase 2 technologies" on their vocational vehicles other
than neutral-idle, and the other technologies are not viable or not available for purchase in the
vocational market. For example:
• Vehicle Speed Limiter - Most of Autocar's trucks run in the Urban cycle. Vehicle speed
limiting has little to no effect in these duty cycles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1,
pp. 4 - 5]
• Start-Stop - Autocar's engine supplier does not currently offer this technology and does
not intend to offer it with Autocar's engines in the future. As such, this technology is not
currently available to use in compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
• Automatic Engine Shutdown - Autocar's engine supplier currently offers this technology
only for tractor engines and specifically excludes vocational engines. They do not plan to
extend to vocational applications, in part due to Autocar being the only manufacturer
requesting this option. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
• Tire Pressure Monitoring - During our launch of tire pressure monitoring, customers
experienced various challenges with implementation of this technology, so TPMS has not
1537
-------
been launched successfully to date. Autocar's development of solutions to make this
successful in the vocational market is ongoing, but currently there is not path to solve the
customer implementation issues. It is unclear whether this technology will be available
for Phase 2 certification. Further, tire pressure technologies have little impact on reducing
GHG emissions, so the return on investment for manufacturers and customers is hard to
justify. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
Based on Autocar's observations in the market, large manufacturers are using credits earned on
non-vocational vehicles to meet Phase 2 standards on their vocational vehicles, rather than
installing Phase 2 technologies, which makes it unlikely that engine manufacturers will bring
them to market. It is unclear whether Autocar and other small manufacturers will have earned
enough credits on vocational vehicles in Phase 1 to get them through Phase 2. But it is clear that
fleet owners are not interested in purchasing the added cost and weight of many of the Phase 2
technologies. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1292-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
Near-Zero Trucks are the Only Alternative Deplovable on a Large-Scale [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1350-A1, p.2]
Heavy-duty near-zero trucks are capable of ranges exceeding 600 miles and refuel in about 5 to 7
minutes. Electric trucks are significantly constrained by their limited range of roughly 150 miles
or less2. This significant barrier to viability is further compounded by recharging times that can
exceed three hours3. Oregon Trucking Association President Jana Jarvis recently stated, 'Then
you think about having to stop and recharge — if there was a charging infrastructure and if
there was enough grid capacity. And both of those are questions today. You start thinking about
doing that every couple hundred miles and you realize the inefficiencies the trucking industry
would be subject to by conversion to electric vehicles.4' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1,
p.2]
2 https://www.electrive.eom/2022/01/07/kenworth-presents-first-class-8-electric-
truck/#:~:text=The%20vehicle%20is%20equipped%20with,at%20up%20to%20120%20kW.
3 https://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/kenworth-class-8-battery-electric-t680e-available-order/
4 M. Samayoa, OPB.org, Zero emissions trucks could be soon be required in Oregon (Nov. 15,
2021); https://www.opb.org/article/2021/ll/15/zero-emissions-trucks-could-soon-be-required-in-
Oregon/
These significant performance restrictions in turn require, in most cases, two electric trucks to
replace the work of one diesel. This key factor appears to be ignored in cost-comparisons and
emission comparisons, but they have significant implications. This reality makes the cost of
replacing a single diesel truck with electric power at around $1 million whereas a near-zero truck
can be purchased for approximately $170,000 depending on its configuration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1350-A1, p.2]
1538
-------
In a November 2021 interview, Daimler Truck CEO, Martin Daum stated, 'The first truth is, in
heavy duty commercial vehicles you need such a huge amount of energy, meaning you need such
large batteries, that such a truck always will cost significantly more than a combustion engine
powered truck'5 This problem is further compounded by the rising costs of the batteries
themselves. The chief executive of Benchmark Mineral Intelligence in October of 2021 told
Reuters, 'The market may have to reposition itself for a period of rising battery cell prices, a new
phenomenon for an industry conditioned to expect year-on-year falls.'6 While we have been
hearing about heavy-duty EV trucks for years, the reason you do not see them being deployed,
outside of demonstration projects, is they face a triple layered barrier to adoption consisting of
severely limited range, long recharging times and the need, in most cases, of purchasing two EV
trucks for every diesel replaced. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.2]
5 Meghana Kandra, 'Diamler CEO Talks About Advancements in Heavy Electric Duty Truck',
https ://www. cnbc. com/2021/11/12/too-risky-to-not-use-battery-and-hydrogen-tech-daimler-
truck-ceo.html, November 13th, 2021.
6 Pratima Desai, 'High Lithium Costs Start To Feed Into Prices of China EV Batteries',
https://www.reuters.com/technology/high-lithium-costs-start-feed-into-prices-china-ev-batteries-
bmi-2021-10-29/, October 29th, 2021.
California's HVIP program is a great illustration of the real-world effects of this massive barrier.
The HVIP program has provided over half a billion dollars of vouchers specifically for electric
powered trucks, but 97 percent of those vouchers have not been redeemed.7 As the EV industry
works to navigate significant hurdles, near-zero engines are being deployed. UPS is in the
process of purchasing 6,000 new natural gas trucks and has signed an agreement to purchase 250
million gallon equivalents of RNG.8 New regulatory support for large-scale deployments of
near-zero trucks is in-line with the Biden Administrations 'Long Term Strategy' for achieving
net-zero emissions. The plan states that the Administration will 'prioritize clean fuels like
carbon-free hydrogen and sustainable biofuels where electrification is challenged.'9 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.3]
7 Impact - Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project | California
HVIP, May 15, 2022
8 https://about.ups.com/sg/en/our-stories/innovation-driven/renewable-natural-gas-is-an-
important-part-of-ups-strategy-to-in.html
9 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf
The Southern California air basin is the most challenged attainment zone in the United States in
terms of air quality. Wayne Nastri, Executive Director of the Southern California Air Quality
Management District stated in an August 2021 letter, 'There are multiple reasons why, despite
manufacturer promises to the contrary, as a practical matter ZE heavy-duty trucks are not
available today. First, while there appear to be multiple heavy-duty ZE truck models available
for order, getting these vehicles delivered in a timely manner is an entirely different matter.
Second, there are ongoing concerns regarding whether ZE trucks can meet needed duty-cycles.
1539
-------
Third, there is currently a dearth of charging infrastructure and concerns regarding sufficient
power supply needed to support widespread electrification. '11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1350-A1, p.3]
11 August 3, 2021 Letter From Wayne Nastri to Environmental Justice and Environmental
Health Partners.
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
With respect to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and
engines, we strongly believe that EPA should establish fuel-neutral, technology-neutral,
performance-based standards and incentives that allow all effective technologies to be
recognized for their contributions. Further, we urge the Agency to avoid prescribing specific
fuels, power sources, or technologies that engine and vehicle companies must use to meet the
Proposal's emissions standards or take advantage of its incentives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1329-A2, p. 2]
We must work to reduce emissions from vehicles that are on the road now and until we reach this
goal. Furthermore, the urgency of the climate crisis demands that all solutions are pursued. Any
technology that can deliver near-zero emission transportation at scale in the coming decade
should have a pathway in EPA regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 3]
100% zero-emission vehicles are always the ideal solution. However, given the urgency to
decarbonize the entire transportation sector to net-zero levels by mid-century and to reduce
GHGs as much as possible this decade, near-zero emission vehicles must be a necessary part of
the solution. The EPA acknowledges the difficulty of extended-range battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) (Federal Register, p. 17562). Industry members
are keenly aware of these difficulties. Innovation will be necessary to achieve long-term HDV
emissions goals. The EPA, thus, must design regulations with room for near-zero emissions
solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 3]
We object to any sales mandate that is only for BEVs or FCEVs. Such mandates will stifle
innovation. They will also reduce the overall GHG emissions reductions that will result from
finalizing this Proposal by limiting the future market to only a limited set of technology
solutions. Instead, EPA should encourage innovators to pursue all viable solutions in case any
one solution does not work out. Thus, we strongly urge EPA to avoid mandates of specific
technologies, whether in the Advanced Technology Incentive Program, in federal versions of the
Advanced Clean Truck and Advanced Clean Fleet rules, and otherwise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1329-A2, p. 3]
The included three (3) technologies offer pathways to carbon negative transportation. In other
words, we may be able to turn vehicles into carbon removal devices — through a bioenergy with
carbon capture & storage (BECCS) pathway. These offer perhaps the most feasible path to the
Administration's Department of Energy EarthShot Initiative for carbon removal under $100/ton.
We must ensure all transformative solutions are given the opportunity to develop. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 3]
1540
-------
ClearFlame, Remora, and SixWheel are developing effective emissions-reduction technologies
for one of the hardest-to-decarbonize sectors. These developers must be supported and given a
pathway in regulations - not shut out. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 3]
The EPA's own history shows the risk of prematurely "picking winners." In the early 2000s,
EPA tried to drive the market place towards using NOx adsorbers to meet the 2007 and 2010
NOx standards. The market ultimately determined that Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) was
a more cost-effective and vastly preferred strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p.. 3 -
4]
As you update the Agency's Phase 2 GHG standards for certain heavy-duty vehicles and as you
develop EPA's expected proposal for new Phase 3 GHG standards that will apply to all heavy-
duty engines and vehicles, we strongly urge you to adapt EPA's successful fuel-neutral,
technology-neutral "systems approach" to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all of
the nation's heavy-duty engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
An innovation-driven, all-of-the-above approach will lead to more rapid carbon mitigation than
pre-selecting particular technologies. The current Proposal includes provisions that reward BEVs
and FCEVs that are not available to other technologies, including but not limited to ours. This
approach will delay -and ultimately reduce - the overall GHG benefits of the program, an
unintended consequence with real-world climate impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1,
p. 3]
We strongly urge EPA to revise these provisions in its final rule to enable all technologies to
qualify under these provisions, thereby sending a market signal that encourages all innovations
that may achieve the same - or even greater - emissions benefits when upstream and other
indirect emissions are considered, at greater speed, scale, and/or cost-effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
We strongly urge EPA to revise its definition of "Fuel" and other provisions that will be
necessary to ensure that a ClearFlame engine can be certified and operate using any high-blend
ethanol orbiofuel, including E85 andE98. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
The Proposal lists ethanol only as a blend option for gasoline. It is critical that EPA sends the
right market signal here - that an ethanol-fueled compression-ignition engine can receive the
appropriate EPA certification and any incentives that it qualifies for, by virtue of its emissions
performance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
EPA Should Maintain its Historic Fuel-Neutral, Technology-Agnostic Performance-Based
Approach in the Proposal's Final Rule and Next Year's Expected Phase 3 GHG Proposal.
For the reasons outlined above, a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, "systems approach" is still
critically necessary - both for this Proposal and for next year's expected proposal to reduce
GHGs from all heavy-duty engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
Here are just a few reasons why: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
1541
-------
First, diesel engines will continue to emit a significant portion of the transportation sector's NOx
and GHG emissions inventories in 2050. Even in states that have adopted California's Advanced
Clean Truck Rule, up to 60% of the truck tractor sales market will still be diesel in 2035.5 These
engines are likely to remain on the roads for decades thereafter. In other words, diesel engines
that are sold in 2035 will still be in use deep into mid-century. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-
Al, p. 4]
5. California's Advanced Clean Truck Rule, which has been adopted by New York and
other states, requires 55% of Class 2b-3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8 straight truck
sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales to be zero-emission by 2035.
Second, EPA's Heavy-Duty Highway Engine and Vehicle Rule of 20016 (the "2001 Diesel
Rule") showed that a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, performance-based "systems approach"
reduced emissions and related health harms at scale, faster and most cost-effectively that any
approach that picked specific technology winners. Indeed, when the 2001 Diesel Rule was
finalized, it was widely anticipated that NOx adsorbers would be the "technology winner" that
would enable diesel engines to meet the NOx standard in that rule. A competing technology,
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), was considered impractical and unlikely to succeed, due to
the logistical hurdles posed by the need for SCR-equipped engines to use urea to operate cleanly.
By 2010, SCR had become the industry standard, and NOx adsorbers never reached widespread
use in the heavy-duty truck market. The lesson from that rule is clear: despite pressure to anoint
NOx adsorbers as the technology "winner," the final Rule was drafted in a fuel-neutral,
technology-neutral, performance-based manner, which enabled the market to innovate and then
shift quickly to a technology solution that enabled implementation at scale, in the most cost-
effective and fastest way possible, within a decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 5]
6. EPA, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
Control Requirements, Regulatory Announcement, accessed on May 15, 2002 at
https://nepis. epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/Pl 00 lCXZ.PDF?Dockey=P 1001CXZ.PDF.
We encourage the EPA to establish objective and transparent emissions-based criteria that
qualify a technology as zero or near-zero emissions. Any and all technologies that demonstrate
proper emissions reductions should be able to qualify. It is essential for market fairness and to
send the appropriate market signal to technology developers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-
A2, p. 4]
In sum, we strongly urge EPA to adopt a final NOx and GHG program that is open to all
demonstrated, cost-effective emissions-reduction solutions. Doing so is critical to achieve near-
term and long-term goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 4]
It is important to avoid unnecessarily limiting innovation at this stage of decarbonization.
Encouraging and rewarding innovation will be necessary to reduce emissions in hard-to-
decarbonize sectors like heavy-duty transportation. Such an open approach should also yield
1542
-------
technology development benefits that pay dividends later when EPA seeks to decarbonize the
non-road diesel sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 4]
Ever since the first federal vehicle emission standards for heavy-duty engines were adopted, EPA
has correctly assumed that compression-ignition engines would be fueled by diesel fuel. This
assumption predates those first emission standards, and has been appropriate for more than a
century. Indeed, most people simply call these engines "diesel engines," and most people
probably have never even heard the phrase "compression-ignition." For most engines over this
time, the diesel fuel powering these engines was a petroleum product; in recent years, biodiesel
and renewable diesel has entered the fuel market, and those fuels have been integrated into
EPA's fuel and vehicle emissions regulatory architecture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1,
p. 8]
Similarly, EPA has historically assumed that ethanol would only be used in spark-ignition
engines. Again, this has been the correct assumption for decades. Even within this Proposal, EPA
considers the impacts of ethanol blends on the cost of emission control aftertreatment devices
used in spark-ignition engines 10 and discusses ethanol only in the context of current and
proposed test procedures for spark-ignition engines. 11 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p.
8]
10 See Proposal, at 17488.
11 See, e.g., Proposal at 17490, 17491, 17631, 17703, 17849, and 17866.
It is now time to update these assumptions, and to integrate the use of ethanol in a compression-
ignition engine into the policy architecture that will govern future heavy-duty engines and
vehicles. Thus, ClearFlame strongly urges EPA to finalize this Proposal in a way that explicitly
anticipates that future compression-ignition engines may operate on high-blend ethanol fuels
(e.g., E85 or E98). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
As we have stated above, ethanol can play a major role in decarbonizing the hard-to-electrify
segments of the highway and nonroad diesel engine and vehicle markets. In order for this to
happen, EPA must remove any uncertainty surrounding whether or not ethanol can be used to
certify future compression-ignition engines or whether this fuel must be used thereafter
throughout the useful life of such future engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
In addition, we ask EPA to add "ethanol" to the general categories of fuels that are included in
the agency's definition of "Fuel Type."12 Currently, the Proposal lists gasoline blended with 10
percent ethanol as merely one example of a fuel grade with the gasoline fuel type, just as
premium and regular gasoline are listed. Instead, we request that EPA adds an Ethanol fuel type
to list of general categories of fuels, alongside diesel fuel, gasoline, and natural gas. Within this
fuel type, we request that EPA include both E85 and E98 as fuel grades that can be used for
certification and other purposes. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
12 See Proposal, at 17724.
1543
-------
13 See Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(4) of Section 1036.530 - Reference Fuel Properties and
related discussion. This table and discussion does list high-blend ethanol, but does not
specify whether E98 can be used. This should be corrected in the final rule. See Proposal,
pp. 17703-17704.
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
In this and all emissions-related rulemaking efforts, EPA should seek to provide certainty and
stability for manufacturers, who must invest billions of dollars in developing product and market
strategies that comply with the Agency's rules. Further, EPA's vehicle emissions regulations
should seek to smooth and incentivize the transition to ZEVs wherever possible. EPA's proposed
updates to the Phase 2 GHG program are, however, contrary to both of these principles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 112]
Daimler Trucks supported EPA's existing Phase 2 GHG standards during all phases of their
development and implementation to date. We believe that the current Phase 2 standards
incentivize manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles across a broad variety of
applications, while allowing broad flexibility to choose the best combination of technologies to
reach these strict standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 112]
Manufacturers have been developing strategies and technologies to reach the Phase 2 GHG
targets since at least 2016, when the EPA first adopted the rule. Manufacturers develop a
roadmap of product offerings to comply with these rules well ahead of time. In fact, Daimler
Truck has strategies in place today to target compliance with the GHG Phase 2 rule beyond
2027, and has already made significant investment in the necessary development paths to achieve
this goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 112]
During the previous administration, Daimler Truck, EMA, and other industry stakeholders
voiced their support to leave the existing GHG Phase 2 standards in place. When presented with
an opportunity to consider revising these standards for less stringency, industry continued to
express their support for the standards as written. We argued that we were committed to reaching
the fuel economy targets we had agreed to, and that we believed we were doing our part to
address climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.112]
We believed then—and we believe now—that the environment and the industry are best served
by predictable, achievable standards. To reach our eventual goal of carbon-neutral heavy duty
transportation, we will have to invest billions of dollars, collectively, in new technology. We
cannot do that effectively without predictable rules and stability on the scale that EPA and
industry originally envisioned in the Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 112]
Industry and the environment, together, will suffer in an atmosphere of political influence on
climate regulation. If regulations change with the political winds, and the rules are rewritten
every four to eight years under different presidential administrations, industry will not be able
to predict market conditions to invest the massive amount of money necessary to reach these
ambitious goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.112-113]
1544
-------
While industry supported maintaining the existing standards during the previous administration,
rather than advocating for relaxed standards, EPA, under the current administration, is proposing
to revise these standards to increase their stringency further than originally set. This threatens to
upend the cooperative nature of the rulemaking process and risks encouraging stakeholders to
push for whatever ground they can gain when the political situation allows. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 113]
Unexpected changes now to the Phase 2 regulatory program will also threaten to undermine the
investments that manufacturers have made in reliance on the standards that EPA set years
ago. 126 Daimler Truck has invested very significantly in developing ZEVs, in part, to comply
with the GHG Phase 2 rules. EPA threatens to undercut that investment by changing the rule and
devaluing those ZEVs for the purpose of GHG compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-
Al, p.l 13]
126 As the Supreme Court has explained, when an agency changes course, it must be 'cognizant
that longstanding policies may have 'engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken
into account,' as it would be 'arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters.' Department of
Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S.Ct. 1891, 1913 (2020)
(citations omitted).
In addition to proposing to increase the stringency of certain C02 emission standards
promulgated in the 2016 Phase 2 GHG Final Rule starting in MY 2027, EPA notes that it is also
considering whether to establish more stringent standards beyond MY 2027, specifically in MY
2028 and MY 2029, using the sales-weighed projection methodology discussed in Section
XI.C.l of the Proposed Rule. 127 The Agency requests comment on the appropriate stringency
and supporting data for 'each of those model years' and 'whether to finalize such an increase in
stringency for those model years' standards in a one-step (single MY) or multi-step (multiple
MY approach.' 128 EPA appears to be requesting comment on future incremental changes to
applicable C02 standards, potentially on a year-by-year basis. If EPA were to finalize such
changes, it would undermine the notion of stability in emission standard-setting that is enshrined
in CAA Section 202(a)(3)(C). While perhaps not technically required for C02 standards, the
three year standard applicability requirement in Section 202(a)(3)(C) is informed by
considerations of predictability and stability, and recognizes the minimum amount of time it
takes for industry to develop, validate, and fine-tune their products to ensure EPA's standards
can be met over a number of years. Daimler Truck urges EPA to keep this principle of stability
in mind as it looks ahead to setting C02 standards for future model years. Just as rapid increases
in criteria pollutant stringency can disrupt technological development, changes in C02
stringency that are close in time would undermine the progress of incremental advances that are
needed to produce ZEVs of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp.113-114]
127 See Proposed Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,599.
128 Id.
EPA proposes to tighten C02 standards for certain vocational vehicle and tractor subcategories
on the basis that ZEV penetration is expected to be higher than the EPA accounted for during the
1545
-------
original Phase 2 rulemaking. EPA bases this assumption on marketing materials from various
OEMs, the existence of small, initial fleets, and on other state level rulemaking efforts—such as
California's Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program and potential state opt-in efforts. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 114]
The mass adoption of ZEVs is by no means certain, thus any assumptions about ZEV penetration
rates are purely speculative. Today, in 2022, very few commercial ZEVs are in operation—and
while we expect significant adoption in certain applications, rates in all of the categories that
EPA considers are less certain. While California's ACT rule forces manufacturers to sell ZEVs,
and other states consider following suit, these rules do not ensure successful adoption on the
scale that EPA appears to assume. Sufficient charging facilities and grid infrastructure to support
these projections do not exist, and it is not clear when they will. Daimler Truck has significant
concerns with the ACT rule, and believes it will not result in as many ZEV sales as projected -
especially since many fleets do not purchase or register their vehicles in California. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 114]
EPA is considering increased C02 stringency for certain applications before manufacturers have
even completed reporting on their first model year's C02 credit accumulation. In other words,
bases its projections are speculative, and the Agency has not, in fact, evaluated whether
manufacturers are on track to comply with the Phase 2 program in its current state, as it has only
just come into effect. Further, EPA's proposal to increase C02 stringency is made in tandem
with proposals that will limit manufacturers' ability to improve C02 emissions performance—
namely, the proposed new, stringent NOx standards will require less fuel-efficient engines to
comply (or, at least, will limit fuel efficiency improvements that could otherwise be made). EPA
must evaluate the actual landscape and feasibility of manufacturers complying with new, tighter
C02 standards, before making any adjustments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.114]
Further, EPA fails to evaluate whether the other technologies that were projected during the
original Phase 2 rulemaking have reached the penetration targets the Agency expected—and if,
accordingly, Phase 2 standard stringency should, in fact, be decreased. For example, Daimler
Truck does not believe that market adoption of technologies such as automatic shutdown, neutral
idle, low rolling resistance tires, or stop-start have kept pace with EPA's projected penetration
rates at the time of the Phase 2 rulemaking. Arguably, this means that lower-than-expected
penetration rates for EPA's expected GHG reduction technologies should result in a relaxation of
the standards. The Agency is unlikely, however, to take such an approach. EPA made rules that
allowed manufacturers to comply through a variety of strategies, and it would upend those
reliance interests for EPA to change the rules now that manufacturers have deployed those
strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 114]
The commercial ZEV market is at a critical tipping point; the next decade will determine
whether ZEVs are a niche product, or whether they revolutionize the commercial truck market.
Increased ZEV sales now offer the opportunity to increase market acceptance, spur the
development of infrastructure, and trigger a cascade effect that will dramatically increase ZEV
penetration. Such a shift is not, however, guaranteed; it is dependent on adequate infrastructure
to make the vehicles functional, sufficient financial incentives to make the vehicles affordable,
1546
-------
and adequate investment from OEMs to ensure broad, successful product availability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 115]
To that end, we believe that all regulatory proposals that impact vehicle emissions or fuel
economy should be considered in the light of their effect on ZEV adoption rate. All rules must
seek to incentivize ZEVs, or risk slowing their adoption. Instead, EPA's proposal forces OEMs
to invest in further improvements to conventional vehicles, redirecting development funding that
would otherwise be spent on ZEV programs—developing new zero-emissions platforms and
applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 115]
To avoid the disincentives described above and the threats to regulatory stability that would have
adverse effects on ZEV penetration, we recommend the following: 1. EPA should not change the
GHG Phase 2 standards in MY 2027. 2. EPA should not adjust credit multipliers, or otherwise
limit, the value of ZEVs under the GHG Phase 2 program. 3. EPA should evaluate ZEV
penetration rates, the adoption rates of various GHG-reducing technologies, and the actual
feasibility of further improvements, and work towards a strong GHG Phase 3 rule that prioritizes
a smooth transition to ZEVs, while minimizing the diminishing returns of further investments in
conventional vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 115]
Daimler Truck has very aggressive ZEV penetration targets, and we are investing dramatically in
trucks, batteries, fuel cells, chargers, infrastructure, and more. We are clearly committed to the
GHG emission reduction goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, and—as noted by EPA in the
Proposed Rule—aim for all of our new vehicles in North America, Europe, and Japan to be C02-
neutral ('tank-to-wheel') by 2039.129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 116]
129 See 'Daimler Trucks & Buses targets completely C02-neutral fleet of new vehicles by 2039
in key regions' https://media.daimlertruck.com/marsMediaSite/ko/en/44764260.
Mass adoption of ZEVs in the commercial truck space is not, however, certain. ZEV technology
is in a nascent state and is rapidly developing. Commercial trucks are a tool for businesses to do
work with—and businesses will not invest in these capital-intensive vehicles if their investment
is not cost-effective. We believe that the following three factors are key to ZEV adoption:
1. Vehicle Products. The vehicles must have sufficient technical capabilities to meet duty
cycle demands in a variety of applications and must be readily available for purchase.
2. Infrastructure. There must be adequate charging and fueling stations.
3. Cost Parity. There must be a favorable total cost of ownership for ZEVs as compared to
conventional vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, pp. 116-117]
If any of these three factors is not in place, ZEV transition will be unsuccessful. Daimler Truck is
investing to improve the capability of our ZEV products, is partnering to develop infrastructure,
and is working to make our products more affordable every day. However, we cannot do this
alone. We believe the regulatory climate must actively support ZEVs. Unfortunately, the
Proposed Rule does not advance these factors, and in the case of the 'Vehicle Products' and
'Cost Parity' factors, actively detracts from them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 117]
1547
-------
EPA's proposal serves to add significant cost and uncertainty to ZEVs: the proposed durability,
useful life, and warranty requirements will add significant direct and indirect costs to ZEVs,
which will hurt their cost position as compared to diesel vehicles. To meet the proposed
requirements, manufacturers will be forced to take regulatory risk for vehicles that emit no NOx
or C02 at all. This risk will need to be accounted for in the price of the vehicle, and will
discourage manufacturers from pursuing aggressive deployment strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 117]
EPA's ZEV proposals must also be read against the backdrop of its questionable legal authority
to regulate ZEVs at all, given that they do not emit air pollutants and thus, by definition, have no
emission-related components subject to EPA's CAA Title II jurisdiction. 130 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 117]
130 See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a) (authorizing EPA to prescribe standards 'applicable to the emission of
any air pollutant' from new motor vehicles or engines which 'cause, or contribute to, air
pollution,' and providing no regulatory authority with respect to vehicles that do not emit air
pollutants).
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
We are not advocating for additional C02 reductions based on certain categories to reflect
penetration of battery electric vehicles, as this amounts to predicting technology winners.
However, should the Agency adopt such an approach, given the significant funding for school
and transit buses, we recommend that the C02 standards for those categories should reflect at
least the volumes driven by the Infrastructure and Jobs Investment Act. For example, in our
estimates, Federal funding will drive approximately 5,000 school buses per year which is
equivalent to roughly 20% of the school bus production. 20% zero emissions buses would be
equivalent to an average of 217 g/ton-mile in that category, significantly lower than the proposed
reduction from 271 to 267 g/ton-mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.5]
We recommend instead that the EPA calculates the national fleet impact of both electrical trucks
and the simultaneous lower C02 and NOx of internal combustion powertrains, and perhaps
adjust the 2027 GHG standards to reflect the then-current state of technology. The assumption
that only California ACT will account for electrical vehicles is undercounting the realistic
expected market dynamics, as illustrated by the school bus federal funding program above [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.6]
Agency Request / Topic: In Section XI, we request comment in a number of areas related to the
proposed updates to the HD GHG Phase 2 program for certain heavy-duty vehicles that are
shifting to zero-emission vehicles. We are considering whether it would be appropriate in the
final rule to increase the stringency of the standards even more than what we propose. Therefore,
we request information on heavy-duty electric vehicle sales projections, including for what HD
vehicle types, to help inform our HD electric vehicle sales projections in the MY 2024 through
MY 2029 timeframe [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.10]
1548
-------
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: While Eaton is not opposed to realistically adjust the Phase
II GHG standards in 2027 to account for electrification, we are not strong advocates either. We
believe that electrification rates are hard to predict because of uncertainties in the adoption of
ACT in California, the adoption of the NESCAUM MOU states, any other states or localities
adopting similar mandates and the dynamics induced by significant federal aid in some sectors
(e.g., school and transit buses through IIJA). We would advise the EPA to also calculate the
simultaneous NOx and C02 reductions for conventional powertrains affected by the NOx rule,
as well as potential HD Hybrids in the vocational space. However, we also recognize that
revising the GHG standards for 2027 is overly complex. As an example, the calculation
methodology in the NPRM has already been invalidated for school buses by the IIJA $5B
funding of EV school buses drives a 20% market share, that would in effect reduce the proposed
standard to 217 g/ton-mile rather than the proposed 267 g/ton-mile under an approximately 2%
EV market share assumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, pp. 10-11]
Agency Request / Topic: In addition, we request comment under this proposal on how EPA can
best consider the potential for ZEV technology to significantly reduce air pollution from the
heavy-duty vehicle sector, including whether and how to consider including specific sales
requirements for HD ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.ll]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: Eaton does not have a position on this topic, especially as
the EPA authority to impose ZEV quotas seems fragile, and in general, Eaton believes in
technology neutral regulations that let the market find the best solutions [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1252-A1, p.ll]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
We are also concerned about the proposed rules attempts to add new certification, warranty and
useful life requirements to zero emission vehicles. This will add cost to ZEV and delay their
deployment. All of these have the potential to adversely impact Redford Township,
Michigan. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, p.l]
To that end, we are concerned by the precedent of re-opening the GHG Phase 2 final rule to
increase the stringency for 17 out of 33 subcategories of vehicles. Stability and regulatory
certainty are crucial to encouraging investment in domestic manufacturing that creates quality
union jobs. Reopening finalized rules, whether it is to make rules more stringent or less stringent,
undermines that certainty and could create a cycle of constantly changing regulations depending
on who is in power and changes in our economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.3]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
EPA's proposal, which increases GHG stringency requirements for certain vehicle classes by
1.5%, will reduce cumulative class 4-8 heavy-duty vehicle emissions by only 0.4% from 2027-
205022 and could paradoxically result in greater GHG emissions if ZEV crediting provisions are
retained. The Department recommends revising the proposal to preserve the original Phase II
1549
-------
GHG stringency requirements for internal combustion engine vehicles and phasing out ZEV
crediting towards GHGs as soon as feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, pp.8-9]
Organization: Mayer Automotive LLC
The Biden administration has lost touch with what is good for OUR country. We need someone
who REALLY cares about this country to lead us forward ! The new green deal is a farce ! I
know that at this point we cannot make it without fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1018,
p.l]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
In Section XI, EPA requests comments in a number of areas related to the proposed updates to
the HD GHG Phase 2 program for certain heavy-duty vehicles that are shifting to zero-emission
vehicles. EPA is considering whether it would be appropriate in the final rule to increase the
stringency of the standards even more than what EPA proposes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1322-A1, p. 9]
MEMA opposes a national ZEV mandate and recommends continuing with a technology neutral,
performance-based HD GHG standards approach as we have today. BEV penetration levels may
reach higher levels faster or slower than expected. Therefore, MEMA recommends separate
GHG requirements for ICE vehicles rather than the entire fleet (including BEVs and FCEVs) to
avoid unintended backsliding and lowering of technology deployment on internal combustion
engine heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, if BEVs and ICEs are combined in the fleet averages
and BEV forecasts are off the mark, the result will lead to significant regulatory
uncertainty. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 9]
Regarding more stringent standards beyond MY 2027 - specifically in MY 2028 and MY 2029
using the methodology described in Section XI.C. 1, MEMA believes that these forecasts will be
quite volatile and uncertain. Therefore, we don't want an optimistic or incorrect ZEV forecast to
distort the market in the future. Establishing regulatory certainty is very important to the supply
base that is developing the necessary advanced emissions technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1322-A1, p. 9]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
This rule also revisits EPA's final rule on GHG emissions published October 25, 2016,
proposing to impose more stringent GHG emissions on MY2027 than what was originally
established. This shift would set a dangerous precedent, disincentivizing manufacturers and
others in the industry to plan farther into the future, as there would be no certainty that set EPA
standards will not be changed before they are eventually implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1279-A1, p. 5]
The current Phase 2 GHG standards have gone through a full comment process and their
implementation has already begun. Moving the goalposts midway through Phase 2's execution to
change what is required of MY2027 would disregard the input and careful considerations that
1550
-------
went into the 2016 rule. NACD recommends that the EPA continue with the current Phase 2
GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
Changes to the Phase 2 GHG standards are disruptive, unnecessary, and premature. Navistar has
relied on the certainty of the existing GHG standards in product planning, engineering, and
manufacturing compliant diesel and ZEV trucks and buses. Navistar joined the industry is
protecting the GHG 2 framework from the previous Administration to keep in place the
regulatory lead time for product planning. EPA's assumption that manufacturers' sales of ZEVs
due in part to California's Advanced Clean Truck rule fails to properly consider the charging and
refueling infrastructure necessary to enable the continued development of the ZEV truck market,
necessary purchase incentives to encourage early adoption, and technology costs. A transition of
the trucking industry to ZEVs requires regulatory consistency and certainty. EPA's proposal to
change the Phase 2 GHG standards at this time will undermine manufacturers' product decisions
made years ago and pick winners and loser amongst vehicle manufacturers based off of their
market vehicle classifications. A criteria emissions change in the same year as a long
planned-for change in GHG emissions standards is challenging enough, but when
uncertainty is introduced into the 2027 requirements in both the criteria and GHG
emissions standards, it becomes untenable. Navistar urges EPA not to reopen the previously
approved Phase 2 GHG regulation as part this proposed low-NOx rule, but rather to address such
changes in the forthcoming Phase 3 GHG rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p.
6]
Organization: NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
In addition to the proposed NOx changes, the EPA is also proposing to re-open the GHG
(greenhouse gas) Phase 2 rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1164-A1, p. 2]
Re-opening the finalized GHG Phase 2 rules would undermine the regulatory stability
manufacturers need in order to develop their products. It would effectively penalize engine
manufacturers for their ongoing efforts to assure compliance with the existing 2024 and 2027
GHG standards. Additionally, changing the GHG rules would put manufacturers in the position
of trying to develop technologies to reduce NOx and meet increased GHG standards
simultaneously - while also trying to introduce ZEVs to the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1164-A1, p. 3]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
However, PACCAR does not support re-opening the GHG Phase 2 rule, specifically with respect
to the standards set to take effect in MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.3]
PACCAR has relied on the certainty of the Phase 2 rule's progressively more stringent GHG
standards to design our Zero-Emission Vehicles ('ZEVs') and accelerate their deployment. EPA
sought to incentivize that accelerated deployment of ZEV trucks by providing enhanced emission
credits, and EPA should not reopen the Phase 2 rule to change the ZEV credit framework simply
1551
-------
because the incentives worked. PACCAR therefore supports the single step low-NOx standard in
MY 2027 that would enable OEMs to comply with the next generation of compression ignition
engine NOx standards, while at the same time focusing on ensuring a zero emission future for
2030 and beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.3]
PACCAR summarizes below the major issues that EPA should take into account as it moves
forward with this rulemaking: PACCAR does not support the re-opening of the GHG Phase 2
rule, specifically because the standards are set to take effect in MY2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1346-A1, p.61]
Organization: Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA)
However, transitioning the fleet of more than 4,000 mostly diesel-powered drayage trucks that
serves the NWSA gateway to zero-emission vehicles will be as challenging as it is urgent. As
noted in the proposed rule, zero-emission Class 8 trucks - battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles - are being produced, but in this region, they remain limited in number and
prohibitively expensive - roughly 8 to 10 times what the average drayage truck driver serving
our gateway currently pays for a used diesel truck on the second- or third-hand market. In
addition, charging and fueling infrastructure for zero-emission trucks is virtually nonexistent
here. This large gap between the current situation and our zero-emission vision is daunting,
especially for our network of drayage service providers, which consists mostly of independent
owner-operators and small trucking companies, including many minority-owned businesses and
drivers-of-color. About 20 percent of the trucking companies with which we partner have fewer
than five trucks, nearly 40 percent have fewer than 20, and about 60 percent have fewer than 30.
These companies are highly sensitive to significant changes in the cost and convenience of doing
business, and the risks associated with adopting new technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1312-A1, pp.1-2]
Currently, zero-emission trucks are much more expensive than new diesel trucks, in terms of
both purchase price and total cost-of-ownership (TCO). According to an analysis by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), battery electric trucks could have a lower TCO than
new diesel trucks by 2030, and hydrogen fuel cell trucks could be approaching cost parity as
well. However, as noted earlier, a significant percentage of the drayage trucks serving the
NWSA's terminals are purchased on the second- or third-hand markets, and there is considerable
uncertainty as to when used zero-emission trucks will be available and cost-competitive for our
drayage truckers and fleet operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1312-A1, p.2]
Financial incentives to purchase newer trucks: As noted, many of our drayage truck
owner/operators are new Americans and people of color, and many of the trucks serving our
terminals are purchased on second- or third-hand markets. To ensure that emission reductions are
realized, EPA should consider direct financial incentives such as rebates, no-cost or low-cost
loans, and a national scrapping program like those the NWSA and other ports around the country
have implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1312-A1, p.3]
Grants for electric charging and alternative fueling infrastructure: We are pleased the Biden
Administration and Congress approved historic funding for creating a nationwide network of
1552
-------
electric charging and alternative fueling stations as well as dedicated funding to study reducing
truck emissions at port facilities. The EPA should continue to work with the departments of
Energy and Transportation and others to offer grants and technical assistance focused on
developing this charging and fueling infrastructure in and around industrial areas and along
freight corridors where heavy-duty trucks operate. This will facilitate the uptake of zero- and
near-zero emission heavy duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1312-A1, p.3]
Temporary waivers to the Buy America(n) requirements: The requirement that projects seeking
federal transportation funding must meet Buy America(n) rules is proving to be a significant
barrier to accelerating the deployment of zero-emission heavy duty vehicles and equipment in
our region. None of the manufacturers of heavy-duty trucks and cargo-handling equipment with
whom we have spoken meet the Buy America(n) requirements—including Us manufacturers.
This means that zero-emission technology demonstrations are not eligible for federal
transportation funding without a waiver and in our experience to date, such waivers are difficult
and time-consuming to apply for and secure. We encourage the Biden Administration to adopt a
position of flexibility with regard to limited-duration waivers over the next few years to help
meet emissions reduction goals and to provide time for US manufacturers to achieve the scale
needed to meet the demand for zero- and near-zero emissions cargo handling equipment and
make their production lines compliant with Buy America requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1312-A1, p.3]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
• RILA notes that the HD ZEVs can weigh substantially more than otherwise equivalent
non-ZEVs, due to the weight of high-capacity battery packs. This increased weight, along
with the anticipated increase in market share for HD ZEVs may lead to a notable increase
in average weight for the average HD vehicle which might reduce vehicle payload
capacity due to maximum vehicle weight limits. RILA suggests that EPA and other
departments or agencies consider conducting a study to identify the anticipated increase
in total weight of the HD ZEVs and the potential resulting impact on highway
performance standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.8]
Organization: SEAM Group
However, it has concerns regarding the amount of time needed to deploy the charging
infrastructure support the electrification of small to large commercial fleets at the levels required
under the proposed rule. As an installer of EV charging stations, SEAM Group has experience
with lead times for the EV charging station (EVSE) hardware, permitting, installation, and utility
energization. The aggressive timeline proposed here may not be realistic or possible based on the
current market conditions. Most sites for heavy duty chargers will require that DC Fast Chargers
be installed, which then necessitates the purchase of a transformer as well as switchgear in most
instances. The lead time on each of these pieces is currently around 52 weeks (1 year). As both
light duty and heavy duty vehicles will be electrifying at a high rate in the coming years, we can
anticipate that even longer timelines may result. This is not likely to let up in the coming years,
meaning that a key component to deploying electricity to a site to support the aggressive fleet
electrification goals at EPA may not be readily available. Utility engagement will also be key to
1553
-------
this process, as utilities will need to be alerted as soon as possible to the potential demand for
electricity within their service territories required to service heavy duty fleets. Depending on the
utility and the number of vehicles that need to be electrified, there could be significant upgrades
required (e.g., new substations, new power lines), which could also cause significant delays.
Again, we support fleet electrification; however, the deployment of these vehicles must go hand
in hand with the deployment of charging infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2574, p.l]
Organization: State Soybean Associations
With this Proposal, EPA plans to increase the stringency of the Phase 2 GHG emissions
standards for heavy-duty vehicles through MY 2027, making revisions to the standards initially
issued in 2016. The Agency explains in the Proposed Rule that the move toward increased
stringency is premised on the projected increase in the penetration rate of EVs into the heavy-
duty vehicle market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.l]
The Proposed Rule specifically seeks comment on the projected EV heavy-duty vehicle
penetration rate for MY 2027. While the project penetration rate in the proposed rule is 1.5%, the
agency seeks 'comment and additional supporting information and data on higher penetration
rates, which could serve as the basis for the increase in the stringency of the C02 standards for
specific Phase 2 vehicle subcategories.'1 Without commenting on what the appropriate EV
projected penetration rate should be, we urge EPA to stick to standards that can be met by
considering only tailpipe vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.2]
1 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17419 (Mar. 28, 2022)
EPA also lists several indicators as support for this projection, such as an agreement between a
number of states 'establishing goals to increase the heavy-duty electric vehicle market,' along
with multiple actions taken by the California, including the state's Zero Emission Vehicle
('ZEV') sales mandate and the California Air Resources Board's ('CARB's') Advanced Clean
Trucks analysis projecting future heavy-duty EV sales in California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2035-A1, pp.1-2]
The State Soybean Associations do not object to an increase in EVs in the heavy-duty market,
and certainly do not object to increasing the stringency of EPA's Phase 2 GHG emissions
standards. We do take issue, however, with EPA's over-reliance on electrification as a means to
meet the administration's decarbonization goals, and its misuse of Clean Air Act authorities to
set emission standards that are unachievable with internal combustion engines. Although Clean
Air Act ('CAA') Section 202(a) authorizes EPA to issue tailpipe emissions standards for the
transportation sector, EVs are not tailpipe vehicles; accordingly, they are not contemplated under
202(a) and therefore should not be considered in a 202(a) standards rulemaking. Moreover, the
Proposal requires either EVs or credits trading in order for fleets to maintain compliance, which
is impermissibly preferential one kind of technology over others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2035-A1, p.2]
1554
-------
Organization: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
EPA has indicated that it is not considering a HD ZEV mandate at this time. Toyota supports this
approach. A ZEV mandate for light-duty vehicles exists in California and other states that have
adopted California's regulations. In addition, other federal regulations such as EPA's light-duty
greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations and NHTSA's related Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) regulations are compelling a greater need for light-duty zero-emission technologies.
Achieving these existing regulations requires complementary market-development
and sustainment measures, including infrastructure investments for electric vehicle charging and
hydrogen refueling, critical mineral supply chain development, and a robust system to recycle
end-of-life vehicle batteries. Adding a Federal HD vehicle mandate on top of existing light-duty
mandates will exacerbate each of these challenges and could put successful compliance with
ZEV mandates in both sectors in jeopardy [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1224-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In order to ensure the adoption of fully achievable and cost-effective HDOH low-NOx
regulations, and notwithstanding our broader agreement, the Agency should revise the proposed
standards in the following manner: The current Phase 2 GHG standards should not be revised.
The Phase 2 standards appropriately incentivized manufacturers to accelerate the deployment of
ZEV trucks. Now, the Agency is proposing to tighten the Phase 2 standards solely because
manufacturers deployed ZEVs as they were incentivized to do. That is fundamentally unfair.
Manufacturers have relied on the stability of the Phase 2 provisions to formulate their product
plans out to 2027 and beyond. When other stakeholders sought to undo the Agency's GHG
standards, EMA and its members defended them. If, as the Agency is indicating, final rules
really are not final, but are instead subject to unilateral revision by the Agency (in this instance
because the rule's incentives worked!), the resulting precedent for undermining the regulatory
certainty of "final rules" will yield very adverse consequences each time a new Administration
takes office. The Agency should not open this type of Pandora's Box. No federal agency should
feel unilaterally empowered to move the regulatory finish line well after the regulated industry's
march toward compliance has begun. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 7-8]
With respect to the proposed "reopening" of the current Phase 2 GHG standards, specifically the
standards set to take effect in MY 2027, the Agency simply should not do that. OEMs have
relied on the certainty of those progressively more stringent GHG standards in designing their
engine platforms and vehicle upgrades, and in accelerating their deployment of ZEV trucks
where feasible. Indeed, the Agency sought to incentivize that accelerated deployment of ZEV
trucks by providing for enhanced emission credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 14]
But now, really for no other reason than the incentives worked to encourage the manufacture and
sale of ZEV trucks in certain applications, the Agency is proposing to tighten the Phase 2 GHG
standards by 1.5% in 2027, to, in effect, take back the credits that led to the intended increased
deployment of ZEV trucks in the first place. It is the type of blatant renege that would never be
allowed in commerce, and it should not be a practice of the federal government. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 14]
1555
-------
The Agency's proposed undoing of its prior regulatory commitments is even more egregious in
this case since, unlike other stakeholders in other regulated sectors, EMA and its members
defended and sought to preserve the Phase 2 standards when the prior Administration was
looking to reduce those standards across the board. Yet now the Agency is poised to engage in
the same type of activity — re-trading previously-adopted emission standards — that
environmental advocates bemoaned only a few years ago. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 14]
If the Agency persists in moving the regulatory goalposts after the underlying rules were set and
OEMs' compliance efforts were well underway, the precedent will not be lost on anyone.
Henceforth, all "final" regulations will be deemed open to fresh debate and revision anytime a
new Administration is sworn-in. Not all of those revisions will trend in the same direction. Stated
differently, if the Agency insists on eliminating the assurances that heretofore accompanied final
rules, that same lack of assurance is just as likely to burden the Agency in the future. The
Agency should not include Phase 2 revisions in this low-NOx rule, but instead should leave the
development of enhanced GHG requirements to the imminent "Phase 3" rulemaking that is
earmarked for that specific purpose. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 14]
EMA's earlier comments discuss why the Agency should not unilaterally reopen the Phase 2
GHG standards, and how the proposed low-NOx standards will negatively impact C02
emissions and will increase the technical challenges of meeting the Phase 2 GHG standards in
2027. In short, there is no sound policy or technical basis for the Agency to re-trade the terms of
the final Phase 2 regulations at this juncture. To do so would jeopardize all future "final rules."
Beyond this critical issue impacting what "final" rules will mean going forward, other more
detailed aspects of the Agency's proposed "reopening" nonetheless warrant additional
comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 104 - 105]
The August 2016 Regulatory Announcement that accompanied the release of the Phase 2 GHG
rule proclaimed that the "technology-advancing Phase 2 program goes beyond the successful
Phase 1 program, with standards based not only on currently available technologies but emerging
technologies that are not yet in widespread use." (See, EPA-420-F-16-044.) The preamble to the
final rule similarly stated that "Phase 2 will include technology-advancing standards that will
phase in over the long-term (through model year 2027) to result in an ambitious, yet achievable
program that will allow manufacturers to meet the standards through a mix of different
technologies at reasonable cost." (See, 81 FR 73481.) Nowhere in the Phase 2 final rule did the
Agency indicate that the technology-forcing standards were subject to change if the Agency later
felt so inclined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 105]
Since 2016, manufacturers have been preparing to implement the stringent 2027 standards, and
the interim standards for model years 2021 and 2024. Manufacturers have developed the
necessary engine and vehicle technologies, and they have established production and sales plans
to achieve compliance with the increasingly stringent regulatory steps in the Phase 2 GHG
program. As the Agency predicted, the Phase 2 program has spurred innovation, and
manufacturers have met that challenge by developing and deploying the technologies needed to
implement the first step of the Phase 2 rule last year. And with the second step of Phase 2 less
than twenty months away, manufacturers are working to deploy the additional technologies
1556
-------
necessary to meet those more stringent second-step standards, and then to meet the third and
most stringent step of the program less than four years from now. It is clear, then, that
manufactures are working diligently to implement the Phase 2 program in a successful and cost-
effective manner, just as they committed to do. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 105]
In addition, EPA has already begun work on a Phase 3 GHG program, planning to release a
proposed rule next year, and a final rule in 2024 that will be effective with model year 2030. The
Phase 3 GHG rule will provide the minimally reasonable three years of regulatory stability after
implementation of the final step of the Phase 2 GHG program in 2027, and will adopt even more
stringent GHG requirements to help transition the industry to ZEVs. Thus, it is also clear that
manufacturers face additional technology-forcing challenges to further reduce GHG
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 105]
Notwithstanding the aggressive pace and cadence of the HDOH GHG rulemakings, and the
corollary technology developments and deployments, the Agency has included in this low-NOx
rulemaking a proposal to "reopen" the Phase 2 GHG program midstream. That reopening
proposal is being made in spite of the fact that the new NOx standards that are the focus of the
rulemaking will greatly impact manufacturers' ability to comply with the existing GHG
standards, and seemingly ignores the Phase 3 GHG rulemaking that already is underway. Such
regulatory destabilization, undermining manufacturers' ability to comply with the requirements,
should not be the practice of EPA. If final rules are, in fact, no longer final, the regulatory
landscape will be changed in ways that will have very serious repercussions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 105]
To justify the proposed re-trading of the Phase 2 GHG program, the Agency broadly speculates
about where the diverse and complicated market for medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs is headed.
But in that speculation, the Agency fails to take into account the three separate challenges that
must be addressed simultaneously to successfully grow the market for medium- and heavy-duty
ZEVs. First, manufacturers must develop diverse ZEV products that will meet their customers'
needs. Second, those customers must be prepared to purchase and deploy the ZEVs, and they
must be able to do so in a profitable manner. And third, the most expensive and complex aspect
of growing a commercial ZEV market is ensuring that robust electricity-charging and hydrogen-
fueling infrastructures are in place before the ZEVs are deployed. A three-legged stool is an apt
metaphor for the medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market, where available ZEV products, fleets
able to profitably deploy the ZEVs, and a robust infrastructure are all three simultaneously
needed to support the ZEV market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 105 - 106]
Looking only at ZEV product development plans or marketing targets, as the Agency seems to
be doing, is a myopic view of a much larger and more complex picture. Stated differently,
pointing to a manufacturers' aspiration ZEV marketing plans — something the Agency should
be applauding — is not a basis for the Agency to unilaterally undermine the established
regulatory structure under which this industry operates. Changing the rules halfway through the
game should not be a practice of the federal government. If it becomes such, there will be no
reason restraining the industry from encouraging more of the same each time a new
Administration takes control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 106]
1557
-------
Undeterred by its proposed breach of regulatory commitments, EPA points to the Advanced
Clean Trucks ("ACT") rule that CARB finalized last year as conclusive evidence of significant
future growth in the deployment of the medium- and heavy-duty. However, the ACT rule only
includes ZEV sales targets, ignoring the other two legs of the stool. When CARB approved the
ACT rule, it acknowledged that to be successful, CARB must enact regulations to mandate the
purchase of ZEVs and that the State needed to build out a robust infrastructure to charge/fuel the
ZEVs. (See, CARB Resolution 20-19.) Since the ACT rule will not begin mandating the sale of
ZEVs in California until 2024, and the State is still working on the other two legs needed to
support the ZEV sales targets, the rule remains far from a proven success. While California leads
the nation is developing its medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market, additional expensive and
challenging steps must be taken before anyone can honestly say that the transition of California's
trucking industry to ZEVs has actually begun. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 106]
EPA also points to the Multi-State Zero Emission Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Initiative as
evidence of the growth in medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs, and as support for its newfound belief
that "final rules" remain such only for industry. However, that initiative is simply a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU"), by and among seventeen states and the District of
Columbia, declaring that thirty percent of the sales of medium- and heavy-duty trucks in each
jurisdiction should be ZEVs by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050. Similar to CARB's ACT rule
(but without any regulatory teeth), the MOU ignores the need for fleets to purchase ZEVs or the
more challenging and expensive, but absolutely necessary, build-out of electricity-charging and
hydrogen-fueling infrastructures to support the ZEVs. Without wholistically addressing the
development of the medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market, the MOU is merely an unsupported
aspirational proclamation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 106]
The Agency further points to ZEV prototype and demonstration projects as establishing the
"feasibility and durability of the technology for specific applications." (See, 87 FR 17595.) But
what is left unsaid is whether the projects demonstrate that the ZEVs complete the work
demanded by each trucking business with a competitive total cost of ownership. Commercial
vehicles are purchased by businesses for the sole purpose of providing a financial return on
the investment in the new vehicle. To invest in a ZEV, the fleet must be able to predict that the
vehicle will have a competitive total cost of ownership over other available technologies. Right
now, ZEVs have much higher acquisition costs than other technologies, they have lower utility
(i.e., the ability to get the job done), and they have lower resale values. Additionally, fleets must
invest in new maintenance facilities and parts inventories to support ZEVs, and they must make
substantial investments to build out and maintain the necessary charging/fueling infrastructure.
Until ZEVs are proven to provide a competitive total cost of ownership for trucking businesses
on all of those fronts, they will remain nothing more than a niche market. To be sure,
manufacturers are working hard and investing billions to overcome those obstacles, but those
efforts do not warrant new interim GHG standards just because EPA feels the need for a new
"win." The Phase 3 rule — not this rulemaking — is the regulatory mechanism for helping to
deliver on all parties' aspirational ZEV targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 106 -
107]
The NPRM acknowledges the diverse nature of commercial vehicle applications by pointing to
the high adoption rates for zero-emission transit buses and school buses. Those narrow
1558
-------
applications are highly suitable for ZEVs deployments for various reasons, including that they
are operated by government entities instead of for-profit businesses. However, those two
applications cannot be used to prove that the diverse private commercial vehicle market is on the
cusp of a wholesale transition to ZEVs. Long-haul tractor-semitrailer combination vehicles,
concrete mixers, and snowplows are just a few examples of applications that present much
greater challenges to the successful deployment of ZEVs. Any realistic assessment of the
thousands of unique commercial vehicle applications would conclude that a tremendous amount
of effort and resources still remains to be applied to successfully initiate a broad-based transition
of the nation's commercial trucking industry to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
107]
Nonetheless, EPA highlights the high numbers of ZEV deployments in school and transit bus
applications as supposed evidence that when the Phase 2 GHG rule was finalized it
underestimated the growth of ZEVs. But again, successful ZEV adoption in those two highly
suitable but narrow applications should not be used as evidence that the Phase 2 GHG rule
underestimated the growth of ZEV across the board. Certainly, it should not be used to justify
increasing the stringency of the "final" GHG standards for more than half of the vehicle
subcategories in the Phase 2 GHG rule, nor should those narrow examples be used to reduce the
Advanced Technology Credits in the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 107]
The Agency's speculation that it underestimated the growth of ZEVs is not well-founded. Even
if it were, it does not justify changing the final Phase 2 rule after manufacturers have established
their technology and product plans to meet the rule. Furthermore, regulations as complex and the
Phase 2 GHG rule are never perfect. For example, the rule assumes significant GHG reduction
benefits from manufacturers deploying electric accessories, a benefit that can only be achieved
by increasing the voltage of the electrical system. However, that cannot be cost-effectively
accomplished unless a significant portion of the industry also converts to the higher voltage, so
accessories can be sold in high volumes. While there has been a great deal of discussion about
converting medium- and heavy-duty trucks from 12 V to 48 V, that upgrade is not expected to be
realized this decade. As such, manufacturers cannot expect to see any penetration of electric
accessories, even though the rule assumed significant adoption by 2027. Because the industry is
converting to 48 V slower than EPA assumed when it finalized the Phase 2 GHG rule,
manufacturers must deploy other technologies to meet the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 108]
The Phase 2 GHG rule also assumed that manufacturers would deploy advanced transmission
shift strategies and show those benefits with powertrain certification testing. While
manufacturers indeed are deploying advanced shift strategies to make their trucks operate more
efficiently (i.e., with lower GHG emissions), they are unable to get credit for that technology
when certifying trucks to the Phase 2 GHG regulations. The powertrain certification test
procedures are extremely complicated and so far unvalidated. Manufacturers are working with
EPA to clarify the procedures so they can conduct powertrain testing consistently and with
confidence, but that process is likely to take months or years to complete, and in the meantime,
manufacturers have no way of earning GHG credits for the advanced shift strategies they are
deploying. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 108]
1559
-------
The Phase 2 GHG rule also overestimated the willingness of trucking fleets to accept tamper-
resistant automatic engine shutdown systems. The rule assumes that a vast majority of trucks
would be built with that technology by 2027, yet even though all manufacturers have the
technology available, almost no fleets are willing to accept it. Similar to the other situations
where the Phase 2 rule over-estimated the adoption of a technology, in order to meet the current
Phase 2 standards, manufacturers must deploy technologies other than tamper-resistant automatic
engine shutdown systems. Thus, notwithstanding the other clear examples of the Agency's
overestimations of available GHG-reducing options, EPA is pointing to one potential under-
estimation in the Phase 2 rulemaking as supposed justification for recasting what final rules
really mean. There is no good faith justification for that. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
108]
In sum, EPA incorrectly points to speculative ZEV adoption rates to support the assertion that
the Phase 2 GHG rule underestimated the growth of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs, and that
such an assumed underestimation justifies reopening the Phase 2 GHG standards. The actual
deployment of ZEVs (not predictions or aspirations) simply does not support increasing the
stringency of the Phase 2 GHG rule. To the contrary, verifiable sales data would support
deceasing the stringency due to the rule's overestimation of the adoption of conventional vehicle
technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 108]
More important than estimation errors in a complex rulemaking, manufacturers need regulatory
stability and predictability - now and with future Administrations - to be able to develop the
needed technologies and establish the necessary productions and sales plans to comply with the
rule. Accordingly, EPA should not reopen the Phase 2 GHG rule; it is a misguided proposal that
is wholly unsupported by the relevant facts and the dictates of good government policy. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 108 - 109]
As discussed above, ZEVs are beginning to emerge in the medium- and heavy-duty trucking
industry, yet many significant challenges remain for manufacturers, fleets, utilities, governments,
and other stakeholders before we can point to the beginning of a broad-based transition of the
industry to ZEVs. While aspirations are quite high right now, a great deal of work remains before
trucking fleets will be willing to make the significant and long-term investments needed to begin
transitioning to ZEVs in a meaningful way. At this time, most medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs in
service are prototypes or demonstration units that are a long way from providing trucking
businesses with the competitive total cost of ownership that they need to justify beginning the
process of converting to ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
EPA has developed the proposed new ZEV certification, durability, useful life, and warranty
provisions without any consultation with the manufacturers that are expected to implement them.
History has shown that such unilateral development of complex vehicle certification procedures
rarely leads to implementable and successful regulatory requirements. Although it is unfortunate
that industry would be starting with the unilateral proposal included in the NPRM, we request
that EPA commit to collaborating with manufacturers to identify a workable path forward for the
certification and compliance requirements for credit-generating ZEVs. Considering the limited
time before a final rule, and the complexity and novelty of ZEV certification and compliance
requirements, we believe an interim approach may be the only realistic path forward. An interim
1560
-------
solution could be fashioned to meet EPA's needs while not burdening ZEVs with excessive costs
and regulatory requirements. If we can identify an appropriate interim approach, a long-term
solution could then be developed as part of the Phase 3 GHG rulemaking. That rulemaking is a
more appropriate forum for the in-depth data analyses and technical discussions needed to
establish workable and effective long-term ZEV certification and compliance
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 109]
EMA is evaluating the role that low-carbon fuels can play to reduce GHG emissions impacts
from the multiple engine product sectors. Low-carbon fuels provide the opportunity to effect
very significant near-term C02 reductions because, to the extent that they are available as "drop-
in" fuels, they can improve emissions from existing fleets without the need for additional
technological advancements or the time for market adoption and phase-in. This opportunity can
be scaled quickly, limited only by the fuel supply and the fuels' compatibility with the engine
and aftertreatment systems in which they would be used. EMA is very interested in the potential
for the widespread use of low carbon fuels. Steps will have to be taken, however, to improve and
enforce the quality of those fuels to ensure market success. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 137]
Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
We have concerns about provisions proposed in the rule that would modify the current Phase 2
GHG requirements, which have been in place since 2016. Such changes, if made final, would
increase investment uncertainty and erode confidence in private-public partnerships that have
helped successfully implement this program. While each business may view the particular
impacts of these proposed changes through different lenses, changing provisions that were
agreed to years ago would create a moving regulatory target and send mixed signals to the
market. The proposed rule does not adequately account for such impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1245-A1, p. 10]
Although significant changes to regulatory programs have occurred across a range of EPA and
other federal agency programs during the last few administrations, EPA's medium- and heavy-
duty GHG requirements have remained constant following the issuance of the 2016 final
rulemaking. 16 This is in no large part due to the commitment by companies to invest and meet
the 2016 standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 10]
16. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy -
Duty Engines and Vehicles— Phase 2, 81 Fed. Reg. 73478, October 25, 2016.
Companies are continuing to innovate and bring GHG-reducing technologies, fuels, and other
solutions to the medium- and heavy-duty marketplace. EPA may be able to achieve additional
GHG emissions reductions through incentives for advanced biofuels, such as biodiesel or
renewable diesel, under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. As renewable diesel is a drop-in
diesel fuel substitute, it has the potential to reduce GHGs from this mobile source sector without
adding significant costs. Aside from this type of incentive, making unanticipated changes to the
previously settled phase 2 GHG standards—ahead of EPA's next phase of GHG standards
1561
-------
updates— would remove some of the stability needed by businesses to invest in this market
segment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, pp. 10-11]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
The American Transportation Research Institute ('ATRI') made similar findings in a report
issued this month:2 the trucking industry can decrease GHG emissions through a variety of
vehicle types. Among other findings, the report concludes that based on a lifecycle analysis,
Class 8 BEV production results in more than six times the carbon dioxide ('C02') emissions as
compared with a Class 8 ICEV due to the size and replacement cycle of the lithium-ion battery
required to power a long-haul BEV. The analysis concludes with the following figure and the
statement that there are three truck types (ICEV, BEV, and fuel cell electric vehicle ('FCEV'))
that have a pathway for lowering C02 emissions. Indeed, ICEVs with renewable diesel have a
better emissions profile than the electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, pp.3-4]
2 'Understanding the C02 Impacts of Zero-Emissions Trucks: A Comparative Life-Cycle
Analysis of Battery Electric, Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Traditional Diesel Trucks,' prepared by the
American Transportation Research Institute (May 2022).
EPA acknowledges in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 'projecting the
production levels of conventional and electric HD vehicles in MY 2027 and beyond is
challenging'.3 However, EPA should not move forward on the basis of an inadequate analysis
and questionable data. EPA is proposing new Model Year ('MY') 2027 standards based on the
premise that something has changed since the original rulemaking, yet EPA does not document
or quantify any change in the proposal other than the issuance of Executive Orders directing
EPA to reconsider its previously established standards in favor of electrification. If EPA does not
have the data to establish a sound basis for estimating MY 2027 HDV and electric vehicle ('EV')
production, then EPA is not ready to proceed with this rulemaking and should not try to use the
estimate to justify the lowering of emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2 ,p.4]
3 87 FR 17600
As the basis for its estimate of the total number of HD vehicle sales in MY 2027, EPA relies on:
• Analysis performed by CARB under the Advanced Clean Trucks ('ACT') rulemaking to
project future HD vehicle sales in California,
• ZEV sales mandate established by CARB as projection of future EV sales in California,
• Data published by International Council on Clean Transportation ('ICCT') to establish a
ratio between EV sales in California and EV sales in the remainder of the U.S., and
• HD vehicle sales projections from previous EPA rulemaking to project future sales in the
remainder of the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, pp.4-5]
Concerns relating to EPA's projection include the following:
1. EPA's projection of HD engine and vehicle sales relies on data from 2017 and earlier and
does not account for significant changes that could impact sales. EPA uses outdated
1562
-------
forecasts of future HD vehicle sales, relying on analyses performed by CARB in the ACT
rulemaking and by EPA in the HD GHG Phase 2 rulemaking. 4' 5 The COVID-19
pandemic alone has significantly impacted the way the U.S. lives, works and moves as
well as how goods are bought, sold, and delivered, rendering any pre-pandemic forecasts
of MY 2027 sales obsolete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.5]
4 CARB, 'Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment',
August 2019. The CARB analysis was based on sales projections in CARB's EMFAC2017
emission inventory model.
5 U.S. EPA. 'Regulatory Impact Analysis: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles -Phase 2.' Table 7-55. Page 7-49.
April 2016.
2. EPA relies on ZEV mandates in California to project EV growth in the rest of the U.S.,
assuming that HD EV sales in the U.S. will experience the same rate of growth as has been
mandated by law in California. It should be noted that California's ZEV sales targets are highly
aspirational mandates and not projections based on actual sales performance. It should further be
noted that the California mandates have been adjusted several times over the life of the program
to reflect a reality that could not keep up with the aggressive targets. In the midst of record
inflation, unprecedented supply chain disruptions and critical concerns about the availability,
cost and foreign dependence of minerals needed for EV batteries, it is irresponsible of EPA to
assume the U.S. will experience growth in FID EV sales based on expectations regarding
mandated growth in California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.5]
3. EPA misinterprets and misrepresents data by CARB and ICCT
• a. EPA estimates that 20% of Class 4-8 and 15% of Class 7-8 Tractor sales in California
will be ZEV in MY 2027, based on ACT sales requirements. The ACT sales requirements
are more nuanced than EPA interprets or applies them. The incorporation of weight class
modifiers means that one auto manufacturer might be able to comply with fewer ZEV
sales, and another might need more. EPA has not demonstrated, nor is it reasonable to
assume that compliance with California's ACT sales requirements will translate to 20%
of Class 4-8 and 15% of Class 7-8 Tractor sales in California being ZEV in MY 2027.
• b. Based on a fact sheet published by the ICCT, EPA estimates that new HD EV sales in
California in MY 2027 will represent 42% of new HD EV sales in the U.S.6 Data
presented in the ICCT fact sheet refer to total ZEVs sold to-date (through 2020), not to
new ZEV sales in 2020. It is not reasonable to assume that the ratio of HD EV stock (as
of 2020) in CA to the remaining 49 states would be the same as the ratio of HD EV MY
2027 sales in CA to the remaining 49 states. Further, EPA concludes from the ICCT fact
sheet that 'approximately 42 percent of the heavy-duty electric vehicle sales in the U.S.
are in California.' Thus, EPA's ratio of sales is incorrect. EPA cannot assume that 42
percent of sales will occur in California. The ICCT fact sheet actually states 'to date, 42%
of zero emission commercial vehicles sold in the United States and Canada have gone to
fleets in California.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, pp.5-6]
1563
-------
6 ICCT, 'Fact Sheet North America: Zero-emission bus and truck market in the United States and
Canada: A 2020 Update', May 2021
Valero has independently conducted lifecycle analysis that shows the differences in GHG
emissions resulting from use of renewable fuels as well as how different sources of electricity
can reduce the benefits from EV adoption. The carbon intensity of electricity generation can vary
dramatically depending on the fuel source. In setting national standards, EPA should not naively
assume that increased electrical demand will be satisfied with low-carbon sources; EPA must
account for variable sources of electrical generation, and should avoid setting a vehicle standard
that may paradoxically increase electricity generation from energy sources of high carbon
intensity. For Class 8 trucks, for example, Valero's analysis shows that an ICEV fueled with
renewable diesel reduces lifecycle GHG emissions by almost 70 percent and a renewable diesel
fueled FLEV achieves even greater lifecycle emission reductions, achieving emission reductions
comparable to the cleanest BEV and FCEV. Note that BEVs powered by Wyoming power
stations, which are over 80 percent coal-fired, have lifecycle GHG emissions more than 30
percent higher than ULSD fueled ICEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.7]
Furthermore, EPA has not accounted for how increasing incentives or mandates for
electrification of HD engines and vehicles will exacerbate the supply chain problems identified
in comments on the LD GHG rule and the environmental and national security problems
associated with the supply issues related to battery production. EPA projected that the LD GHG
rule finalized at the end of 2021 will result in doubling the electric vehicle fleet in a four-year
period. EPA has not addressed in this proposal how such increased demand for electricity for LD
vehicles and increased infrastructure demand for LD vehicles could affect the supply and
reliability of electricity and infrastructure for HD engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1328-A2, p.7]
As in the LD GHG rule, EPA has not accounted for the findings in a recent IEA report that
'today's mineral supply and investment plans fall short of what is needed to transform the energy
sector, raising the risk of delayed or more expensive energy transitions.'10 EPA should evaluate
the impact of limited supplies of raw materials needed to support increased electrical generation
and battery manufacture, as well as the current chip shortage, will have on the HD EV market. In
assessing mineral availability issues related to HD vehicle batteries, it should be noted that the
quantity of minerals necessary to manufacture a HD vehicle battery is orders of magnitude
greater than LD vehicle batteries (as noted above, the ATRI report assesses carbon emissions
resulting from production of a 8.5 ton lithium-ion Class 8 vehicle battery). As noted above,
EPA's EV market evaluation is wholly inadequate because it is outdated and relies on
assumptions derived from state mandates rather than factual data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1328-A2 ,p.7]
10 IEA (2021), The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions,
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-ofcritical- minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
1564
-------
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group is fully aligned with EMA's comments opposing the reopening of the Phase 2
regulation. As EMA noted, the Volvo Group has relied on the expected regulatory certainty to
balance our investments in engine and vehicle technologies to provide GHG improvements,
while also meeting the need for electrification of key vehicle models. We were able to perform
this balancing act based on the stringency steps as finalized in 2016, along with the Advanced
Technology credit multiplier used to incentivize development and sales of heavy-duty "all-
electric" vehicles, otherwise known as battery electric vehicles, or BEVs. The Volvo Group and
EMA cited this same need for regulatory certainty in opposing a review of the Phase 2 regulation
during the previous administration, a review that likely would have had the effect of weakening
the regulation, as was attempted with the light-duty regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1324-A1, p. 7]
Globally, Volvo Trucks, Renault Trucks, Mack Trucks, Volvo Bus and Nova Bus offer heavy-
duty on-road commercial ZEVs in regional short haul, urban pick-up and delivery, light
construction (on-road short haul), and transit bus applications. In the United States, Volvo
Trucks offers the VNR Electric BEV in regional short haul and local delivery tractor and box
truck applications with a range up to 275 miles, Mack Trucks offers the LR Electric low-entry
cab-over refuse truck with a range up to 100 on-the-job miles, and Nova Bus offers its LFSe and
LFSe+ with a range up to 290 miles. All these models are available for purchase and delivery
today; these are not just prototypes or preorder opportunities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-
Al, p. 7]
The Volvo Group is committed to transitioning to a carbon-neutral future as rapidly as possible.
We foresee that future primarily relying on zero-emission BEV and fuel-cell electric vehicles
(FCEV) and have set aggressive targets of 35% of global vehicles sales to be zero-emissions by
2030, and 100% fossil free by 2040. However, there are factors outside of our control that must
be in place for us to meet these very lofty, yet achievable, goals, including: grid readiness,
sufficient charging and refueling infrastructure, purchase incentives to address cost
competitiveness in the early days of the market, and customer acceptance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1324-A1, p. 7]
If any revision must be made, the agency should make that revision in the transition to the Phase
3 heavy-duty greenhouse gas regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 8]
In conclusion, the Volvo Group believes the following principles must be reflected in the final
regulation: a respect for completeness of data, economic consequences of the regulation
(including increased technology costs and workforce implications), and the many factors outside
of OEM control affecting the speed of ZEV penetrations in the marketplace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
1565
-------
Organization: Walmart
EPA should take a full and robust market view in revising Phase 2 GHG standards and potential
Phase 3 standards based on market conditions, cost-effectiveness, diverse stakeholder input and
infrastructure needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 2]
In the proposed rule, EPA seeks to increase the stringency of the current Phase 2 GHG standard
for select vehicle types for MY2027 and after. This adjustment is based on analysis that indicates
that these specific vehicle types, which include delivery vans, are more quickly transitioning to
electric-based power due to market and public policy factors.5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-
A2, p. 2]
5. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-03-28/pdf/2022-04934.pdf
We encourage EPA to take a full and robust view of the market demand and policy
developments incentivizing growing demand for these vehicle types in MY2027 and after, and to
set an appropriate regulatory signal that reflects realistic technology and infrastructure
conditions, motivating action by manufacturers to meet the compliance and demand-side needs,
while further driving down purchase costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 2]
Robust inter-agency collaboration is critical to ensuring that incentives are aligned across the
government and deliver a smooth transition to lower- and zero-emissions technologies for heavy
duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 3]
For example, there is a concern that the weight of batteries in MHDVs will trigger weight limits
that can affect payload efficiency and route optimization, which is an important short- and
medium-term tool for reducing GHG and NOx emissions. Walmart encourages consideration of
additional weight allowances to account for the difference between near-zero and zero-emission
vehicles and diesel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 3]
It will be valuable for EPA to consult and coordinate with other key federal agencies that
regulate heavy duty vehicles to identify a full range of complementary actions that can accelerate
adoption of these technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
Conversely, H2 ICEs are much less sensitive to purity. This not only decreases risks for fleet
operators, and potentially leads to lower costs, it also eases the expansion of refueling
infrastructure. This is especially true where interstate hubs are working to enable the
development of an interconnected hydrogen network. As such, H2 ICEs would be able to offtake
hydrogen from diverse sources, including through repurposed natural gas infrastructure, which
FCEVs would not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
There is a clear case for hydrogen fueled ICEs in road freight, and while many industry players
are considering pure hydrogen with spark ignition (SI) combustion technology, the application of
1566
-------
Westport Fuel Systems HPDI technology overcomes some of the limitations of SI H2
ICEs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.5]
Despite their varying stages of development, the pathway for H2 ICEs is well understood, being
based on existing ICE manufacturing routes. Hydrogen refueling infrastructure deployment is far
more likely to be the critical timing path to commercialization.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-
Al, p.5]
22 International Council on Clean Transportation
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
28.2 Advanced Technology Credit Adjustments
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
The existing ZEV credit multipliers contained in the Phase II GHG rule are far too generous and
should be phased out quickly. These multipliers will diminish real C02 reductions from diesel
trucks and hurt the sale of electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
Allison has invested in fuel efficiency solutions for conventional vehicles that are already in
production. These systems could assist OEMs in need of fleet average GHG improvements apart
from credits generated through ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.24]
• For example, Fuel Sense 2.0 is a software package that can reduce conventional engines
C02 up to 6% with more impact in urban and multi-purpose applications. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.24]
• Also, the Allison on-highway transmission portfolio is currently compatible with lower
carbon-intensity alternative fuels like natural gas or propane; Allison is also planning for
integration of more alternative fuel options in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.24]
• Allison's eGen Flex™ hybrid systems reduce C02 in transit bus up to 25%.53 While
EPA's proposal focuses on BEVs, hybrid systems can serve as a bridge solution for
transit agencies that do not yet have charging infrastructure or workforce readiness
1567
-------
established to support full ZEV transition. Among other benefits, these systems result in
reduced C02 emissions while helping to familiarize transit agencies with high voltage
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.24]
We would suggest that, in principle, if EPA seeks to bring ZEV closer to its real-world C02
impact by reducing multipliers, EPA should also review opportunities to bring non-ZEV C02
reduction technologies to closer to real-world emissions credit, so that OEM and end-user
customers have a variety of ZEV and non-ZEV pathways to achieve C02 fleet compliance.
Consistent with EPA's rationale (wherein it believes that retaining current multipliers could have
counter-productive results, allowing continual production of higher-emitting vehicles) EPA
could alternatively review how non-ZEV technology paths can receive appropriate credit
mirroring real-world C02 reduction across commercial vehicle.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.24]
EPA can do this by better integrating non-ZEV C02 reduction technology and considering a way
to include real world customer drive cycles into the GEM model. Some fuel-savings technologies
are not best represented on certification cycles (steady state 55-65 mph and ARB transient). A
singular focus on quantifying potential market uptake of ZEVs does not represent the whole
picture regarding how OEMs will lower GHG emissions fleetwide and an overemphasis on
reductions achievable through ZEV technology risks private sector investment (and gains) that
can be made across various non-ZEV platforms. In fact, the direction of EPA's Phase 2 analysis
risks overreliance on ZEVs and could result in at least implicit pressure for OEMs to pursue
ZEVs as the sole methodology for meeting more stringent standards with respect to this
rulemaking and other rules that are part of the Biden Administration's articulated agenda.54
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1, pp.24-25]
54 Executive Order 14037.
EPA should place greater emphasis on fuel savings technologies are already in production to
reduce C02 emissions. In the context of this rulemaking, it should not be presumed that better
integration of "conventional" technologies would detract from the longer-term development of
ZEV technology, resulting in less overall emission reductions. To the contrary, EPA has already
projected that the TCO for ZEV technologies will soon reach parity with compression ignition
("CI") and spark ignition ("SI") technologies.55 All other things being equal, the commercial
heavy-duty market will invariably select lower-cost options. But an over emphasis on ZEV
acquisition as the primary means to reduce fleetwide C02 emissions could leave near-term
reductions in C02 emissions effectively "on the table" or result in an inefficient allocation of
resources if the cost-per-ton of emission reduction from ZEV vehicles remains higher longer
than EPA projections. In short, EPA should not promulgate a regulatory structure and
presumption that would serve to detract from multiple technologies that are able to efficiently
reduce C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.25]
55 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,562.
Commercial vehicles differ from passenger cars because components and features are used
across a wide range of vehicles and vocations. Often, the perception of fuel savings value varies
1568
-------
greatly depending on the end vehicle being produced. In the commercial context, end users of
vocational vehicles are often reluctant to accept efficiency features if they perceive that there is a
risk that the feature will reduce productivity of the vehicle. While vocational vehicle purchasers
are highly motivated to reduce operating costs through fuel savings, an overriding concern for
most commercial buyers is that the vehicle they are buying will be reliable and able to perform
the work required of it. This results in a continuing challenge for OEMs to make new, more
efficient configurations widely accepted in the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
p.25]
EPA should therefore consider crediting methodologies that would make it easier for OEMs to
apply C02 technology for GHG credits across a wide range of vehicle configurations. And this
effort should be accompanied by additional review of the duty cycles used for the certification of
different vehicle types. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.25]
• Vocational applications like transit bus with lower average speed, more frequent stops,
and technology advancements such as hybrid with all-electric-range can realize greater
C02 benefits than reflected in GEM model. This results in an underestimation resulting
C02 emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.25]
o Specifically, eGen Flex™ hybrid systems can realize up to a 25 reduction in C02
emissions, yet this performance is not recognized in GEM. Hybrid drive cycles
include engine-off run time which is entirely out of scope of the current
certification cycles. Transit agencies can use of geofencing, green EV zones, and
Engine Start Stop features to increase percentage of operating time where vehicle
is moving, but engine is off. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.26]
o GEM model does not capture such effects when modeling C02 reduction because
GEM model instead reflects a mix of high speed 55-65 mph steady state cycles
and ARB transient, compared with Manhattan cycle with top speeds of 25 mph.
Neither custom chassis certification nor powertrain testing certification include
certification cycles that reflect the real-world operation of transit buses or other
unique drive cycles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.26]
• Allison's Neutral at Stop Standard feature is another example of a fuel efficiency feature
that reduces conventional C02 emissions but does not have this benefit reflected in OEM
GEM score. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.26]
o GEM's neutral idle capability recognizes only torque reduction at idle that is
equivalent to true neutral, and thus, Neutral Idle is incorporated in GEM with a
binary yes-no selection. It is unfair to allow no benefit in the GEM logic to OEMs
utilizing such features as Neutral at Stop Standard which utilizes approximately
70% torque reduction at idle to show efficiency gains at a partial credit of the
GEM Neutral-Idle feature, while optimizing vocational productivity and therefore
increasing adoption rates by end users. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1,
p.26]
o EPA could change Neutral-idle technology within GEM to recognize this C02
reduction with a high-medium-no setting, or it would be possible to use off-cycle
technology credit, however, clear requirements and definitions are needed to
assign an approved partial credit. EPA could address this crediting issue within
1569
-------
the context of this rulemaking and the broad request for comments that EPA has
solicited. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.26]
• A third example exists with respect to DynActive™ Shifting
o This feature is specified by end-users desiring fuel savings. But advanced shifting
strategies are currently not a technology improvement option for vocational
customers in the GEM model. EPA should therefore consider this technology for
inclusion in GEM with a high-regular-no setting of efficiency bias input to reflect
the different levels vocational customers set to balance their productivity needs
with reduced fuel usage,
o This feature utilizes an algorithm to learn the engine's torque curve, allowing
shifting decisions to be made to maximize performance when performance is
needed, all while delivering fuel economy benefit when there is opportunity (part
throttle, lightweight, downhill operation, etc.). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-
Al, p.26]
Other vendors to OEMs may have additional technologies that are similarly-situated. But the
main argument is that EPA should not ignore technological innovations for conventional
powertrains during the period of many years that it will take to transition to ZEV technology.
While some of these technologies will be adopted through market forces and stricter GHG
requirements, non-engine GHG technology cannot benefit under regulatory protocols that rely on
measured reductions in engine-out C02 emissions. Rather, even if the technology provides an
actual reduction in C02 emissions, the technology can only be properly incentivized if it is
credited within GEM itself. That crucial difference dictates a different approach in the heavy-
duty sector versus the light-duty sector where treadmill tailpipe testing of exhaust emissions
explicitly recognizes multiple vehicle technologies that result in lower C02 emissions. In effect,
the GEM model, while necessary for the Phase 2 program given limited chassis-testing, also acts
as final arbiter of whether a specific technology will be favored in the marketplace. Whether
through GEM or a different mechanism, EPA should expand the ability to measure and credit
GHG reductions apart from the zero g/mile credit given to ZEVs.56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.27]
56 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,557.
Organization: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
The Advanced Vehicle Technology Credit endangers the emissions reductions from the
standards, even with proposed stringency increases, and should be eliminated as quickly as
possible. This credit was planned for a much less mature EV market than we have now. Based on
currently expected EV sales, the credits would allow substantially worse fleetwide GHG
performance than the nominal stringency of the Phase 2 standards would indicate. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.7]
Table 3 shows the effects of the existing credit on the current and proposed rule stringencies for
class 4-5 light heavy-duty vocational vehicles3, which saw their effective stringency changed the
least as a result of increased rates of electrification, and therefore represent a conservative
1570
-------
estimate of the potential loss in stringency resulting from the credits. The methodology ACEEE
used to arrive at these estimates is explained in Appendix B. As the table shows, even with the
lowest plausible EV sales shares in 2027, the existing advanced technology credits would lead to
effective standards far weaker than the nominal Phase 2 standards for MY 2027, with effective
emissions limits for ICEs lower than even the MY 2021 standards. Figure XI-1 of the NPRM
quantifies this in terms of emissions and shows that the minimum expected nationwide EV sales
would result in an increase of over 30,000,000 Mg of GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2852-A1, p.8]
3 The division between light heavy-duty vocation vehicles is different in the ACT sale
requirements and federal emission rules. This table ignores any averaging between Light Heavy -
Duty vehicles which have different ACT sale requirements.
EPA requested comment on three options to limit these adverse effects of this credit. ACEEE
believes option 3, the complete phase-out of the credit by MY 2027, is the best of the options
offered to mitigate the harm of the credit and ensure continued improvement in ICVs, as shown
in Table 4. However, option 3 alone would be insufficient to address the problem. We suggest
that EPA also exclude any vehicle certified for ACT compliance and sold in any ACT adopting
state, from eligibility for this credit, effectively combining proposed options 1 and 3. This will
ensure that manufacturers' compliance with state regulations does not result in reduced
emissions benefits of the federal rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.9]
EPA should both phase out the Advanced Vehicle Technology Credit program, by MY 2027, and
also immediately exclude any vehicle certified for compliance with the Advanced Clean Truck
Act, and sold in an adopting state, from eligibility for this credit. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2852-A1, p.10]
Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA's Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2 program currently provides multipliers of 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 for
Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles,
respectively. These multipliers further misrepresent the actual emissions, arbitrarily distort the
benefits analysis, and are not authorized by the Clean Air Act or any other federal statute. In
discussing the technology credit multipliers, EPA admits the program is not technologically
neutral and that the technologies receiving the multiplier credits are not cost-effective. The
agency states, '[t]he HD GHG Phase 2 advanced technology credit multipliers represent a
tradeoff between encouraging a new technology that could have significant benefits well beyond
what is required under the standards and providing credits that do not reflect real world
reductions in emissions which in effect allow for emissions increases by other engines and
vehicles.'31 EPA has offered for comment several options in the rule to either reduce, cap or
phase out the multipliers through 2027 and the Agency includes no multipliers beginning in
2028. These Agency efforts to reduce, cap or phase out these multipliers acknowledges that the
policy is unlawful, not necessary anymore, and not good policy to cost-effectively reduce
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.8]
31 87 Fed Reg. 17603 (March 28, 2022)
1571
-------
The use of 'EV Multipliers' is arbitrary and capricious because it reduces the effectiveness of the
Proposal's greenhouse gas limits and increases costs to regulated parties and consumers without
any corresponding benefit to health, safety, or public welfare. EV multipliers increase the net
amount of greenhouse gas emitted both in the short term, by diluting the standards, and in the
long term, because they discourage innovations in ICE technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1262-A1, p.9]
The use of the multiplier simply creates a financial windfall for a specific mobile source
technology, by granting credits that are not a logical outgrowth from the actions taken by the
regulated entities. EPA continues picking technology winners and losers through this process.
The market and consumer choices should drive decision making. EPA states in the Proposal that
there is a much larger effort by manufacturers in the most recent years to produce BETs. If that is
the case as EPA outlines, then there is no additional economic incentive for multipliers that
continue to distort the market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.9]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM requested comment for how to revise the Phase 2 ATC multiplier used by a
manufacturer for BEV in 2024 through 2027 MYs and proposed three different approaches.
CARB staff supports U.S. EPA in reducing the number of incentive credits produced by electric
vehicles in the 2024 through 2027 MYs. CARB staff agrees and supports U.S. EPA's proposed
first approach of not allowing ATC multipliers for 2024 through 2027 MY electric vehicles that
are certified to ACT regulations (including California and any other section 177 states that adopt
CARB's ACT regulation). Starting in the 2024 MY, CARB's ACT regulation will require 5 to 9
percent of total HD vehicles sales to be ZEVs. These HD ZEVs would continue to be considered
zero grams C02 per ton-mile emissions and receive significant credits reflective of the
difference between the applicable C02 emission standard and zero grams emissions. Hence,
there would be no need for the ATC multiplier incentive on those ACT-certified vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.83]
CARB staff agrees with U.S. EPA that HD electric vehicles certified to the federal program for
new vehicles sold outside of California, and not subject to California standards in other states
under Section 177, would continue receiving some type of ATC multipliers for the federal
program. However, CARB staff urges U.S. EPA to reduce and phase-out the magnitude of the
ATC multipliers over a period of MYs following the U.S. EPA's calculation approach in their
third proposed approach, in combination with the first proposed approach to not allow the ATC
multiplier for HD ZEVs certified to CARB's ACT regulation. As discussed in the NPRM,
electric vehicle costs have been decreasing substantially since the federal Phase 2 adoption in
2016 due to the increase in battery electric learning and production levels. It is appropriate to
adjust the ACT multipliers to account for the decreased electric vehicle costs as shown in Table
XI-14 in the NPRM, where the proposed multipliers are 4.5, 3.5, 3.0, 2.0, and 1.5 in the 2023,
2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027 MYs, respectively, instead of the current multiplier of 4.5 for the
2024 through 2027 MYs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.83-84]
1572
-------
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network
In addition, in order to prevent increased emissions, EPA should preserve the Phase 2 stringency
requirements for ICE vehicles and phase out advanced technology credit multipliers as soon as
feasible. Finally, a recent Ceres analysis [https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/electrifying-
american-trucking-promise-and-challenges] concluded that, while shifting to electric vehicles
increasingly makes economic sense for manufacturers and suppliers, as well as fleet owners and
shippers, a federal ZEV mandate and fleet purchasing requirements, similar to California's
Advanced Clean Truck (ACT)l and Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) standards, will be necessary to
accelerate this transition at the rate and scale necessary to meet climate goals, and to ensure the
global competitiveness of the U.S. truck industry. Accordingly, we urge you to adopt a ZEV
mandate consistent with the targets outlined above. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1, pp.l-
2]
1 The ACT has drawn significant business and investor support. Importantly, given that
MHDVs are the largest source of nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the transportation sector, it is
critical to strengthen the proposed NOx standards.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA must also revise its proposal to provide credit multipliers to plug-in hybrid, all-electric, and
FCEVs. Because credit multipliers erode emissions reductions, they are not warranted for ZEVs
that will already be produced as a result of state-level and other requirements and commitments
(and thus need no incentive). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.8]
EPA must reconsider its proposal on advanced technology credit multipliers to avoid diluting
the GHG standards by providing unnecessary incentives to HD ZEVs that will be built even
under a business-as-usual scenario. The 2016 Phase 2 GHG rule provides credit multipliers to
plug-in hybrid (3.5X), all-electric vehicles (4.5X), and fuel cell vehicles (5.5X) to incentivize the
deployment of advanced technologies. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,594. When Phase 2 was finalized, EPA
concluded that these technologies were important to achieving significant future emissions
reductions in the HD sector, but were unlikely to be adopted in the market without additional
incentives. Id. at 17,603. However, as described above in Section III.A, EPA's pessimism was
mistaken. In 2016, EPA found that there was only one manufacturer that had certified an all-
electric HDV, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,603, but that number ballooned to 52 in MY 2020.248
Commenters agree with the Agency's conclusion that 'credit multipliers.. .may no longer be
appropriate' and could 'reduc[e] the effective stringency of the existing MY 2024 through 2027
standards.' 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,603. In fact, EPA warns that at 8.5% ZEV penetration, all of the
projected reductions from Phase 2 would be lost due to the credits. Id. at 17,604. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, pp.66-67]
248 EPA, Memo to Docket, HD 2027 Proposed Changes to Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas
Emissions 2 (Nov. 2021).
1573
-------
EPA proposes three options to reduce the impact of the credit multipliers on the stringency of the
standards. Id. at 17,605-07. The first, precluding the multipliers from being utilized by ZEVs
certified in California, inappropriately omits ZEVs that are required to be sold in other states that
have adopted the ACT rule or other binding requirements. If a state already requires a certain
percentage of HD sales to be ZEVs, those vehicles should be reflected in the baseline and should
not accrue credit multipliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.67]
The second option would cap the number of credits a manufacturer could receive, precluding
credit multipliers to ZEVs sold above a certain threshold. This seems to turn EPA's original
balancing on its head. EPA describes its rationale for credits: The HD GHG Phase 2 advanced
technology credit multipliers represent a tradeoff between encouraging a new technology that
could have significant benefits well beyond what is required under the standards and providing
credits that do not reflect real world reductions in emissions which in effect allow for emissions
increases by other engines and vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.67]
Id. at 17,603. The intention of the credit multipliers is to encourage technology deployment and
emissions reductions that would not occur without the incentive; therefore, it should be those
additional ZEVs that receive a credit multiplier, not the ones that would be produced under a
business-as-usual scenario. Every credit multiplier will lessen the emissions reductions required
of conventional vehicles, and therefore should only be available for HD ZEVs that are actually
incentivized. This approach, however, would require an accurate assessment of the baseline. As
noted above, Commenters' assessment indicates that HD ZEV penetration will be at least 8-11%
by 2027 and 19-27% by 2030. If a manufacturer is incentivized by the credits to produce more
ZEVs than business-as-usual, only then should credits be available in the 2024-2027
timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.67]
The final proposed option provides no rationale based on incentivizing additional ZEVs, but
merely attempts to phase out the credit multipliers in an orderly fashion. HD ZEVs that would be
built anyway—as the analysis in Section III indicates—should not be eligible for credit
multipliers. Commenters recommend phasing out multipliers for these vehicles as expeditiously
as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.67]
Organization: Coalition for Clean Air
The greenhouse gas credit multipliers for ZEVs proposed in the rule are overly generous,
reducing the effectiveness of existing EPA regulations to reduce GHGs in the heavy-duty
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1139-A1, p.2]
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
EPA should eliminate credit multipliers for ZEVs to ensure incentives do not limit the
effectiveness of the rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.2]
EPA is proposing to adjust its credit system for heavy-duty vehicles to reduce the number of
incentive credits produced by electric vehicle manufacturers in MY 2024-2027. We agree with
the need to reduce these credits. Currently manufacturers can earn large advanced technology
1574
-------
credit multipliers for C02 emissions.60 Such multipliers were intended to encourage early action
and technological innovation but have ultimately reduced the stringency of the existing GHG
standards, largely due to the unforeseen growth in the HDV ZEV market.61 Any adjustments to
this program should eliminate credits to prevent this outcome. A credit program should not result
in backsliding of emissions reductions expected from ICEs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-
Al, p.10]
60 87F.R. 17603.
61 Id.
EPA is proposing three approaches to reduce the number of incentive credits: (1) excluding EVs
certified to meet California's ACT Rule from earning federal credits; (2) establishing an
advanced technology cap; and (3) establishing a transitional credit cap. We agree with EPA's
proposal to exclude EVs built to satisfy California's ACT requirement from the federal advanced
technology credit incentive program. However, this cannot be the only adjustment to the
program as it would still leave in place significant multipliers that could lead to backsliding.
EPA's advanced technology cap proposal does little to address the issue of backsliding: It leaves
in place multipliers that are too high, and, when the cap is reached, still allows for the accrual of
credits. As with the current programs, this will lead to too many credits and hamper the
effectiveness of the GHG standard. EPA's transitional credit cap proposal at least reduces the
multipliers over time, and ultimately phases out multipliers. CR agrees that phasing out these
multipliers is important. EPA should phase out these multipliers by 2024 or as soon as possible.
While multipliers can be seen as a trade-off for encouraging early innovation and adoption of
new technologies, this trade-off cannot come at the cost of an ineffective rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1285-A1, p.10]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EPA developed the Phase 2 program with flexibilities in mind, making it apparent that
manufacturers could choose many paths to comply, including meeting their requirements in part
by adopting ZEVs. Now that manufacturers are doing so, EPA proposes to remove this
compliance path. Rather than create disincentives for ZEV adoption, EPA should continue to
allow the flexibilities that rewarded such adoption in its original Phase 2 program. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 113]
EPA also considers reducing the effect of ZEVs on manufactures' ability to achieve GHG
compliance—either by reducing the ZEV multipliers for GHG credits, or by capping their overall
effect. This directly reduces the value of ZEV programs to OEMs. If manufacturers no longer
have the option of meeting their compliance obligations, in part, with ZEVs, they will be forced
to direct resources towards further development of conventional vehicles. If one ZEV today has a
credit multiplier of 4.5x, and EPA's rulemaking eliminates that multiplier, or reduces its value,
this will directly dis-incentivize production of that ZEV. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1,
P 115]
1575
-------
EPA's proposed regulatory approach risks the ZEV future that we all support. The Proposed
Rule seeks to encourage investment in conventional technologies, which have limited returns at
increasing costs—instead of focusing on the future technologies that will enable our transition to
carbon-neutral transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.115]
Organization: Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
However, continued multipliers for electric trucks may in fact dilute the progress in conventional
technology while also dampening high penetration rates of electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1252-A1, p.5]
5. Regulations should be technology-neutral with flexibilities built in, but the EPA should
also recognize the local nature of NOx and PM emissions versus the global impact of GHG.
Electrical vehicles have unclear upstream emissions, but zero tailpipe NOx. Including electrical
vehicles in averaging engine NOx emissions may significantly dilute the local NOx benefits in
non-attainment zones, while increasing emissions elsewhere. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-
Al, p.6]
Fundamentally, we believe that GHG emissions ought to be averaged over both Diesel and
electrical vehicles for two reasons: GHG is a global pollutant and thus only the fleet-level
emissions are significant, and GHG emissions are in fact vehicle attributes. Thus, we agree a
vehicle manufacturer should be able to average GHG emissions across its vehicle fleets, which is
already allowed by the GHG rule. We agree that the actual penetration of electric vehicles,
further spurred by both market demand and the proposed CARB ACT rule do not warrant
multipliers going forward. The Agency has proposed three means to sunset the multipliers, but
all three have disadvantages. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.6]
• Excepting vehicles covered by California ACT certification but allowing multipliers above runs
counter to the intent of multipliers - to stimulate a non-exiting technology. Furthermore, there is
uncertainty in the ACT rule implementation in California, as well as how many of the
NESCAUM MOU states would adopt that rule and what other zero-emissions mandates other
states might adopt. This approach is in fact a state-by-state approach that has unpredictable
consequences and will in fact hinder planning and deployment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1252-A1, p.6]
• In a market with increasing pull for electrical vehicles, both due to economic drivers, as well as
a patchwork of local and state regulations, it is not clear what a credit cap for multipliers
achieves. Again, a cap can have unpredicted consequences, such as providing an incentive to
reach the cap, and then a disincentive to electrification after the cap is reached. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1252-A1, p.6]
• Finally, the annual reduction of the multipliers seems to be slow and will produce a very high
number of credits in the early years, that could in fact slow progress towards electrification in
that timeframe or can slow progress on diesel powertrains, ending up with a higher-than-
expected number of high C02 emissions trucks. There is a significant risk that this approach will
1576
-------
also slow down the real GHG reductions under the current Phase II program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1252-A1, p.6]
Given the fast uptake of electrical vehicles driven by market dynamics, a patchwork of local and
state restrictions and incentives, and the significant federal funding programs, we believe that the
multipliers ought to be sunset significantly faster, so that they do not end up distorting both the
market and the real GHG emissions. We would recommend decreasing the 4.0 multiplier in
decrements of 1.0 units over the next 3 years, or faster. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1,
p.6]
Agency Request / Topic: We are also interested in stakeholder input that supports changes to the
advanced technology credit multiplier approach under consideration [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1252-A1, p.l 1]
Eaton Comment Strategy / Materials: At this point in the EV adoption cycle, as well as all the
market forces accelerating the adoption, the credit multipliers are on path to distort the market
and the real GHG. We recommend a rapid reduction of the multipliers from 4.0 to 1.0 over the
span of 2-3 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1252-A1, p.l 1]
Organization: Elders Climate Action
We urge the Agency to scrap the credit scheme as the primary strategy for inducing the sale of
zero emission HDVs, and instead adopt the schedule for the sale of HDVs contained in the
CARB ACT rule. The effect of such an approach would not "induce" production and sale of
BEV HDVs, but require their production and sale. With such a requirement in place,
manufacturers would no longer need credits to serve as an incentive for producing and selling
zero emission HDVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1218-A1, p. 13]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF)
In the Proposal, EPA sought comment on how to treat Advanced Technology Credits produced
by EVs for the Phase 2 standards.94 While EDF supports programs that incentivize increased
ZEV deployment, EPA should not allow credit multipliers in the vehicle segments targeted for
increased ZEV deployment. As the agency correctly notes in the Proposal, multiplier credits
allow for 'backsliding of emission reductions expected from internal combustion engine
vehicles.'95 In the Proposal, EPA notes that at 8.5 percent ZEV penetration credits would result
in the loss of all of the projected reductions from Phase 2.96 The path to ZEV deployment levels
of 80 percent ZEV sales of school and transit buses by 2029 and 40 percent ZEV sales by 2029
for new Classes 4-7 vehicles and Class 8 short-haul tractors in 2029 will result in high levels of
ZEV deployment in MY 2024-2027 - indeed, even in its most conservative scenario, ERM
projects over 6 percent ZEVs in 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.21]
94 87 Fed. Reg 17,603.
95 Id. at 17,604.
1577
-------
96 Id.
EPA should not allow credit multipliers for these segments, Classes 4-7 vehicles, and Class 8
short-haul tractors, that are targeted for increased ZEV deployment. ZEVs will continue to have
0 grams C02 per ton-mile emissions, but additional multiplier credits are not necessary and will
undermine the emissions reductions required to meet the standards. Additionally, there will be
significant deployment of ZEVs as a result of the Advanced Clean Truck rule. California,
Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have adopted the rule and
several other states are in the process or committed to adopting the rule.97 ACT will require 9%,
11% and 13% ZEV sales of Class 4-8 vehicles for MYs 2024-2027 respectively.98 Accordingly,
it is critical that EPA not provide credit multipliers to ensure that the contemplated ZEV targets
are actually achieved and the reductions from their deployment are assured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1265-A1, p.21]
97 See supra at fn 59.
98 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation Final Regulation Order: ZEV Sales
Percentage Schedule at 5, Table A-l (March 15, 2021),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf.
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
With respect to multipliers for EVs in the GHG program, EPN agrees that the current approach is
no longer appropriate. The transition to EVs is already underway and is expected to increase. In
the near-term, the increase in production will continue to reduce the "cost differential between
EVs and conventional vehicles," and the emissions effects of the multipliers reduces "the
effective stringency of the existing MY 2024 through 2027 standards." See 59 Fed. Reg. at
17603. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1233- A 1, p. 3]
EPN believes multipliers for EVs should not be allowed after MY 2026. The stringency of the
standard in MY 2027 already accounts for the use of EVs, and multipliers are no longer
appropriate as incentives. The standard is the incentive in this case. Prior to MY 2027, any EPA
projections of EV penetration rate will more than likely be lower than what the industry and
market will produce. That is the nature of the fluid situation in these near-term years, where
positive but currently unexpected progress is likely to result from an industry that is investing its
expertise and large resources towards this goal. Given this, EPA should err on the side of larger,
not smaller, reductions in the level of the multipliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
To ensure an equitable phase-out of the Battery-Electric Vehicle (BEV) Advanced Technology
credits after 2024 model year, we recommend that EPA adopt the proposal which gradually
phases-out the Advanced Technology multipliers between the 2025 and 2028 model years. The
proposed option to disallow BEVs certified in California from receiving the Advanced
Technology multipliers would potentially be applied unequally across manufacturers.
Manufacturer with greater percentages of sales in California would be impacted more. Similarly,
1578
-------
the option to apply an absolute Advanced Technology credit cap could create an un-level playing
field. Manufacturers that sell more BEVs would be eligible for the Advanced Technology credits
for a smaller percentage of their fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 4]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
EPA proposes to incorporate by reference regulations and test procedures in many cases that are
unclear, duplicative, or are not yet final. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.5]
For instance, EPA proposes to incorporate the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)IO by
reference, and to account for vehicles qualifying for ZEV credits under the ACT differently than
other ZEVs. The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation says that manufacturers earn a ZEV
credit when the zero emissions vehicle is "sold to the ultimate purchaser" in the state, which is
currently understood to be different than when a vehicle is "produced and delivered for sale".
Many questions remain about how to practically count vehicles and transactions that qualify for
the ACT ZEV credit, especially considering common business practices in the medium-duty and
heavy-duty markets. It is unclear what accounting and reporting practices EPA would interpret as
correct, and if this would or would not be aligned with CARB now, or in the future. The
acceptable accounting and reporting practices to earn ZEV credits under the ACT program
remain unclear at the time of this letter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, pp. 5-6]
10 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/fro2.pdf
Incorporating standards by reference that are not finalized, unclear, or duplicative adds
uncertainty to what is expected in a finalized regulation, and often increases the burden to
industry to comply with standards. GM encourages EPA to not incorporate by reference
regulations and test procedures that are unclear, potentially duplicative, or not finalized. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.6]
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
The EPA proposal does not preserve the original stringency of the Phase II GHG rule. For
example, the proposal makes no change to existing Advanced Technology Credit multipliers,
which originally were intended to stimulate the production of zero-emission vehicles and achieve
a 15% overall improvement in efficiency of internal combustion engine vehicles. Since the
adoption of the original Phase II rule, six states have adopted requirements for the sale of zero-
emission trucks, which would generate Advanced Technology Credits. These credits no longer
serve as an incentive when states require manufacturers to produce zero emission vehicles. A
total of 17 states and the District of Columbia have signed a multi-state memorandum of
understanding pledging to secure at least 30% zero-emission truck sales in 2030, creating the
likelihood of additional Advanced Technology Credits. In their current form, the credits are
poised to seriously undermine any originally intended improvements in the efficiency of internal
combustion engine vehicles as more states adopt zero-emission sales requirements, and as the
federal government works to stimulate or require the purchase of zero-emission vehicles. We
estimate that even under scenarios with moderate ZEV deployment, ICE vehicles would not need
1579
-------
to attain any of the reductions originally envisioned by Phase II in model year 2027. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 5]
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend EPA not permit manufacturers to generate Advanced
Technology Credits from sales of ZEVs in states where they are subject to zero-emission truck
and bus sales or purchase requirements, which currently include California, New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington state. Additional states who have joined
together under a Multi-state Memorandum of Understanding are expected to adopt similar
requirements, and we recommend their ZEV sales also not be permitted to generate ZEV
credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 5] RECOMMENDATION: We recommend
EPA eliminate Advanced Technology Credit multipliers in model year 2024, or as soon as
feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 5]
Under the EPA's proposal, retaining Advanced Technology Credits until model year 2028 poses
a serious risk of delaying improvements in ICE efficiency and allowing the future production of
less efficient and higher emitting ICE vehicles than those sold today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 33]
Even under a conservative scenario in which MOU states adopt the ACT but ZEV deployment
does not increase in the rest of the country, Advanced Technology Credits would allow MY 2027
ICE vehicles to emit 17% more under the EPA's proposed standards than without these super
credits. Shown in Table 12, ACT adoption in MOU states under the EPA's proposed standards
would allow model year 2027 emissions that are on average 3% higher than in model year 2017
if emissions are allowed to increase or backslide. Our analysis is optimistic in that it assumes that
average ICE efficiency does not backslide, as shown in Table 13. Even so, under this
assumption, removing Advanced Technology Credits would reduce cumulative well-to-wheel
2024-2050 C02 emissions by 195 Mt, or 1.4%, with moderate ZEV deployment under the MOU
ZEV pathway. Because of state policies requiring the sale of heavy-duty ZEVs, these additional
C02 emissions would be permitted without necessarily incentivizing additional ZEV deployment
beyond state requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, pp. 33 - 34]
We recommend EPA remove Advanced Technology Credit multipliers starting in model year
2024 or as early as feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 34]
We encourage EPA to consider whether additional C02 emissions allowed by these super credits
under the current proposal would serve to incentivize ZEV deployment beyond what is already
required by state or federal policies. We caution that if EPA were to set a cap on Advanced
Technology Credits per manufacturer, which could retain incentives for small manufacturers and
heavy-duty vehicles with low ZEV penetration, EPA still consider not allowing manufacturers to
generate Advanced Technology Credits where they are subject to state or federal ZEV sales
requirements. Since currently adopted state policies are technology-neutral, not strictly requiring
either battery-electric or fuel-cell vehicle sales, we recommend EPA remove all Advanced
Technology Credit multipliers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 34]
1580
-------
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
Additionally, regulatory credits play an important role in incentivizing the deployment of new
and otherwise cost-prohibitive technologies, particularly when the industry is working to meet
ambitious new regulations and provide industry with multiple technology pathways for reducing
emissions. Maintaining technological flexibility can also guard against barriers to ZEV
deployment that are out of the control of manufacturers, such as consumer willingness to
purchase ZEVs or supply chain issues that limit manufacturers' ability to produce the required
number of ZEVs. Finally, we have concerns that reducing regulatory credits for advanced
technologies would reduce the incentive to produce battery electric or fuel cell vehicles and fail
to reward companies for deploying more costly technologies in the heavy-duty sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.3]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
EPA's proposal, which increases GHG stringency requirements for certain vehicle classes by
1.5%, will reduce cumulative class 4-8 heavy-duty vehicle emissions by only 0.4% from 2027-
205022 and could paradoxically result in greater GHG emissions if ZEV crediting provisions are
retained. The Department recommends revising the proposal to preserve the original Phase II
GHG stringency requirements for internal combustion engine vehicles and phasing out ZEV
crediting towards GHGs as soon as feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-A1, pp.8-9]
22 International Council on Clean Transportation
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
EPA is proposing to revise the HD Phase 2 GHG standards for MY 2027 vehicles in order to
take into account the larger proportion of electric vehicles that are projected to be sold out to MY
2030. The original Phase 2 regulation did not take electric vehicle penetration into account when
setting the standards, so many proponents of this revision cite the ability to meet lower GHG
targets than originally proposed. MECA agrees with the change to vehicle standards proposed by
EPA based on projected electric vehicle sales. For the same reason, we support EPA's decision
to phase out GHG credit multipliers for battery electric vehicles. CARB's Advanced Clean
Trucks (ACT) Regulation is expected to lead to significant penetration of electric and fuel cell
vehicles in California as well as several Section 177 states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-
Al, p.29]
The early introductory use of incentives can promote innovative technologies that can be
disadvantaged by lack of customer exposure and experience. However, in order for a technology
to be a sustainable and durable solution, it must demonstrate the ability to compete on the same
basis with other technologies to allow consumers the choice that meets their needs while meeting
performance based standards. Analyses by ICCT and researchers at Carnegie Mellon have shown
that extended use of super credits in the light-duty sector has resulted in the unintended
consequence of increased emissions from the non-ZEV fleet as it is allowed to emit more under a
fleet average regulatory structure that includes averaging, banking and trading provisions [46]
1581
-------
[47], Given the current number of heavy-duty electric vehicle model offerings, declining costs of
these vehicles and projected sales, large credits to OEMs are not needed to incentivize
production. Similar to the light-duty sector, an over-incentivized credit scheme for heavy-duty
ZEVs will instead result in erosion of ZEV sales and thus the benefits anticipated by the
standards, especially when the upstream emissions from electricity generation are considered
[48], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.29]
[46] N. Lutsey, 'Integrating electric vehicles within U.S. and European efficiency regulations,'
2017.
[47] A. Jenn, I. L. Azevedo and J. J. Michalek, 'Alternative-fuel-vehicle policy interactions
increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,' Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
vol. 124, pp. 396-407, 2019.
[48] R. Minjares and J. Hannon, 'Adapting US heavy-duty vehicle emission standards to support
a zero-emission commercial truck and bus fleet,' 2022.
MECA supports two changes to ZEV advanced technology multiplier credits that will help to
strengthen the proposal. First, EPA should eliminate advanced technology multiplier credits for
ZEVs sold into California and all states that have adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks
Regulation, which requires year-over-year increasing sales requirements of advanced technology
vehicles subject to the credits. Second, EPA should phase out the current advanced technology
multiplier credits such that no multiplier exists as soon as practicable and no later than from MY
2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.30]
Finally, we support continued progress in reducing the GHG footprint from HD vehicles by
considering the combination of technologies and fuels to enable stringent GHG standards. EPA
staff should reconsider the generous credit provisions with respect to NOx credits and ZEV
credit multipliers in light of the numerous OEM announcements of market introductions of EV
trucks. Furthermore, stringent C02 standards being adopted in other global markets, such as
Europe, will drive electric truck technology in the US into the market. All of these factors should
be considered when revising the Phase 2 vehicle GHG limits and credit considerations. An
underestimation of the EV penetration in light of generous credits could significantly increase
emissions of NOx and C02 from combustion powered trucks. Our industry is prepared to do its
part and deliver cost-effective and durable advanced emission control and efficiency
technologies to the heavy-duty sector to assist in simultaneously achieving lower GHG and NOx
emissions, while also meeting other criterial pollutant standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, p.34]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environment America (11,390)
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance standard should be designed to push truck
manufacturers to accelerate the transition to zero-emission electric trucks and buses. As written,
EPA's proposal is far too weak and will allow truck manufacturers to keep producing dirty diesel
trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
1582
-------
Electric trucks and buses are already available today and vehicle manufacturers have the
technology to meet stronger standards. Many recent analyses have shown that fully zero-
emission trucks will be cheaper to purchase and operate than diesel trucks within the timeframe
of these standards. Environment America supports eliminating credits and multipliers, and
implementing a GHG standard that will put the truck and bus market on a path to 100% zero-
emission sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.2]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
Finally, EPA notes that "advanced technology credit multipliers for C02 emissions in HD GHG
Phase 2 may no longer be appropriate based on [the agency's] current understanding of the
[heavy-duty] market." We agree and urge EPA to under no circumstances extend multipliers
beyond their currently expected MY 2027 phaseout and would even recommend an earlier than
MY 2027 phaseout, since industry has shown that the technology needed to meet the proposed
MY 2031 standards already exists today. For example, Eaton - a power management company -
has already demonstrated that diesel emission reduction technologies for NOx emissions are
already showing compliance with MY 2031 standards and is doing so at minimal cost and with
GHG reduction benefits too. 197 In addition, EPA should exclude any vehicles certified under the
Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) program and sold in an ACT state (California and any other state
that has adopted the ACT or in the future adopts the ACT) from eligibility for the multiplier
program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 59]
197. In a series of private meetings, Eaton Technology gave a presentation titled 'Eaton
Technology and Test Results for Future Regulations,' where they shared test results that
demonstrated that diesel emission reduction technologies for NOx emissions are already
compliance with the proposed standards for MY 2031. The private meeting that we took
that is referenced in these comments occurred on April 26, 2022.
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
In the proposed rule, EPA is requesting comment on the following three approaches that would
reduce the number of incentive credits produced by ZEVs in the MY 2024 through MY 2027
timeframe: (1) credit multiplier approach for ZEVs certified to meet California's ACT Rule; (2)
advance technology credit cap approach; and (3) a transitional credit cap approach. 87 Fed. Reg.
at 17603. California's ACT rule was adopted in 2020, and requires manufacturers to sell a
certain percentage of zero emission heavy-duty vehicles for each model year, starting in MY
2024. Several states have followed suit and issued proposals to adopt California's ACT rule
under CAA section 177, and it is anticipated more states may follow with similar
proposals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 6]
Under the first proposed approach, EPA would treat all ZEVs certified in California in the MY
2024 through MY 2027 timeframe differently than the vehicles certified outside of California.
Under this approach, the MY 2024 through MY 2027 ZEVs certified in California would not
receive the advanced technology credit multiplier that currently exists. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17605.
EPA's proposed approach is unclear in that it does not address a scenario where a manufacturer
sells more ZEVs than required under the California ACT rule. Navistar urges EPA to allow
showing
part in
1583
-------
manufacturers to receive the advanced technology credit multiplier for ZEVs sold in excess of
the applicable ACT rule requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, pp. 6-7]
As noted above, several states have issued proposals to adopt California's ACT rule under CAA
section 177. EPA's proposed rule would seek to eliminate advanced technology credit
multipliers for ZEVs sold in states that adopt California's ACT rule. The significance of EPA's
proposal cannot be properly evaluated, because the proposal rests on future uncertain actions of
states. This uncertainty undermines the continued development of the ZEV truck market. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
It is also clear that regulatory incentives for electric vehicles have been disproportionately
favorable to that technology (e.g., ignoring upstream emissions, providing sales multipliers,
allowing credit trading from low-mileage vehicles to high-mileage vehicles, providing credits for
fueling station capacity - not actual fuel use or emission reductions). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1330-A1, p. 11]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
While MDHD ZEV technology is accelerating, RILA recommends a market-oriented approach
to GHG credit multipliers, extending these multipliers past the MY2027 timeframe to encourage
further maturation of EV vehicle technology. RILA also recommends a ramp down of credits
instead of a hard cut off, in order to prevent potential 'pre-buy' spikes in demand at the end of
MY2027. Extending and ramping down these multipliers will further ensure removal of market
barriers to their further adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.7]
Looking forward, RILA additionally welcomes working with EPA on the MY2030 plan for
GHG reductions from all types of MHD vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.8]
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
We also urge EPA to strengthen any GHG standard by phasing out multipliers for advanced
technology vehicles. According to the agency, when originally designed the HD GHG Phase 2
multipliers represented a "tradeoff—a needed economic inducement to develop new
technologies but at the cost of effectively allowing for emissions increases by other engines and
vehicles. 15 EPA now rightly notes that the market has changed considerably since 2012 with
levels of innovation and state policy leadership the federal government did not foresee. Rivian
agrees that the multipliers "may no longer be appropriate." 16 In fact, it would be imprudent for
EPA to sustain the advanced technology vehicle multipliers in any form to avoid back-sliding.
This standard should phase out all GHG multipliers for advanced technology vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.5]
15 Id. at 17,603.
16 Id. at 17,604.
1584
-------
The agency proposes three potential approaches to reforming the GHG program's credit
multipliers. These include eliminating multipliers for ZEV trucks and buses certified specifically
in California in MY2024-2027, pursuant to its ACT requirement; a multiplier cap; and stepping
down the multiplier value until its eventual sunset in MY2027. These alternatives all move in the
right direction and of the three the latter option—phasing out the multiplier—appears most
appropriate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, pp.5-6]
However, even this option fails to reflect the state of ZEV truck and bus development, as well as
the degree of incentivization already built into the state-level regulatory landscape. Between the
diversity of ZEV truck and bus offerings slated for launch in the near future and the ACT, we
question whether the additional incentive a multiplier creates is still worth the environmental
costs. Moreover, EPA determined the feasibility of the GHG standard "through the evaluation of
conventional technologies" alone, indicating that the multipliers could erode overall GHG
reductions if they remain in place to any extent. 17 Eliminating the multiplier would also be
administratively simplest. Rivian encourages EPA to sunset all truck advanced technology GHG
multipliers in MY2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.6]
17 Id. at 17,606.
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
Moreover, to advance these goals, the credit systems used in the nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
GHG emissions standards must be properly tailored to ensure the regulations result in cleaner
internal combustion engines and meaningful deployment of ZEV technology beyond the
forecasted baseline. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, pp.1-2]
Under the revised Phase 2 GHG emissions standards, EPA should phase out super crediting of
ZEVs in 2024 or as soon as feasible. EPA currently proposes to apply advanced technology
credit multipliers until model year 2028,43 but this type of incentive is not needed given the
growth of the ZEV market. Additionally, EPA should review its treatment of C02 emissions
credits for ZEVs that are required as part of manufacturers' compliance with the ACT regulation.
As noted by EPA, these vehicles 'would still receive significant credits reflective of the
difference between the applicable C02 emission standard and zero grams' C02 per ton-mile
emissions.44 Allowing these vehicles to generate federal C02 emissions credits would serve as a
compliance giveaway to manufacturers since they will be required to provide these ZEVs under
the ACT regulations. This makes no sense. At a minimum, these vehicles should not receive an
advanced technology credit incentive under the Phase 2 GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1247-A1, p.8]
43 Id. at 17607.
44 Id. at 17605.
EPA should also adjust the NOx and C02 emissions credit systems to ensure that these
compliance flexibilities do not unnecessarily dilute the stringency of the standards. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.8]
1585
-------
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Tesla, even though being the largest light-duty BEV manufacturer, supports eliminating
advanced technology multipliers to ensure overall program integrity and supports firmly
establishing a one-for-one credit ratio that is a more rational and transparent compliance
mechanism and creates actual BEV vehicle deployment, thereby enabling deeper emission
reduction targets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.18]
Furthermore, each of the options for reforming the existing credit multipliers presented by EPA
all have substantial weakness. The first option would provide multipliers to those BEV sales in
non-ACT states. 146 This creates a disincentive for states to adopt ACT and move more
aggressively with a regulatory framework that will yield greater GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 18]
146 87 Fed. Reg. at 17605.
Similarly, the option to use multipliers and then cap credit use is equally flawed. Under this
architecture, manufacturers will likely deploy ZEVs to maximize generation of multiplier credits
up to the 1% cap limit but move no further. 147 In the E.U, a similar 'Super Credit' multiplier
exists for light duty vehicles which emit <50g C02/km, which can be earned from 2020-2022
inclusive. In the first year of the Super Credit eligibility, eight out of ten manufacturers reached
the cap. 148 This was achieved by aggressive sales practices (pricing and preregistrations) to
capture the maximum value of the credits up to the cap, and then halting further sales once the
cap was reached. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp. 18-19]
147 Id.
148 ICCT, C02 emissions from new passenger cars in Europe: Car manufacturers' performance
in 2020 (August 2021) at 4, Table 1.
The final option is the transitional credit approach proposing an extended phase down of the
multiplier. 149 This would delay actual deployment and incent less delivery of real vehicles for
more credits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 19]
149 87 Fed. Reg. at 17606
As the technology has been now commercialized at scale, each BEV manufactured already
contributes to achieving the GHG targets by making each manufacturers' fleet more efficient. All
the enhanced multiplier does is weaken the stringency of the standard with no further delivery of
an actual ZEV and little further technology development benefit will arise from this new
incentive. 150 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.19]
150 See e.g., ICCT, Fixing the Broken Super Credits Scheme of the Proposed HDV Co2
Standards (Dec. 3, 2018) (Although super credits help make fleet electrification more cost-
effective, they erode the intended environmental benefits of the C02 standards, and their use
amounts to poor environmental policy.)
1586
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
It is important to note that EPA included the advanced technology incentives at the urging of
CARB. CARB advocated to EPA that the "credits are still needed to promote the wide-spread
adoption of advanced technologies in the medium- and heavy-duty sectors, which CARB
believes is essential to meeting our GHG and criteria pollutant goals." (See, Letter from CARB
to EPA and NHTSA, June 16, 2016.) Based on a detailed analysis of the costs of BEVs and
FCEVs, the letter also stated that credits alone will not be enough to incentivize production of
the technologies, concluding that the costs exceed the benefits of the credits even before
factoring in the ZEV infrastructure costs. CARB's analysis remains accurate; to spur ZEV
production, the credit incentives must be part of a broader suite of incentive and infrastructure
funding. EPA should continue to follow that advice, as the Agency did during the "finalization"
of the Phase 2 GHG rulemaking. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 107]
Organization: U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development and National Clean
Energy Workforce Alliance
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Debra Rowe] So because low NOx and electric trucks
are already available and cost-effective, the proposed credits and multipliers, these are
giveaways. They just allow for the dirtiest trucks to continue to be sold, and that really should be
eliminated. The benefits are obvious. I suggest you make these changes because they are so
logical and smart. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Volvo Group
Given that these enabling factors are outside of EPA's control as well, we foresee the need for
continued regulatory incentives, such as the advanced technology credit multipliers, to allow
manufacturers to continue to develop and sell zero-emission vehicles into existing and new
market segments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p . 8]
Organization: Walmart
We also recommend a ramp down of credits instead of hard cut off to prevent a 'pre-buy' spike in
demand at the end of CY2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 2]
We recommend extending GHG credit multipliers past the CY2027 timeframe to encourage
further maturation of EV vehicle technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 2]
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
Moreover, we also recommend phasing out the zero-emission credit multipliers in 2024 or
eliminating them as soon as possible. As with the NOx emission credits, these multipliers erode
the greenhouse gas standard as electric trucks are currently ready, available, and cost-effective.
These credit multipliers are fundamentally giveaways for the highest-polluters in the engine
manufacturing industry and will continue to allow the dirtiest medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
to pollute for decades. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.5]
1587
-------
Organization: Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
Similarly, ZETA recommends that EPA also phase out the Phase 2 GHG standard's multipliers
for advanced technology vehicles by MY2027 at the latest, as proposed. We encourage EPA to
remove these multipliers by MY2024. HDEV technology has progressed rapidly since 2012, and
HDEVs will soon penetrate the market to a much greater degree than was previously anticipated.
EPA has recognized that multipliers present a tradeoff between driving emissions reduction and
incentivizing new technology. Based on the technology available today, multipliers are no longer
required to incentivize HDEV technology investments, and a more stringent GHG standard
would most effectively drive HDEV adoption and, in turn, emissions reduction. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1283-A1, p.9]
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
28.3 Costs of proposed HD GHG program
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
Many commercial truck and bus segments are primed for a near term transition to electrification
- the technology has been proven and the benefits outweigh the costs now or in the very near
term. A recent study conducted by Roush Industries for Environmental Defense Fund evaluated
both the upfront and ongoing costs of electrifying several types of medium and heavy-duty
vehicles that are commonly used in urban areas, including transit buses, school buses, garbage
trucks, shuttle buses and delivery trucks.47 These vehicles tend to be concentrated in urban areas
where average trip distances are shorter and health and pollution impacts are of most concern,
making them particularly important opportunities for early electrification deployment. The study
found that, when considering upfront purchase price alone, by 2027 electric freight trucks and
buses will be less expensive than their combustion engine counterparts in nearly all categories.
Electric vehicles will also be less expensive on a total cost of ownership basis in all categories in
the same timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.10]
47 Vishnu Nair, Sawyer Stone, Gary Rogers, Sajit Pillai. 2022. Medium and Heavy-Duty
Electrification Costs for MY 2027- 2030, Roush Industries for Environmental Defense
Fund. See http://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf
The Roush study developed projections for upfront costs and total cost of ownership for electric
vehicles in years 2027 to 2030 and compared those costs to equivalent internal combustion
1588
-------
vehicles that meet EPA Greenhouse Gas Phase 1 and 2 rules, as well as California Low NOx
regulations. The study determined the total cost of ownership for all financial aspects of
ownership, including vehicle purchase cost of either an internal combustion engine or electric
freight truck or bus, fuel or energy costs, charging or fueling infrastructure costs, maintenance
costs, and vehicle mid-life refresh if applicable. It focused exclusively on the direct financial
costs and savings related to vehicle ownership and did not include the substantial health and
welfare benefits associated with switching to electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.10]
The study found decreasing upfront costs for electric freight trucks and buses, driven largely by
steeply decreasing battery costs. It also concluded that in 2027, electric vehicle costs will be less
than internal combustion vehicles costs over the life of the vehicle, largely because maintenance
and energy costs will be lower. Total cost of ownership parity will occur immediately for some
segments evaluated and very quickly for the rest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 10]
Roush's findings have been confirmed in other recently released reports. The National
Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) looked at all classes and segments of medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles and concluded that with continued improvements in vehicle and fuel technologies,
ZEVs can reach TCO parity with diesel vehicles as early as 2026 for some applications and no
later than 2035 for all segments, including long-haul trucks.48 The study also concludes that 42
percent of all medium- and heavy-duty truck sales and 100 percent of bus sales will be ZEVs by
2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 11]
48 Muratori, Matteo et al. 'Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-Road Vehicles:
Zero-Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis.' NREL Transforming Energy. March 2022.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf.
While Roush did not study Class 8 short haul (day cab) tractors, this segment is also ripe for
near-term electrification. These tractors pull trailers and typically drive less than 250 miles per
day, returning to a hub each night where they could charge. NREL estimates that these tractors
will reach TCO parity with their diesel counterparts by 2025.49 And a recent study by the North
American Council for Freight Efficiency (NACFE) concluded that a BEV short haul tractor
purchased today will save more than $9,000 annually on fuel costs compared to a diesel
truck.50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 11]
49 Chad Hunter, Michael Penev, Evan Reznicek, Jason Lustbader, Alicia Birky, and
Chen Zhang. 2021. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for
Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks, Nation Renewable Energy Lab,
Technical Report, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf
50 North American Council for Freight Efficiency. 2022. Electric Trucks Have Arrived:
The Use Case for Heavy-Duty Regional Haul Tractors, https://nacfe.org/heavy-duty-
regi onal -haul -tractors/
Cost parity projections are also being confirmed by leading heavy-duty truck and bus
manufacturers. Navistar noted recently that long haul trucks will reach cost parity with diesel by
1589
-------
2027 with all other heavy-duty vehicles reaching cost parity before 2025.51 Daimler anticipates
total cost of ownership of its BEVs to reach parity with traditional diesel vehicles by
2025.52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 11]
51 Navistar President and CEO, Mathias Carlbaum, presentation at the Advanced Clean
Transportation (ACT) Expo, Long Beach, CA (May 9-11, 2022).
52 Deborah Lockridge, 'What Does Daimler Truck Spin-off Mean for North America?,'
Trucking Info (November 11, 2021). https://www.truckinginfo.com/10155922/what-
does-daimler-truck-spin-off-mean-for-north-america
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
28.4 Benefits of proposed HD GHG Phase 2
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Brooke S.
These new standards are not enough.
We have the technology and political leadership now to pass more aggressive policies on the transportation
industry to stop climate change. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to move slowly. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-1033]
Why must we stop producing high emitting heavy-duty vehicles?
Heavy-duty trucks stay on the road much longer than cars. While cars might stay on the road until they
reach 200,000 miles, trucks keep driving until around 750,000 miles. This means that heavy-duty
trucks are on the roads for an average of 15 years. Right now in the United States, medium and heavy
duty trucks account for only 5 percent of vehicles on the road but 24 percent of transportation
emissions. The emissions produced by trucks put on the roads now will continue long after policy
changes eventually mandate low emitting trucks. With the effects of truck production decisions today
still being felt 15 years from now, we cannot afford to move slowly when creating regulations to keep
new high emitting trucks from joining fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1033]
Are heavy-duty electric vehicles economically feasible?
A major obstacle in the adoption of heavy-duty electric vehicles is sticker shock. We cannot generally
expect purchasers to choose more expensive options just because they are better for the
environment. We have the technology to produce heavy-duty electric vehicles, but they are
1590
-------
expensive. With the current cost of production and materials, the cost of a new electric truck can be
two or three times that of a conventional truck. However, this cost comparison does not tell the
whole story.
Fleet managers and individual truck drivers consider Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Overtime, the
decrease in maintenance and fuel costs will effectively decrease the cost the truck. Today, medium-
duty electric trucks have achieved TCO numbers that match those of conventional medium-duty trucks.
Therefore, for local delivery trucks and buses, electric vehicles are already economically feasible. They
are perfect for urban and regional uses due to their smaller batteries and the benefits they get from
regenerative braking technology with frequent stops. Electric heavy-duty trucks, however, are
expected to reach TCO parity in 2030. As developments in technology and production scale decrease
costs, electric heavy-duty trucks will become the most economic option. Initially, though, governments
must provide subsidies to incentivize more immediate adoption of electric heavy-duty trucks for the
sake of our planet. These initial subsidies would increase investment into electric heavy-duty trucks and
move them towards TCO parity more rapidly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1033]
Do we have the infrastructure to support electric big rigs?
Policies promoting the adoption of electric heavy-duty vehicles will be ineffective if we do not have the
infrastructure for long-haul truckers to recharge their vehicles. The charging infrastructure and electric
vehicle production must be developed in unison with one another. Policies aiding in the development
of one goal will make the other easier to achieve. Many grants, loans, and incentive programs have
already been implemented to develop the charging infrastructure needed to make electric big rigs a
reality. These include the California Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project
(HVIP), the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Program, Electric Vehicle Charging incentives
provided by governments and utilities, and Federal and State Laws and Incentives. These programs,
joined with policies that mandate more electric heavy-duty vehicles, push investment in charging
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1033]
Why the urgency?
Climate change is happening and it's too late to reverse some of the damage we have already done to our
planet. It is not too late, however, to mitigate the worst effects of climate changing by limiting our
emissions and preventing further global warming. We must act now. Years spent putting off significant
climate change policies will result in increasingly devastating effects of global warming.
We might never be able to pass the necessarily aggressive climate change policies without at least some
political opposition. However, actions addressing climate change are possible under the current
administration. We have a president and leadership interested in addressing climate change. We must
act quickly to pass important policies like stricter emissions standards in the transportation sector and
increased investment in the infrastructure needed to make electric vehicles of all sizes economically
feasible. We don't know what the future political climate will look like. We cannot afford to make
minimal progress towards emissions reductions goals and hope the next administration will take more
aggressive action. This proposed rule is a small step in the right direction, but it's not enough. I urge
the EPA to propose a new rule with more substantial regulations to push us towards a decarbonized
future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1033]
1591
-------
Organization: CALSTART
Several studies demonstrate the expected benefits of deploying zero-emission trucks and buses
(Busch, 2020). CARB estimated that the ACT would reduce NOx emissions by 5,301 tons per
year, PM2.5 by 144 tons per year, and GHG emissions by 2.9 million metric tons per year in
California in 2040 (CARB, 2019a). From 2020-2040, CARB estimated these emission reductions
would avoid 943 premature deaths and 778 hospitalizations and emergency room visits at a
valuation of $8.9 billion in health benefits. Avoided GHG emissions provide an additional $1.7
billion in savings related to the social costs of global warming emissions at a 2.5 percent
discount rate. CARB estimated the ACT will provide additional savings of $5.9 billion in
California related to vehicle purchases and operation (higher vehicle purchase costs offset by
significant savings in fuel and maintenance). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, pp.5-6]
In addition to zero tailpipe emissions, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles offer significant
reductions in global warming emissions compared to combustion vehicles. As shown in Figure 2
below, with the average sources of electricity in the US, heavy-duty electric vehicles reduce
global warming emissions by approximately 50 to 80 percent depending on a vehicle's average
speed over the course of its trip (O'Dea, 2019). Emissions associated with charging electric
vehicles will continue to decline as lowercarbon sources of electricity are required to be
deployed through state laws. Heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicles also offer emission reductions
compared to vehicles fueled with diesel. For hydrogen generated from steam-reforming of
methane, a fuel cell transit bus, for example, has life cycle GHG emissions 40 percent lower than
a comparable diesel transit bus (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2016). Using hydrogen
generated from electrolysis of water using renewable electricity will provide significantly lower
life cycle GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.6]
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network
Strong truck standards are also necessary to ensure that we meet climate goals. A recent ICCT
analysis (https://theicct.org/publication/zevs-global-transition-benefits-mar22/) found that a
target of 100% zero-emission sales of medium- and heavy-duty trucks (MHDVs) by 2040 would
be consistent with limiting warming to less than 2°C (although higher sales would be necessary
to limit warning to 1.5°C). The GHG standards should ensure a trajectory consistent with 100%
ZEV MHDV sales by 2040 at the latest, and 50% ZEV MHDV sales by 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2714-A1, p.l]
The urgency of taking action on climate has never been so clear; upon release of the most recent
April 2022 IPCC report, working group co-chair Jim Skea warned that "It's now or never, if we
want to limit global warming to 1.5°C."1 Global HDV GHG emissions, which are second only to
passenger vehicles in the transportation sector, are projected to exceed light-duty vehicle
emissions by 2025 based on current trajectories.2 A rapid transition to ZEVs is necessary to meet
climate goals. A recent ICCT analysis found that a goal of 45% zero-emission sales in 2030 in
the U.S. heavy-duty vehicle sector would be consistent with limiting warming to less than 2°C,
although higher sales would be necessary to limit warning to 1.5°C. However, EPA projects a
zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales share of 1.5% in key market segments in 2027, which falls far
1592
-------
short of what is needed to meet climate goals as well as current state regulatory
requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A3, p.l]
1 'The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030.' The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). April 4, 2022.
2 Dale Hall, Yihao Xie, Ray Minjares, Nic Lutsey, and Drew Kodjak. 'Decarbonizing road
transport by 2050: Effective policies to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles.'
International Council on Clean Transportation. December 2021.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA's cost-benefit analysis should include a quantification of the rule's climate benefits based
on the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG). Commenters' proposed improvements to
EPA's criteria pollutant and GHG proposals would deliver increased climate benefits
by incorporating and driving zero-emission technologies across the heavy-duty sector, and EPA
must consider these additional benefits in finalizing the standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, pp.67-68]
EPA has previously found that sales impacts from heavy-duty standards were too uncertain to
quantify, and Commenters believe that continued uncertainty cautions against attempting to
quantify them as part of this rulemaking's Regulatory Impact Analysis. Despite this continued
uncertainty, Commenters agree with EPA that the adverse sales impacts, if any, from Option 1
(including pre-buy and low-buy effects) are likely to be minimal and short lived. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.68]
The federal government has quantified the climate impacts of proposed regulations for more than
a decade, since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in 2008 that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to do so
when assessing the costs and benefits of various alternative fuel-economy standards. See Center
for Biological Diversity v. NHTSA, 538 F.3d 1172, 1201 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding 'no evidence
to support NHTSA's conclusion that the appropriate course was not to monetize or quantify the
value of carbon emissions reduction at all'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.68]
As Commenters and others have previously explained,249 and as EPA and NHTSA both
recently determined,250 the best available and most appropriate values for estimating monetized
climate impacts are the interim estimates published in February 2021 by the federal
government's Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).251
Although the IWG's interim estimates are widely acknowledged to be significant
underestimates,252 they remain appropriate representations of the lower bound of potential
climate impacts and have been applied in dozens of previous rulemakings253 and their use has
been upheld by federal courts.254 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.68]
249 See Comments of Center for Climate and Energy Solutions et al. on Revised 2023 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, 86 Fed. Reg. 43,736
1593
-------
(Aug. 10, 2021) (Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021 -0208-0268).
250 See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards, 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434, 74,504 (Dec. 30, 2021) (determining that the interim
estimates, 'while likely an underestimate, are the best currently available SC-GHG
estimates,' and that they remained 'appropriate for use in estimating the global social benefits of
[GHG] emission reductions expected from this final rule'); NHTSA, Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, 84 Fed. Reg.
25,710, 25,724 (May 2, 2022) (determining that the IWG values 'are based on the best available
science and economics and are the most appropriate values to focus on in the analysis of this
rule,' even though they 'likely significantly underestimate the full benefits to social welfare of
reducing greenhouse gas pollution').
251 See IWG, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous
Oxide—Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13,990 (2021),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide
.pdf.
252 See, e.g., id. at 4 (acknowledging that current social cost valuations 'likely underestimate
societal damages from [greenhouse gas] emissions'); Richard L. Revesz et al., Improve
Economic Models of Climate Change, 508 Nature 173 (2014) (explaining that the IWG's values,
though methodically rigorous and highly useful, are very likely underestimates).
253 Peter Howard & Jason Schwartz, Think Global: International Reciprocity as Justification for
a Global Social Cost of Carbon, 42 Colum. J. Envt'l L. 203, 270-84 (2017) (listing all uses
through mid-2016).
254 Zero Zone v. Dept. of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 679 (7th Cir. 2016)
In the Proposal, EPA requested comment on 'how to address the climate benefits' of the
proposed rule, noting that a federal district court had issued an injunction against the use of the
IWG's interim estimates by EPA and other defendants. 86 Fed. Reg. at 17,608 & n.888. See
Louisiana v. Biden, Order, No. 2:21-CV-01074, ECF No. 99 (W.D. La. Feb. 11, 2022).
However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has since stayed that injunction, Louisiana v. Biden,
Order, No. 22-30087, Doc. No. 00516242341 (5th Cir. Mar. 16, 2022), meaning there is
currently no reason for EPA to depart from its historical and preferred approach of monetizing
climate impacts using the IWG's interim estimates. Indeed, NHTSA has already returned to
using the interim estimates, finding them to be 'more accurate and reasonable' than other values.
NHTSA, Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, 87 Fed. Reg. 25,710, 25,724 (May 2, 2022). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1302-A1, p.69]
Commenters encourage EPA to follow the approach that NHTSA recently took in finalizing its
Light-Duty Vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024-2026. In
1594
-------
that rulemaking, NHTSA explicitly stated its independent determination that although the IWG
interim estimates significantly underestimate the full benefits of GHG emissions reductions, they
remain the best available values. Id. at 25,724-25. Critically, NHTSA provided additional
justification for adopting a global damages valuation and for combining climate effects
discounted at an appropriate consumption-based rate with other costs and benefits discounted at
a capital-based rate. Id. at 25,879-80. NHTSA then used the IWG's interim estimates and
recommended discount rates in the agency's main cost-benefit analysis. Id. at 25,724. However,
NHTSA also conducted sensitivity analyses using additional discount rates, as well as the SC-
GHG estimates it used in 2020 (which attempted to exclude global climate impacts), while
cautioning that the 2020 values 'do not reflect the best available science and economics for
estimating climate effects.' Id. NHTSA then determined that 'even if NHTSA's cost-benefit
analysis applied the misleadingly low SC-GHG estimates from the 2020 rule, which severely
underestimate the impacts of climate effects on U.S. citizens,' the results would not change the
agency's determination that the final standards were 'the maximum feasible under its statutory
authority.' Id. By taking a similar approach in this rulemaking, EPA can protect against
challenges to the Agency's application of the SC-GHG, as well as confirm that strengthening the
standards as Commenters propose will deliver meaningful net benefits to society under a range
of analytical assumptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.69]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame)
Third, it should not be a given that a BEV or FCEV will always be the lowest-GHG option or the
lowest cost option to reach a particular GHG goal. Upstream grid emissions vary widely in the
United States, and we are decades away from a grid that is 100% renewable. While we are
impressed by the progress being made to electrify transit and school buses and other urban truck
niches that operate on short routes and rely on a home base to recharge, significant questions
about the ability of BEVs and FCEVs to meet the operating needs of long-haul fleets remain
unanswered and are likely to remain so for years to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1,
p. 5]
By opening the proposed BEV and FCEV provisions (e.g., sales-weighted averages of projected
emissions) to all vehicles or vehicle/fuel systems that meet fuel-neutral, technology-neutral
performance criteria, EPA will accelerate innovation, and the result will be deeper, more cost-
effective GHG reductions across the entire heavy-duty vehicle market. Certainly, EPA should
not pick technology "winners" by adopting any form of sales mandate when finalizing this
Proposal or proposing next year's expected Phase 3 GHG standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1261-A1, p. 5]
Recently, Gladstein, Neandross & Associates (GNA) published a white paper that found that the
ClearFlame system could provide lower GHG emissions, lower total cost of ownership (TCO),
and lower cost per mile than comparable BEV, FCEV, and other systems.7 Findings of the GNA
study include: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 5]
7. Gladstein, Neandross & Associates, ClearFlame TCO and Emissions Study, May 2022,
summarized and accessed on May 15, 2022 at https://www.clearflameengines.com/press-
release/independent-study-confirms-cost-savings-emissions-advantages-for-heavy-duty-trucks-
1595
-------
running-clearflames-engine-modification-technology/. To download the full study, visit
https://www.clearflameengines.com/white-paper/tco-study/.
Findings of the GNA study include: ClearFlame-enabled trucks are expected to have the lowest
TCO when compared with diesel, natural gas, electric, and hydrogen platforms. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
Findings of the GNA study include: ClearFlame's cost per mile is expected to be substantially
lower than electric and hydrogen platforms—40% less than electric and 30% less than
hydrogen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
Findings of the GNA study include: ClearFlame engines can provide a quick and cost-effective
path to substantial reductions of GHG and other tailpipe emissions compared to other sustainable
fuels and technologies, whose practical challenges, such as cost, range, infrastructure, and fuel
availability, have slowed adoption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
Findings of the GNA study include: ClearFlame engines are estimated to provide a 42% lifecycle
carbon reduction compared with diesel, as well as approximately 22% lower GHG than BEVs,
based on the national average grid mix. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
This TCO analysis was conducted when diesel fuel's national average was $3.48 per gallon in
October 2021 (i.e., it predates our currently escalated fuel prices). The analysis found that
ClearFlame-enabled trucks would have a lower TCO than diesel by $0.08 per mile, lower than
natural gas by $0.09 per mile, lower than electric by $0.97 per mile, and lower than hydrogen
platforms by $0.61 per mile. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
The report also highlights the potential for even greater GHG reductions using other feed sources
developed by the ethanol industry with lower carbon intensities. For instance, further
improvement to ethanol production processes—such as utilizing more corn fiber and stover, or
adding carbon capture to production facilities—would result in GHG emissions reductions of 69-
83%) compared with diesel, depending on the region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
Considering these findings, we urge EPA to take a systems approach to certifying ClearFlame
engines (or any other engine that can guarantee that a non-petroleum biofuel will be used
throughout useful life). When an OEM seeks to certify a ClearFlame-equipped engine as a ZEV
or near-ZEV, EPA should treat the engine and the fuel as a single system, thereby granting credit
for that engine's overall emissions performance, rather than just considering the engine's tailpipe
emissions. Similarly, EPA should consider the upstream grid or other emissions impacts on any
BEV or FCEV systems. Doing this across the board will better reflect the real-world emissions
benefit of all vehicle/fuel/power systems. Equally important, it will provide a market signal and
incentive to the biofuels community to find ways to reduce the direct and indirect GHG impacts
of their fuels in order to compete successfully with BEVs, FCEVs, and any other technologies
that emerge. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 6]
We acknowledge that today's systems approach may be more complicated than simply removing
sulfur or choosing among a small number of competing emission control technologies. However,
1596
-------
this approach is even more important now, given the wide range of potential upstream or indirect
GHG emissions from all types of vehicles, whether fueled by electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, or
diesel. Indeed, as we evolve towards a market that includes vehicles powered by all of these
options, evaluating and integrating the full upstream, indirect, and other lifecycle emissions
impacts of our full vehicle/fuel/power systems will become even more important to ensuring that
real world emissions meet our environmental goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
The Biden Administration's Net Zero Plan Will Require Increased Use of Renewable Biofuels to
Replace Petroleum Diesel—and this Proposal Can Help Achieve that Goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
The Biden administration's bold plan to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050 will require
many strategies to succeed.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
8. The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net Zero Greenhouse Gas
Emissions by 2050, November 2021. Accessed on May 15, 2022 at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-Long-Term-Strategy.pdf
Given that diesel engines will be in widespread use until at least midcentury, it is clear that the
Biden administration's Net Zero plan cannot succeed without a significant shift from petroleum
diesel to renewable liquid biofuels. Such a strategy is necessary as a critical complement to the
Biden administration's electrification strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
The White House recognizes the importance of a strong, comprehensive GHG strategy that
includes aggressive action to replace petroleum diesel fuel with low-carbon, renewable biofuels.
Indeed, the White House's Net Zero plan assumes that we will need roughly a gigaton of GHG
reductions by decarbonizing the liquid fuels that will still be used in 2050 as a complementary
strategy to its ambitious electrification goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
We estimate that this gigaton of GHG reductions is equivalent to approximately 90 billion
gallons of diesel fuel or its equivalent. This is more than twice our annual highway diesel
consumption. In other words, the Biden administration's Net Zero plan anticipates that overall
use of diesel fuel (or its renewable substitutes) will continue to grow for years to come, even as
parts of the heavy-duty sector increasingly move towards electrification. Meeting this goal will
require a tenfold increase in our use of renewable biofuels. Perhaps for this reason, President
Biden recently said, "You simply can't get to net zero by 2050 without biofuels."9 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 7]
9. Statement of President Joseph R. Biden, April 12, 2022. Accessed on May 15, 2022 at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/12/remarks-by-president-
biden-on-lowering-energy-costs-for-working-families/
By aiming to reduce the GHG emissions of the entire fuel/power/vehicle "system," EPA's Clean
Trucks Plan can help ensure that the White House's Net Zero plan will be successful. Such
an approach will incentivize accelerated scaling of all low-carbon-fuel based solutions by
sending the right market signal, rather than sending the signal that a future of targeted
1597
-------
electrification in certain vehicle niches, combined with millions of diesel trucks and buses
continuing to operate on petroleum diesel fuel, will somehow be sufficient to reach Net
Zero. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261 -A1, pp. 7 - 8]
To be clear, ClearFlame is committed to supporting all contributions to meeting our Net Zero
goals. Thus, we share the administration's excitement about the many promising developments
in the electric vehicle industry recently, including in the light-duty vehicle sector and those
segments of the heavy-duty sector that are the best candidates for electrification at scale, such as
school and transit buses, urban delivery vehicles, and short-haul tractors. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1261-A1, p. 8]
But electric school buses, transit buses, grocery delivery vans, and package delivery trucks will
not get us to the Net Zero goal. EPA's GHG rules should contribute to the Net Zero goal by
encouraging innovation that can decarbonize all heavy-duty vehicles and engines, not just those
that are most appropriate for battery or fuel cell electrification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1261-A1, p. 8]
In sum, EPA has had more than 50 years of success using a fuel-neutral, technology-neutral
approach that rewards innovation, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to scale quickly. This
approach has led to deeper emissions reductions, faster and more cost-effectively and at greater
scale than any technology-specific federal or state program that has "picked winners." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
Modeling from numerous studies concur strong tailpipe standards can effectively reduce GHG
emissions from the transportation sector and put the U.S. on a climate-stable path. For example,
modeling from Energy Innovation's Energy Policy Simulator, as shown in Figure 1,
demonstrates widespread deployment of ZEVs for light- medium and heavy-duty vehicles,
powered by a clean grid and in conjunction with other policies, would reduce U.S. GHG
emissions to net zero by 2050, limiting warming to 1.5°C. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1,
p.2]
The dark purple wedge, 'Passenger EV Sales Standard + Clean Trucks,' reflects a 100 percent EV
new sales target for light-duty vehicles by 2035 and a 100 percent EV new sales target for heavy-
duty vehicles by 2045.vii [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.3]
vii Robbie Orvis and Megan Mahajan, A 1.5°C NDC for Climate Leadership for the United
States, Energy Innovation, April 2021, 4, https://energyinnovation.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/A-1.5-C-Pathway-to-Climate-Leadership-for-The-United-States_NDC-
update-2.pdf.
An analysis conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory supports similar findings,
as shown in Figure 2.viii [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.3]
1598
-------
viii Illustrative Strategies for the United States to Achieve 50% Emissions Reduction by 2030,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, April 2021, 11, https://eta-
publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/us_50_percent_ndc_memo_finalap.pdf.
A recent study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) also shows a 2030
target of 45 percent zero-emissions sales would put the U.S. heavy-duty sector on a path to limit
warming to 2°C (more ambitious sales targets would be needed to align with a 1.5°C warming
limit). That would translate to a 50 percent zero emission sales target for rigid trucks in model
year 2030, combined with a 30 percent target for tractor-trailers and a 100 percent target for
buses, as shown in Figure 3.ix [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.3]
ix Claire Buysse, Sara Kelly, and Ray Minjares, Racing to Zero: The Ambition We Need for
Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the United States, The International Council on Clean
Transportation, April 8, 2022, https://theicct.org/racing-to-zero-hdv-us-apr22/.
Although the heavy-duty sector lags behind the light-duty sector in terms of EV availability and
cost declines, the adoption of a stronger GHG tailpipe standard could stimulate more investment
and innovation to jumpstart transformation in the HDT sector. Well-designed performance
standards can leverage the pace of technology advancement and send clear market signals that
spur the private sector to accelerate HDEVs sales. This relationship between regulatory standards
and market advancements is explained in Energy Innovation's book, Designing Climate
Solutions: Demand signals, stimulated by performance standards, provide investment
opportunities for private companies to fund research and development in new technologies. With
strong performance standards and a clear timeline over which they will become more stringent,
companies have a strong incentive to invest in innovation. The best example of this is electric
vehicles, widely recognized as critical to global efforts to decarbonize transportation. Effective
performance standards push EV deployment forward... [and] create the short-term conditions
necessary for lower-cost options to emerge.x [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.4]
Energy Innovation, Energy Policy Solutions, 'Performance Standards,' from Hal Harvey,
Designing Climate Soutions: A Policy Guide for Low-Carbon Energy, Chapter 2, 2018,
https://energypolicy.solutions/energy-policy-design/performance-standards/
Organization: Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EPA should quantify the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases. EPA should quantify any
expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the Proposed Rule and monetize the
benefits of such reduction using the social cost of greenhouse gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1256-A1, p. 2]
While the Proposed Rule is focused on reducing the emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen
oxides from the heavy-duty trucks, the necessary vehicle improvements may also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. However, EPA does not quantify greenhouse gas emission reductions
for any of the alternatives considered. EPA has expertise in estimating greenhouse gas emissions
from changes in vehicle standards and should apply that expertise here. If EPA believes the
1599
-------
greenhouse gas effects are too small to warrant quantification, it should explain that. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 26]
EPA should not only quantify greenhouse gas emissions (or emission reductions) in the Proposed
Rule, but also monetize the climate effects of those changes in greenhouse gases. EPA has used
the social cost of greenhouse gases many times in the past to monetize the climate effects of its
proposed regulations, and so should have no problem applying the tool here. 142 The social cost
of greenhouse gases can be applied to any volume of emissions and is useful for comparing
climate impacts to other monetized costs and benefits. 143 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1,
p. 26]
142. See, e.g., 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434, 74,444 tbl.4, n.b (Dec. 30, 2021) (explaining how the agency
monetized the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its final light-duty vehicle
greenhouse gas emission standards for MY 2023-26).
143. See generally Inst, for Pol'y Integrity et al., Joint Comments on the Consideration of the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases in Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards (Sept. 27, 2021),
https://policyintegrity.org/documents/Joint_SCC_Comments_on_EPA_Cars_Rule.pdf.
Policy Integrity and several other groups submitted joint comments to EPA on its light- and
medium-duty vehicle emissions that focus on the social cost of greenhouse gases. 144 These
comments (attached) highlight the appropriate methodology and rationale that EPA should use in
the Final Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1256-A1, p. 26]
144. Id.
Organization: International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
Human-induced climate change has already caused widespread damages to humans and
ecosystems, globally and in North America.22 At the current rate of C02 emissions, the
remaining carbon budget for a 67% chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius will be
exhausted as early as 2030.23 Yet under currently adopted policies, global C02 emissions from
on-road vehicles are projected to continue growing through 2050.24 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 25]
22."Observed impacts from climate change: B.l",
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicyma
kers.pdf
23. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
24.https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Accelerated-ZEV-transition-wp-final.pdf
The U.S. has a responsibility to lead—not lag—in GHG mitigation efforts. The U.S. is the
second largest emitter of C02 presently and accounts for 23% of cumulative C02 emitted since
1600
-------
1850.25 Yet under currently adopted policies, C02 emissions from on-road vehicles in the U.S.
are projected to decline only one-third by 2050—far short of the 40%-60% reduction by 2030
and near-zero emissions by 2050 that are required for compatibility with 1.5°C.26 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 25]
25. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions and
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf
26. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Accelerated-ZEV-transition-wp-final.pdf
The current trajectory of the U.S. HDV sector is not sustainable for other reasons: continued
reliance on oil poses a risk to national security and exposes consumers and freight operators to
high energy price volatility. In 2021, the U.S. was a net exporter of petroleum but still imported
8.47 million barrels per day, including 11% from OPEC countries and 8% from Russia.27 The
transport sector accounts for two-thirds of U.S. end use petroleum consumption,28 and within
transport, HDVs are the second largest source of oil demand.29 If EPA sets stringent GHG
standards for HDVs that significantly accelerate ZEV uptake, these standards will have a co-
benefit of insulating the U.S. HDV sector from oil price volatility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1211-A1, p. 25]
27. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
28. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php
29. https://www.bts.gov/content/fuel-consumption-mode-transportation-l
ICCT modeling has found that accelerating the transition to zero-emission vehicles could put the
U.S. onroad vehicle fleet on a pathway consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C.30 We
have not yet identified a pathway consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, indicating that even
the most ambitious actions under consideration would need to be augmented to maintain a
chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Accelerating ZEV uptake in the HDV sector would also
produce significant air quality and public health co-benefits,31 especially in communities that
are disproportionately impacted by HDV pollution. Combined, a strategy to reduce HDV tailpipe
NOx emissions by at least 90% (through the NOx standards) and increase ZEV uptake in line
with reaching 100% zero-emission HDV sales as soon as 2035 (through the GHG standards)
could avoid $5.7 million in health damages annually in 2035, including 46% in overburdened
and underserved communities that meet select environmental justice criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 25]
30. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Accelerated-ZEV-transition-wp-final.pdf
31. https://www.2035report.com/transportation/
Substantial reductions in heavy-duty vehicle GHG emissions are needed before 2030 to align
with domestic climate goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
1601
-------
The Biden administration has set a goal of reducing economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by
50%-52% from 2005 levels in 2030.32 Transportation represented 29% of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions in 2019, a quarter of which are attributable to on-road HDVs.33 Achieving the Biden
administration's climate target within the U.S. HDV sector in 2030 would mean reducing
emissions by roughly 54% from 2019 levels.34 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
32. The White House, "Fact Sheet: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution
Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on
Clean Energy Technologies."
33. US EPA, "U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2019."
34. US EPA, "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks."
Limiting global warming to below 2°C would require the U.S. HDV sector to mitigate its
projected cumulative C02 emissions through 2050 by roughly 4 Gt.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
35. Sen and Miller, "Emissions Reduction Benefits of a Faster, Global Transition to Zero-
Emission Vehicles."
Previous ICCT modeling has found that the U.S. could achieve this level of mitigation by
accelerating ZEV uptake to account for at least 45% of HDV sales by 2030 and 100% no later
than 2040. Compatibility with a 1.5°C target would require greater ambition.36 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 26]
36. Sen and Miller.
We find EPA's current proposal is inadequate to reduce HDV emissions in line with the Biden
administration's economy-wide 2030 target, resulting in annual well-to-wheel C02 emissions
that are 7.5% above 2005 levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 28]
We evaluated EPA's proposed revisions to Phase II GHG standards in combination with
currently adopted state policies that require the purchase or sale of zero-emission heavy-duty
vehicles. Our analysis finds that, under this scenario, annual well-to-wheel C02 emissions in
2030 would be just 2.0% below 2019 levels and 7.5% above 2005 levels. By 2050, we estimate
that annual emissions will rebound to 2.1% above 2019 levels (Figure 10). When compared to
the most ambitious scenario we considered for ZEV uptake, we find U.S. HDV C02 emissions
would decrease 17.6% from 2019 levels by 2030, or 9.6% from 2005 levels. This scenario would
achieve a 50% decrease from 2005 levels by 2042. This would reduce the need for other sectors
to decrease emissions by more than 50% to make up for the shortfall in the HDV sector. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 28]
EPA's proposal will reduce C02 emissions very little compared to current policies, with lifetime
C02 emissions of model years 2027-2030 just 0.5% lower and model years 2027-2050 just
0.6% lower. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 29]
1602
-------
Our analysis demonstrates that the EPA's proposed updates to the Phase II GHG standards lead
to an emissions scenario nearly indistinguishable from the original rule. We estimate EPA's
proposed revisions to existing Phase II GHG standards would lead MY2027 vehicles to emit
0.1% less C02 cumulatively over their lifetimes. In 2030, we estimate that annual well-to-wheel
C02 emissions from Class 4-8 U.S. HDVs would be 525 Mt under both the original rule and
EPA's proposed revisions, with a less than 0.2% difference between the original rule and the
proposed updates. Cumulatively through 2050 under the original Phase II standards, all MY
2027 and later vehicles would emit 8.6 Gt of C02, with only a 53 Mt reduction under EPA's
proposed revisions (Table 10). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 29]
Failing to preserve Phase II stringency for ICE vehicles would reduce C02 benefits by 0.2-0.5
Gt of C02 emissions from model year 2027 and later vehicles, depending on the level of ZEV
ambition. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 29]
If ICE vehicles are instead subject to EPA's proposed updates to the Phase II standards,
represented in our Proposal policy scenario, cumulative emissions benefits of the Alternative 1
ZEV pathway would be reduced by 0.3 Gt, achieving only a 3.3 Gt reduction from current
policies. For Alternatives 1 and 2, cumulative emissions benefits would similarly be 0.2-0.3 Gt
lower. If national ZEV deployment were to be driven only by MOU state adoption of the ACT
regulation, 0.5 Gt cumulative emissions benefits would be lost due to reduced ICE standard
stringency under the EPA's Proposal relative to the ICCT policy scenario. (Figure 12) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1211-A1, p. 29]
Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) etal.
Finally, GHG emissions from the transportation sector are one of the major contributors of
GHGs in the metropolitan Washington region. Tightening of the "Phase 2" GHG emissions
standards for several heavy-duty categories would facilitate progress towards our long-term
climate goals, which include a 50 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction below 2005 levels
by 2030 and an 80 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2050. It would also accelerate the
adoption of zero emission vehicles in the region's heavy-duty fleet, which is one of COG's
legislative priorities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0996-A1, p. 2]
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
The benefits of zero emissions vehicles are important in the medium and heavy-duty vehicle
space because diesel truck and bus emissions disproportionately harm low-income communities
and communities of color.26 And a number of states are requiring that electric vehicle
infrastructure be deployed in disadvantaged communities to ensure that those communities can
reap the environmental and public health benefits of these technologies.27 [[EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 6]
26. M.A. Demetillo, et al., 'Space-Based Observational Constraints on N02 Air
Pollution Inequality From Diesel Traffic in Major US Cities,' Geophysical
Research Letters (2021), available at
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL094333.
1603
-------
27. Matthew Goetz, Ryan Levandowski, James Bradbury, & Grace Van Horn,
M.J. Bradley & Associates & Georgetown Climate Center, Towards Equitable
and Transformative Investments in Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure (Mar. 2021) at 22-23, available at
https://www.georgetownclimate.0rg/f1les/report/Towards%20Equitable%20and%
20Transformative%20Investments%20in%20EV%20Charging%20Infrastructure.
pdf.
Electric vehicles will provide substantial benefits for the management of the electric grid. By
improving utilization of the existing power grid and spreading fixed costs over a larger base of
sales, electric vehicle use can benefit not just electric vehicle owners, but other electricity
consumers as well. For instance, transportation electrification can benefit all customers by
putting downward pressure on electricity rates, as fixed costs are spread over a larger base of
kWh sold. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 6]
Although electric vehicles are expected to increase the demand for electricity,28 they are also a
valuable grid resource that can be used to help manage the time and intensity of energy
consumption, which helps lower electricity bills and helps avoid otherwise necessary upgrades to
the electric grid, and will likely—in the future—facilitate storing energy and transferring it back
to buildings or the grid.29 Many utilities are switching to time of use (TOU) rates that price
energy based on the day, time, and season. 30 As of March 2020, about half of U.S. investor-
owned utilities had optional TOU rates.31 These can be used separately or in addition to
residential TOU rates to incentivize electric vehicle customers to charge at off-peak times when
it is cheaper and also beneficial for the grid.32 Another form of smart charging involves vehicles
being plugged in but not charging until they receive a signal from the grid indicating that demand
has declined.33 These technologies have benefits for electric vehicle fleet owners and grid
managers, but also for all customers whose rates could decline as electric vehicles help to shift
demand.34 California recently undertook a major study of vehicle-to-grid integration—
encompassing TOU rates and using electric vehicle batteries as distributed energy resources—
and is now working to implement the report's 92 policy recommendations in order to realize the
benefits of electric vehicle integration.35 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 7]
28. Demand is expected to increase 60% in California by 2045. Southern California Edison,
Reimagining the Grid (Dec. 2020) at 1, available at
https://download.newsroom.edi son. com/create_memory_file/?f_id=5fcfb5f62cfac23b06eb7d39
&content_verified=True. Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that there would be a 25% increase
in annual electricity demand if all light duty vehicles were electrified. Robert Walton,
UtilityDive, '2021 Outlook: The Future of Electric Vehicle Charging Is Bidirectional — But the
Future Isn't Here Yet,' https://www.utilitydive.com/news/2021-outlook-the-future-of-electric-
vehicle-charging-is-bidirectionalbu/592957/ (Jan. 12, 2021).
29. Anne C. Mulkern, Energy News Network, 'California Looks to Electric Vehicles for Grid
Stability,' https://energynews.us/2021/03/23/california-looks-to-electric-vehicles-for-grid-
stability/ (Mar. 23, 2021).
1604
-------
30. Enel, 'Everything EV Drivers Should Know About Time-Of-Use Energy Rates,'
https://evcharging.enelx.com/resources/blog/624-everything-ev-drivers-should-know-about-
time-of-useenergy-rates (Apr. 28, 2020).
31. Id.
32. See, e.g., Appalachian Power, 'Virginia Off-Peak Charging,'
https://www.appalachianpower.com/clean-energy/electric-cars/virginia-off-peak (last visited
Sept. 27, 2021).
33. See, e.g., International Renewable Energy Agency, Electric-Vehicle Smart Charging (2019),
available at https://irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Sep/IRENA_EV_smart_charging_2019.pdf?la=e
n&hash=
E77FAB7422226D29931E8469698C709EFC13EDB2.
34. Harper, McAndrews, & Byrnett, supra note 59, at 21.
35. CPUC, Final Report of the California Joint Agencies Vehicle-Grid Integration Working
Group (June 30, 2020), https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VGI-Working-Group-
Final-Report-6.30.20.pdf. Consistent with the study's recommendations, utilities in California -
including NCAT members Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric - have
proposed a number of large-scale pilots to accelerate technologies and business models that will,
among other things, promote the use of electric vehicle charging for load modifying demand
response and resource adequacy efforts and the advance opportunities to use bidirectional flow
from electric vehicles for buildings, microgrids, and the grid. SCE Advice Letter Filing AK
4542-E,
https://library.sce.com/content/dam/scedoclib/public/regulatory/filings/pending/electric/ELECTR
IC_4542-E.pdf (July 15, 2021); PG&E Advice Letter 6259-E,
https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/adviceletter/ELEC_6259-E.pdf (July 15, 2021).
Electric vehicle charging is also increasingly connected to and supported by renewable energy.
TOU rates can be coordinated with renewable energy availability, like in Charge Forward,
NCAT member PG&E and BMW's pilot program that helped consumer to delay charging to
align with renewable energy.36 NCAT member Southern California Edison also introduced a
TOU rate connected to renewable energy availability,37 and has implemented demand response
programs through its Charge Ready infrastructure programs that demonstrate how electric
vehicle charging load can be shifted to absorb midday excess renewable generation that may
otherwise be curtailed.38 NCAT member EVgo, a fast-charging network, powers its 800-charger
network using 100% renewable energy.39 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 8]
36. Robert Walton, 'PG&E, BMW smart-charging pilot highlights potential for electric vehicles
as grid resource,' https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-bmw-smart-charging-pilot-highlights-
potential-forelectric-vehicles-a/600958/ (June 1, 2021).
1605
-------
37. Southern California Edison, 'Rate Options for Clean Energy Technology,'
https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/electric-vehicle-plans (last visited Sept. 24, 2021); Lori
Bird & Norma Hutchinson, World Resources Institute, '4 Emerging Ways to Pair Electric
Vehicles and Renewable Energy,' https://www.wri.org/insights/4-emerging-ways-pair-electric-
vehicles-andrenewable-energy (Nov. 19, 2019).
38. CPUC, 'Transportation Electrification Programs Overview,' at 13,
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/Session-3-CPUC-Transportation-
Electrification-Activities.pdf.
39. EVgo, 'About EVgo,' https://www.evgo.com/about/ (last visited Sept. 18, 2021).
Several utilities including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) have active
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) research and development projects planned or in progress including both
electric school buses and light duty electric vehicles. V2G figures prominently in SMUD's 2030
Zero Carbon Plan pursuant to which SMUD is planning to eliminate its fossil fuel based
generation assets by 2030 and could expect over 250 MW/400 MWh of energy storage from
V2G. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1290-A1, p. 8]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States agree that HD ZEVs are rapidly becoming an important presence within the heavy-
duty vehicles sector, especially in those vocational categories identified by EPA.97 EPA's
proposed initial response to this transition—to tighten the Phase 2 GHG standards to ensure they
remain binding on the conventional diesel fleet—is sound and consistent with good
rulemaking.98 The proposed approach, in itself, does nothing to accelerate or promote HD ZEV
deployment, but only preserves the environmental integrity of EPA's existing Phase 2 standards,
which were premised on emission-reduction technologies other than ZEV technology.99
Nevertheless, EPA has invited comment on "the potential for ZEV technology to
significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector" as it prepares for future
GHG standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. 100 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-
Al, pp. 22 -23]
97. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,598.
98. Id.
99. Id. at 17,594.
100. Id. at 17,593.
The States welcome EPA's proactive consideration of ZEV technology for future GHG
standards. The current Phase 2 GHG standards are an important element of the United States'
strategy to stave off the worst effects of climate change, which are caused by anthropogenic
emissions of GHGs.101 "Elevated concentrations of GHGs have been warming the planet,
leading to changes in the Earth's climate including changes in the frequency and intensity of heat
1606
-------
waves, precipitation, and extreme weather events, rising seas, and retreating snow and ice. The
changes taking place in the atmosphere as a result of the well-documented buildup of GHGs due
to human activities are changing the climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health,
society, and the natural environment." 102 As EPA recognizes, the transportation sector is now
the largest U.S. source of GHG emissions, with heavy-duty vehicles contributing 23 percent of
the United States' transportation emissions. 103 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 23]
101. See, e.g., Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Standards, 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434, 74,489 (Dec. 30, 2021).
102. Id.; see also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022:
Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers, at 11 (H.-O. Portner & D.
Roberts, eds. 2022) ("Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability") (surveying medium-to-high
confidence attributions of extreme weather, wildfires, heat-related deaths, and ecosystem loss to
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities), attached as Exhibit 13.
103. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,592.
The States are already experiencing grievous effects from climate change, which, as described
above, are expected to escalate without sharp reductions in GHG emissions. 104 Our residents
have lost property, been displaced from homes, endured respiratory illness and other health
impacts, and even been killed as a result of severe weather events exacerbated by
climate change. 105 Often these impacts are disproportionately borne by communities with high
poverty rates, communities of color, and indigenous peoples. 106 Rising average temperatures,
shrinking mountain snowpack, warmer storms, wildfires, and higher sea levels also harm our
economies, infrastructure, and public services. 107 These impacts require long-term, resource-
intensive adaptation planning and costly disaster response by all levels of government and the
private sector. The U.S. Global Change Research Program's 2017-2018 Fourth National Climate
Assessment projects more extreme-weather impacts for every region of the United States,
including major damage to agriculture, coastal industries, utility grids, transportation networks,
air quality, and human health, from coastal flooding, heat waves, drought, and wildfires, as well
as from the spread of tree-killing and disease-carrying pests. 108 Action to reduce GHGs from all
major-emitting sectors, including the heavy-duty vehicles sector, is imperative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 23 - 24]
104. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief, at 11-19 (D.R.
Reidmiller et al. eds., 2018) ("NCA4 Report-in-Brief') (summarizing ongoing and projected
impacts to United States from climate change), attached as Exhibit 14; see also IPCC, Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability, at 11-22 (describing ongoing global climate change impacts and
projecting near-, mid-, and long-term impacts, particularly from unpredictable cascading and
compounded disruptions); IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change,
Summary for Policymakers, at SPM-7, SPM-14 to 19 (2022) ("Mitigation") (finding reductions
of GHGs is occurring too slowly to limit global warming to even 2°C and such a goal requires
unprecedented accelerations in reductions), attached as Exhibit 15.
1607
-------
105. NCA4 Report-in-Brief, at 82-83, 98-103, 115-62 (surveying national losses of coastal
property and air quality deterioration and summarizing impacts to health, property, and
ecosystems by U.S. region).
106. NCA4 Report-in-Brief, at 82-83, 103-106; see also IPCC, Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability, at 14-15 (identifying especially vulnerable communities globally).
107. NCA4 Report-in-Brief, at 67-68, 70-72, 82-83, 85-91, 93-96.
108. NCA4 Report-in-Brief, at 11-19; see also id. at 102 (by shifting from a high-emissions
scenario to a low-emissions scenario, "thousands of American lives could be saved and hundreds
of billions of dollars in health-related economic benefits gained each year" (emphasis added)).
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
For the U.S. to meet its decarbonization goals and to mitigate the public health and welfare
impacts from climate change, EPA's proposal should be amended to meet increasingly more
stringent regulatory requirements that incentivize all vehicle manufacturers to rapidly scale up
delivery of high-quality BEVs. As previously described, BEV technology in the medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle classes is increasing at a rapid pace. Indeed, under Phase 1 of the GHG
regulations advanced conventional and BEV heavy duty technology have already established a
sizeable manufacturer GHG credit bank. 145 The presence of a large bank of credits can dampen
the uptake of best emission control technology and delay broader deployment of BEVs.
Accordingly, in amending the current Phase 2 GHG regulations, EPA should ensure the changes
eliminate this possibility. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 18]
145 See EPA, Phase 1 EPA Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Compliance Report (Model Years 2014- 18) (Oct. 2021). See also, Union of Concerned
Scientists, Verdict on First US Fuel Economy and Emissions Program for Trucks: Success?
(Nov. 5. 2021).
Organization: University of California, Berkeley, The Goldman School, Center for
Environmental Policy
We have reviewed EPA's proposed NOx and GHG Tailpipe Emission Standards for Heavy Duty
Vehicles for MY 2027-2029. We have conducted a high level modeling exercise to contrast the
EPA proposed standard with an alternative proposal (hypothesized for modeling purposes) that
would be in line with President Biden's goal (announced at the Glasgow Climate Summit) of
reaching economy-wide net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 (hereinafter referred to as the
"President's climate commitment" scenario). We find that the difference between the two
proposals is significant: The President's climate commitment scenario is found to save $1 trillion
more than EPA's proposed standard by 2050. With this substantial difference in mind, we urge
EPA to set more stringent, climate-consistent HDV GHG emission standards, including at least
20% zero emission requirement in new truck sales by 2027 and 50% by 2030. These
requirements would credibly put us on the path to meet the President's climate
commitment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, p. 1]
1608
-------
Our work shows that electrifying trucking can have substantial economic benefits over diesel
trucking, particularly when electricity tariffs are structured to facilitate off-peak charging.
Given these recent findings, and President Biden's commitment to achieve deep decarbonization,
we conducted this preliminary analysis to investigate the impact of a climate-consistent HDV
emissions standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, pp. 1-2]
We find the differences between the President's climate commitment scenario and the current
EPA proposal to be notable across many elements of analysis:
Cost: While EPA proposed standard would save money compared to business-as-usual diesel
scenarios, the net present cost of the EPA proposed standard is $1.5 trillion more by 2050 than
that of the President's climate commitment scenario. This figure includes carbon pollution costs
reflecting the social cost of carbon as well as air pollution damages; however, even when
omitting pollution costs, the proposed EPA standard still costs $1 trillion more than the
alternative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, p. 2]
ICE trucks on the road: The proposed EPA standard will leave a significant portion of today's
internal combustion engine (ICE; gas- and diesel-powered) trucks on the road through 2050 and
will fall to meet the President's climate commitment. With the EPA Proposed rules, because of
the slow stock turnover of trucks (average life of-12-15 years or so), nearly 57% of the on-road
truck stock would still be diesel powered by 2050. In contrast, in the President's Climate
Commitment consistent case, which models all new truck sales to be electric by 2035, only about
7% of the truck stock in 2050 would be diesel powered, while -93% would be electric. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, p .2]
Carbon emissions: The EPA proposed rules would reduce the C02 emissions from trucks only
by 10% by 2035 and 33% by 2050, relative to the 2020 levels. By contrast, the President's
Climate Commitment scenario slashes C02 emissions from trucks (including electricity used by
trucks for charging) by 50% in 2035—putting this sector on a path to meet its share of the net-
zero emissions (a90% reduction in 2050, relative to 2020 levels). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1327-A1, p. 2]
In light of these preliminary results, we urge EPA to rigorously evaluate and consider adopting a
more stringent, climate-consistent truck emission standard, including at least 20% zero emission
requirement in new truck sales by 2027 and 50% by 2030. This would credibly put us on the path
to meet the President's climate commitment. Such regulations are critical to provide a clear
signal to the private sector and utilities to rapidly build out production capabilities and charging
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1327-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
In addition to the necessary NOx reductions, EPA's rule also advances Wisconsin's efforts to
reduce GHG emissions and address climate change. Onroad heavy-duty vehicles were
responsible for about 10.2 million metric tons of C02 equivalent (MMC02E), or 7% of the
state's total GHG emissions inventory in 2018.2 Given the state lacks the authority to address
GHG emissions from vehicles and other mobile sources, EPA's action to update the Phase 2
1609
-------
GHG program to ensure it remains representative of the current market conditions in the heavy-
duty sector and achieves the most emission reductions possible needed to make progress on this
goal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1162-A1, p. 2]
2. Wisconsin 2021 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report,
https://widnr.widen.net/view/pdf/o9xmpot5x7/AM610.pdf?t_download=true
Organization: World Resources Institute
EPA studies confirm that medium- and heavy-duty vehicles also generate 23 percent of the
transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), contributing to the severity of climate
change impacts, including heat waves, drought, sea level rise, extreme climate and weather
events, coastal flooding, and wildfires. Some populations may be especially vulnerable to these
and other climate change impacts, including low-income communities, people with disabilities,
people of color, and Indigenous populations. Furthermore, studies (such as the recent 'Zeroing in
on Healthy Air' from the American Lung Association) show that regulations and policies
designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as through accelerating electric transportation, will
have the added benefit of reducing other forms of pollution, such as air toxics and particular
matter, that impact public health and disproportionately impact overburdened
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.2]
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
28.5 Other comments on proposed changes to HD Phase 2 GHG
program
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
Allison would suggest that for the four vehicle types that EPA expects to electrify rapidly (i.e.,
school bus, transit bus, short-haul tractor, and delivery truck) EPA consider options that would
simplify the GHG certification process as noted in previous section regarding better GEM
integration of non-ZEV C02 features, rather than add additional testing burdens associated with
powertrain certification. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.27]
Allison recognizes that powertrain certification can be used to measure C02 reductions
associated with a variety of different features. At the same time, Allison's experience is that it
has been challenging to broadly undertake powertrain testing/certification at a reasonable cost
given the number of different systems that may be supplied to OEMs. Apart from the capital and
1610
-------
recurring costs stemming from obtaining and operating powertrain testing equipment, other
elements of EPA regulations, like selective enforcement audits, impose additional indirect costs
that may be experienced over multiple years. See Appendix 1. There are additional
complications to sharing costs and commercializing powertrain certification for non-vertically
integrated manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.27]
In the vocational vehicle sector, this challenge becomes even greater given the wide range of
customer needs which drive a variety of vehicle configurations. Lower volumes for some
applications make it challenging to address the overhead associated with such testing. Allison
recommends that simpler methods be explored, including those involving the testing of
standalone components and/or a further build-out of the GEM model to incorporate incremental
C02 reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.27]
Additionally, it is clear that EPA and CARB will increasingly need to consider not only tailpipe
and avoided GHG emissions, but also upstream components to the GHG profile of heavy-duty
ZEVs. As EPA is well aware, the overall emissions impact of a ZEV is tied to the carbon content
of the electricity used to charge its batteries; such content will vary across different areas of the
country, resulting in very real differences in net climate benefits. These differences can be very
substantial, varying from 12 grams of C02 per kilowatt hour ("kWh")to 2.23 lbs. per
kWh.69 While this rulemaking does not address this issue and the relative effect of upstream
emissions from electricity generation is not a current, major concern given the relatively low
penetration of ZEVs in the heavy-duty sector, by EPA's own estimates this effect will increase
over time. EPA should therefore more proactively discuss this issue going-forward during the
series of rulemakings that are currently part of its agenda in the HDV sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.33]
69 Nationwide, C02 emissions per kilowatt-hour ("kWh") averaged 0.85 lbs./kWh in
2020. But the rate varied from near-zero for certain forms of energy (e.g., from 48
gC02eq/kWh for solar, 24gC02eq/kWh for hydropower and 12gC02eq/kWh for
nuclear) as compared with 2.23 lbs./kWh for coal-fired power plants. See, e.g.,
eia.gov/tools/faqs; www.hydropower.org.
Beyond scope of Clean Air Act, ZEVs also face numerous other environmental issues, including
the extent of recovery of battery materials, recyclability, and closed loop systems. Battery
material reclamation is a very important consideration for the long-term sustainability of ZEV.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1,p.33]
While all of these issues may not be able to be addressed pursuant to the Agency's Clean Air Act
authority, these impacts have associated costs and cannot be ignored over the long-term.
Proactively discussing such issues would aid the vehicle manufacturing sector in planning for
future design and sourcing agreements early within vehicle development cycles. Such an
assessment should be performed prior to adoption of any explicit or implicit ZEV targets; EPA
should not in this rulemaking attempt to align final regulations with the measures and timing
contained in the CARB HD Omnibus regulation or the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.33]
1611
-------
• These include the need for reasonable access to energy and fueling infrastructure where a
transition to different systems to power commercial vehicles is contemplated. Either
explicit or implicit mandates for certain vehicle types cannot be reasonably achieved
unless there is corresponding availability of the necessary fueling infrastructure. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.34]
In the comments above, Allison has referenced several areas where EPA's Proposed Rule could
be improved. Specifically, with respect to the interrelationship of EPA and CARB standards,
Allison would offer several additional comments and perspectives: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.35]
• CARB's Omnibus NOx standards post MY 2027 are based on assumptions concerning
certain alternative fuels and the electric grid; but these assumptions may or may not prove
out over the next few years and choosing one technology pathway like ZEVs could
realistically constrain participation by other technologies and emerging alternative fuels
in the heavy-duty sector. Again, Allison would urge EPA to continue promulgating
standards that may be achieved by a variety of different technological approaches and,
consistent with its CAA authority, only promulgate standards that appropriately consider
costs as well as allow for a sufficient timeframe for necessary research, development and
demonstration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.35-36]
• The CARB HD Omnibus Rule utilizes standards and measures that are meant to address
regional air quality concerns. The standards also require coordination with supporting
infrastructure. Such coordination is inherently more feasible to take in a regional context,
which is more capable of supporting and targeting infrastructure development for ZEV
deployments, necessary alternative fuels and fueling capacity. Such efforts are likely
impracticable and potentially unattainable at the federal level within the same
timeframes. Several factors distinguish California's efforts from EPA capability in this
area:
o From a practical standpoint, California has exhibited unwavering support for
statewide greenhouse gas reductions and electrification goals and incentives for
the transportation sector. Starting with approval of the Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006, California has developed a legal and regulatory framework to enable
a noteworthy push to accelerate ZEV technology. In more recent rulemakings,
ZEV technology has become a primary focus for efforts in the mobile source
sector.
o In this effort, CARB has conducted multiple workshops and engaged in extensive
coordination with the California Energy Commission to plan the infrastructure
development necessary to support ZEVs at an accelerated pace. While there are
currently some federal efforts in this area, including through passage of the 2021
infrastructure package,72 similar efforts do not exist throughout the United States
at the same level of legal/regulatory commitment or public funding. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.36]
72 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. 117-58.
1612
-------
o CARB HD Omnibus NOx standards post 2027 are based on certain alternative
fuels and grid assumptions considered at the time of rulemaking. As a result, these
standards may not consider the benefits of other emerging alternative fuels that
could be applied to heavy duty internal combustion engines as a tool to achieve
near-term criteria air pollutant and long-term C02 reduction goals in vehicle
applications that resist electrification. They also may not fully consider the need
to leverage existing infrastructure when transitioning to stricter standards. Given
these limitations, variation from the structure of CARB regulatory requirements is
both justified and necessary. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.36]
• Otherwise, one of the reasons that the CARB HD Omnibus Rule may be able to achieve
its aggressive standards and implementation schedule is by leveraging federally certified
engines through allowable exemptions that serve to mitigate impacts to end-user
productivity (e,g., numerous exemptions were included by CARB in the final rule
because transit, motorcoach, refuse, and heavy haul end-users provided information that
justified additional flexibility. Again, the state's ability to take particular regulatory
approach to reducing emissions does not mean that similar approaches are justified or
workable at a federal level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, pp.36-37]
Organization: American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
The EPA HD Engine notice of proposed rulemaking includes provisions for using credits to meet
fleet requirements. Averaging Banking and Trading (ABT) credits are an important flexibility for
manufacturers to meet stringent emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1293-A1, p. 1]
Flexibilities to earn credits and to move credits between years and product applications are
helpful for manufacturers. Quick changes to production and product plans often result in
stranded capital and disruptions to the supply chain and manufacturing workforce. Depending on
the product lineup and lifecycle position of their product portfolio, a manufacturer may not have
the ability to respond to large changes in stringency immediately, with limited lead time.
Alternatively, a manufacturer may be able to transition quickly in one part of its business, but not
immediately in another. Manufacturers are more likely to be able to respond to stringent
regulations with adjustments to their portfolios over time, and an ABT program with sufficient
flexibilities can help manufacturers smoothly transition to stringent regulations. EPA should
consider adding flexibilities to trade credits between certification classes, such as light-heavy and
medium-heavy, for criteria emissions and GHG. [Also in Section 13. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1293-A1, p. 1]
Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Although AFPM supports emissions reductions and efficiency, its members believe there is a
better way to do it than an indirect mandate of battery electric trucks (BETs). A recent technical
assessment confirms that trucks powered with advanced internal combustion technology,
coupled with the growing production of renewable diesel and biodiesel that meets the ASTM D-
6751 standard, delivers earlier and more cost-effective air quality and GHG reduction benefits
than a battery electric truck-centric approach.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.l]
1613
-------
2 See Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., Multi-Technology Pathways to Achieve California's
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Goals: Heavy-Heavy-Duty Truck Case Study (Feb. 1,
2021), prepared for Western States Petroleum Association and appended to WSPA,
Comments on Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation March Workshops (April 17,
2021), https://www.arb. ca.gov/lists/com-attach/3 6-acf-comments-ws-
UCdTJlUkAzFVDFMy.pdf
First, EPA must apply a thorough life-cycle analysis when considering GHG tailpipe
emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
A metric ton of carbon has the same impact on climate change regardless of where it is emitted
in a vehicle's lifecycle. Some vehicles incur a significant upfront carbon penalty during the
manufacturing process and utilize carbon emitted by the power sector. Others have smaller
upfront carbon impact but emit at the tailpipe. Only through a lifecycle analysis (LCA) can EPA
properly evaluate the tradeoffs and ensure it is achieving its objective of cost-effective carbon
emissions reductions from HD trucks. A proper LCA should be based on sound science, account
for each vehicle's lifetime emissions regardless of powertrain, including emissions associated
with its production, recharging/refueling, drivetrain/battery replacements, required infrastructure
modifications, and end of life disposal options. Emphasizing only tailpipe emissions results in a
distorted view of the actual environmental impacts of vehicle technologies that generate
emissions elsewhere in the production of the vehicle or the generation the energy used for
vehicle operation. If EPA intends to reduce motor vehicle emissions in a cost-effective and
transparent manner, it should evaluate emissions on a lifecycle basis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1262-A1, p.2]
Although, tailpipe emissions are the most obvious emissions from new motor vehicles or their
engines, a rule that effectively mandates BETs will cause additional emissions from electricity
generation. Similarly, EPA must recognize that requiring BETs causes additional GHG
emissions relating to battery mining, production, and disposal or recycling. Without LCA, the
Agency cannot reasonably assess the stringency or GHG reduction benefits of its proposed
standards, nor can it reasonably assess the costs and benefits; thus, EPA cannot assure that its
standards appropriately and justifiably protect public health or welfare without LCA. The
absence of LCA of BETs in this context amounts to EPA ignoring an issue of central relevance
to the problem it is trying to solve and is therefore arbitrary and capricious. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
Second, EPA must remain technology neutral when setting NOx and GHG emissions standards
for heavy-duty trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
Third, the agency has no authority to set standards that can only be achieved through fleet
averaging and emissions trading. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
Finally, the Proposal's GHG provisions are reliant upon California's Advanced Clean Truck rule
for significant BET sales even though there is no California waiver in place for Heavy Duty
(HD) trucks. EPA is acting arbitrarily in depending on a preempted California standard to
demonstrate regulatory achievability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
1614
-------
Heavy duty trucks can be used for more than a million miles, and this will mean that for BETs,
there will be several battery replacements during their lifetime. The battery is the energy storage
media on the vehicle, just as the fuel is on a diesel ICE (internal combustion engine)
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
The analysis included in the Proposal does not assume battery replacements and essentially
ignores an issue of key importance to the problem EPA is working to resolve. Lithium-ion
batteries are made from critical minerals including cobalt, graphite, lithium, nickel, and
manganese. Electric vehicles (EVs) require six times the mineral inputs of traditional internal
combustion engines.3 One study suggests that the extraction and processing of critical minerals
are responsible for approximately 20 percent of the GHG emissions associated with battery
production.4 A typical light-duty lithium EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. While there are
dozens of variations, a typical battery contains around 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt,
60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, and 90 pounds of copper. Since ore grades vary,
acquiring these five elements to produce a single battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of
ore. 5 Roughly 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over
1,500,000 pounds of earth, a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds per battery.6 These
numbers are significantly higher for heavy-duty EV batteries. Further, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) pins the average GHG intensity for production of lithium carbonate at around 5
metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (C02e) emitted per ton of metal, and approximately
15 C02e metric tons per ton of cobalt sulfate.7 The mining of minerals for BETs typically
occurs in countries where environmental, health, and safety precautions are significantly less
stringent than those in the U.S.8,9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.3]
3 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report at 28,
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCri ticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf.
4 Kim et al., Cradle-to-Gate Emissions from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion
Battery: A Comparative Analysis, Environ. Sci. Technol 50 (2016), pp. 7715-7722. See
also Volvo, Carbon footprint report: Volvo C40 Recharge at 5,
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-
Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf
('The accumulated emissions from the Materials production and refining, Li-ion battery
modules and Volvo Cars manufacturing phases of C40 Recharge are nearly 70 per cent
higher than for XC40 ICE.'). The Volvo report notes that production of the Li-ion battery
modules account for 30 percent of the footprint of the C40 Recharge. Id. at 6.
5 See Mark Mills, Mines, Minerals, and 'Green' Energy: A Reality Check, The Manhattan
Institute (July 9, 2020), https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-
energy-reality-check., last visited, May 16, 2022.
6 Id.
7 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report, at 195.
1615
-------
8 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report. See also Securing America's Future Energy, The
Commanding Heights of Global Transportation (2020), https://secureenergy.org/the-
commanding-heights-of-global-transportation-2/,https://secureenergy.org/the-
commanding-heights-of-global-transportation-2/, last visited, May 16, 2022.
9 In addition to GHG emissions, such mining activities are also responsible for PM
emissions, NOx emissions, and other air pollutant emissions.
Finally, EPA's proposal does not consider whether there are any safety concerns with adopting
standards that force a shift toward BETs. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires the
Administrator to consider whether any 'device, system, or element of design will cause or
contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or safety in its operation or function.'
EPA's failure to include this analysis on these issues as they relate to heavy-duty BETs is
arbitrary and capricious. EPA must conduct such an assessment and seek comment from the
public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.6]
Policies that allow various technologies24 to compete in the marketplace can and should be
developed to achieve the goal of cost-effective GHG emissions reductions. Mandating the use of
a particular technology stifles innovation, for example the benefits of renewable diesel in not
only new engines but the on-road fleet. Renewable diesel is promising because it is chemically
identical to petroleum diesel and can deliver GHG reductions of 50 to 90 percent depending
upon feedstock.25 On a lifecycle basis, a new diesel truck running on renewable diesel emits
fewer GHGs than a battery powered truck, while retaining refueling convenience and
infrastructure.26,27 Renewable diesel is becoming more widely available as new production
facilities are built.28 Subject to renewable feedstock availability, this advanced fuel will build on
past successes29 in improving air quality and lowering carbon emissions at a much lower cost
than electrification. In addition, research studies30 have also shown that paraffinic fuels such as
renewable diesel reduce criteria pollutants emitted from the engines. These reductions are
measurable and significant but diminish after gases pass through vehicle aftertreatment systems
typically found on post-2010 MY vehicles. However, there are still benefits to the existing fleet
of pre-2010 vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.7]
24 E.g., battery electric vehicles, hybrids and efficient gasoline and diesel vehicles,
biofuels, natural gas, and hydrogen.
25 See Reduced emissions, Neste.com https://www.neste.com/products/all-
products/renewable-road-transport/reduced-emissions#fe233267, last visited, May 16,
2022.
26 Id. Renewable diesel is produced through various thermochemical processes such as
hydrotreating, gasification, and pyrolysis. Because it is made from waste and biobased
materials, using renewable diesel does not release any new carbon dioxide (C02) into the
atmosphere.
27 See discussion Section II.A.2. infra.
1616
-------
28 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Electronic Moderated Transaction
System for renewable fuel indicates that the United States consumed over 900 million
gallons in 2019. Renewable diesel output in the United States has increased nearly 15
percent over the last year and close to 20 renewable diesel projects at refineries are
underway, including one that will be the world's largest renewable fuel plant.
29 Diesel engines using compression-ignition (CI) combustion are presently the most
efficient engines for MHDVs, with progress evident for further reductions in C02 and
fuel consumption, and NOx emissions. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's
SuperTruck initiative, demonstration of 55 percent peak engine efficiency in a research
vehicle environment may occur in the next few years. Spark-ignition (SI) engines
continue to evolve and improve, with potential to reach more than 40 percent peak brake
thermal efficiency while still achieving stringent criteria emissions with relatively low-
cost aftertreatment. See 'Summary,' National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, Reducing Fuel Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Medium- and
Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phase Two: Final Report (2020), https://doi.org/10.17226/25542.
30 CARB Assessment of the Emissions from the Use of Biodiesel as a Motor Vehicle
Fuel in California 'Biodiesel Characterization and NOx Mitigation Study.'
EPA must utilize technological neutrality in setting engine warranty requirements. In this rule,
EPA proposes to significantly expand the regulatory useful life and emission warranty
requirements for diesel truck engines, along with associated costs, but does not treat EV truck
powertrains similarly, creating unequal regulatory treatment for different technologies, and
ultimately shifting the significant hidden cost of battery replacement to the truck operator. It is
unreasonable for EPA to ignore similar expansions of the regulatory useful life and emission
warranties for EVs. EPA bases its proposed tightening of GHG emission limits on a transition
to EVs despite EV batteries being dependent on large cross-subsidies from buyers of gasoline
and diesel vehicles. EPA cites no authority to adopt standards that force buyers of specific
drivetrains (e.g., diesel engines) to fund large cross-subsidies to buyers of other drivetrains (e.g.,
electric motors), without any notice to the public of these transfers, nor any requirement for these
payments to be disclosed by auto or truck manufacturers and retailers. EPA must cite such
authority and seek public comment before buyers of diesel trucks in West Virginia, for example,
unknowingly are forced to subsidize buyers of electric trucks in California. EPA also fails to
account for a significant cross-subsidy from utility ratepayers to pay for electric infrastructure
upgrades for EV infrastructure and a large subsidy from federal and state taxpayers through EV
tax incentives. EPA must estimate these costs and seek public comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1262-A1, pp.7-8]
Simply put, production multipliers for BETs are not authorized under the CAA. By including
multipliers, the use of the multiplier provides manufacturers with compliance credits that exceed
the emissions reduced. EPA originally proposed these changes under Section 202(a) of the
CAA.32 Nothing in Section 202(a) of the CAA provides EPA with the authority to utilize
factually inaccurate multipliers to assure compliance with the standards. In fact, Section 202(a)
of the CAA contains language that is inconsistent with the use of multipliers. The statute
instructs the Administrator to prescribe, by regulation, 'standards applicable to the emission of
1617
-------
any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare.'33 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.8]
32 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
33 Id.
The statute also states the regulations 'shall contain standards which reflect the greatest degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of technology which the
Administrator determines will be available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of such technology.'34 The reliance on multipliers is a de facto concession that it has
set a standard that is not achievable [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, pp.8-9]
34 Id.
Rather than continuing the use of unlawful multipliers, EPA should promulgate standards that
are achievable and cost-effective as required by the CAA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1,
p.9]
Although emissions trading can be a valuable tool in reducing cost through a market-based
mechanism, EPA lacks the statutory authority here to utilize fleetwide emissions trading as the
basis to set underlying emission standards and to force an economy-wide transition from the
internal combustion engine to the electric powertrain.35,36 Liquid fuels and the internal
combustion engine are the centerpieces of Title II of the CAA. Surely, if Congress contemplated
giving EPA the authority to set standards that could not be achieved without averaging emissions
from electric vehicles whose primary emissions occur upstream, it would have provided EPA
with that specific authority. This is a major policy shift that Congress must directly address. To
this point Congress has not authorized this authority. To the contrary, the terms of Section
202(a), which require emission standards to be 'applicable to' vehicles and engines for their
useful lives, and numerous other provisions of Title II make clear that emission standards under
Section 202 must be vehicle-specific, and not fleetwide standards achievable only through
emissions averaging and trading.37 When Congress wants to create an average standard
applicable to manufacturers, or to authorize emissions trading, it says so.38 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1262-A1, pp.9-10]
35 AFPM does not take a position in these comments on any other emissions trading
program.
36 AFPM notes that EPA is requesting comment on expanding the embedded BET
percentage as part of this rulemaking, which is undoubtedly a major question that
Congress should speak to.
37 See, e.g., 7522, 7524, 7525, 7541.
1618
-------
38 See 49 U.S.C. 32902(a) (requiring DOT to 'prescribe by regulation average fuel
economy standards for automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer' in a given model
year and directing that '[e]ach standard shall be the maximum feasible average fuel
economy level that the Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model
year'). See also e.g., 7545(k)(7); 7545(o)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(cc), 7545(o)(5)(A) (credits for
renewable fuels); 7586(f) (credits for centrally fueled fleets); 7589(d) (California pilot
test program).
EPA cannot include electric trucks in establishing motor vehicle tailpipe standards especially
within the same vehicle classes as heavy-duty ICE engines. BETs do not have engines, therefore
if EPA is required to establish emission standards for BETs, the Agency must do so as part of a
separate classification. This can be achieved by weight rating within that separate BET
classification, as heavier BETs have different emissions profiles than lighter BETs. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p. 10]
Although Congress has not authorized emissions trading between ICEVs and BETs as a basis for
setting emissions standards, if EPA finalizes this aspect of the proposal, it must adopt a
scientifically-sound approach to such emissions trading. The current approach is arbitrary and
capricious in that it turns its back on EPA's own understanding of real-world emissions. To
remedy this, there must be a full accounting of the lifecycle of each vehicle that is part of the
trading program emissions (see Battery Components (section IA) above regarding the inclusion
of GHG emissions from BET battery production and replacements). Sound science also requires
that EPA eliminate all multipliers that distort the calculation of each vehicle's emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1262-A1, p. 10]
Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API)
All technologies should be compared on an equal footing when developing transportation
policies.
API and its members commit to delivering solutions that improve air quality and reduce the risks
of climate change while meeting society's energy needs. We support global action that drives
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions and economic development. Market-based policies
are an effective means to drive competition and innovation to address current and future energy
needs. Based on this principle, we encourage EPA to adopt technology-neutral regulatory
policies that facilitate a level playing field for all vehicle, fuel and related infrastructure
technologies where innovation, competitive markets and consumer choice will drive emissions
reductions and also meet policy objectives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.2]
A holistic federal transportation policy that utilizes technology neutral, carbon intensity-
based fuel and vehicle standards will enable improvements in air quality and drive
immediate reductions in GHG emissions for the entire vehicle fleet.
Liquid fuels can provide near-term, significant emission reductions from the on-road vehicle
fleet in a policy framework that includes technology neutral, performance-based and
complementary standards for fuels, vehicles, and infrastructure. Utilizing a well-to-wheels
vehicle approach for GHG emissions accounting across all fuel-vehicle pathways allows direct
1619
-------
comparisons of internal combustion engines (i.e., gasoline, diesel, or natural gas), battery
electric, hydrogen, and hybrid technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.2]
API supports federal policy that establishes 1) a technology neutral, carbon intensity-based fuel
standard in gC02/MJ for the motor fuel pool that declines over time and 2) a well-to-wheels
vehicle standard in gC02/mile that incorporates the GHG benefits brought about by the fuel
standard as it continues to encourage efficiency improvements in the certification of new
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.2]
Instead of making 'targeted' adjustments for specific, end-use applications designed to
incentivize future adoption of a specific technology, EPA should focus on strategies to broadly
encourage increased deployment of commercially available technologies to meet near-term air
quality goals and greenhouse gas reduction. A recent Guidehouse Insights study notes that'20%
of the [medium/heavy-duty vehicle] market is poorly positionedfor decarbonizatiori' because of
operational, performance and technology adoption constraints that pose challenges for policy
focused on a single technology.5 In addition, a technical assessment prepared by Ramboll US
Consulting Inc. suggests that the expanded penetration of vehicles equipped with low NOx
technologies, coupled with increased usage of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels (e.g.,
renewable diesel and renewable natural gas), offers significantly lower carbon intensity pathways
that could deliver earlier and more cost-effective air quality and GHG reduction benefits than
that possible via a single technology focus.6 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, pp.2-3]
5 See Guidehouse Insights, 'The Easiest and Hardest Commercial Vehicles to
Decarbonize,' prepared for The Fuels Institute, April 2022,
https://www.fuelsinstitute.org/Research/Reports/Decarbonizing-Medium-and-Heavy-
Duty-Vehicles/Med-Heavy-Duty.pdf
6 See Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., 'Multi-Technology Pathways to Achieve California's
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Goals: Heavy-Heavy-Duty Truck Case Study,' February
1, 2021, prepared for Western States Petroleum Association and appended to WSPA,
'Comments on Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) Regulation March Workshops,' April 17,
2021 https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/36-acf-comments-ws-
UCdTJlUkAzFVDFMy.pdf
Only providing incentives for the electrification of future heavy-duty vehicles distorts the market
and ignores the 'near-zero' technology options that: (a) are currently commercially available; (b)
offer significant emission reductions; (c) are cost-effective; and (d) are feasible across a broad
spectrum of end-uses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.3]
Renewable diesel (RD), which is chemically identical to petroleum diesel, is one such low
carbon intensity fuel technology option that is readily available and has seen increasing usage,
especially in California.7 Renewable diesel fuels have the potential to offer significant emission
reductions when compared to petroleum-based diesel, particularly for one of its largest end-use
applications: heavy-duty vehicles and engines. Data from the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) suggests we could see reductions in lifecycle GHG emissions in the range of 40% to
80%.8 9 EPA also recently estimated that the production of renewable diesel from canola oil
1620
-------
using a hydrotreating process could reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 63 - 69% on average
relative to a petroleum diesel baseline. 10 These emission reductions for the on-road heavy-duty
fleet could be further accelerated through action by EPA and other government agencies (e.g.,
the Federal Trade Commission) to revise and update the language in existing labeling,
certification, and recordkeeping requirements for renewable diesel that currently acts as a
disincentive for its use. This is consistent with the Renewable Diesel and Sustainable Aviation
Fuel Parity Act of 2022 which seeks to remove labeling requirements for renewable diesel that
meet or exceed ASTM D975.11 Maintaining the current labeling requirements to disclose the
percentage, within one percent, of renewable diesel is not informative to end- users from a
vehicle performance or emissions perceptive and only serves to restrict efficient
distribution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1171-A1, p.3]
8 California Air Resources Board, Petroleum Diesel Carbon Intensity: Low Carbon Fuel
Standard Regulation, Table 7-1
9 California Air Resources Board: LCFS Pathways Certified Carbon Intensities (accessed
April 28, 2022)
10 See EPA Proposed Rule -Renewable Fuel Standard Program: Canola Oil Pathways to
Renewable Diesel, Jet Fuel, Naphtha, Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Heating Oil, Table
II.C.12-1 in 87 Federal Register 22839 (April 18, 2022)
11 See S.3038, Renewable Diesel and Sustainable Aviation Fuel Parity Act of 2022,
introduced in the US Senate, April 7, 2022
Organization: Autocar, LLC (Autocar)
In supporting the spirit of the Proposed Rule, Autocar proposes the following modifications:
Ensure the extension of provisions for generation of emission credits for natural gas-fueled
vocational vehicles in §1037.150(y)(3), and extend the life of such credits indefinitely. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1292-A1, p. 1]
Second, EPA should extend the provisions for generation of emission credits for natural gas-
fueled vocational vehicles in §1037.150(y)(3), and extend the life of such credits indefinitely.
Autocar and other small manufacturers should continue to earn extra credits for selling market-
ready environmentally-friendly CNG trucks while they continue to develop ZEV's. The credits
earned may put them on a more even playing field with regard to meeting Phase 2 standards and
beyond. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1292-A1, pp. 5 - 6]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB's Draft 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 148 describes the
need for federal action to expand use of HD ZEVs. The Strategy includes a draft SIP
commitment for CARB staff to advocate for U.S. EPA to promulgate HD ZEV requirements in
order to reduce NOx emissions in the South Coast in 2037. The Strategy envisions U.S. EPA
1621
-------
adopting new more stringent GHG standards for medium- and HD vehicles that would apply to
new heavy-duty trucks sold nationwide. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.84]
148 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/Draft_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf
Based on discussions with U.S. EPA staff, CARB staff believes U.S. EPA is planning on a
revision to the Phase 2 GHG standards, i.e., the Phase 3 GHG standards, with an anticipated
proposal date of Spring 2023. CARB staff is supportive of U.S. EPA adopting stringent Phase 3
GHG standards. HD vehicles are an important contributor to GHG emissions. In order to meet
the urgent need to address climate change and achieve carbon neutrality, CARB staff encourages
U.S. EPA to propose Phase 3 GHG standards that aggressively drive HD ZEV penetration. HD
ZEV uptake rates and timelines required by U.S. EPA standards should match those in CARB's
ACT and the upcoming Advanced Clean Fleets regulations. 149 CARB supports any efforts U.S.
EPA can take as part of the current proposed rule to advance HD ZEV adoption. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.84]
149 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets
Organization: Edwin J. Ward
The proposed standards are incentivizing manufacturers to develop technology that will
be useless with coming state ZEV requirements
The final issue I must address is the looming elephant in the room of widespread vehicle
electrification. Although light-duty vehicles currently constitute almost the entirety of the zero-
emissions vehicle market, a ZEV future is very much on the near horizon for heavy-duty vehicles as
well. Nevertheless, EPA's proposed rulemaking for updated heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards
focuses primarily on impacts to local air pollution instead of impacts on climate change. This is a
mistake. The 2015 Paris Agreement, of which the United States is a signatory, binds our country to
taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global average temperature increases to
below at least 2°C and preferably 1.5°C.17 In advancement of the Paris Agreement, President Biden
signed Executive Order 14008 in 2021 which directs each department and agency, including EPA, to
take part in a government-wide approach to solving the climate crisis.18 Reducing and eliminating
greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is of utmost importance as transportation now
accounts for a plurality of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.19 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
Furthermore, the impacts of climate change will not be borne equally by all Americans.
Researchers have found that communities of color, which are already disproportionately
impacted by air pollution, are the most vulnerable to heatwaves and extreme weather events.20
EPA's concerns with the effects of criteria pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles on
environmental justice communities are admirable, but EPA also has a duty to protect those
same communities from climate change, which itself is also exacerbated by heavy-duty
vehicle emissions. Executive Order 12898 directs all federal agencies to incorporate
environmental justice into their decision-making, and failing to address the effects of
emissions on climate change (and thus environmental justice communities) is a dereliction of
EPA's duty under EO 12898.21 EPA should move forward with a rule that all heavy-duty
vehicles sold after 2045 must be zero emissions vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
1622
-------
Beyond the effects of vehicle emissions on climate change and environmental justice, the
rationale for moving forward with a ban on heavy-duty non-ZEVs by 2045 is also simply practical.
The eulogy for the internal combustion engine has already been written, and countries around the
world have adopted cut-off dates for light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles. In the United States,
California and New York have both moved to mandate that no new heavy-duty non-ZEVs can be
sold after 2045.22 Manufacturers have already responded by racing to design and deploy ZEV
versions of their heavy-duty vehicles, including Tesla,23 Volvo,24 and Mack Trucks.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1050]
For many manufacturers, the writing for ZEVs is on the wall. Rapid technology
improvements and cost reductions in both battery and hydrogen fuel cell technologies make a
gradual phaseout of internal combustion engines over the next two decades the most prudent
way forward for our climate and for manufacturers' bottom lines. EPA's proposed rules
would require a 60% reduction in NOx emissions by 2045. That's an impressive reduction in
a potent air pollutant, but by that date, any internal combustion engine vehicle meeting those
rules wouldn't even be eligible for sale in California, New York, and countless other countries.
It is likely that even more state governments will adopt the 2045 cutoff date in the coming
years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
EPA's proposed rules require manufacturers to invest heavily in a technology that will be
essentially worthless for a huge chunk of potential buyers. Perhaps EPA is hoping that the
opportunity cost of developing new diesel engines will persuade manufacturers to develop ZEVs
instead? If that is the agency's hope, then why still allow manufacturers to invest in and sell non-
ZEV vehicles at all? EPA can and should propose rules to wean vehicle manufacturers off of climate-
polluting engines and incentivize them to invest in ZEV technologies like batteries, hydrogen fuel
cells, and even trolleytrucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
[Conclusion] For the long term, EPA should establish a hard cut-off date of 2045 for the sale of
any heavy-duty non-zero emissions vehicle. This date will give manufacturers time to adjust,
will bring the federal government in line with New York and California, and will help
environmental justice communities already suffering from the effects of air pollution from being
more at risk from climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
17 Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015,
T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104
18 Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 86 Fed. Reg. 7619, 7619-7633 (Jan. 27,2021).
19 U.S. Energy Info. Agency, Where greenhouse gases come from (May 21, 2021),
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-the-environment/where-greenhouse-gases-come-
from.php. 20 Renee Cho, Why Climate Change is an Environmental Justice Issue, State of the
Planet (Sept. 22, 2020), https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/09/22/climate-change-
environmental-justice/.
21 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,
59 FR 7629, 7629-7633 (Feb. 16, 1994).
22 Kathy Hochul, In Advance of Climate Week 2021, Governor Hochul Announces New Actions to Make
New York's Transportation Sector Greener, Reduce Climate-Altering Emissions, (Sept. 8, 2021),
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/advance-climate-week-2021-governor-hochul-announces-new-actions-
make- new-yorks-transportation.
23 Tesla, Semi, https://www.tesla.com/semi (last visited Apr. 30, 2022).
1623
-------
24 Volvo Trucks USA, The Volvo VNR Electric, https://www.volvotrucks.us/trucks/vnr-electric/ (last
visited Apr. 30, 2022).
25 Mack Trucks, LR Electric, https://www.macktrucks.com/trucks/lr-electric/ (last visited Apr. 30, 2022).
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
The Greenhouse Gas regulations do not currently allow trading of engine-based C02 credits
between averaging sets (e.g., between Light Heavy-Duty and Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel
engines). This restriction is unnecessary and can drive costly investments for manufacturers who
would otherwise be looking to invest in the advanced technology powertrains of the future
(electric, fuel cell, etc.). A manufacturer with a single engine (which could be used to meet both
the newly proposed NOx standards as well as the more stringent proposed GEM-based vehicle
C02 standards) could be forced to develop or purchase separate light-heavy-duty and medium-
heavy-duty diesel engines simply to meet the "normalized to work" engine C02 standards of
both segments. This would not yield any additional GHG or NOx emission benefits. Ford
recommends that EPA remove the restriction on trading of engine-based GHG credits between
service classes or, at a minimum, allow trading in cases where engines and emission systems are
substantially the same (e.g., displacement, combustion system design, emissions controls
including aftertreatment chemistry and loading, etc.). This change would have no negative
impact on fleet NOx or C02 emissions and would enable manufacturers to more efficiently
invest in the powertrains of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
EPA recognized the GHG reduction benefits of auxiliary power units (APUs) during the
promulgation of the heavy-duty Phase II regulation. APUs utilize a small diesel engine to operate
driver comfort systems rather than overnight idling of the main engine on Class 8 sleeper trucks.
One APU manufacturer advertises savings of $428 per month when using a diesel fueled APU to
supply auxiliary power compared to idling class 8 engine (2000 hr./yr. at $3/gallon fuel). Due to
the quick return on investment from the fuel savings, APUs are quite popular with production
volumes in the 25K to 40K units per year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.30]
At the same time, EPA also understood that APU engine standards are less stringent than those
for on-highway trucks. Permitting trucks with the latest engine and aftertreatment technology to
employ APUs to reduce GHGs during idling would result in increased PM emissions unless
DPFs were installed on the APUs. CARB has verified at least three diesel particulate filter
models for APUs at the Level 3 designation (> 85% reduction) since 2008. These DPFs can be
installed on Carrier, Proventia and Thermo King APUs, resulting in the production of more than
10,000 DPF equipped APUs for the California market. Therefore, EPA finalized stringent PM
emission limits in the Phase II Heavy Duty GHG Rule for all Auxiliary Power Units (APUs)
installed on new model year 2024 or later tractors. The agency noted that DPFs are viewed as the
likely 'emission control hardware' necessary to meet the standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, p.30]
MECA has learned that EPA has agreed with an interpretation of the Phase 2 requirements that
an APU would not need to include a DPF if an OEM did not install the APU on a new tractor at
the factory. The vast majority of APUs are installed at the dealer/distributor after the truck is sold
1624
-------
when the vehicle owner requests an APU option. This presents a 'loophole' in the Phase 2
regulation by allowing an APU manufacturer to claim that the tractors are no longer 'new' and
thus avoid installation of a DPF. Given the incremental cost of approximately $1800 as
referenced in the heavy-duty Phase 2 RIA, the tractor's owner has a strong incentive to install an
APU without the DPF at the dealer rather than having the DPF equipped APU installed at the
truck assembly plant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.30]
The current practice in the market of circumventing the intent of the rule will have significant
consequences for both human health and GHG emissions, resulting in more than 75 metric tons
(MT) of excess PM emissions with serious public health consequences, particularly for frontline
communities. It is reasonable to assume that the APU will operate on average for 2000 hours per
year. EPA's MOVES model estimates that APUs without DPFs emit 0.96 grams PM per hour
while APUs with DPFs emit 0.02 grams PM per hour. The difference in emissions of 0.94 g/hr
results in approximately 1880 grams of PM per year per APU. If 40,000 new APUs are sold each
year, this would result in an additional 75.2 MT/yr of PM. This difference in PM emissions will
have a significant negative impact on human health and air quality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, pp.30-31]
When CARB promulgated their rules for requiring DPFs on APUs, they applied it to 2007 and
later trucks. Their intent was clear - with DPFs being installed as the latest technology to reduce
PM on the tractor drive engine, it would be counter-productive to allow APUs on the same
vehicle to operate without a DPF since this would emit more PM than the main engine with a
DPF. It is our view that EPA clearly intended in 40CFR 1039.699 to follow the same logic,
requiring DPFs to be installed on all APUs starting in MY 2024, and that this interpretation by
the APU certificate holders creates an unintended 'loophole' with significant public health,
environmental equity and climate change impacts. We ask EPA to include language in the Phase
2 provisions in the Clean Trucks Regulation that would remediate this issue and ensure all APUs
are equipped with DPFs when installed on MY 2024 and later on-highway HD trucks. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.31]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
The emissions impact of battery materials and battery production are not inconsequential. An
ATRI study released this month 'found that while electric trucks have no direct tailpipe
emissions, C02 production associated with vehicle, battery and electricity production would
only result in a 30 percent decrease in C02 emissions when compared to a standard diesel
truck.'14 According to ATRI, 'the marginal environmental benefits of electric trucks are due, in
large part, to lithium-ion battery production - which generates more than six times the carbon of
diesel truck production.' A story published by Politico included this significant datapoint: 'a
thousand-pound electric car battery requires the moving of 500,000 pounds of earth in the course
of mining.'15 The Financial Times has reported that 'between 5 and 15 tonnes of C02 are
produced per tonne of lithium extracted. This is equal to the total electric usage of between 1 and
2 U.S. homes for a whole year.' 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.7]
14 https://truckingresearch.org/2022/05/03/understanding-the-co2-impacts-of-zero-
emission-trucks/
1625
-------
15 'The Major Problems Blocking America's Electric Car Future,' Politico, August 31,
2021
16 'Financial Times, October 5, 2021. Available at: https://ig.ft.com/electric-car/
Organization: Neste US, Inc
The Rule Over-Emphasizes the Importance of Electric Vehicles
The Proposed Rule would increase the stringency of the 2016 Phase 2 GHG emissions standards
for certain categories of heavy-duty trucks for MY 2027. The rule cites 'a number of
manufacturers producing fully electric heavy-duty vehicles in a number of applications,'
California's adoption of an 'Advanced Clean Trucks program that includes a manufacturers sales
requirement for zero-emission truck sales,' and 'a Memorandum of Understanding establishing
goals to increase the heavy-duty electric vehicle market' between a number of states as support
for the premise that the outlook is improving for heavy-duty EVs and that GHG emissions
standards therefore should increase in stringency. 1 Neste supports the increased stringency of
GHG emissions standards, but questions EPA's assessment of the benefits and limitations of EVs
and cautions against full reliance on the increased prevalence of EVs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1225-A1, p.l]
1 87 Fed. Reg. 17414, 17419 (Mar. 28, 2022)
Emissions standards should not favor one technology over others when regulating tailpipe
emissions, and should ensure the standards are achievable by internal combustion engines as
well [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1225- A 1, p.3]
The Proposed Rule projects an EV heavy-duty vehicle penetration rate of 1.5% for MY 2027, but
requests 'comment and additional supporting information and data on higher penetration rates,
which could serve as the basis for the increase in the stringency of the C02 standards for specific
Phase 2 vehicle subcategories.'2 Neste has no comment on whether the projected EV penetration
rate should be higher (or lower). Rather, Neste objects to EPA's decision to increase the
stringency of standards in such a way that depends on the existence of EVs and therefore
impermissibly prefers one technology over others. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.3]
2 Id.
Moreover, EPA's heavy-duty vehicle rules are intended to regulate tailpipe emissions. EVs are
not tailpipe vehicles and are therefore not contemplated by the regulatory scheme and should not
be included when calculating the appropriate stringency of tailpipe emissions reduction
standards. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1225- A 1, p.3]
Increased prevalence of EVs is not required for the reduction of GHG and NOx emissions. As
demonstrated by the recent CARB scoping plan, EPA's goals can still be met by using the
existing fleet and deploying multiple strategies and technologies, most notably replacing fossil
diesel with renewable diesel. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.3]
1626
-------
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
EPA requests comments on multiple aspects of the Proposed Rule related to the emission credit
ABT programs for heavy duty trucks. Oshkosh generally supports the ABT provisions and views
them as this as an important tool for incentivizing the introduction of EV and other advanced
technologies. In past rulemakings, EPA has significantly limited the ability of manufacturers to
carry over legacy credits for vocational trucks certified under the Phase 2 GHG custom chassis
provisions. As a result, in the move from Phase 1 to Phase 2 GHG programs, Oshkosh's C02
credit bank was effectively eliminated, thus constraining the Company's ability to use earned
emission credits. The current rulemaking presents an opportunity to obtain a different result. To
this end, Oshkosh is pleased to provide these comments regarding EPA's ABT proposals: [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1226-A1, p. 5]
To provide further incentives for EV development, Oshkosh also requests that EPA ensure
harmonization of NOx and C02 credit programs for heavy-duty vehicles. In general, we request
that EPA modify existing credit ABT programs to (1) allow credit transport across all heavy-duty
engine/vehicle families; (2) allow a credit life of 10 years for credits generated by EV, FCEV
and hybrid technologies; and (3) guard existing credit banks to enable carry over of legacy
credits to future programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1226-A1, p. 6] [Also appears in Section
13.1 and 13.5.1 of this document]
Organization: Ray Pingle
[.From Hearing Testimony, April 12, 2022, Ray Pingle] The transition from combustion engine,
heavy-duty vehicles to 100-percent zero-emission vehicles is the ultimate end goal to reducing
toxic air pollution and GHGs. The EPA must do everything it can now to achieve this objective.
A fundamental assumption that EPA will use in crafting its final rule is the forecast number of
ZEVs feasible in the coming years. It must increase dramatically from its current outdated
forecast with only 1.5 percent of medium heavy-duty vehicle sales being ZEVs by 2027. Five
additional states have adopted California's act rule, representing 20 percent of medium-, heavy-
duty vehicles nationally. This rule requires 15 to 20 percent of sales to be ZEVs in 2027. This
will have a dramatic impact nationally, and momentum is growing in additional states as they
adopt policies, incentives, and support structures to promote increasing medium-, heavy-duty
vehicles. A March 2022 NREL study entitled, "Decarbonizing Medium-, Heavy-Duty On-Road
Vehicles Cost Analysis," states, "Assuming economics drive adoption, ZEV sales could reach 42
percent of all medium-, heavy-duty trucks by 2030, reflecting lower combined vehicle purchase
and operating costs." We would encourage the EPA also to consider the recommendations from
the International Council for Clean Transportation in its February 2022 briefing paper, entitled:
"Adapting U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards to Support a Zero-Emission
Commercial Truck and Bus Fleet." Zero-emission vehicles are technically and economically
ready today in the use cases where the majority of vehicles are currently deployed. In California,
the HVIP Financial Incentive Program has approved over 160 zero-emission vehicles with
multiple vendors in each class, from Class 2b to Class 8 semi-tractors. ZEV truck demand is
significant and growing. Many companies have announced commitments to transition their
fleets to zero-emission vehicles, including Amazon, American Airlines, Best Buy, DHL, IKEA,
Walmart, and many, many more. We cannot wait for the Phase 3 GHG rulemaking until 2030 to
seriously address how to increase the ZEV fleet. We need to begin now in the Phase 2 GHG part
1627
-------
of the rule to boldly drive the necessary and feasible significant transition possess. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: State Soybean Associations
Additionally, the proposal overemphasizes the benefits of EVs while overlooking their negative
impacts. Specifically, EPA fails to adequately account for the lifecycle emissions associated with
EVs, including the significant upstream emissions resulting from charging batteries. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3] [Also included in Section 19.2 of this document]
Moreover, EPA fails to acknowledge that electrification is not the most economically or
technologically feasible option for achieving its desired emission reductions. As CARB has
recognized in its 2022 Draft Scoping Plan Update, which recognizes the importance of continued
use of liquid fuels, the 'transition to complete ZEV technology will not happen overnight. ICE
vehicles from legacy fleets will remain on the road for some time, even after all new vehicle
sales have transitioned to ZEV technology.'3 For that reason, CARB concluded that, '[i]n
addition to building the production and distribution infrastructure for zero-carbon fuels, the state
must continue to support low-carbon liquid fuels during this period of transition... .'4 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3] [Also included in Section 3.10 of this document]
3 Cal. Air Resources Bd., '2022 Draft Scoping Plan Update' (May 10, 2022), at 152.
4 Id.
Given the significant benefits associated with renewable fuels and the uncertainties regarding the
benefits of EVs, EPA should not favor EVs over other vehicles that can run on renewable fuels
in planning for the decarbonization of the U.S. transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2035-A1, p.3] [Also included in Section 3.10 of this document]
Organization: Valeria Trujilo Aguilar
Vehicles and Advocate for Electrification through Market Incentives
EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act and Executive Order No 14037 delegates the
responsibility of regulating air pollutants emitted from mobile sources and directs the agency to
consider setting newNOx standards as well as updating existing GHG emissions standards for
HDV17. The reduction of GHG emissions in new HDV MY 2027 under the proposed rule, the
EPA should consider all market information on zero-emissions HDV technologies as well as the
potential benefits of an accelerated transition through the electrification of HDV sector. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
17 87 FR 17414
Heavy-duty vehicles are significant source of local air pollution and GHG emissions. According
to Chandler et al. and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), HDV accounts for 7% of
total global warming emissions in California and estimates that this figure will likely increase
over the next 30 years 18. HDV are the single largest source of NOx in California estimated at
33% and produces more PM than all the state's power plants combined estimated at 23 tons per
1628
-------
day and 7 tons per day respectively 19. Likewise, according to the Colorado Department of
Transportation medium-and heavy-duty vehicles represents the second-largest source of GHG
emissions in the transportation sector, contributing 22% of on-road GHG emissions despite being
less than 10% of all Colorado vehicles20. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
18 Sara Chandler, Joel Espino, and Jimmy O'Dea, "Delivering Opportunity: How
Electric Buses and Trucks Can Create Jobs and Improve Public Health in California",
Union of Concerned Scientists, The Greenlining Institute, October 2016, Updated May
2017, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/UCS-Electric-Buses-
Report.pdf.
19 Sara Chandler, Joel Espino, and Jimmy O'Dea, "Delivering Opportunity: How
Electric Buses and Trucks Can Create Jobs and Improve Public Health in California",
Union of Concerned Scientists, The Greenlining Institute, October 2016, Updated May
2017, accessed May 15, 2022,
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/10/UCS-Electric-Buses-
Report.pdf.
20 "Polis Administration's Clean Truck Strategy Would Reduce Pollution, Save Money",
News, March 4, 2022, accessed May 16, 2022,
https://www.codot.gov/news/2022/march/polis-clean-truck-strategy-reduces-pollution.
In response to the EPA's request to comment in States' interest in shifting to zero emissions
HDV. Colorado under the Polis administration released a multi-agency state strategy draft on
March 4, 2022, to encourage the adoption of clean trucks21. The clean truck strategy is
composed of initiatives to improve air quality, reduce emissions, provide financial savings for
businesses, and alleviate environmental justice concerns22. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Study found that an accelerated transition to zero-emission vehicles could reduce GHG
emissions of MHDV by 45% to 59%, reduce NOx emissions 54% to 93%, and reduce particulate
matter emissions 53% to 68% below 2005 levels by 205023. These initiatives provide evidence
that the market for ZEV in the HDV sector is likely to rapidly develop as a response to an
increase in demand for these vehicles which will result in a decrease in the price of ZE-HDV and
increase is cost-effectiveness. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
21 "Polis Administration's Clean Truck Strategy Would Reduce Pollution, Save Money",
News, March 4, 2022, accessed May 16, 2022,
https://www.codot.gov/news/2022/march/polis-clean-truck-strategy-reduces-pollution.
22 "Polis Administration's Clean Truck Strategy Would Reduce Pollution, Save Money",
News, March 4, 2022, accessed May 16, 2022,
https://www.codot.gov/news/2022/march/polis-clean-truck-strategy-reduces-pollution.
23 "Polis Administration's Clean Truck Strategy Would Reduce Pollution, Save Money",
News, March 4, 2022, accessed May 16, 2022,
https://www.codot.gov/news/2022/march/polis-clean-truck-strategy-reduces-pollution.
Tesla announced that it intends to offer a fully electric, Class 8 HD semi by late 2020s equipped
with top-of-the-line performance and safety features24. Tesla estimates that the electric costs are
half of those of diesel, promising fewer systems to maintain and providing owners with
$200,000+ fuel savings and a two-year payback period25. The Tesla semi is available for
1629
-------
reservation at tesla.com/semi which provides more evidence on ZE HDV market readiness and
its cost-effectiveness against traditional diesel and gasoline substitutes. Low variable cost of
driving on electricity will likely outweigh the slightly higher upfront cost of its competitors.
Thus, stronger GHG emission standards for traditional HDVs will serve as an economic
incentive for corporations to adopt more environmentally friendly and cost-effective alternatives
which aligns with the goal of C02 emission reductions, NOX reductions, and PM reductions as
well as improve air quality yielding human health and environmental welfare benefits. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1223]
24 "Semi", Tesla, accessed May 16, 2022, https://www.tesla.com/semi.
25 "Semi", Tesla, accessed May 16, 2022, https://www.tesla.com/semi.
Purchasing decisions are solely based on costs, incentives provided by the CTI program directly
lowers the costs of transition and drives adoption. Early action credits proposed in CTI drives
deployment and sales directly influencing the reduction of NOx emissions from this sector prior
to 2027. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1223]
[I] advocate for the use of market incentives to accelerate the adoption of ZE technologies in the
HDV sector. Public health and welfare benefits in terms of improved air quality and the
transition to ZE infrastructure far outweigh the costs of the proposed regulatory rule. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1223]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation: Valero Energy Corporation
Clean Air Act (CAA) 202(a)(3)(A) requires EPA to set vehicle emission standards that are
'achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be
available ..., giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with
the application of such technology.' EPA's proposal establishes GHG emission standards that are
not achievable through application of technology that will be available, and EPA has not
conducted a rational analysis to determine otherwise. Instead, EPA postulates a 'significant
transition' within the nationwide heavy-duty ('HD') engine and vehicle fleet, in which internal
combustion engine vehicles ('ICEV') will be replaced by battery electric vehicles ('BEV'). EPA
proposes standards that move toward electrifying the HD fleet by establishing a program that
relies on credits and multipliers to incentivize development of BEV, then allowing manufacturers
to employ various averaging, banking and trading 'flexibilities' to comply. Furthermore, the
proposed standards together with the final rule in place for light-duty ('LD') vehicles impair the
statutory mandates in the Clean Air Act for renewable fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-
A2, p.l]
EPA purports to act in furtherance of Executive Order 14037, but the order itself limits EPA to
action that is 'appropriate and consistent with applicable law' (emphasis added below):
Sec. 3. Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles Multi-Pollutant Standards for 2027 and Later.
(a) The Administrator of the EPA shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law,
consider beginning work on a rulemaking under the Clean Air Act to establish new oxides of
1630
-------
nitrogen standards for heavy duty engines and vehicles beginning with model year 2027 and
extending through and including at least model year 2030.
(b) The Administrator of the EPA shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and
in consideration of the role that zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles might have in reducing
emissions from certain market segments, consider updating the existing greenhouse gas
emissions standards [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.2]
For the first time, EPA's proposed standards move the HD engine and vehicle sector toward
standards that could be met by the sector only through emissions trading. In embarking on a path
that imposes monumental costs, huge societal changes, an intractable dependence on foreign
adversaries, and a myriad of environmental hazards, EPA ignores or disadvantages competing
technology enhancements that are far more likely to produce emissions reductions at less cost
and with far less disruption and risk to national security and energy independence, such as
carbon sequestration, on-board emissions capture, and increased use of low-carbon biofuels, as
expressly mandated by the Renewable Fuel Standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.2]
EPA's proposal exceeds its statutory authority. EPA's declarations that this is an 'historic
opportunity,' 'the early stages of a significant transition in the history of the heavy-duty on
highway sector,' underscore the aspirational policy underlying the proposed rulemaking.
Meanwhile, EPA fails to provide data regarding technology that will be available to achieve the
proposed standards, considering the statutory factors of cost, energy, and safety. Absent
reasonable and fair consideration and inclusion of all available technologies and fuels, EPA's
proposal and the more stringent requirements on which EPA seeks comment are not achievable
or available on a commercial scale. EPA arbitrarily relies on the credit and multiplier system to
advantage one technology despite evidence of higher lifecycle emissions for that
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.2]
The 'historic transition' is not one by manufacturers or consumers but by EPA's significant (but
silent) re-interpretation of statutory authority to grant the Agency power to engineer the nation's
HD fleet. Historically, to the extent manufacturers were allowed to comply with tailpipe
standards using averaging, banking and trading ('ABT') emission credits, the effect on overall
emissions and other environmental impacts was little to none, because the vehicles producing the
credits and debits largely used similar technology and had similar lifecycle emissions profiles.
Yet now EPA's emissions ABT system for vehicle standards goes beyond merely facilitating
compliance flexibility; it is designed to force adoption of a single technology by rendering a shift
to a single technology the only realistic means to achieve compliance. EPA has not demonstrated
that the standards that EPA intends to move toward are achievable or available by the average
vehicles and engines in this category. EPA appears to be relying on compliance through ABT,
particularly since EPA seeks comment on whether market availability of zero-emission vehicles
('ZEV') would support more stringent standards. With these standards, EPA is changing the
ABT from a compliance tool that allowed manufacturers some flexibility in meeting demand to
be a tool that allows EPA to engineer a significant transition of the HD vehicle fleet to electric
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.2]
1631
-------
EPA notes that in 2016, EPA projected no market penetration for electric vehicles in this sector.
EPA now assumes the power to impose standards that can be met only by dramatically
enhancing the credit value of BEVs and presumes that doing so will result in significantly
increased market share for these vehicles. Even if EPA had statutory authority to do this, it
would be arbitrary to ignore the impact of the resulting increase in overall emissions and the
environmental, health, and security impacts from this 'historic' proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1328-A2, pp.2-3]
Whether EPA may or should leverage a compliance flexibility tool to begin forcing
electrification of the United States HD vehicle fleet is a major policy question with enormous
potential economic and emissions consequences. Neither Section 202 nor any other provision of
the Clean Air Act provides EPA that authority. Congress did not authorize EPA or any other
agency in the Executive Branch to force electrification of the HD vehicle fleet. On the contrary,
CAA 202 provides for EPA to promulgate vehicle emission standards that are achievable and
available. Under any interpretation of the CAA, EPA lacks authority to enact standards that force
electrification of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet. Because the standards EPA proposes would
significantly alter the national economy, industry, environment, society, and national security,
the changes present a major question on which express and clear Congressional delegation is
required. Congress has not made such a determination, and the EPA is not the proper or
authorized forum for making a decision with such widespread ramifications on areas outside
EPA's control or expertise. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.3]
EPA not only lacks authority to force the Executive Branch's preferred policy outcome by setting
vehicle emission standards that clearly are neither achievable nor available, it also has a direct
and conflicting mandate under the Renewable Fuel Standard to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions from the transportation fleet by promoting increased production of renewable fuels.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.3]
As provided by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which was adopted
with the express purpose of promoting domestic renewable fuel production in order to enhance
domestic energy security while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the transportation
sector, the Clean Air Act mandates increasing volumes of renewable fuel to be used in the
transportation sector. EPA's final LD GHG standards and the proposed HD standards undermine
these express Congressional mandates. EPA's failure to give fair and full consideration for
technologies that use liquid fuels is inconsistent with Congressional directives to achieve
reductions in mobile source GHG emissions by increasing volumes of renewable fuel used in the
domestic transportation fleet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.3]
Finally, by making a policy choice to favor electric vehicles, EPA discourages innovation and
investment in alternative technologies that would reduce GHG emissions associated with liquid
fuels, such as on-board C02 capture and blue hydrogen. Instead, EPA's proposal inappropriately
favors a technology that may result in higher GHG emissions as well as higher costs for
operation and other negative consequences. Incentives for electric vehicles, coupled with the
absence of incentives or fair treatment for vehicles using lower-carbon fuels, arbitrarily
subsidizes the electric vehicle industry and unfairly disadvantages potential opportunities for
1632
-------
greater GHG emissions reductions in the liquid fuel market. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-
A2, p.7]
EPA is required to consider impacts on endangered species of any action that may affect a listed
species or any critical habitat for a listed species. In the proposal, however, EPA does not
mention consideration of impacts on endangered species or any consultation required by the
Endangered Species Act. EPA's proposal to shift the heavy-duty engine/vehicle market to
electric vehicles should account for the emissions expected from production of electric vehicles,
batteries, and the electricity for the vehicles, including the harm to endangered species from
mines, windmills, and solar fields as well as the environmental impacts from any new mineral
extraction facilities, including open-pit and subsea mining, as well as mineral processing and
battery manufacturing facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.8]
EPA's cost-benefit analysis understates the costs of electric vehicles and grossly overstates the
benefits by failing to account for the true emissions from electric vehicles. EPA's analysis does
not account for the increased costs of electric reliability, increased costs to the electricity
infrastructure, the loss of valuable fuel infrastructure already in place, the cost increase to
consumers in not only vehicle costs that will be passed on in the prices of goods and services but
also the cost increases from the increased demand on minerals that are also needed for other
industrial and consumer goods. EPA's analysis of cost and market readiness for EVs does not
consider the chip shortage that has been evident for at least a year, nor does it account for short
term mitigation of minerals availability and battery costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2,
p.8]
In conclusion, EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards for heavy-duty engines
and vehicles does not allow EPA to set standards to engineer a transition in the sector to adopt
one technology. EPA has overlooked the opportunity to recognize and encourage development of
liquid fuels that have inherently lower carbon intensities as well as opportunities to encourage
offsets of GHG emissions. Emerging technologies involving carbon capture, efficiency, and
blends of low carbon fuel components could result in substantially lower overall GHG emissions
and could be implemented sooner than electric vehicles for this category of vehicles. EPA's
design of a GHG standard in a way that fails to properly identify the actual emissions associated
with all vehicles (upstream energy emissions and pollution from production) passes up the
opportunity to maximize emission reductions and will arbitrarily limit innovation and discourage
investment in important developing technologies. Finally, by focusing only on tailpipe emissions
and by putting its thumb on the scale in favor of electric vehicle development, EPA has failed to
properly consider the full costs and benefits of its rulemaking such as the environmental, social,
and economic impacts associated with increased electricity demand and increased mineral
mining and processing. EPA's approach may very well lead to higher overall GHG emissions at
almost certainly the highest cost for GHG reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2,
p.9]
Organization: Walmart
We believe EPA's regulatory actions provide a valuable signal to the market that can accelerate
the innovation and supply of zero and near-zero emissions vehicles to meet the demand for zero
1633
-------
emissions vehicles from companies like Walmart.6 We have previously expressed high-level
support for EPA's Phase 2 GHG standards and believe a Phase 3 standard for MY2030 and after
can function as a critical national standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2, p. 2]
6. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heres-how-policy-can-design-reliable-resilient-zero-
emissions-cortes/?trackingId=dYIkXNwhfe21D0RIT5Avrw%3D%3D
It is essential to design a Phase 3 standard that aligns climate outcomes with market and
operational realities. A standard should unlock viable, emissions-reducing technology at a pace
that is cost-effective and based on an independent analysis of market supply and demand
conditions and projections, necessary grid and fueling infrastructure needs, and the operational
realities of medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) fleets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-
A2, p. 3]
Additionally, it will be important for EPA to consider how a Phase 3 standard can align and build
consistency across the various states that have initiated zero emissions sales standards. One
national standard is ideal for national operators to help mitigate the complexity of competing
policy requirements while leveraging economies of scale. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2,
p. 3]
Organization: Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
Key WFS commentary/observation highlights include:
• The lowest cost of C02 abatement is through ICE options, powered by HPDI fuel system
technology, representing the most cost-effective pathway to deep decarbonization of road
freight. Incentive programs should include high-efficiency, low-cost, low-carbon ICE
solutions such as that offered by the HPDI fuel system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1278-A1, p.6]
EPA Response
EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding
proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development
of that future rulemaking.
A commenter claimed that EPA failed to consider this rule's impacts on endangered species or
any consultation required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The commenter focused on the
impacts associated with electric vehicles, including the upstream impacts associated with
producing and using such vehicles.
EPA disagrees that the agency must consider the rule's impacts on endangered species and, to
the extent the commenter asserts ESA consultation is required, disagrees that EPA must conduct
ESA consultation for multiple independent reasons. First, the commenter failed to raise this issue
1634
-------
with reasonable specificity as required by the Clean Air Act. See CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The
commenter failed to articulate which portion of the proposal the commenter is concerned about,
how that portion of the proposal may affect listed species or critical habitat, or why EPA has
discretion to consider impacts to listed species or critical habitat.
Second, to the extent that the commenter's ESA concern was specific to GHG standards, this
comment is beyond the scope of this final rule. As noted above, we are not taking final action at
this time on the proposed GHG standards. See also WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 759 F.3d
1196, 1207-08 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding that the scope of ESA consultation is limited to the
scope of EPA's final action).
Third, Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, "the Services"),
to ensure that actions agencies authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. Contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, the final rule does not authorize, fund, or carry out the production or
use of electric vehicles, or a fortiori, upstream activities like mining, mineral processing, wind
and solar energy production, and battery production. As we explain in preamble Section and
section 3 of this document, the final criteria pollutant standards do not mandate and are not
premised on increasing the production or use of electric vehicles. Therefore, the potential
species-related impacts referenced by the commenter are not caused by this final action, and
there is no need for EPA to assess any such impacts.
Fourth, the ESA's consultation requirement applies only to actions where there is discretionary
federal involvement or control. 50 CFR 402.03; see also Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 669 (2007); Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2004). As
we explain in preamble Sections I and III, the final standards are justified by EPA's assessment
of the relevant statutory factors in CAA section 202(a)(3)(A), which directs EPA to set certain
emission standards that reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through the
application of technology that will be available for the model year to which such standards apply,
giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the
application of the technology. This provision does not grant EPA authority to weaken the
standard, based on impacts to listed species or their critical habitats. Since EPA lacks discretion
to modify the standard based on species-related impacts, the consultation requirement does not
apply.
29 Other amendments HD highway engines and vehicles
29.1 Alternate standards for specialty vehicles
1635
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Oshkosh Corporation
Oshkosh also requests that EPA enhance OBD flexibility for heavy-duty BEV, Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle (FCEV), hybrid, and range-extending configurations by codifying a volume-based OBD
exemption for engines to be used in such applications. Such an exemption would apply once the
current alternate standards for specialty vehicles (40 C.F.R. § 1037.605) sunset in MY 2027 and
could allow a limited number of vehicles (e.g., up to 750 in a given model year) to meet
simplified diagnostic control requirements upon making an engineering demonstration of the
sufficiency of the diagnostic system. This demonstration could include vehicle sensor-based and
monitoring system data to reflect the functionality of the control system. The Company submits
that such a process would allow for streamlined certification of hybrid, range-extending, and
potentially other specialty vehicles, thus fully capitalizing on the emission benefits of these
vehicles as a substitute for conventional ICE vehicles. The requested volume-based OBD
exemption could potentially align with the categories of vehicles allowed to certify under the
custom-chassis provisions of the Phase 2 GHG rule, given that the latter provisions are intended
to facilitate the deployment of similar low-emission technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1226-A1, p. 4]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
Oshkosh requests that, once the current
alternate standards for specialty vehicles
sunset in MY 2027, EPA could allow a
limited number of vehicles (e.g., up to 750 in
a given model year) to meet simplified
diagnostic control requirements upon making
an engineering demonstration of the
sufficiency of the diagnostic system. This
streamlined certification demonstration could
include vehicle sensor-based and monitoring
system data to reflect the functionality of the
control system. The requested volume-based
OBD exemption could potentially align with
the categories of vehicles allowed to certify
under the custom-chassis provisions of the
Phase 2 GHG rule, given that the latter
provisions are intended to facilitate the
deployment of similar low-emission
technologies.
We appreciate the interest in developing
provisions that are specifically tailored to
address compliance concerns for these
advanced-technology vehicles. We would
need to explore these ideas further to
determine whether to propose such provisions
in a future rulemaking. It is not clear how the
suggested provisions would apply for electric
vehicles or fuel-cell vehicles.
29.2 Scope and timing for amending applications for certification
1636
-------
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff proposes to allow manufacturers to submit the amending applications for
certification up to 30 days before the end of the model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-
A2, p.84]
CARB generally does not issue the Executive Order (EO) after the model year ends. If
manufacturers submit the amending applications too late, there is not enough time to issue the
running change EO if a running change EO is needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.84]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
CARB staff proposes to allow manufacturers
to submit the amending applications for
certification up to 30 days before the end of
the model year. CARB generally does not
issue the Executive Order (EO) after the
model year ends. If manufacturers submit the
amending applications too late, there is not
enough time to issue a running change EO.
The comment largely affirms EPA's proposed
approach to disallow amending certificates
after the end of the manufacturer's model
year. We did not propose to include a separate
deadline before the end of the model year for
submitting amendment requests. We
recommend that manufacturers submit their
requests well before the end of the model year
to ensure a smooth process.
29.3 Miscellaneous HD highway amendments
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
• Allison appreciates that EPA defines technology in a way that gives industry greater
flexibility to design architecture for OEM and end-user requirements. For example, EPA's
definition of hybrids and HEVs offers the industry greater flexibility than the California
PHEV definition which constrains hybrid technology down a narrow path to achieve
increasing all-electric range, rather than considering other potential hybrid architectures that
may be a better fit for customer and regulatory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1231-A1, p.35]
Organization: American Reliance Industries Co. (ARI)
Although not specific to ARI, ARI recognizes that other exemptions exist in 40 C.F.R. Part 1037.
For example, 40 C.F.R. 1037.605 "allows vehicle manufacturers to introduce into U.S.
1637
-------
commerce certain new motor vehicles using engines certified to alternate emission standards
specified in 40 CFR part 86 for motor vehicle engines used in specialty vehicles." In fact, 40
CFR 1037.605(d) provides an exemption that requires the following label: "THIS VEHICLE IS
EXEMPT FROM GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS UNDER 40 CFR 1037.605." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 2]
As a part of the Proposed Rule, the EPA continues to acknowledge the importance of the existing
exemptions by maintaining them in the rule. ARI appreciates the EPA's focus on their top
priority of obtaining real world emission reductions and recognition that regulating such small
manufacturing niche markets in addition to the regulations placed upon the OEM would not
provide such results. Although ARI believes it is the EPA's intent not to limit the existing
exemptions in Part 1037, we believe that certain modifications to 40 C.F.R. § 1037.601, which
describes how 40 C.F.R. Part 1068 applies to heavy-duty vehicles, fail to account for the
existence of these exemptions. After reviewing the redline edits ARI understands how this
element could have been overlooked. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 2]
Redline changes to 1037.601:
Subpart G - Special Compliance Provisions
§ 1037.601 - General compliance provisions.
(a) Engine and vehicle manufacturers, as well as owners and operators of vehicles subject
to the requirements of this part, and all other persons, must observe the provisions of this
part, the applicable provisions of 40 CFR part 1068, and the applicable provisions of the
Clean Air Act. The provisions of 40 CFR part 1068 apply for heavy-duty vehicles as
specified in this part, subject to the provisions:
(1) Except as specifically allowed by this part or 40 CFR part 1068, it is a violation
of MO CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or vocational
vehicle that is not certified to the applicable requirements of this part. Similarly, it is a
violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or
vocational vehicle containing an engine that is not certified to the applicable requirements
of this part and 40 CFR part 86 or part 1036. Further, it is a violation to introduce into
U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractors; or
to introduce into U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle containing a Light HDE or Medium
HDE not certified for use in vocational vehicles. These prohibitions apply especially to
the vehicle manufacturer. Note that this paragraph (a)(1) allows the use of Heavy heavy-
duty tractor engines in vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 3]
ARI Comment: ARI believes that the changes to this subsection as reflected in the first two
sentences, may inadvertently confuse the scope of applicability of the existing exemptions
detailed in Part 1037. We believe "similarly" was added to the beginning of the second sentence
in the above excerpt in order to extend the introductory clause of the first sentence to the second
sentence. However, because there is no affirmative statement that said introductory clause
applies, ARI believes that it could be misinterpreted to not apply or at least create unnecessary
ambiguity. We also understand why "this part and" was deleted in the second sentence as it
relates to meeting certain requirements and does not relate to the existing exemptions.
Nonetheless, this deletion, combined with the absense of clear application of the first sentences
1638
-------
introductory clause, could be interpreted to limit the applicability of the exemptions of this Part.
ARI believes that the EPA should consider alternative wording to avoid such a misinterpretation
and maintain the original applicability of the exemptions as established by the existing
rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 3]
ARI believes that two simple alternatives could be applied to amend this section to resolve the
above-described concern. Below are two "redlined" versions which ARI believes would both
enact the EPA's intent and prevent future misinterpretations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-
Al, p. 3]
First alternative:
§ 1037.601 - General compliance provisions.
***
(1) Except as specifically allowed by this part of 40 CFR part 1068, it is a violation of 40
CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or vocational vehicle that
is not certified to the applicable requirements of this part. Similarly, except as specifically
allowed by this part or 40 CFR part 1068. it is a violation of 40 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to
introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or vocational vehicle containing an engine that is
not certified to the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 86 or 1036. Further, it is a
violation to introduce into U.S. commerce a Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not
certified for use in tractors; or to introduce into U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle
containing a Light HDE or Medium HDE not certified for use in vocational vehicles.
These prohibitions apply especially to the vehicle manufacturer. Note that this paragraph
(a)(1) allows the use of Heavy heavy-duty tractor engines in vocational vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 4]
Second alternative:
§ 1037.601 - General compliance provisions.
***
(1) Except as specifically allowed by this part of 40 CFR part 1068, it is a violation of 40
CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to: (1) introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or vocational vehicle
that is not certified to the applicable requirements of this part; or (2) Similarly, it is a
violation of 10 CFR 1068.101(a)(1) to introduce into U.S. commerce a tractor or
vocational vehicle containing an engine that is not certified to the applicable requirements
of 40 CFR part 86 or 1036. Further, it is a violation to introduce into U.S. commerce a
Phase 1 tractor containing an engine not certified for use in tractors; or to introduce into
U.S. commerce a vocational vehicle containing a Light HDE or Medium HDE not
certified for use in vocational vehicles. These prohibitions apply especially to the vehicle
manufacturer. Note that this paragraph (a)(1) allows the use of Heavy heavy-duty tractor
engines in vocational vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 4]
Thank you for your continued recognition of the need for the existing exemptions, specifically
those available to certain small manufacturers. ARI requests that the agencies adopt one of the
two above alternatives to preserve the existing exemptions described under 40 C.F.R. Part 1037.
1639
-------
Otherwise, ARI requests that the agencies engage in additional discussions to evaluate what
alternative changes would need to be made to maintain the applicability of these
exemptions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1182-A1, p. 4]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
For the labeling requirements, consolidate the location for all the labeling requirements in one
central place. This is already done for the requirements manufacturers must meet to qualify as a
small business, and there are citations to applicable sections throughout. It would be beneficial to
have a singular location for labeling requirements. Consolidating the regulations would make it
simpler to edit language, find where labels are not meeting the requirements, and also make it
clear where all labeling requirements are located. CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA consider
moving all the requirements added to 1037.135 or creating 1037.136 as 'Additional Labeling'
where all the consolidated labeling requirements are posted. Please reference the below
examples:
1037.150(c)(3)
o Original: Manufacturers must label excluded vehicles with the following
statement: 'THIS VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(c).'
o Change: Manufacturers must label excluded vehicles as discussed in 1037.135(f)
1037.150(r)(3)
o Original: Add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the original
manufacturer's emission control information label. On the label identify your full
corporate name and include the following statement: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS
MODIFIED AS ALLOWED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150.'
o Change: Add a permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the original
manufacturer's emission control information label. On the label put the statement
from 1037.135(g)(1)
1037.105(h)
o Original: Vehicles certified to these standards must include the following
statement on the emission control label: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS
A [identify vehicle type as identified in Table 5 of this section] UNDER 40 CFR
1037.105(h)].' These custom-chassis standards apply as follows:
o Change: Vehicles certified to these standards must include statement on their
emission control label as outlined in 1037.135(h). These custom-chassis standards
apply as follows:
1037.631(d)
o Original: You must include the following additional statement on the vehicle's
emission control information label under 1037.135: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS
EXEMPTED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.631.'
o Change: You must include the following additional statement on the vehicle's
emission control information label under 1037.135 as described in 1037.135(i)
1037.622(d)(3)
o Original: The secondary vehicle manufacturer must add a permanent
supplemental label to the vehicle near the original manufacturer's emission
1640
-------
control information label. On the label identify your corporate name and include
the statement: 'THIS TRACTOR WAS MODIFIED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.622.'
o Change: The secondary vehicle manufacturer must add a permanent supplemental
label to the vehicle near the original manufacturer's emission control information
label. That has the language found in 1037.135(j)
. 1037.630(b)(3)
o Original: You must include the following additional statement on the vehicle's
emission control information label under
1037.135: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A VOCATIONAL
TRACTOR UNDER 40 CFR 1037.630.'
o Change: You must include the statement from 1037.135(k) on the vehicle's
emission control information label under 1037.135 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, pp.85-87]
List of 1037.135 Additions
• (f) - For those vehicles that are using the small business provisions as outlined in
1037.150(c), manufactures must label vehicles with the following statement: 'THIS
VEHICLE IS EXCLUDED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150(c).'
• (g) - Secondary vehicle manufacturers that qualify as small manufacturers may convert
low- and mid-roof tractors to mid- and high-roof configurations without recertification
for the purpose of building a custom sleeper tractor or converting it to run on natural gas,
must permanent supplemental label to the vehicle near the original manufacturer's
emission control information label with the following requirements on the label:
o (1) On the label identify your full corporate name
o (2) Include the following statement: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS MODIFIED AS
ALLOWED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.150.'
• (h) - For Vehicles that are certifying to custom chassis the following statement on the
emission control label: 'THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A [identify vehicle type
as identified in 1037.105 Table 5 of this section] UNDER 40 CFR 1037.105(h)].'
. (i) - 'THIS VEHICLE WAS EXEMPTED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.631.'
• (j) - For secondary vehicle manufacturers supplemental label, follow the location
requirements of 1037.622(d)(3). On the label identify your corporate name and include
the statement: 'THIS TRACTOR WAS MODIFIED UNDER 40 CFR 1037.622.'
• (k) - If your vehicle meets the requirements as set forth in 1037.630. Meet requirements
of 1037.135 add the following statement to your emissions control information label:
'THIS VEHICLE WAS CERTIFIED AS A VOCATIONAL TRACTOR UNDER 40
CFR 1037.630.'
Alternative Suggestion: Leverage the use of 1037.136 as a centralized location for all the
'Additional Label Requirements'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.87-88]
The NPRM requests comment regarding whether U.S. EPA should decrease the warranty period
for medium HD vehicles in 40 CFR 1037.120 from 5 years or 100,000 miles, to five years or
50,000 miles. U.S. EPA states this amendment would ensure consistency between the warranty
1641
-------
coverage periods between the affected vehicles and the engines powering such vehicles. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 119]
CARB staff strongly opposes the proposed decrease in warranty coverage. As an initial matter,
CARB staff notes that U.S. EPA first established the subject warranty periods in the federal
Phase 1 GHG Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and HDE and
Vehicles (hereinafter 'Phase 1 GHG regulation'), 76 Fed. Reg. 57106 (Sep. 15, 2011). In NPRM
for the Phase 1 GHG regulation, U.S. EPA stated that CAA section 207 requires vehicle
manufacturers to warrant that their vehicles do not have defects that would cause such vehicles
to not comply with applicable emission standards. 179 CAA section 207 also imposes the
requirements on engine manufacturers. 180 U.S. EPA further stated that the emissions warranty
requirements would, in conjunction with the proposed defects reporting requirements, serve
manufacturers' interests in producing quality products and U.S. EPA's interests in ensuring
quality control concerns necessitating need to repair in-use engines and vehicles would be
addressed,181 and determined that the current warranty period and warranty obligations of
vehicle manufacturers were consistent with the directives of CAA section 207.182 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 119-120]
179 75 Fed. Reg. 74152, 74273 (Nov. 30, 2010).
180 Id. at 74268.
181 Id. at 74278.
182 U.S. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium -
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - EPA Response to Comments for Joint
Rulemaking (2011) at p. 17-104.
The NPRM provides no information or reasoning that supports a determination that decreasing
the length of warranty coverage is consistent with the directives of CAA section 207. Indeed,
elsewhere in this NPRM U.S. EPA acknowledges that lengthening the emissions warranty
coverage for HDE will both incentivize owners to perform emissions maintenance and deter
owners from tampering with emissions controls, which will collectively help maintain the
benefits of the emission controls. In addition, lengthened emissions warranty periods could cause
manufacturers to simplify their repair processes and better inform them of system defects. 183
These considerations and justifications equally apply to the HD vehicles powered by such HDEs
and therefore the proposal to reduce the warranty coverage for medium HD vehicles by 50,000
miles should be rejected. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.120]
183 NPRM at 17505-17506.
The proposal overlooks the obvious loss of important emissions benefits resulting from the
proposal, and has not set forth a rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. Moreover, in light of CARB staffs concerns, it is additionally
clear U.S. EPA has failed to demonstrate that the reduction of warranty coverage is permissible
1642
-------
under the statute, or that that there are good reasons for a shorter vehicle warranty. FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 120]
The NPRM also requests comment whether U.S. EPA should 'align all warranty periods that
apply for engine technologies, irrespective of the emissions they are designed to control, with the
warranty periods that we finalize for criteria pollutant emission control.'184 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 120]
184 NPRM at p. 17628.
The proposed rulemaking is primarily directed towards emissions standards and other emissions-
related requirements regarding criteria pollutants emitted from new and in-use HD vehicles and
the engines powering such vehicles. Although the testing and developmental data indicates that
the compliance technologies that manufacturers will likely use to comply with the proposed
criteria emissions standards will not adversely increase emissions of GHGs, CARB staff believes
the data does not, at this time, indicate a pressing need to extend the emissions warranty periods
for GHG pollutants to match the emissions warranty periods for criteria pollutants. However,
CARB staff would be interested in considering this issue in more detail in the future, hopefully
in conjunction with U.S. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.120-121]
The NPRM requests comment on whether the proposed 'misalignment' of emissions warranty
periods between affected HDE and HD vehicles may present issues with respect to certification
or implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.121]
CARB staff is not aware of any issues presented from the different warranty periods. The HD
vehicle industry is predominately non-integrated, with a small number of engine manufacturers
and a significantly larger number of vehicle manufacturers. The proposed warranty provisions
appropriately require engine manufacturers to warrant components and systems installed on their
engines are free from defects and workmanship that would cause such engines to not comply
with applicable emissions standards for the proposed emissions warranty periods, and require
vehicle manufacturers to warrant that emissions-related components they install on the vehicle
are free from defects and workmanship that would cause such vehicles to not comply with
applicable emissions standards for the proposed emissions warranty periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 121]
HD vehicle manufacturers rely on the engine manufacturers to supply them with compliant
engines, and the proposed warranty provisions appropriately acknowledge and reflect the non-
integrated nature of the industry by only requiring vehicle manufacturers to warrant that the
components and systems installed in vehicles are free from defects and workmanship that would
cause such vehicles not to comply with applicable emissions standards for the proposed
emissions warranty periods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.121]
No issues are presented regarding certification, because both engine and vehicle manufacturers
must apply for and obtain certificates of conformance each model year, and no issues are
presented with respect to implementation, as the proposed regulations clearly set forth the in-use
obligations of both engine and vehicle manufacturers. Moreover, the longer emissions warranty
1643
-------
periods for HDE, as compared to the emissions warranty periods for HD vehicles is warranted,
given the extended operational lives of HDE, and given that most HDE are designed to be rebuilt
after specified periods of operation.185 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.121]
185 NPRM at pp. 17341, 17495, 17496-17499.
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA's new proposed provision in §1036.240(c) allows small manufacturers to use assigned DFs
but does not mention small-volume families certified by other manufacturers. EPA should retain
the existing provisions of §86.096-24(e)(2) allowing any manufacturer to utilize the procedures
of §86.094-14 for certifying small-volume families, including the use of assigned DFs. Those
provisions are used today and will continue to be needed for some families, for example, those
containing alternative fuel engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 12]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR respectfully requests that EPA clarify its expectations regarding off-cycle data
demonstrations. Specifically, proposed 1036.240(b) provides: 'Your engine family is deemed not
to comply if any emission-data engine representing that family has test results showing an
official emission result or a deteriorated emission level for any pollutant that is above an
applicable emission standard (including all corrections and adjustments). Similarly, your engine
family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data engine representing that family has test
results showing any emission level above the applicable off-cycle emission standard for any
pollutant. This also applies for all test points for emission data-engines within the family used to
establish deterioration factors.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.45]
This section of the regulation discusses DF. The emissions-data engine is only operated in a test
cell, and is not intended for installation in a vehicle. This open- ended provision does not provide
stakeholders with the regulatory certainty that is needed to allow them to ensure compliance and
therefore should be revised. For example, the regulation should further clarify the contours of
what is contemplated by 'off-cycle emission standard.' And the statement that '[y]our engine
family is deemed not to comply if any emission-data engine representing that family has test
results showing an official emission result or a deteriorated emission level for any pollutant that
is above an applicable emission standard' could be read to suggest that DF engines would be
installed and tested in on-road vehicles, which of course would be inconsistent with industry
practice. PACCAR therefore requests that EPA remove this proposed provision. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, pp. 45-46]
Proposed section 1036.240(c) also needs to be revised. As proposed, OEMs would be required to
take into account in-use testing in calculating DF. This is not possible. DF is an aging exercise
on a single emission data engine with a prescribed DF method that measures low-hour
performance and deteriorated performance, from which a curve is determined. Although
accepted methods are listed in 1036.240(c)(l)-(4), in-use data is not mentioned and the proposed
regulation does not describe how to incorporate in-use data into DF. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.46]
1644
-------
Organization: Truck Trailers Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
The proposed rule would make updates to EPA's Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase
2 program. EPA relied primarily on Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act for authority to
promulgate the regulations that implement that program. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7521, 7550. TTMA
has previously challenged EPA's authority to regulate trailers and trailer manufacturers under
Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia recently held that EPA does not have such authority. The decision was issued in Truck
Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc., v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., No. 16-1430
(November 12, 2021). The proposed rule updating the Phase 2 program similarly rests on Section
202 of the Clean Air Act as authority for EPA's rulemaking. See 87 Fed. Reg at 17436.
However, for the reasons set forth in the D.C. Circuit's recent decision, EPA does not have
authority to update Phase 2 in ways that extend to the regulation of trailers or trailer
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1024-A1, p. 1]
Specifically, in the General Information section, in response to the question "Does this action
apply to me?," the reference to truck trailer manufacturing (NAICS code 336212) as a regulated
category lacks statutory authority. See 87 Fed Reg. at 17415. Therefore, in Section 1037.1(a) of
the proposed rule, titled "Applicability," the statement that "[t]his also includes certain trailers as
described in §§1037.5, 1037.150, and 1037.801" should be deleted. See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17813.
Similarly, Section 1037.101 (b)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule should be deleted, as it specifies that
"[t]rai 1 ers" comprise a group of "regulated heavy-duty vehicles." See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17814. And
in Section 1068.1(a)(2) of the proposed rule, the statement that "[t]his includes trailers" should
also be deleted, as the agency lacks authority to apply these regulations to trailers. See 87 Fed.
Reg. at 17882. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1024-A1, pp. 1 - 2]
And finally, the agency should delete (1) the reference to emission-related warranty requirements
for trailers found in Section 1037.120(b)(iii)&(iv), see 87 Fed. Reg. at 17816; (2) the reference to
a useful life (250,000 miles) for trailers found in Section 1037.705(b), see 87 Fed. Reg. at 17837;
and (3) the references to tires on non-box and box van trailers found in the definition of "low
rolling resistance tire" in Section 1037.801, see 87 Fed. Reg. at 17838. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1024-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EMA also has concerns related to the proposed requirement under §1036.240(c) that, "Your
deterioration factors must take into account any available data from in-use testing with similar
engines." That requirement is at the same time too vague and overly broad, and is therefore
unworkable. It is entirely unclear how manufacturers, having completed a comprehensive, very
costly and controlled full useful life DF determination according to the proposed provisions,
would "take into account" other "available" in-use data to adjust those results. There is no clarity
as to what types of "available" data should be drawn into this analysis, or would be drawn into
this analysis by the Agency, under this language. For example, would data acquired by NGOs
unskilled in emissions measurement have to be taken into account? Will manufacturers be
compelled to review data from field test engines that have undergone numerous component and
emissions control software upgrades and incorporate NOx sensor data from these engines into
1645
-------
the DF determination? As stated, this requirement is utterly unworkable, and should be
eliminated in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 112]
EPA's proposed requirements under §1036.235(a)(1) provide that a manufacturer must select an
engine configuration for criteria pollutant certification testing that is "most likely to exceed (or
have emissions nearer to) an applicable emission standard or FEL..That requirement could
lead to significant ambiguity in determining the selected test engine's configuration, as it is
unlikely that one engine configuration would have the highest emissions for all certification
cycles and all criteria pollutants. Further, EPA's proposal could result in a different configuration
identification, such as a child rating, compared to existing requirements in §86.096-24(b)(3)(ii)
which allow selecting "the engine that features the highest fuel feed per stroke, primarily at the
speed of maximum rated torque and secondarily at rated speed." EPA should retain the existing
criteria based on highest fueling in §86.096-24(b)(3)(ii) (and similarly retain the existing criteria
in §86.096-24(b)(2) for Otto-cycle engines) for selecting an engine configuration for criteria
pollutant certification testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 117]
Today, the test engine configuration requirements have led to a situation where some
manufacturers use a different test engine configuration for criteria emissions demonstrations than
the one used for GHG emissions demonstrations. Proposed §1036.235(a) requires that the data
engine for GHG emissions be the same as the data engine configuration for criteria pollutants.
This new requirement, as proposed, will have unintended consequences on engine GHG
stringency. The engine configuration with the highest NOx, for example, on an SCR-equipped
engine will likely be a lower power rating within the family, and will likely, therefore, have
relatively high C02 emissions relative to the other ratings in the family. The requirements of
proposed §1036.235(a) will thereby have the effect of increasing the stringency of the GHG
standards. This is the most serious consequence of the language as proposed. There could also be
corollary complications with other aspects of emissions control regulations, such as DF carry-
across, where factors such as highest fueling and exhaust flow (catalyst residence time) are
deemed relevant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 117- 118]
EPA proposes in §1036.205(t) to include a design requirement that engine manufacturers would
have to include in their installation instructions to a vehicle manufacturer (§1036.130) that would
facilitate in-use testing. More specifically, the engine manufacturer would be required in those
instructions to "specify how to ensure that sampling of exhaust emissions will be possible after
engines are installed in equipment and placed in service. If this cannot be done by simply adding
a 20-centimeter extension to the exhaust pipe, show how to sample exhaust emissions in a way
that prevents diluting the exhaust sample with ambient air." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 133]
As an initial matter, imposing requirements on the vehicle design that go beyond those required
to ensure compliance, and that instead are imposed solely to enable the rare instances that
someone would want to conduct PEMS testing on a vehicle, is an unnecessary and unwarranted
requirement. Compelling less than optimal designs, that could take precedence over practical
installation considerations and limitations, and potentially impose higher costs, is unreasonable
solely to make exhaust sampling easier than it otherwise might be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 133]
1646
-------
EMA recommends that the provisions regarding installation instructions at §1036.130 be
finalized to include a "recommended practice" with respect to vehicle design, to be followed
"whenever practical." Those instructions should recommend physical characteristics of the
installed design, without reference to extension dimensions or ambient air dilution, which would
not be meaningful to the vehicle design and installation personnel. The resulting design
recommendations should be established in a way that would facilitate PEMS testing. EMA
further recommends that EPA simplify the proposed §1036.205(t) accordingly, referencing
§1036.130. Finally, both provisions should refer to installation instructions, since they concern
vehicles rather than equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 134]
EMA offers the following comments on the specific OBD-related elements of the proposed
regulatory text. §1036.115: "(d) Torque broadcasting. Electronically controlled engines must
broadcast their speed and output shaft torque (in newton-meters). Engines may alternatively
broadcast a surrogate value for determining torque. Engines must broadcast engine parameters
such that they can be read with a remote device or broadcast them directly to their controller area
networks. This information is necessary for testing engines in the field (see §1036.515)." EMA is
confident that the engine torque and speed parameters currently used to support PEMS today
should suffice for this purpose, and asks EPA to confirm this expectation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 103]
In another related matter, EMA supports the Agency's tank-sizing requirements detailed in
§1036.115(i). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 125]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
Allison appreciates that EPA defines
technology in a way that gives industry
greater flexibility to design architecture for
OEM and end-user requirements. For
example, EPA's definition of hybrids and
HEVs offers the industry greater flexibility
than the California PHEV definition which
constrains hybrid technology down a narrow
path to achieve increasing all-electric range.
EPA acknowledges the comment supporting
the proposed rule.
ARI suggested adjusted wording for proposed
changes in §1037.601(a)(1) to avoid the
possibility that someone would interpret the
regulation to recognize exemption provisions
only for the first of two given scenarios. The
comment suggested two alternative
approaches to address the concern.
EPA agrees that proposed wording should be
revised to more clearly recognize that the
exemption provisions apply for both of the
given scenarios. We have revised the
paragraph in the final rule in a way that is
similar to the ARJ's second suggested
approach.
1647
-------
CARB recommends consolidating labeling
requirements in one central place in the
regulation to make it simpler to edit language,
find where labels are not meeting the
requirements, and make it clear where all
labeling requirements are located.
We believe the recommended approach would
serve the interest of regulators at the expense
of making it more difficult for companies to
comply with labeling requirements. We favor
the approach of describing labeling
requirements in the context of the related
regulatory provisions. This is particularly true
where consolidated labeling specifications
would include interim provisions that may
apply only for a limited time. Electronic
searching also makes it very easy to find all
the different labeling requirements.
CARB strongly opposes EPA's consideration
of decreasing the warranty period for Medium
HD vehicles from 100,000 miles to 50,000
miles, which would ensure consistency
between the warranty coverage periods
between the affected vehicles and the engines
powering such vehicles. CARB staff is not
aware of any issues presented from applying
different warranty periods for criteria and
greenhouse gas emission standards.
We are not taking final action at this time
regarding warranty periods for Medium HDV
under 40 CFR 1037.120.
Cummins stated that EPA should retain the
existing provision of §86.096-24(e)(2) to
allow any manufacturer to certify small-
volume families with an assigned
deterioration factor.
We are not including in the final rule a
provision for assigned deterioration factors
for small families. Manufacturers have made
very limited use of the existing provisions in
§86.096-24(e)(2). The proposed rule included
a new approach for testing to establish
deterioration factors that includes a
combination of engine testing and bench
aging of aftertreatment components. This new
approach is intended to substantially lower
the cost of developing new deterioration
factors. Existing provisions allowing
flexibility will continue to apply—carry-
across of deterioration factors for similar
families in the same model year, and carry-
over of deterioration factors for later model
years. We expect to consider the production
volumes of the families selected for in-use
verification testing, both to allow for a
reasonable application of testing burden and
to achieve the intended verification relative to
the emission impact of different engine
families.
1648
-------
PACCAR requests that EPA remove the
proposed provision in §1036.240(b)
specifying that an "engine family is deemed
not to comply if any emission-data engine
representing that family has test results
showing any emission level above the
applicable off-cycle emission standard for any
pollutant. PACCAR suggested that this
provision is too open-ended, and could
subject manufacturers to unreasonable
compliance liability if an emission-data
engine were installed in an in-use vehicle.
PACCAR also suggested clarifying the
contours of what is contemplated for
demonstrating compliance with the off-cycle
emission standard.
As PACCAR notes, the statement in
§1036.240(b) applies for an "emission-data
engine," which is defined as an engine that is
tested for certification. Such an engine must
comply with all applicable duty-cycle
standards and off-cycle standards to be
eligible for certification. We are not aware
that an emission-data engine has ever been
installed in an in-use vehicle. However, if that
would occur, manufacturers could only
perform such an installation after the
certificate was issued. If measured in-use
emissions exceed emission standards, EPA
would generally be able to pursue a recall
based on a pattern of noncompliance.
PACCAR suggested clarifying the contours
of what is contemplated for demonstrating
compliance with the off-cycle emission
standard.
We have implemented off-cycle standards for
many years in the form of Not-to-Exceed
standards. We would expect to implement the
new off-cycle emission standards in a similar
way. In particular, EPA's Compliance
Division will expect to meet regularly with
manufacturers to clarify plans to demonstrate
compliance with off-cycle standards. This
might involve testing over some number of
steady-state test points, or operation of some
defined transient test segments. We have
added a sentence to §1036.205 clarifying that
EPA may direct manufacturers to include
emission measurements representing typical
engine in-use operation at a range of ambient
conditions.
1649
-------
EMA suggested that we remove the provision
in §1036.240(c) requiring manufacturers to
take into account the results of in-use testing
when they establish a deterioration factor for
certification. That requirement is at the same
time too vague and overly broad, and is
therefore unworkable. It is entirely unclear
how manufacturers, having completed a
comprehensive, very costly and controlled
full useful life DF determination according to
the proposed provisions, would "take into
account" other "available" in-use data to
adjust those results. There is no clarity as to
what types of "available" data should be
drawn into this analysis, or would be drawn
into this analysis by the Agency, under this
language.
PACCAR also suggested that we remove the
provision in §1036.240(c) requiring
manufacturers to take into account the results
of in-use testing when they establish a
deterioration factor for certification.
PACCAR pointed out that they determine the
deterioration factor from testing a single
emission-data engine with a prescribed
method, which does not reference in-use
testing.
The proposed §1036.240(c) specifically
directs manufacturers to "take into account
any available data from in-use testing with
similar engines" when the establish
deterioration factors for certification. This is
not necessarily intended to come into play
when the manufacturer first establishes
deterioration factors for certifying an engine
family. As manufacturers continue to perform
in-use testing throughout an engine family's
useful life, it may become apparent that the
original deterioration factors under-represent
emissions throughout the useful life for one or
more pollutants. In that case, we would expect
manufacturers to use good engineering
judgment to adjust deterioration factors as
appropriate for future model years to ensure
that the manufacturer can properly
demonstrate for certification that in-use
engines will meet emission standards
throughout the useful life.
We have adopted this same provision for
several types of nonroad engines, such as
those subject to standards under 40 CFR parts
1039, 1042, and 1048.
We have modified the final regulation at
§1036.240(c) to clarify that DF verification
testing applies as specified, and that
manufacturers must additionally consider in-
use testing results separate from that DF
verification testing.
TTMA has previously challenged EPA's
authority to regulate trailers and trailer
manufacturers under Section 202 of the Clean
Air Act, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia recently
held that EPA does not have such authority.
TTMA states that EPA should therefore
remove trailers from the list of sectors
affected in the preamble, and remove
reference to trailers in 40 CFR parts 1037 and
1068.
We recognize the court decision vacating the
Phase 2 regulations as they applied to trailers
as motor vehicles. We intend to address this
in a future rulemaking where we can
comprehensively review the regulations to
identify all the appropriate changes to remove
provisions, terminology, and descriptions
stating or presuming that trailers are motor
vehicles. We inadvertently included trailers in
the list of regulated categories and have
removed trailers from this list for the final
rule.
1650
-------
Cummins commented that EPA should revise
§1036.235(a) to retain the existing criteria for
selecting a test engine for demonstrating
compliance with criteria emission standards
based on highest fueling rate (§86.096-
24(b)(2) and (b)(3)(ii)). The proposed
approach instructing manufacturers to select
the configuration most likely to exceed a
standard could lead to significant ambiguity.
We agree with the comment and have revised
the regulation accordingly.
EM A observed that the proposed
§1036.235(a) would require manufacturers to
perform testing for criteria and greenhouse
gas standards using the same engine. EMA
stated that this would be inappropriate for
complying with greenhouse gas standards,
with the expectation that the proposed
approach would lead them to select engines
with higher C02 emissions, which would
increase the stringency of the greenhouse gas
standards.
We agree with the comment and have revised
the regulation to more clearly allow
manufacturers to select different test engines
for demonstrating compliance with criteria
and greenhouse gas emission standards.
EMA objected to the proposed provision in
§1036.205(t) for manufacturers to confirm
that their installation instructions specify how
to sample exhaust emissions from an in-use
configuration without diluting the exhaust
sample with ambient air. EMA argued that it
is unnecessary and unwarranted to impose
requirements on the vehicle design that go
beyond those required to ensure compliance,
and that instead are imposed solely to enable
the rare instances that someone would want to
conduct PEMS testing on a vehicle. EMA
recommended instead specifying installation
instructions at §1036.130 to include a
"recommended practice" with respect to
vehicle design, to be followed "whenever
practical." Those instructions should
recommend physical characteristics of the
installed design, without reference to
extension dimensions or ambient air dilution,
which would not be meaningful to the vehicle
design and installation personnel. Design
recommendations should facilitate PEMS
testing. EMA recommends that EPA simplify
the proposed §1036.205(t) accordingly,
referencing §1036.130.
We agree with the comment. In the final rule
we have changed the proposed provision in
§1036.205 to remove this requirement and
added a simpler requirement to include a
recommended practice to the engine
manufacturer's installation instructions.
1651
-------
EMA is confident that the engine torque and
speed parameters currently used to support
PEMS suffice for meeting proposed
specifications for torque broadcasting in
§1036.115(d).
We are retaining the requirement for torque
broadcasting because it may be needed to
support powertrain testing.
EMA supports the Agency's tank-sizing
requirements detailed in §1036.115(i).
EPA acknowledges the comment affirming
that we properly captured the substantive
content from part 86 regarding the tank-sizing
provisions migrated into part 1036.
30 Cross-sector issues
30.1 Confidentiality determinations
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 1068.10 Practices for handling confidential business information.
Auto Innovators recommends that various data submitted either during certification, greenhouse
gas reporting, defect reporting, or in-use testing continue to be processed through EPA's existing
confidential business information (CBI) process. The existing process balances the agency's
Freedom of Information Act obligations while ensuring that highly valuable competitively
sensitive and trade secret information is not released. Further, that practice remains consistent
with the Supreme Court's decision that, 'where commercial or financial information is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an
assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential" under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Food
Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2366 (2019). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1303-A1, p.7]
Troublingly, EPA's proposal seeks to deprive broad and vague classes of information of
confidential treatment. The proposal considers those classes of data in isolation, and disregards
the fact that the structure, groupings, relationship, and organization of data can also reveal CBI.
Moreover, the structure of EPA's proposal would default the agency to releasing this information
without any visibility into how the agency applies its vague and broad classes, especially in
instances where a document might contain a mixture of information fitting with EPA's proposed
classes of remission data and information in 40 C.F.R. 1068.11(c) that would still be subject to
the processes of 40 C.F.R. Part 2. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.7]
1652
-------
Such regulatory change would depart from the long-standing definition of 'emission data' in 40
C.F.R. 2.301(a)(2) which, among other limitations, encompasses only information about the past
(e.g., 'emission which has been emitted'). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.7]
For example, the proposal would prevent confidential treatment of '[certification and
compliance information, including information submitted in an application for a certificate of
conformity that is used to assess compliance.' This could arguably encompass the entirety of the
information submitted by automakers to the EPA, given that it appears to be coterminous with
the agency's authority to obtain information from the industry. 42 U.S.C. 7525, 7541, and 7542.
In other words, it is not clear what information automakers provide EPA except certification and
compliance information. Next, the proposal would prevent confidential treatment of' [t]est
information and results, including emission test results and other data from . . . any other testing
to demonstrate emissions.' While the results of a test to measure regulated pollutants may be
exempt from confidential treatment once the subject vehicle was introduced into commerce,
there is abundant 'other data' related to the emissions test that would reveal specific aspects of
the vehicle design and construction, including proprietary information like software and
calibrations. Yet another example is found in the proposal to prevent confidential treatment of
' ABT credit information, including information submitted for current and future compliance
demonstrations using credits under an ABT program.' This plainly disregards the temporal
limitation in 2.302(a)(2) and would be fairly understood to encompass forecasted sales volumes
and product mix, which are inseparable from emissions performance in any discussion of ABT
credits and compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.7]
While creating public-facing documents remains an option for regulated entities, continuing to
treat data that is shared with EPA to be confidential and subject to the existing process under 40
C.F.R. Part 2 will result in fewer instances where EPA publicly releases information that is not
otherwise deemed available for the public. Should the agency elect to proceed with explicitly
defining classes of information subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 2, EPA should ensure that confidential
information submitted regarding advanced technologies or off-cycle credits is not considered
'emission data.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.7]
Auto Innovators requests that any final regulatory changes on these and related topics be
consolidated in either Part 2 or Part 1068. As proposed, the new language straddles both parts
(and suggests the standard-setting part has even more pertinent provisions) and this is likely to
cause confusion for industry and the agency in implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1303-A1, p.7] Finally, Auto Innovators recommends that EPA delete the text 'and to any
information we collect from inspections, audits, or other site visits' from the proposed lead-in to
40 C.F.R. 1068.10. Information collected from these sources should not be a part of the CBI
analysis because it is not information that is 'submitted' but is rather information obtained on the
spot by EPA. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1303- A 1, p.8]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff supports the proposal that specified categories of information that manufacturers
'must submit under the standard-setting parts for certification, compliance oversight, and in
response to certain enforcement activities would be subject to disclosure to the public without
1653
-------
further notice.'197 CARB staff also supports the proposal 'to establish a broadly applicable set of
confidential business information determinations by categories of information, through
rulemaking.'198 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.130]
197 NPRM at p. 17609.
198 NPRM at p. 17610.
These proposals are appropriate and warranted for the reasons set forth by U.S. EPA in the
NPRM. They will enable U.S. EPA to more efficiently respond to freedom of information act
requests, will help ensure that U.S. EPA consistently applies the proposed confidentiality
determinations across the numerous categories of information it receives under specified
certification, compliance, and certain enforcement programs, will provide more objective and
predictable guidance for information providers and requesters, and will provide the public
greater transparency regarding the certification programs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.130]
U.S. EPA is specifically requesting comment regarding the proposed categories of information,
the confidentiality determinations of those categories, and its proposed placement of data points
within the proposed categories. 199 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.131]
199 NPRM at p. 17619.
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA retain the proposed categories of information: (1)
certification and compliance information, (2) fleet value information, (3) source family
information, (4) test information and results, (5) ABT credit information, (6) production volume
information, (7) defect and recall information, and (8) SEA compliance information. CARB staff
concurs that although 'much of the information submitted under the standard-setting parts could
be logically grouped into more than one category',200 the proposed approach of categorizing
information into the proposed categories of information both appropriately describes the affected
information and clarifies the proposed confidentiality determinations for each above-mentioned
category of information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 131]
200 NPRM at 17611.
U.S. EPA is specifically requesting comment regarding every rationale presented in the
confidential business information (CBI) chart for information proposed to be classified as
emissions data.201 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 131]
201 NPRM at 17611.
CARB staff supports the proposed confidentiality determinations for the proposed categories of
information, including the proposed inclusion of subcategories of information, (i.e., data points)
within each of the proposed categories, for the reasons expressed by U.S. EPA in pages 17611
through 17619 in the NPRM, and in the CBI chart associated with this proposal.202 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 131]
1654
-------
202 'CBI Categories for All Industries All Programs' (hereinafter 'CBI Chart'), attachment to
Memorandum to docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, 'Supplemental Information for CBI
Categories for All Industries and All Programs,' Zaremski, Sara. October 1, 2021, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-0765_attachment_l.
CARB staff offers the following recommendation:
• The proposal would maintain confidential treatment for the subcategories of information
identified in Sections XI.A.l.i.a, XI.A.l.i.b, and XI.A.l.i.c until the product described by
that information is introduced into commerce. U.S. EPA states that the introduction to
commerce date is specified in an application for certification. However, the applications
for certification for certain regulated products, including on-road HDEs and light-duty
motor vehicles, do not appear to expressly require manufacturers to specify the date they
intend to introduce certified engines into commerce (see, e.g., 40 CFR 1036.205, 86.007-
21, 86.004-21, 86.094-21, 40 CFR 86.1844-01).203 CARB staff suggests that the
categories of information identified in Sections XI.A.l.i.a, XI.A.l.i.b, and XI.A.l.i.c
would be entitled to confidential treatment until the date the certificate of conformity for
a regulated product is issued. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 131-132]
203 See also 40 CFR 59.623 (information required in applications for certification of portable
fuel containers.)
U.S. EPA is requesting comment regarding how it can treat preliminary or superseded
information supplied by manufacturers to certify products and to demonstrate compliance, to
'protect the public from incomplete or inaccurate information.'204 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.132]
204 NPRM at p. 17618.
CARB staff suggests that, to the extent U.S. EPA is aware that requested information constitutes
preliminary information, it can include an express disclaimer informing the requester of that fact.
Similarly, to the extent that U.S. EPA is aware that requested information constitutes superseded
information, it can include an express disclaimer informing the requester of that fact. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 132]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes in §1068.11(a) that several categories of information qualify as emissions data
which EPA may disclose to the public. Cummins disagrees with allowing the categories in
(a)(4)-(8) to be disclosed to the public. Those categories, especially related to testing, modeling
inputs (including steady-state fuel maps and other GEM engine inputs as would be required by
§1036.815), ABT information, production volumes, and defect and recall information, contain
sensitive and trade secret information. That information is developed at great expense and effort
by the manufacturer and is not readily obtainable by others. Disclosing it publicly could give
competitors insight on a manufacturer's technical and business strategies. Cummins urges EPA
1655
-------
not to finalize the changes to confidentiality in §1068.1 l(a)(4)-(8) and §1036.815. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 17]
EPA proposes to retain today's case-by-case confidentiality determination of other categories of
information in §1068.11(c), which Cummins supports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.
18]
Organization: Department of Navy, Department of Defense (DoD)
In the preamble EPA states: "We are proposing amendments in two areas of note for the general
compliance provisions in 40 CFR part 1068. First, we are proposing to take a comprehensive
approach for making confidentiality determinations related to compliance information that
companies submit to EPA. We are proposing to apply these provisions for all highway, nonroad,
and stationary engine, vehicle, and equipment programs, as well as aircraft and portable fuel
containers." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1222-A1, p.3]
In finalizing EPA's stated goal of a "comprehensive approach" for confidentiality determinations
related to engine manufacturer compliance information submitted to EPA for all emissions
standard setting provisions, DoD requests that EPA incorporate provisions to the rule to
accommodate DoD national security concerns about broad availability of non-emissions
technical performance data for engines used in national defense and homeland security
applications. This would include but would not be limited to engines covered by exemptions
found at 40 CFR 1068.225(d). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1222-A1, p.3]
DoD's concern is that the availability of critical data, such as fuel flow rates for engines used in
military aircraft, ground vehicles and marine applications can provide a strategic advantage to
foreign adversaries. This security concern also extends to key stationary engines being used as
emergency generators, where knowledge of technical data for these engines would provide
insight into DoD critical installation resiliency capabilities in event of actions such as a cyber-
attack on commercial grid power sources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1222-A1, p.3]
Recommendation: DoD requests EPA include provisions for allowing engine manufacturers to
claim as confidential any engine performance data (e.g., emissions rate) that is considered
"national security information". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1222-A1, p.3]
DoD is willing to work with EPA on specific language to include in the final rule that would
address DoD's national security concern and meet EPA's intent for public availability of engine
technical information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1222-Al,p .3]
DoD suggests any such language be structured so the EPA would approve only those
manufacturers "national security information" designation requests where that request to EPA
has been endorsed by an agency of the Federal Government responsible for national defense or
homeland security. This would be similar to existing EPA requirement founds at 40 CFR
1068.225(d) for case by case EPA review of national security exemptions for engines. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1222-A1, p.3]
1656
-------
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
While we have utilized numerous resources and the best data publicly available, we have no way
to validate our estimates of the sales-weighted distribution of certified engines and the credits
generated by these engines, owing to the limitations of the current confidentiality-determination
process. While greater data is available under the light- and heavy-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
programs, and stakeholders including state regulators and the engine manufacturers themselves
have access to this engine certification data, the general public does not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, pp. 50 - 51]
Information about credits and compliance goes directly to the public's ability to assess how well
the program is driving actual emissions reductions, as compared to the generation of credits from
so-called flexibilities which can undercut those reductions. Transparency in such credits is
critical. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 51]
The purported basis for concealing "Confidential Business Information" (CBI) is that it would
provide competitors with an advantage. However, many of the information categories EPA has
proposed eliminating confidential treatment for are already available to competitors through
expensive industry databases. Manufacturers are therefore not at greater risk under the proposed
relaxation of these specific categories, and it is the public who is at risk if they continue to
remain in the dark under the current constraints. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 51]
For example, the real-world performance data provided by EPA on heavy-duty trucks 187
illustrated the massive shortcomings in the current test procedures and emissions control
equipment as well as the harms those vehicles posed in real-world operation, and organizations
were able to sort through that data to identify systemic problems and aid in advocating for
solutions. 188 However, by the time this data was released, some of those dirty vehicles had been
polluting communities for as many as 8 years. Moreover, there was no way to assess the health
impacts of these shortfalls because while information about an individual truck and engine
configuration were identified (e.g., a 2010 Ford F-650 delivery vehicle with a Cummins ISB 6.7
diesel engine), there is little information on usage or sales to extrapolate the breadth of the
shortfall of emissions from these trucks. Given the breadth of data collected by the agency as
part of its proposed off-cycle program and the value that such detailed data can have for
communities affected on the ground by freight traffic, expanding the availability of this data
collected as part of regulatory compliance, can help identify such problematic issues in a timelier
manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 51]
187. https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/manufacturer-run-use-testing-
program-data-heavy-duty-diesel-1
188. For example, https://theicct.org/publication/current-state-of-nox-emissions-from-in-use-
heavy-duty-diesel-vehicles-in-theunited- states/.
By improving transparency of its datasets, EPA can also ensure that its own data is more
accurate. Environmental justice communities that directly experience the emissions from these
trucks and the volume of traffic from these trucks have had to hold truck counts because of
1657
-------
outdated data being considered by the agency. Greater transparency in the assumptions being
used by EPA can improve clarity to the public how valid its assumptions are (or not), and
provide another check for the community to assess when EPA's assumptions are inconsistent
with local freight impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 51]
We strongly support the greater transparency that the proposed adjustments to CBI determination
will have. Moving forward, we request that EPA continue to improve transparency for all of its
vehicle programs regulated under the Clean Air Act, particularly on reporting more data at an
engine/vehicle level to understand how individual classes, applications, and/or manufacturers
may be responding to these regulations. The public deserves more information to fully
understand engine and vehicle emissions performance, including for specific configurations.
Currently manufacturers already have such access—it's long past time that the public does as
well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 51]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
Roush supports the addition of the proposed 1065.410(c) language relative to use of standard
electronic tools, as well as the updated disclosure and confidentiality language in part 1068.
Roush would further recommend that EPA codify requirements for manufacturers to fully
disclose, without claiming as confidential, all information reasonably required in order to
conduct emissions testing as specified in the standard. We believe that the ability for agencies
and third parties to be able to verify emissions testing results is crucial, but is typically
impossible under current disclosure practices— even such basic parameters as curb idle
transmission torque are not typically disclosed in the FOI application even though it is clear this
is not protected confidential business information. If manufacturers utilize non-production
hardware (such as transmission or other vehicle signal simulators, non-production ECU's, etc.)
and/or non-production software (such as calibrations which are modified to disable OBD faults
related to vehicle testing) in order to conduct certification testing, manufacturers should be
required to disclose the designs of such devices as well as provide information required for
agencies or third parties to obtain the required items for testing. It is simply unacceptable that
current engine test results cannot be verified by third parties. We anticipate this issue only
getting worse with the new standard; for example, the new 1065.510(a) requires disabling torque
output AECD's, but there is no requirement to document how the AECD's were disabled or how
they would be disabled during agency or third party testing. Similarly, the new 1066.415(e)(2)
requires written notification to the agency for modifications required for dynamometer testing,
but no clear requirement for these to be included in the certification application. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1276-A1, p.5]
Organization: S&P Global Mobility
S&P Global Mobility supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards (NPRM), specifically the provisions related to production volume
data being considered emissions data not subject to confidential treatment.
1658
-------
The EPA's proposal that production volume information is intrinsically emissions data, not
Confidential Business Information (CBI), is an important step forward in providing data
transparency around emissions compliance. This data is fundamental to the determination of
overall fleet emissions compliance. As fleet emissions compliance values are necessarily a sales-
weighted average of individual vehicle or engine certification levels, final production volumes
associated with each certification group (e.g., test group) should be disclosed publicly to
facilitate the transparency of compliance determinations. It is only through public access to both
the emissions certification levels and the final production volumes that emissions compliance
position can be replicated by concerned third-party organizations. The ability to replicate the
manufacturers' compliance positions is an important part of the integrity of the EPA's mobile
source emissions programs, including the Greenhouse Gas Program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1273-A1, p. 1]
Public disclosure of a manufacturer's final production volume for each discrete make, model,
and powertrain combination will not compromise a manufacturer's competitive position,
particularly when considering year-end volumes. After the close of a model year the production
volume information related to the past model year production will have become historical
performance. By the time that EPA releases this data to the public it should no longer be
considered CBI. The disclosure of historical production performance should not be viewed as
creating commercial harm. The public interest is improved through greater transparency in
assuring compliance with emissions regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1273-A1, pp. 1-2]
The adoption of the policies outlined on pages 17614 and 17618 related to the publication of
production volumes as emissions data, not subject to confidential treatment, is a positive
development. Much of that information can currently be pieced together via third-party data
sources, including S&P Global Mobility's database of vehicle technical specifications combined
with sources of vehicle registration data. However, these data sources are not completely aligned
with the actual data used by EPA to determine emissions compliance. Thus, without the actual
production volume inputs used by EPA to compute manufacturers' emissions compliance, the
true compliance position cannot be publicly replicated. We view this as a serious shortcoming
which can be easily remedied through the adoption of the EPA's proposal to make public the
production volume information at the conclusion of each model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1273-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA is proposing "to take a comprehensive approach for making confidentiality determinations
related to the compliance information that companies submit to EPA." (87 FR at 17426.) More
specifically, the Agency is proposing to make a series of categorical determinations that certain
types of submitted compliance information will not be treated as confidential business
information. The Agency also is proposing to maintain "the 40 CFR part 2" case-by-case process
for making CBI determinations for all other submitted information not covered by the proposed
categorial determinations of non-confidentiality. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 165]
EPA has categorized the types of emissions data that will be deemed subject to public disclosure,
as follows:
1659
-------
• Certification and compliance information, which includes models and parts information,
family determinants, general emission control systems information, and certificate
request/requestor information;
• Fleet value information, which includes offsets, displacements, useful life, power payload
tons, load factor, integrated work cycle, cycle conversion factors and test cycle, source
classification, averaging set, intended application, and advanced technology ("AT")
factors;
• Source family information, which includes engine family information, vehicle family
information, subfamily name, engine family designation, and test group information;
• Test information and results, which include information collected during the certification
process, PLT testing, in-use testing programs, and testing performed during in SEA, and
which covers the actual test results themselves and the information necessary to
understand those results and how the testing was conducted (including adjustments,
modifications, maintenance, service hours, and detailed information regarding the
recruitment and testing of in-use vehicles);
• Averaging, banking, and trading ("ABT") credit information, including banked credits,
transferred credits, total credits, credit balance, and annual credit balance;
• Production volume information, which includes the total number of engines, vehicles or
equipment produced;
• Defect and recall information, which includes any reported emissions data and an
estimate of the defect's impacts on emissions, and the relevant information collected
under the standard-setting parts, but not including the "defect investigation report;" and
• Selective enforcement audit ("SEA") compliance information, which includes family
name, when and where the SEA was conducted, the number of tests conducted, test
article details, how the engines were shipped and stored, and test results. (See 87 FR at
pp. 17611-17618.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 16-166]
The Agency's proposal also lists a number of information categories where the confidentiality
determination will continue to be made on a 40 CRR Part 2 case-by-case basis, as is the current
practice. EPA describes those categories of emissions-data information, as follows:
(1) projected production and sales,
(2) production start and end dates outside of the defect and recall context,
(3) specific and detailed descriptions of the emissions control operation and function,
(4) design specifications related to aftertreatment devices,
(5) specific and detailed descriptions of auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs),
(6) plans for meeting regulatory requirements (e.g., ABT pre-production plans),
(7) procedures to determine deterioration factors and other emission adjustment factors and any
information used to justify those procedures,
1660
-------
(8) financial information related to ABT credit transactions (including dollar amount, parties to
the transaction and contract information involved) and manufacturer bond provisions (including
aggregate U.S. asset holdings, financial details regarding specific assets, whether the
manufacturer or importer obtains a bond, and copies of bond policies),
(9) serial numbers or other information to identify specific engines or equipment selected for
testing,
(10) procedures that apply based on the manufacturers request to test engines or equipment
differently than we specify in the applicable standard-setting parts,
(11) information related to testing vanadium catalysts in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart L (proposed
in the NPRM),
(12) GPS data identifying the location and route for in-use emission testing,
(13) defect investigation reports — The information contained in defect investigation reports
may encompass both emission data and information that may be CBI, so EPA is not proposing a
determination for this report as whole. Instead, procedurally the Agency will treat those reports
in accordance with the existing case-by-case determination process — and
(14) comments submitted in the "comment field" of EPA's compliance reporting software. (See
87 FR at p. 17619.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 166-167]
EMA has a number of concerns regarding the Agency's proposal for making generalized CBI
determinations going forward. More specifically, a number of the broad categories of submitted
information that the Agency proposes to treat generally as non-confidential do, in fact, include
CBI that warrants protection from public disclosure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
167]
The Agency's proposed rationale for making such broad and general a priori CBI/non-CBI
determinations seems to stem from the workload that the Agency needs to undertake to ensure
that FOIA requests do not sweep-up or otherwise compromise CBI. But a desire to reduce the
Agency's workload is not a sufficient basis to violate manufacturer's trade secret rights,
including under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Moreover, to the extent that EPA acts to remove
the current presumptive protections for manufacturers' CBI claims, the Agency actually will
incentivize more, not fewer, FOIA requests, as competitors would be spurred-on to discover all
that they could about other OEM's products and processes, an outcome that could have grave
consequences for the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 167]
In light of the foregoing, the Agency will need to revise its proposed categorical determinations
accordingly. Set forth below is a chart that delineates EMA's concerns in this regard. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 167]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(1)
1661
-------
Comment: This paragraph (a) applies the definition of "Emission data" in 40 CFR 2.301(a) for
information related to engines/equipment subject to this part. "Emission data" cannot be treated
as confidential business information and shall be available to be disclosed to the public except as
specified in § 1068.10(d)(1). The following categories of information qualify as emission data,
except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section:
Text: 1. Certification and compliance information, which includes models and parts information,
family determinants, general emission control systems information, and certificate
request/requestor information;
EMA comments: Except for the certificate requestor, all of this information is released with a
Certificate of Conformity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 167]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(2)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information
Text: 2. Fleet value information, which includes offsets, displacements, useful life, power
payload tons, load factor, integrated work cycle, cycle conversion factors and test cycle, source
classification, averaging set, intended application, and advanced technology ("AT") factors;
EMA comments: All of this is public information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 167]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(3)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information
Text: 3. Source family information, which includes engine family information, vehicle family
information, subfamily name, engine family designation, and test group information;
EMA comments: All of this is public information. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp.
167-168]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(4)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information. Instead, should be handled
on case-by-case basis.
Text: 4. Test information and results, which include information collected during the certification
process, PLT testing, in-use testing programs, and testing performed during an SEA, and which
covers the actual test results themselves and the information necessary to understand those
results and how the testing was conducted (including adjustments, modifications, maintenance,
service hours, and detailed information regarding the recruitment and testing of in-use vehicles);
EMA comments: This category includes very competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 168]
1662
-------
Section: § 1068.11(a)(5)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information. Instead, should be handled
on case-by-case basis.
Text: 5. Averaging, banking, and trading ("ABT") credit information, including banked credits,
transferred credits, total credits, credit balance, and annual credit balance;
EMA comments: This category includes very competitive CBI [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 168]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(6)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information. Instead, should be handled
on case-by-case basis.
Text: 6. Production volume information, which includes the total number of engines, vehicles or
equipment produced;
EMA comments: For HDOH engines, this information is released after the end of the model
year. Before then, projections should remain CBI. In addition, other engine-product sectors do
not disclose production volumes, and that information from those other engine-product sectors
should remain CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 168]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(7)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information. Instead, should be handled
on case-by-case basis.
Text: 7. Defect and recall information, which includes any reported emissions data and an
estimate of the defect's impacts on emissions, and the relevant information collected under the
standard-setting parts, but not including the "defect investigation report;" and
EMA comments: Emissions data are competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
168]
Section: § 1068.11(a)(8)
Comment: Proposed categorization as nonconfidential information. Instead, should be handled
on case-by-case basis.
Text: 8. Selective enforcement audit ("SEA") compliance information, which includes family
name, when and where the SEA was conducted, the number of tests conducted, test article
details, how the engines were shipped and stored, and test results.
1663
-------
EMA comments: Test results are competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
168]
Section: § 1068.11(b)(1)
Comment: (b) The following categories of information are not eligible for confidential treatment,
except as specified in § 1068.10(d)(1): (d) If you submit information that is not addressed in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, you may claim the information as confidential. We
may require you to provide us with information to substantiate your claims. If claimed, we may
consider this substantiating information to be confidential to the same degree as the information
for which you are requesting confidential treatment. We will make our determination based on
your statements to us, the supporting information you send us, and any other available
information. However, we may determine that your information is not subject to confidential
treatment consistent with 40 CFR part 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).
Text: Published information, including information that is made available in annual and quarterly
filings submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission, on company websites, or
otherwise made publicly available by the other submitter.
EMA comments: EMA agrees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(b)(2) and § 1068.11(c)(1)
Comment: Not confidential information. The following categories of information are subject to
the process for confidentiality determinations in 40 CFR part 2, as described in 40 CFR
2.3010(5).
Text: Observable information available to the public after the introduction to commerce
date. (l)Projected sales and production volumes.
EMA comments: EMA agrees. Projected numbers should remain CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(2)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (2)Production start and end dates.
EMA comments: EMA agrees. Production dates could be competitive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1203-A1, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(3)
Comment: May ask for CBI
1664
-------
Text: (3) Detailed description of emission control operation and function.
EMA comments: Highly competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(4)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (4) Design specifications related to aftertreatment devices.
EMA comments: Highly competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(5)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (5)Description of auxiliary emission control devices (AECDs).
EMA comments: These strategies are highly sensitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(6)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (6) Plans for meeting regulatory requirements. For example, this applies for any
projections of emission credits for the coming model year or determinations of the number of
required repair facilities that are based on projected production volumes.
EMA comments: Plans should always remain CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
169]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(7)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (7) The following information related to deterioration factors and other adjustment factors:
(i) Procedures to determine deterioration factors and other emission adjustment factors. (ii)Any
information used to justify those procedures. (iii)Emission measurements you use to compare
procedures or demonstrate that the
procedures are appropriate.
EMA comments: Emissions data are competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp.
169-170]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(8)
1665
-------
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (8) Financial information related to the following items: (i)ABT credit transactions,
including dollar amount, identity of parties, and contract information. (ii)Meeting bond
requirements, including aggregate U.S. asset holdings, financial details regarding specific assets,
whether the manufacturer or importer obtains a bond, and copies of bond policies.
EMA comments: Financial information relating to ABT is CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 170]
Section: § 1068.11(c)(9)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (9) Serial numbers or other information to identify specific engines or equipment selected
for testing.
EMA comments: EMA agrees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 170]
Section: § 1068.1 l(c)(10)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (lO)Procedures that apply based on your request to test engines/equipment differently than
we specify in the regulation. This applies for special and alternative test procedures. This also
applies, for example, if we approve a broader or narrower zone of engine operation for not-to-
exceed testing.
EMA comments: Emissions testing protocols outside the prescribed regulations can be
competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 170]
Section: § 1068.1 l(c)(l 1)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (11) Information related to testing vanadium catalysts in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart L.
EMA comments: EMA agrees. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 170]
Section: § 1068.1 l(c)(12)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (12) GPS data identifying the location for in-use emission measurements.
1666
-------
EMA comments: Route information can be very competitive CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 170]
Section: § 1068.1 l(c)(13)
Comment: May ask for CBI
Text: (13) Information related to possible defects that are subject to further investigation (not
confirmed defects).
EMA comments: During the investigative phase these should remain CBI. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 170]
EPA should revise its proposal regarding future confidentiality determinations in a manner
consistent with the foregoing highlighted concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
170]
Organization: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (VWGoA)
40 CFR 1068.10 General compliance provisions for highway, stationary, and nonroad programs
We recommend that various data submitted either during certification, defect reporting, or In-use
testing continue to be treated by the EPA as CBI unless specifically declared public by the OEM.
While creating public-facing documents is possible, continuing to treat data that is shared with
EPA to be confidential will lead to far fewer mistakes of potentially revealing data not otherwise
deemed available for the public. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1296-A1, p.3]
Organization: Volvo Group
The Volvo Group wants to assure that test data and other vehicle, engine, powertrain, and
component information not reasonably obtainable is held as confidential business information
(CBI). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
The Volvo Group is supportive of the agency's attempt to streamline the current case-by-case
confidentiality determination procedure as proposed in the Clean Trucks Plan NPRM; however,
we do have substantial concerns in some areas. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
First, given the ambiguous definition of Emission data as given in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2), it could
be construed that any information provided to the Agency for certification of engines or vehicles,
unless voluntarily submitted, could be considered as non-confidential, even where a
determination of non-confidentiality has not been made in the proposed rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
For example, an Auxiliary Emission Control Device (AECD) description covering shift strategy
for an automated transmission, which is proposed to be considered indeterminate and covered
under the case-by-case process, could be critical in determining the "amount, frequency,
1667
-------
concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission which
has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting from any emission by the source), or
any combination of the foregoing" as noted in the definition of emission data from 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i)(A), thus making a proprietary technology that other manufacturers have attempted
to copy available for easy replication. It could also be argued that the same information could be
considered emission data under 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C), which defines emission data as "A general
description of the location and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the
source and to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent necessary for such
purposes, a description of the device, installation, or operation constituting the source)". [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1324-A1, p. 9]
Additionally, it is not entirely certain whether the emission data definition applies to raw test
data and results, including raw coast down data and an actual vehicle's drag coefficient (Cd) and
subsequent Faltaero calculations and values, or whether it only includes the GEM inputs
necessary to determine the FEL (e.g., Bin V). If the latter, it is not clear whether the emission
data and subsequent confidentiality determination would apply only to the required ten vehicle
configurations for each vehicle family certification application or would also apply to all
possible configurations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
Given this, the Volvo Group requests either a revision of the 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2) definitions for
clarity, or additional discussion in the preamble to the final rule and to 40 CFR 1068.11 to
provide additional examples of what is, and is not, emission data under the Part 2 definition.
Those items noted above (and other similar items to be identified) should then be classified as
confidential under the "reasonably obtainable" provisions of 40 CFR 2.208 as allowed in 40 CFR
2.301(e). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 9]
Secondly, we are disappointed in EPA's lack of confidentiality determinations for specific data
types. Given the potential loss of competitive advantage due to the release of proprietary
information, as well as the possibility for the misleading competitive marketing use of specific
test data and results, we strongly urge the Agency to make these confidentiality determinations
wherever possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
As an example, the Volvo Group has what we believe to be a competitive advantage using
proprietary transmission shift strategies and corresponding engine control strategies that could be
derived from AECD information or powertrain and fuel maps and test data. Considering those
same fuel maps, a competitor could take our engine fuel map specifically calibrated to provide
best fuel economy with our shift strategy and compare it to their engine fuel map in their vehicle
specification with an entirely different shift strategy, resulting in a misleading advantage for their
engine. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
In conclusion, greenhouse gas certification data is not like criteria emissions data. Fuel economy
is a significant part of the total cost of operation (TCO) for heavy-duty truck fleets. As such, fuel
economy is a highly competitive aspect of our industry and proprietary strategies are highly
guarded. Additionally, there are many different heavy-duty vehicle types and duty cycles that are
not represented by the GEM calculations for which the GEM inputs could be misconstrued as
providing more or less benefit for a specific customer's application. On top of this,
1668
-------
manufacturers may utilize different strategies in certifying vehicles based on risk determinations,
to include adding margin on GEM inputs to assure compliance to in-use and SEA (Selective
Enforcement Audit) audits, whereas a competitor may not. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1,
P- 10]
Thus, to avoid competitive issues, we would like to work with the Agency to develop a clear
definition of proprietary information, and other required data that could be used in a misleading
way to gain competitive advantage. The resultant set of information should then be determined
confidential in a finalized Confidentiality Determination. Alternatively, and at a minimum, the
identified information must be specified as "indeterminate" and follow the 40 CFR Part 2 'case-
by-case" determination process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Walmart
We believe broadcasting signals of fleet specific information must be confidential and systems
should be designed to protect fleet owners and operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1191-A2,
p. 4]
1669
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Comment ID(s): 1186 (CARB), 1277 (MFN),
1276 (Roush), 1273 (S&P)
Many commenters support the determination
that specified categories of information are
emission data and, therefore, not entitled to
confidential treatment. These commenters
support the increased efficiency and
consistency with which these determinations
will enable EPA to respond to requests under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The
commenters also support the greater
transparency these determinations will provide
in the context of EPA's certification programs.
One commenter particularly supported EPA's
determination that production volume is
emission data, as this information is
"fundamental to the determination of overall
fleet emissions compliance." (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1273-A1, at 1 (S&P)). Another
commenter specifically provided support for
the organization of the information at issue in
the determination, stating that "the proposed
approach of categorizing information into the
proposed categories of information both
appropriately described the affected
information and clarifies the proposed
confidentiality determinations for
each.. .category of information." (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, at 131 (CARB)).
Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenters' support
on the emission data determinations in this
rulemaking.
1670
-------
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators),
1296 (VW), 1191 (Walmart), 1324 (Volvo),
1325 (Cummins), 1203 (EMA)
Some commenters recommended that EPA
continue using the confidentiality
determination process established in 40 CFR
part 2 for certain information collected during
certification, greenhouse gas reporting, defect
reporting, and in-use testing, including fleet
specific information, fuel maps, fuel economy
and GHG certification data, GEM inputs,
AECD, ABT information, production volumes,
defect and recall information, advanced
technologies or off-cycle credits, and certain
testing information. The commenters stated
that applying the existing process under 40
CFR part 2 to the specified information is
appropriate due to the information's sensitive,
competitive and proprietary nature.
Additionally, the commenters state that
applying the 40 CFR part 2 process would
result in fewer instances where EPA publicly
releases information that is not otherwise
available to the public, since the information is
not reasonably obtainable by the public and
disclosing it could give their competitors an
unfair advantage. The commenters also
asserted that this method is consistent with the
Supreme Court's holding in Food Marketing
Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S.Ct.
2356, 2366 (2019).
Response:
EPA understands the concerns raised by the
commenters. However, as explained in the
proposed action, EPA is determining that
certain categories of information are
"emissions data." Under the CAA,
information that is emissions data must be
publicly available and, therefore, would not be
entitled to confidential treatment under the 40
CFR part 2 process. While the commenters
assert that the 40 CFR part 2 process would
provide greater protections for the information
at issue, that is not correct. Under the 40 CFR
part 2 process, affected manufacturers would
be offered an opportunity to substantiate their
claims of confidentiality, and EPA, after
considering the substantiation responses,
would determine whether the information is
entitled to confidential treatment. However, if
EPA determines that the information is
emission data under the Clean Air Act and 40
C.F.R §2.301(a), then no further review of the
information submitter's claims is necessary
under 40 CFR part 2 to determine whether the
information meets the requirements for
confidential treatment. EPA would then issue a
determination that the information is not
entitled to confidential treatment and the
information submitter would have no further
administrative recourse to refute EPA's
determination. The only remaining recourse an
information submitter would have would be to
seek judicial review of EPA's determination
that the information is not entitled to
confidential treatment because the information
is emission data. As explained in the proposal
for this action, EPA is electing to make such a
determination for certain categories of
information in advance through rulemaking.
Through this notice and comment process,
EPA has given affected manufacturers the
opportunity to address and respond to EPA's
proposed finding that the information is
emission data. To this point, the commenters
have failed to provide any articulated
explanation for why the information at issue in
1671
-------
the proposed determinations do not constitute
"emission data." Indeed, the commenters do
not address the nature of the information as
emission data at all, or in some instances they
appear to concede the point, calling the
information at issue "emission data"
themselves. (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1 at 168, EMA supplement at 2).
Because the commenters did not provide a
reasoned basis to support an argument that the
information is not emissions data, and for the
reasons explained in preamble Section XI,
EPA is proceeding with these determinations.
Some commenters pointed to the decision in
Argus Leader for the proposition that EPA
should be providing an express indication
about how it intends to treat submitted
information. EPA notes that through this
rulemaking the agency is providing such an
express indication, consistent with the Argus
Leader case. Where the government provides
an express indication to the submitter prior to
or at the time the information is submitted to
the government that the government would
publicly disclose the information, then the
submitter cannot reasonably expect
confidentiality of the information upon
submission, and the information is not entitled
to confidential treatment. Through this rule,
EPA has provided such an explicit notice
regarding the information specified in 40 CFR
1068.11.
1672
-------
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators)
Response:
The Alliance for Automotive Innovators (Auto
Innovators) described EPA's information
categories as vague. Auto Innovators asserted
that is unclear how EPA will apply the
categories to information it receives,
particularly when emission data and other data
that is still subject to the 40 CFR part 2 process
are submitted in a single form. Auto
Innovators also asserted that the information at
issue in the determinations in this rulemaking,
mainly information submitted or collected for
certification or compliance, "could arguably
encompass the entirety if the information
submitted by automakers to the EPA." EPA-
HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1303- A 1, at 7.
In addition to the description of the
information categories provided in the
preamble, EPA has also provided a list of all
categories of the information addressed by
this determination in the docket for this rule.
EPA also identified this information by
citation to the specific regulations that
require submission of such information for
further clarity in a document included in the
docket and referenced in the proposed and
final rule preambles (CBI Categories for All
Industries and All Programs.xlsx). Without
more specific feedback from the commenter,
it is unclear how EPA can provide greater
clarity as to what information is within each
category subject to this determination, as the
Agency has already indexed all the
information it collects by category and
determination. Regardless, EPA notes that
when submitters provide information on
forms that is emissions data along with other
information that may be entitled treatment as
confidential, EPA subject matter experts who
respond to FOIA requests will use the list of
information and apply the corresponding
confidentiality determination for each field.
1673
-------
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators),
1324 (Volvo)
Some commenters alleged that releasing the
information according to the determinations
made in this rulemaking would result in more
information than that covered by the categories
to be discerned by the structure, groupings,
relationship, and organization of the data. For
example, one commenter suggested that
information requesters would be able to glean
proprietary transmission shift strategies and
corresponding engine control strategies from
AECD information or powertrain and fuel
maps and certain test data. The commenters
assert that this will disadvantage them by
providing their competitors with access to their
proprietary information.
Response:
Regardless of whether the information EPA
is here determining to be emission data could
be used to discern other, related
manufacturer information, the CAA specifies
that information that qualifies as emission
data cannot be withheld. For example, the
commenters did not dispute EPA's proposed
finding that the information in section
1068.11(a) meets the definition of emission
data under 40 C.F.R. §2.301(a)(2).
Additionally, it is not clear how the release
of the information determined in this rule to
be emission data could allow competitors to
glean additional information that the
manufacturers claim as confidential. Lastly,
it is important to highlight that EPA is not, at
this time, making any determination
concerning detailed AECD information
(AECD documents submitted by
manufacturers at the time of certification).
Thus, that information remains a type of
information for which EPA will continue to
make emissions data or confidentiality
determinations on a case-by-case basis under
the 40 CFR part 2 process.
1674
-------
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators),
1203 (EMA)
One commenter stated that the emission data
determinations are inconsistent with the
definition of emission data in 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2), which the commenter asserts only
applies to information about the past (i.e.,
"emission which has been emitted," 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)). This commenter specifically
raised this question with respect to ABT credit
information, which includes information
submitted for current and future compliance
demonstrations using credits. The commenter
asserts that this information could be
interpreted to include forecasted sales volumes
and product mix, which are inseparable from
emissions performance in the context of ABT
credit and compliance demonstrations.
Another commenter similarly suggested that
projected sales and production estimates
should be maintained as confidential.
Response:
EPA does not agree that only historical data,
i.e., data from the past, constitutes emissions
data. As an initial matter, the commenter
fails to acknowledge that the specific type of
information referenced in the comment is not
purely information about future emissions.
ABT credits and deficits can be generated
based on current, past, and future products,
used for immediate compliance, or banked
and used for future compliance or traded. If
EPA were to adopt the narrow interpretation
of "emission which has been emitted" that
the commenter advocates, it would lead to
confusion about the public release of
certificate information, and potentially a lack
of transparency about emissions contrary to
the intent of CAA section 208, because
during the useful life of the engine or
equipment that certificate information would
simultaneously provide information relevant
to both the future emissions and past
emissions of the source.
Additionally, there are three parts to the
definition of "emission data" codified in 40
CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i), and this commenter
refers to only the first, 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i)(A). The other two subsections
under the regulatory definition of "emission
data" include information relating to
"emissions which, under an applicable
standard or limitation, the source was
authorized to emit (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of
the manner or rate of operation of the
source)" (e.g., future emissions that have
been authorized), and information "necessary
to identify the source and to distinguish it
from other sources (including, to the extent
necessary for such purposes, a description of
the device, installation, or operation
constituting the source) " The emission data
definition at 40 CFR 2.301 (a)(2)(ii) excludes
information concerning research or
information about products that have not
entered into commerce. Therefore, part (i) of
1675
-------
the definition is intended to cover all
information submitted once the engine is
offered in commerce. Moreover, the CAA is
clear that emission data must be available to
the public and is not entitled to
confidentiality. Therefore, it is reasonable
that EPA determine that information that is
inseparable from emissions performance in
the context of ABT credits and compliance
demonstrations is not entitled to confidential
treatment as emission data. Lastly, EPA has
specifically excluded forecasted or projected
sales information from this determination,
and thus such information will remain
subject to the 40 CFR part 2 process under
40 CFR 1068.11(c)(1).
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators)
Auto Innovators requested that EPA
consolidate all the emission data
determinations, and other confidentiality
determinations, in one part under Title 40
instead of in both 40 CFR part 2 and part 1068.
Auto Innovators stated that having related
regulations in multiple parts is likely to cause
confusion for industry stakeholders.
Response:
EPA understands that having regulations that
relate to the same topic, in this instance the
treatment of information, in more than part
in the Code of Federal Regulations may
potentially be confusing to regulated entities
and the public. However, EPA notes that the
current 40 CFR part 2 regulations are
generally applicable for CAA purposes,
whereas the 40 CFR part 1068 regulations
are specific to information related to mobile
sources. EPA is modifying 40 CFR part 2
with a provision that clearly refers the reader
to the 40 CFR part 1068 regulations. We
anticipate that this cross reference will be
sufficient to alert industry stakeholders about
the interrelationship of the relevant 40 CFR
part 2 and part 1068 regulations.
1676
-------
Comment ID(s): 1303 (Auto Innovators)
Response:
Auto Innovators requested that information
collected from inspections, audits, or other site
visits be excluded from the information
determined to be emission data in this
rulemaking. The commenter stated that,
because this information is not submitted to
the Agency, but is instead collected "on the
spot" by EPA, it should not be included in the
confidentiality determination in this
rulemaking.
The CAA does not distinguish between
information that is submitted by a regulated
party and information that EPA collects
through inspections, audits, or other site
visits. Section 208(a) and (b) provide EPA
with authority to obtain information by a
variety of methods. Section 208(c) expressly
provides that such information shall be
available to the public if it is emissions data.
EPA treats the information it has, regardless
of how it was obtained, according to the
nature of that information (e.g., whether it is
emission data, trade secrets, etc.).
Information EPA has collected during
inspections, audits, or other site visits may
qualify as emission data, and if so would not
be entitled to confidential treatment. EPA
has provided an extensive spreadsheet of the
information it obtains, the information
category it falls under, and whether it is
emission data or otherwise not entitled to
confidential treatment, in the docket for this
rule (CBI Categories for All Industries and
All Programs.xlsx).
1677
-------
Comment ID(s): 1186 (CARB),
The California Air Resource Board (CARB)
provided feedback on EPA's proposal to
maintain confidential treatment for the
subcategories of information identified in
preamble Sections XI.A.l.i.a, XI.A.l.i.b, and
XI.A.l.i.c until the product described by that
information is introduced into commerce.
CARB highlighted that the introduction to
commerce date is not specified in all
applications for certification. For example,
applications for certification for on-road
heavy-duty engines and light-duty motor
vehicles, do not appear to expressly require
manufacturers to specify the date they intend
to introduce certified engines into commerce
(see, e.g., 40 CFR 1036.205, 86.007-21,
86.004-21, 86.094-21, 86.1844-01; see also 40
CFR 59.623). CARB suggested that the
categories of information identified above
should be entitled to confidential treatment
until the date the certificate of conformity for a
regulated product is issued.
Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter. Generally,
EPA does receive an introduction-into-
commerce date with an application for a
certificate of conformity, even in cases
where it is not required. However, when an
application for certification does not specify
an introduction-into-commerce date, or in
situations where introduction into commerce
occurs before the certificate is issued, EPA
will apply the provisions related to
confidentiality determinations in 40 CFR
1068.11 based on the date the certificate is
issued.
Comment ID(s): 1186 (CARB),
CARB suggested that, in regard to preliminary
or superseded information, EPA include an
express disclaimer informing the requester of
the preliminary or superseded nature of the
information.
Response:
EPA agrees that an express disclaimer would
be an appropriate way to convey to
information requesters the preliminary or
superseded nature of the information
requested. Though not a requirement of this
final rule, EPA intends to provide
disclaimers as appropriate. Additionally,
EPA does not intend to publish preliminary
or superseded information on its own
initiative but would only provide the
information in response to specific requests
and in accordance with any applicable
exemptions to the definitions of emissions
data in 40 CFR part 2.
1678
-------
Comment ID(s): 1325 (Cummins), 1203
(EMA)
Some commenters opposed EPA's proposed
emission data determinations on the basis that
some of the information at issue constitutes
"trade secrets." These commenters highlight
that the CAA protects trade secrets "in
accordance with the purposes of section 1905
of title 18[]" of the U.S. Code. The
commenters explain that title 18 refers to the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), and
that the provisions of section 1905 prohibit the
unauthorized disclosure of information that
"concerns or relates to the trade secrets,
processes, operations, style of work, or
apparatus, or to the confidential statistical data
... of any person, firm, partnership
corporation, or association." The commenters
seek to ensure that the disclosure of a
manufacturer's emission data does not allow
others, including direct competitors, to
reverse-engineer that manufacturer's emission-
control strategies, designs, methods,
techniques, processes, programs or codes.
They assert that EPA must interpret the CAA
to give meaning to the restrictions of the
UTSA, meaning that EPA cannot disclose
emission data in a manner that nullifies
manufacturers' statutory rights to the
protection of their "trade secrets."
The commenters specifically state the
following information constitutes "trade
secrets": (1) one Hertz (Hz) in-use emissions
data, or any other similar second-by-second off
cycle data, other than emission values and
engine speed; (2) engine fuel maps, including
any associated NOx data; (3) one Hz data from
SEA reports or similar compliance-assessment
reports, other than emission values and engine
speed; (4) data regarding the manner in which
manufacturers electronically protect passwords
and/or encrypt data to restrict the adjustment
of electronically adjustable parameters and to
prevent unauthorized reflashes (see section
1068.50); and (5) any other emissions data
deemed capable of facilitating reverse-
Response:
As an initial matter, the Uniform Trade
Secrets Act restricts the "unauthorized
disclosure" of information that qualifies as a
"trade secret." In this instance, the CAA
authorizes, if not mandates, the disclosure of
information that qualifies as "emission data."
In section 208(c), the CAA expressly
provides that only information "other than
emissions data" is capable of treatment as
trade secrets. Otherwise, section 208(c)
expressly provides that "[a]ny records,
reports or information obtained under this
part or part C of this subchapter shall be
available to the public." As described at
length in the proposed and final rule
preambles, the specific categories of
information addressed by EPA's
determination in this action is either
emission data or otherwise not entitled to
confidential treatment, or information that
remains subject to the confidentiality
determination process of 40 CFR part 2.
EPA notes that the commenters have not
disputed EPA's determination the
information specified in the categories of
§1068.11(c) are emission data, under EPA's
longstanding regulatory definition of that
term. Indeed, one commenter appears to
have conceded as much, referring to the
information at issue as "emission data" in its
comments. (See EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1 at p. 168, EMA supplement at 2).
Given the nature of the information as
emission data, the CAA unambiguously
prohibits treating emission data as
confidential, and therefore authorizes EPA to
release this information to the public,
regardless of how submitters may
characterize the sensitivity of the
information.
1679
-------
engineering of a manufacturer's trade secrets.
The one Hz data that would be subject to
public disclosure under this rule are trade
secrets in that they would allow parties to
reverse-engineer each other's emissions-
related designs and strategies, including warm-
up controls, fuel-map configurations, and
more—all of which are developed at a cost by
trained staff and carefully guarded by
manufacturers. Similarly, manufacturers'
engine fuel maps, including associated NOx
data, are also trade secrets, and their disclosure
would allow parties to reverse-engineer
manufacturers' thermal controls, fuel system
and injection controls, and strategies for
controlling engine emissions to ensure they
comply with the broad range of emissions tests
(FTP, RMC, LLC, NTE) and GHG limits that
are required. Disclosing this information
would destroy the manufacturers' capital
investments and violate their rights to the
protection of confidential trade secrets.
1680
-------
Comment ID(s): 1222 (DoD)
The Department of Defense requested that
EPA include provisions allowing engine
manufacturers to claim as confidential any
engine performance data (e.g., emissions rate)
that is considered "national security
information." The Department of Defense
suggested that any such language be structured
so EPA would approve only those
manufacturers' designation requests for
"national security information" where that
request has been endorsed by an agency of the
Federal Government responsible for national
defense or homeland security, similar to the
existing EPA requirement at 40 CFR
1068.225(d). The Department of Defense
requested that EPA accommodate their
national security concerns about broad
availability of non-emissions technical
performance data for engines used in national
defense and homeland security applications.
The Department of Navy was concerned that
the availability of critical data, such as fuel
flow rates for engines used in military aircraft,
ground vehicles, and marine applications, as
well as certain key stationary engines, could
provide a strategic advantage to foreign
adversaries.
Response:
Most of the information of concern for
national security is never submitted to EPA.
FAA excludes military aircraft from
airworthiness certification requirements,
which in turn excludes those aircraft from
EPA emission standards. We therefore never
receive information related to military
aircraft.
As specified in 40 CFR 1068.225,
engines installed in land-based or marine
vehicles or equipment that are used in
combat applications are similarly
automatically exempted from EPA standards
and we therefore never receive information
related to those engines.
A qualified exemption applies for land-
based and marine applications that do not
qualify for an automatic exemption.
Manufacturers are generally required to
submit information as needed to demonstrate
the need for their engines to be exempt from
emission standards. After consideration of
comments, we are revising the final rule at
40 CFR 1068.1 l(c)( 14) to clarify that
information submitted in support of such a
request for an exemption from emission
standards and certification requirements will
be subject to the 40 CFR part 2 process.
These provisions apply equally for
exemptions identified in 40 CFR part 1068,
subpart C or D, or in the standard-setting
part.
1681
-------
Comment ID(s): 1203 (EMA)
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) stated that EPA's
reasoning behind the emission data
determinations appears to be merely
administrative convenience and easing its own
workload relating to FOIA requests. EMA
stated this is not a sufficient basis for removing
the presumptive protections for manufacturers'
claiming their information as confidential.
EMA further stated that the determinations in
§1068.11 will only incentivize additional
FOIA requests to which EPA must respond, as
competitors will be spurred on to discover all
that they can about other manufacturers'
products and processes.
Response:
EPA did not undertake this rulemaking for
"merely administrative convenience" or to
"ease its own workload." EPA has
determined that due to the nature of the
information at issue in this rulemaking that it
is appropriate to make advance
determinations as to the status of the
information. The determinations in this final
rule are the same as those that EPA would
otherwise make through case-by-case
assessment under the 40 CFR part 2 process.
As a result, the rulemaking serves to
streamline the process for making
information available. While the final rule
will increase administrative efficiency, it
also promotes greater transparency and
provides certainty to both submitters and
requestors of information. The final rule
also provides certainty to manufacturers
regarding the release of specific categories of
information that EPA collects and ensures
consistent treatment of such information
across manufacturers. With this advance
notice, each submitter will have certainty
regarding how EPA will treat the
information specified in section 1068.11.
1682
-------
Comment ID(s): 1324 (Volvo)
Volvo expressed a concern that the definition
of "emission data" is so ambiguous that all the
information manufacturers are required to
submit for certification could be construed as
not being entitled to confidential treatment
even if that information is not identified as
such. Accordingly, Volvo requested that EPA
either revise the definition of "emission data"
in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2) for clarity or provide
additional examples of what is and is not
considered emission data by adding discussion
in the preamble to the final rule and to 40 CFR
1068.11. Volvo further requested that EPA
classify AECD descriptions covering shift
strategies for an automated transmission, raw
test data and results, and similar items as
confidential under the "reasonably obtainable"
provisions of 40 CFR 2.208 as allowed in 40
CFR 2.301(e). Volvo stated as an example that
an AECD describing shift strategies could be
critical in determining the compliance-related
characteristics identified in_40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i)(A), and further stated that it
could be argued that the same information
could be considered emission data under
2.301(a)(2)(i)(C).
Response:
EPA did not propose, nor are we finalizing,
any changes to the regulatory definition of
"emission data" in 40 CFR 2.301(a). EPA
did not reopen that regulatory definition in
this rulemaking and any comments regarding
changes to the existing definition of
"emission data" are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
EPA promulgated that general regulatory
definition in 1976. In this rulemaking, EPA
is making determinations that merely apply
the existing definition of emissions data to
specific categories of information EPA
collects. In the proposal notice, EPA
described in great detail, with even further
detail in the referenced and docketed CBI
spreadsheet, about which types of
certification and compliance information
qualify as emission data under 40 CFR
2.301(a)(2)(i)(A), (B), or (C) (or multiple
subsections, independently). In this final
action, EPA is retaining the preamble
description of the types of information that
constitute emission data. EPA notes that
through this process, EPA has in effect
provided specific examples of information
that are or are not emissions data that the
commenter requested.
Volvo appears to concede that the suggested
data elements identified as indeterminate
(i.e., not determined in this rule to be
excluded from treatment as confidential) are
in fact emission data that is not entitled to
confidential treatment. However, EPA is not
making an emission data determination in
this rule regarding the AECD descriptions
identified and instead will evaluate whether
such information is emissions data, and thus
not entitled to confidential treatment under
the 40 CFR part 2 process, on a case-by-case
basis.
1683
-------
Comment ID(s): 1324 (Volvo)
One commenter requested clarity as to whether
the test information and results category
includes raw test data and results, including
raw coast down data, actual vehicle drag
coefficient and Faitaero calculations and values,
or if the category only includes the GEM
inputs necessary to determine the FEL.
Additionally, the commenter requested clarity
as to whether the GEM inputs covered by this
determination apply only to the required ten
vehicle configurations for each vehicle family
certification application or to all possible
configurations. This commenter opposed the
emission data determination in this rule on the
basis that the information may be misconstrued
or provide a misleading impression of the
emission benefit for a specific engine or
vehicle application. Specifically, the
commenter describes the many different
heavy-duty engine and vehicle types and duty
cycles that are not represented by the GEM
calculations that could be misconstrued or
appear misleading.
Response:
EPA understands the commenter's concerns
about clarity and wishes to be very clear
about these specific points. First, under the
current regulations, EPA does not collect raw
coast down data, actual vehicle drag
coefficients, or the Faitaero calculations and
values. Accordingly, that information is
beyond the scope of the emission data
determinations made in this rule.
Second, the test information and results
category does include any GEM inputs
submitted for certification application, as
those model scenarios are used by EPA to
determine compliance of the vehicles that are
manufactured. EPA understands that the ten
GEM configurations submitted for
certification might potentially be misleading
in isolation, because the configurations are
hypothetical and demonstrate the highest and
lowest emitting configurations, the
manufacturer's highest projected sales
configuration, and seven other likely or
possible configurations. However, EPA
believes that providing the end-of-year
production information will resolve
questions about a manufacturer's emission
profile that may arise out of the GEM
scenarios used at the time of certification.
Additionally, the model scenarios are
emission data as they are used to
demonstrate that the manufacturer's products
will likely meet the standards, though it is
possible that the manufacturer might not
produce the exact configurations represented
in the GEM scenarios submitted during
certification. The certificate of conformity
that EPA issues based on the GEM
configurations is used, as all certificates are,
to ensure that the products produced comply
with the requirements of the standard setting
parts through conforming to the certificate
issued.
1684
-------
Comment IDs: 1203 (EMA),
Some commenters suggested that, instead of
collecting and disclosing certain emission data
included in this determination, that EPA
require manufacturers to keep those records for
inspection at EPA's request. Commenters
suggested that this would allow EPA access to
the necessary information without the Agency
obtaining it, which would subject the
information to public disclosure as "emission
data." Some specific examples included the
one Hertz data, fuel maps, and GPS data for
in-use testing.
Response:
EPA has carefully considered the
information it collects and determined that
the information currently collected is
necessary for determining the compliance of
parties with the requirements of the standard
setting parts. EPA notes that one reason the
CAA requires that emissions data be
available to the public is to promote
transparency and meaningful public
participation. In particular, this transparency
encourages source compliance. The
commenters' preferred approach to
information that is clearly emissions data
needed to determine compliance would
defeat that purpose.
With respect to the specific types of
information that the commenters identified,
EPA uses the one Hertz data information to
assess compliance with 40 CFR part 86,
subpart T, Heavy Duty In-Use Testing
provisions, while using the fuel maps are
used to determine compliance with part 1036
testing requirements. Moreover, EPA has a
long-standing practice of regularly releasing
the one Hertz data in the heavy-duty in-use
testing program under part 86, subpart T, and
this regulation makes emission data
determinations by rule that are consistent
with the Agency's prior treatment of this
information through regular web postings
since 2017. Additionally, the one Hertz and
fuel map information is emission data for the
reasons described in the preamble and,
therefore, should be made available to the
public. The commenters have not disputed
EPA's determination that this information is
emission data. Lastly, EPA is not in this
rulemaking making a determination whether
GPS data from in-use testing programs is or
is not emission data. Instead, the existing 40
CFR part 2 process will be used to determine
on a case-by-case basis whether in-use
testing GPS data is or is not entitled to
confidential treatment.
1685
-------
30.2 Adjustable parameters
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 1068.50 Adjustable parameters.
Auto Innovators requests clarification on the additional requirements to include driver selectable
modes in this brand-new additional section. This section seems to require inclusion of
information on each selectable mode as an adjustable parameter. In some vehicles, this could
reach hundreds of possible drive modes and user-selectable features to be described in the
certification application, creating unnecessary burden to timely review. We recommend that EPA
update this section to exclude driver selectable modes from this description. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1303-A1, p.8]
Organization: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda)
1068.50 - General
For SSIE product, it is necessary to clarify more detailed definitions or exemption requirements
for the adjustable parameter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1068.50 - Exemption
It should be clarified that governor adjustment mechanisms (such as "Turtle" to "Rabbit" levers
or governor springs) are exempt from the adjustable parameter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1348-A2, p. 1]
It should be clarified that idle speed adjustment mechanisms (e.g., throttle stop screw) are
exempt from the adjustable parameter, because they are necessary to achieve proper idle
speed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
It should be clarified that main jets, pilot jets of carburetor are exempt from the adjustable
parameter.
The main jets or pilot jets are commercially available in different sizes and can be installed with
common tools. Because the jets should be easily removable for maintenance which is necessary
to prevent engine failure or emission increase. In addition, the necessity of jets for high altitude
are described in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7549) or regulations (40 CFR) and has been
approved by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1686
-------
According to proposed text, the service part is considered "practically adjustable" if it costs less
than $30. However the cost of the SSIE carburetor would be less than $30. It should be clarified
that such cases are exempt from adjustable parameters (i.e. Replacement of the carburetor is not
considered as adjustable parameter). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
It should be clarified that a manual lever choke mechanism only used for starting engine is not
considered an adjustable parameter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1068.50 - Tamper resistance
It should be clarified that any approval of tamper resistant received in the past is still valid.
As tamper resistant mechanism, for example, adjustable range of the pilot screw limited by
limiter cap, even though the limiter cap could be destroyed by the "ordinary tools" which
includes very wide range of tools according to the proposed text, we believe that this should not
be treated as "practically adjustable". [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1068.50 - Definition
Definition of "significantly degrading engine performance" should be defined. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Guideline of the determination of "Operating parameter" for SSIE is necessary in order to create
application document. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Definition of "mechanically controlled adjustable parameters" should be defined to clarify the
criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Definition of "practically adjustable" should be made more clear, or should set clear requirement
for exemption. Current description of 1065.50(d)(1) is too vague and not practical. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
With regards to the proposed changes to adjustable-parameter criteria in 1054.115, CARB staff
notes that the Proposed Amendments to the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for New 2013 and Later Small Off-Road Engines; Engine-Testing Procedures
([California]Part 1054), which the board heard and approved in December, revise Section
1054.115(b) to read as follows:
• '(b) Adjustable parameters.
o Engines that have adjustable parameters must meet all the requirements of this
part for any adjustment in the physically adjustable range. An operating parameter
is not considered adjustable if you permanently seal it. Operating parameters that
can be adjusted using tools are considered adjustable. We may require that you set
adjustable parameters to any specification within the adjustable ranges during any
1687
-------
testing including certification testing, production-line testing, in-use testing, or
new engine compliance testing.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.133]
CARB staff determined that this was necessary and appropriate given the availability of even
'specialized' tools (e.g., on Amazon.com and other online retailers) to the modern
consumer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 133]
The proposed textual changes to 1054.115(b) reference 1068.50. CARB staff has reviewed
1068.50 as well. It is not clear from this review whether U.S. EPA will consider screws
adjustable if they require specialized screwdrivers. On the one hand, it's clear those screwdrivers
are 'available' as described in 1068.50(d)(1). On the other, they are not made available to
operators by the manufacturers or their dealers, as described in 1068.50(g)(1). Would U.S. EPA
consider screws that require specialized screwdrivers to be 'adjustable' based on the new
language in 1068.50? If not, we note that as described above such specialized screwdrivers can
be readily obtained by consumers, and that this should be accounted for in the proposed
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.133]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EPA proposes to migrate, consolidate, and revise adjustable parameter provisions with a new
proposed section §1068.50 which would apply broadly to on- and off-highway engine categories
starting MY 2024. Among the updates are proposed provisions regarding the adjustability of
electronically controlled parameters, which manufacturers must limit through ECM password or
encryption protection. If EPA learns that the new provisions drive significant ECM changes such
as hardware upgrades, EPA should provide additional lead time to implement the changes at
least for some applications. For example, it may not be possible to upgrade ECMs for certain SI
alternative fuel and off-highway families until MY 2027. EPA should allow additional lead time,
especially for lower volume and/or non-SCR engines such as in these categories. That would
facilitate prioritizing higher volume SCR-equipped engines in the 2024-2025 timeframe. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 15]
Regarding mechanically controlled parameters for engines at or above 560 kW discussed in
§1068.50(d)(1), EPA proposes no limitation on the time or parts cost for those parameters to be
considered "practically adjustable". Cummins suggests determining a limit consistent with the
higher cost of these engines to provide clarity for manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
The Department is fully supportive of provisions to ensure that there are measures in place to
prevent engine control module (ECM) tampering. Motor vehicle tampering is a pervasive
problem not only in Maine, but throughout the country, and EPA's proposal that manufacturers
include a document at time of certification which outlines and describes the process and/or
industry technical standards that were used to prevent unauthorized access to the ECM on the
vehicle is an important step in addressing this issue. Manufacturers should be required to take
definitive actions to prevent unauthorized access to the ECM, ensure that calibration values,
1688
-------
software, or diagnostic features cannot be overwritten or otherwise disabled; and respond to
repeated, unauthorized attempts to reprogram the ECM, if they become aware of such
attempts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1288-Al,p.8]
Organization: Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
The proposed rule to regulate emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks is very relevant to MOG as it
continues to assess ozone improvement initiatives and state implementation plan development.
MOG recommends EPA include directed regulatory provisions concerning inspections and
enforcement to address circumstances like the defeat devices issues. Such provisions will
significantly drive reliable emissions reductions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1272-A1, p.2]
Organization: Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC)
Manufacturers benefit greatly from clear regulatory information that enables more efficient,
correct, and complete preparation and execution of certification and compliance processes.
EPA's proposal on adjustable parameters in 40 CFR 1068.50(f)(2) may result in unnecessary
confusion and potential certification delays if it affects diagnostic tools as discussed below.
These diagnostic tools are not used to create performance or functional adjustability in the
ECU's control of emissions, but instead are to push through updates related to customer service
campaigns and recalls. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1212-A1, p.l]
EPA proposes in 40 CFR 1068.50(f)(2) that software and other products sold or offered for sale
by manufacturers having the capability to reflash or modify the electronic control unit (ECU) be
included in consideration of the practically adjustable range. EPA's proposal may be reasonable
for some consumer products but does not make sense for diagnostic tools normally sold or made
available to dealers or professional service technicians. Manufacturers may not always be able to
limit or control sales of those diagnostic tools. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1212-A1, p.l]
Adjustments requiring reflash of the ECU using professional grade diagnostic tools and software
are typically related to recalls and customer service campaigns and are not intended to create
performance or functional adjustability in the ECU's control of emissions. Adjustments made
using this equipment are vehicle manufacturer approved and supplied to dealers and professional
service technicians to maintain compliance with regulatory requirements. These diagnostic tools
do not open ECUs so dealers or technicians can independently adjust or create ranges of engine
and emission control operating parameters or calibrations, they overwrite and update entire ECU
calibrations. Including these professional diagnostic tools would create manufacturer confusion
about how to determine related adjustable operation ranges and parameters for their
consideration, potentially resulting in certification delays. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1212-A1,
p.l]
MIC recommends EPA not include diagnostic tools normally sold or made available to dealers
and used by professional service technicians in the proposed consideration of the practicably
adjustable range in 40 CFR 1068.50(f)(2). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1212-A1, p.2]
1689
-------
Diagnostic tools normally sold or made accessible to dealers and professional service technicians
are intended to ensure ECUs and vehicles remain in safe and compliant operation. They are not
intended to create independent adjustability in manufacturer supplied calibrations. Including
these diagnostic tools in the scope of this regulatory activity will work against EPA's target of
clarifying requirements so MIC, SVIA and ROHVA request EPA exclude these diagnostic tools
from the regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1212-A1, p.2]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Effective provisions to detect and enforce against tampering with vehicle emission controls are
key to ensuring long-term in-use emissions performance. Recognizing the complexity of engine
control modules (ECM) and the sophistication of tampering methods, EPA's proposal to prevent
ECM tampering is designed to provide manufacturers with flexibility to quickly respond to new
or emerging threats and vulnerabilities. Under the proposal, manufacturers would be required to
include in their certification application a description of all adjustable parameters, including
electronically controlled parameters, as well as the approach or industry technical standards used
to prevent unauthorized access to a vehicle's ECM; ensure that calibration values, software and
diagnostic features cannot be modified or disabled; and respond to repeated unauthorized
attempts to reprogram or tamper. Manufacturers would also be required to attest that they are
using sufficient measures to secure the ECM, thereby limiting adjustment or alteration beyond
those used in the certified configuration. EPA would retain the right to evaluate a manufacturer's
decisions regarding the measures used to prevent access to and tampering with the ECM. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 16]
EPA should finalize these proposed anti-tampering provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1232-A1, p. 16]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Should EPA instead promulgate Option 1, we urge the Agency to make the following changes to
the proposed standards: The NESCAUM states are prioritizing detection and enforcement
against tampered vehicles because tampered vehicles substantially increase vehicle NOx
emissions. Given the importance of identifying tampered vehicles and enforcing against emission
control system tampering, NESCAUM supports EPA's proposed provision to ensure that there
are measures in place to prevent engine control module (ECM) tampering. EPA proposes that
manufacturers include a document at the time of certification that outlines and describes the
process and/or industry technical standards that were used to prevent unauthorized access to the
ECM on the vehicle. This document shall describe the measures that a manufacturer has used to:
prevent unauthorized access to the ECM; ensure that calibration values, software, or diagnostic
features cannot be overwritten or otherwise disabled; and respond to repeated, unauthorized
attempts to reprogram the ECM, if they become aware of such attempts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1249-A1, p. 16]
1690
-------
Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
NCTCOG supports the EPA's current anti-tampering efforts outlined in the 2020 National
Compliance Initiatives and encourages significantly more attention to minimize excessive
vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.4]
Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
However, several aspects the proposed amendments to Part 1068.50, Adjustable Parameters have
raised concern for small spark-ignited engine stakeholders. As a result, OPEI has included
several comments, questions and proposed revisions to this section for EPA's
consideration. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp. 1-2]
1054.801 - Adjustable Parameter means any device, system, or element of design that someone
can adjust (including those which are difficult to access) and that, if adjusted, may affect
emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in-use operation. This
includes, but is not limited to, parameters related to injection timing and fueling rate. You may
ask us to exclude a parameter that is difficult to access if it cannot be adjusted to affect emissions
without significantly degrading engine performance, or if you otherwise show us that it will not
be adjusted in a way that affects emissions during in-use operation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1205-A1, p.2]
Section 1054.115(b) - Adjustable Parameters With the removal of language in 1054.115(b),
it appears permanent sealing off an operating parameter may no longer exclude a
parameter from being adjustable. However, 1068.50(c)(2)(ii) allows use of recessed
fasteners sealed with a durable plug, cap or cover plate that adequately limits access to the
faster, consistent with paragraph (d)(1) of this section to determine a parameter is not
adjustable.
• i. OPEI recommends the current language in 1054.115 is retained for clarity as
permanent seals have long been effective, have long been accepted by EPA, and are
applied to many small spark-ignited engines.
• ii. Regarding permanent seals, OPEI is seeking clarification where 'extraordinary
measures' to access a 'parameter' change from goodfaith tamper-resistance to end-
user tampering? It is OPEI's interpretation that if a 'parameter' (setting) is sealed
with, for example, a durable interference-fit plug, not intended to be accessed or
serviced, and if an end-user uses a hammer, chisel, screwdriver or drill to destroy
the plug and access the parameter, this is tampering, and does not otherwise
constitute a parameter as 'adjustable'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.2]
For example, it is OPEI's understanding that if an owner used a hand drill to drill out (destroy) a
press fit cap, or used pliers to disassemble a glued or plastic welded electronic component
consisting of a circuit board (but unpotted), these actions are extraordinary measures beyond the
manufacturers control and tampering. In outdoor power equipment applications, while the effects
of destroying such seals may not be immediately realized (may not immediately negatively
impact performance), destruction of such seals may indeed have long-term performance impacts
1691
-------
on equipment due to dirt and debris that may be ingested through uncovered circuits (both
mechanical and electrical). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.3]
Additionally, OPEI believes altering computer codes would similarly be considered
extraordinary measures and tampering if done so without 'reasonably available ordinary tools'
provided by the manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.3]
Section 1054.115(b) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that engine
throttle controls, commonly known as idle speed control / adjustment / setting, or rabbit /
turtle control / adjustment / setting, and governor settings are not considered 'adjustable
parameters' per Parts 1054 or 1068. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.3]
When working with different regulators in the U.S., OPEI members have received inconsistent
responses regarding whether the engine idle speed controls and governor settings are considered
adjustable parameters. While speed settings are 'adjustable' from high-idle to low-idle, they are
fixed in range for the end-user. In this sense, the emissions are fixed along that range. In this
regard, adjustment of engine speed does not 'affect emissions or engine performance during
emission testing or normal in-use operation' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.3]
Additionally, the ability of the user to operate the engine at low and high speeds is necessary for
the start ability, performance and safety of many small spark-ignited engine equipment.
However, equipment function and performance are generally optimized for the engine to be
loaded from 'high idle' and this speed reflects normal operating condition. For example, a lawn
mower blade tip speed or governor frequency are optimized from the engine high idle speed and
as a result generally reflect the normal engine speed / operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.3-4]
For these reasons OPEI does not interpret engine idle speed controls or governor settings to be
adjustable parameters. OPEI is seeking clarification that these specific parameters are not
considered adjustable parameters for consistent application of the requirement across
regulators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.4]
Section 1068.50 - Adjustable Parameters Today's small-engine manufacturers follow
industry-developed guidance to develop tamper resistance methods which are effective (see
Appendix A). The requirements in this guidance have (to-date) been accepted by EPA.
However, the potential all-inclusive nature of tools in the Proposed Rule and the ability to
use tools to destroy seals, caps and covers would result in a significant increase in
stringency, with undetermined costs and benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.5]
Furthermore, almost any small spark-ignited engine adjustment / parameter can be
accessible in 15-minutes for a person with small engine knowledge and a desire to tamper -
However that does not mean it happens with a frequency that impacts overall fleet
emissions and that the cost of potential new requirements is justified. For these reasons
OPEI does not believe the additional provisions of Part 1068.50 are necessary for small
spark-ignited engines. SSIE should be exempted from these provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1205-A1, p.5]
1692
-------
OPEI is concerned that technology differences in SSIE and the wide range of applications
covered by the sector require unique consideration and that requirements for adjustable
parameters are most appropriate in the rulemaking section (part 1054). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1205-A1, p.5]
Section 1068.50 - Adjustable Parameters: OPEI is concerned with the applicability and
requirements of the Proposed Rule. Practically speaking, many small spark-ignited engines may
be partially or completely disassembled in 15 minutes with 'hand tools'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1205-A1, p.5]
Arguably, the engine compression could be considered an adjustable parameter because it is an
'element of design' that could be 'adjusted' by changing bore, stroke or piston(s) and 'affect
emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in-use operation'. For
example, the original equipment manufacturer piston in a chain saw, which is designed to be
serviced/replaced, could be replaced with an aftermarket (non-OEM), higher compression piston
in 15 minutes, 'affecting emissions or engine performance during emission testing or normal in-
use operation'. However, practically speaking the piston cannot be tamper resistant because its
access is necessary for maintenance, service and replacement purposes. Other (less complicated)
examples include fuel lines, or intake flow restrictor plates, both of which if changed could
impact the air fuel ratio element of design / operating parameter, but need to be accessible for
normal maintenance and service. This creates complexity for interpretation and enforcement of
the regulation not realized for other sectors (specifically applications >30kW in which the
engines take significant time to access, adjust, tamper and/or repair, likely much greater than 30
minutes). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.5-6]
One solution may be to update the Proposed Rule to clarify that the responsibility of identifying
adjustable parameters shall be limited to original equipment manufacturer components offered
each specific family. In the above example, if the OEM did not provide service parts that change
the compression (for example different pistons or conrods), the compression would not be
considered an adjustable parameter (assuming the components can be replaced in less than 15
minutes), regardless of the state of OEM non-endorsed aftermarket components. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.6]
Section 1068.50(a) - Adjustable Parameters A model year 2024 implementation date does
not provide the lead time necessary to comply with a Final Rule. OPEI requests the
provisions or Part 1068.50 be rescheduled until at least model year 2025 to allow
manufacturers time to assess products, implement necessary design changes (if/as needed,
including exhausting existing inventory), certify products and work though supply chain
challenges. Other parts of the amendments appear to have longer lead times. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.6]
Today's rule is 'proposed'. OPEI and other stakeholders have included several comments EPA
will consider before promulgating the Final Rule. In the spirit of this rulemaking process,
manufacturers cannot be expected to invest in adjustable parameter analysis and redesign before
a rule is 'final' (certain). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.6]
1693
-------
Based on OPEI rulemaking experience, a Final Rule may not be published until late 2022.
Manufacturers will start preparing for model year 2024 certification in the first months of 2023.
The Proposed Rule includes several new requirements for which manufacturers will need to
analyze and potentially redesign adjustable parameters. An appropriate lead time is needed to
complete analysis and redesign (if/as needed), and work through supply chain challenges,
including supplier production and inventory and engine manufacturer inventory, to assure
compliance with new requirements for a given model year. This will need to be completed by
early 2023 for the MY 2024 certification season. Furthermore, section (k) outlines significant
compliance risk for which appropriate time is needed to minimize. For these reasons OPEI
requests the provisions of section 1068.50 be rescheduled until at least model year 2025. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.6-7]
Section 1068.50(b)(1) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification regarding the
decision process related to adjustable parameters. It is unclear if EPA will require and/or
provide 'approval' (upon request) for adjustable parameters based on the criteria of (b)(1)
and other relevant parts of 1054.60. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.7]
1. If approval is required, or if a manufacturer seeks a preliminary approval, what is EPA's
expectation for who will apply for adjustable parameter approval? The SSIE sector is
non-integrated for many components and equipment types. Equipment manufacturers rely
largely on sourced components, including 'approved' components with adjustable
parameters, for assembly into end products. This complicate certification and
implementation of component design changes for the sector and needs consideration for
rule implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.7]
2. Regarding EPA 'establishing the adequacy of the limits, stops, seals, or other means used
to limit adjustment', OPEI requests additional detail of how this process and analysis will
work; more specifically:
o a. Is approval component level, engine level, and/or equipment level based? OPEI
requests EPA consider providing a flexible 'approval' path with the consideration
of component manufacturers and lead times needed to rollout design changes
+industry wide;
o b. Will EPA require a sample component, engine, and/or piece of equipment for
determination of whether a parameter is 'not practically adjustable' (1068.50(d))?
¦ i. In some cases, the California Air Resources has 'approved' methods to
protect adjustable parameters.
1. What will EPA require and what analysis will EPA conduct if a
CARB approval is provided?
¦ 2. CARB is promulgating new rules which will ban small engine-
powered equipment. Moving forward manufacturers will not likely
be receiving 'approval' (new or on-going) from CARB for tamper
resistant methods. Will EPA recognize CARB approvals, and for
how long?
o c. Will EPA provide a template for evaluation and/or certification purposes?
o d. Based on experience with another agency for similar approvals, OPEI is
concerned this test and determination can be subjective and varies from test
1694
-------
personnel to test personnel. For this reason, OPEI is interested in further
understanding:
¦ i. Where will testing be conducted and by whom (for both certification and
compliance purposes)?
¦ ii. What steps/process will be in-place to assure consistency across testing
personnel?
¦ iii. How will EPA determine an adjustment 'does not affect emissions'?
¦ iv. How will EPA determine 'significant engine performance degradation'
and 'the effect of adjustments on engine performance' (see (g)(1))?
¦ v. What does a report or approval look like?
o e. What is the expected evaluation and approval time?
o f. How long is an EPA approval valid for (what are the terms of an approval or
compliance inspection)? [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.7-8]
Section 1068.50(c)(2)(i) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification regarding
what is 'adjustable' on circuit boards and onboard computers? It is OPEI's opinion that
rebuilding circuit boards is an extraordinary event and tampering. OPEI is not aware of
users tampering with circuit boards or onboard computers for small spark-ignited engine
equipment in such a way. Requiring 'potted' circuit boards for small spark-ignited engine
electronic components is an unnecessary cost and may not be technologically practical for
all equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.8-9]
Section 1068.50(c)(2)(ii) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that a
recessed plugged, capped or covered parameter is not considered practically adjustable.
OPEI is seeking clarification of the term 'simple' tools'. OPEI is seeking clarification that
the intent is that 'simple tools' are used for their generally intended purposes. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.9]
OPEI members have reported that another agency has determined that a durably plugged, capped
or covered parameter is indeed accessible and 'adjustable' after destroying caps and covers with
combinations of punches, hammers, pliers and similarly 'ordinary tools'. OPEI understands
1068.50(c)(2)(ii) to say that recessed capped, plugged or covered parameters are not considered
adjustable, however industry experiences raise concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1,
p.9]
Furthermore, based on the experiences noted above, OPEI is concerned 'durable' (plug) is
subjective. OPEI is seeking clarification of what EPA considers durable, including things like
interference fit (pressed) and adhesive bonding 'durable' (but not indestructible), and how
durability will specifically evaluated. A test procedure must be developed with consideration of
how tools may be used and by whom. If plugs, caps and covers are going to be subject human
testing, additional guidance is needed to identify repeatable evaluation requirements. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.9]
This section introduces the term 'simple tools'. OPEI is seeking clarification of the definition of
'simple tools' vs 'ordinary tools' vs 'hand tools' (a subcategory of 'ordinary tools'), specifically
1695
-------
as the definition relates to an adjustment of a sheared fastener or recessed and
plugged/capped/covered parameter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.9]
Finally, OPEI is also seeking clarification that it is the intent that 'simple' and 'ordinary' tools
are used for their generally intended purpose, and not in destructive ways. For example, using a
hand drill to penetrate and remove a press-fit plug is not the generally intended use of that
tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp.9-10]
Section 1068.50(c)(2)(iii) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that
bimetal springs that a contained within a housing with a crimped cover are also considered
not practically adjustable. It is OPEI's opinion that crimping offers the same level of
adjustment protection as welding, rivets, or sealed threaded fasteners. Installing bimetal
springs into a housing incorporated into the exhaust system with a crimped cover is a
common approach for today's small spark-ignited engines when these springs are used.
OPEI is not aware of users tampering with bimetal springs in these applications where
crimped housing covers are used. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 10]
Section 1068.50(d)(1) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that
'adjustment' times and 'service part' costs are in terms of the normal consumer/operator,
not a servicing dealer or otherwise 'experienced mechanic' with regards to engines and
equipment powered by engines at or below 30 kW. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1,
p.10]
Section 1068.50(d)(1) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that
'specialized tools' intended exclusively for servicing dealers, including software and
hardware for analysis of electronics, and not intended for retail to the consumer/operator
are not considered 'ordinary tools' if not otherwise 'reasonably available' as described in
section (d)(1) with regards to engines and equipment powered by engines at or below 30
kW. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 10]
Section (g)(1) of the proposal states 'if your published maintenance instructions describe routine
procedures for adjusting engines or if you or your dealers make specialized tools available to
operators....' OPEI understands this to mean that specialized tools intended for dealer-only use
are not considered 'reasonably available ordinary tools' and would not automatically result in a
determination that a parameter is 'practically adjustable'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1,
p.10]
Section 1068.50(d)(1) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking clarification that 'hand
tools' included in the scope of 'ordinary tools' are limited to screwdrivers, pliers, hammers,
awls, wrenches, electric screwdrivers, electric drills and any tools supplied by the
manufacturer with the product, and that 'hand tools' not included in this list are not
considered 'ordinary tools'. OPEI recommends 'simple tools', 'specialized tools', 'ordinary
tools' and 'hand tools' are defined in 1068.30. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 11]
Section (d)(1) specifically identifies 'hand tools' as screwdrivers, pliers, hammers, awls,
wrenches, electric screwdrivers, electric drills and any tools supplied by the manufacturer with
1696
-------
the product. OPEI appreciates the inclusion of this list of'hand tools' and is seeking clarification
that this list is all-inclusive of 'ordinary hand tools'. OPEI does not consider 'hand tools' not
included in this list to be 'ordinary tools' or 'other supplies that are reasonably available to the
operator' ('other supplies' is not a 'catch all' for any tool that could be purchased). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 11]
Nonetheless, OPEI is concerned that this section may imply or be interpreted to state that any
tool that may be purchased on the internet or at a retail store is an 'available' tool and the cost of
any such tools shall not be included in the ($30) threshold for determining if a parameter is
'practically adjustable'. A manufacturer cannot practically confirm the availability of all existing
tools in the world, considering the number of internet options and retailers, and speculate how an
end user may use any tool to tamper with a product (whether it is the tools 'normal' or 'intended'
use or not). It is also unclear how a manufacturer would demonstrate compliance if questioned
by EPA certification staff or enforcement. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.11]
Finally, OPEI is unclear why a product unique or 'specialty' tool sold for the purpose of a
specific repair or adjustment, for specific equipment, should be excluded from the cost of repair.
'Specialty' tools, such as diagnostic tools and software specific to a product, likely have
significant cost in comparison to the outdoor power equipment product cost, which industry
believes minimizes the risk of such tools being purchased for tampering. As a result, such
'specialty' tools should be included in the tampering cost threshold, and/or excluded from
'ordinary' and 'simple' tools, even if provided by the manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1205-A1, pp.11-12]
Section 1068.50(f)(2) & (g)(1) - Adjustable Parameters OPEI recommends clarification
that these sections ('sell or offer for sale software or other products that could be used to
modify the ECU', 'if you or your dealers make specialized tools available to operators')
clarify the intent of these sections is to make resources available to 'equipment owners /
operators', 'end users', and/or 'final purchasers'. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 12]
Section 1068.50 - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is concerned that Right to Repair
regulations may conflict with draft requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 12]
OPEI is engaged with Congress, States, and the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') regarding
ongoing 'right to repair' legislation and regulations. OPEI continues to express concerns that
right to repair regulations may impact consumer safety specific to outdoor power equipment and
will directly conflict with U.S. EPA adjustable parameter and tamperproof requirements, both
currently in place and outlined in the proposed amendments. OPEI requests that EPA investigate:
• (1) How the FTC's new policy statement (adopted unanimously on July 21, 2021),
outlining its enforcement strategy on corporate practices deemed anticompetitive and
unfair to consumers with regards to product repair, impacts current and proposed
adjustable parameters and tamper resistance regulations;
• (2) How the Fair Repair Act (HR 4006), requiring equipment OEMs to more broadly
provide repair tools and information without proper regard for the risks of modification
1697
-------
and tampering with equipment safety and emissions controls, would impact current and
proposed adjustable parameters and tamper resistance regulations; and
• (3) How proposed state legislation would impact current and proposed adjustable
parameters and tamper resistance regulations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1,
P-12]
Section 1068.50 - Adjustable Parameters OPEI is seeking feedback regarding the impact of
the draft adjustable parameter requirements on the existing OPEI guidance regarding
tamper resistance guidelines for small spark ignition engine and carburetor
manufacturers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.13]
In 2011 OPEI published the Tamper Resistance Guidance for Small Spark Ignition Engine and
Carburetor Manufacturers document. See Appendix A. Industry manufacturers have been
proactive and relied on this guidance document to streamline certification activities and reduce
compliance risk for a decade. The guidelines and examples provided there-in have been
successful in identifying adjustable parameters and tamper resistance methods consistent with
the written and 'in-spirit' requirements of current regulations. OPEI is seeking EPA feedback
regarding how the proposed regulations would impact the specific guidance outlined in this
document. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p. 13] [Appendix A is located atEPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, pp. 14-27]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
Tampering-related provisions: The OTC members are prioritizing detection and enforcement
against tampered vehicles because tampered vehicles substantially increase vehicle NOx
emissions. Given the importance of identifying tampered vehicles and enforcing against emission
control system tampering, OTC supports EPA proposed provision to ensure that there are
measures in place to prevent engine control module (ECM) tampering. EPA proposes that
manufacturers include a document at time of certification that outlines and describes the process
and/or industry technical standards that were used to prevent unauthorized access to the ECM on
the vehicle. This document shall describe the measures that a manufacturer has used to: prevent
unauthorized access to the ECM; ensure that calibration values, software, or diagnostic features
cannot be overwritten or otherwise disabled; and respond to repeated, unauthorized attempts to
reprogram the ECM, if they become aware of such attempts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-
Al, p.17]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA has proposed to transition the "adjustable parameters" provisions to §1068.50, including
numerous amendments. EMA supports the consolidation of these requirements, and finds most
of the proposed requirements to be reasonable and practical. EMA recommends several
modifications, however, to address various concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p.
129]
1698
-------
EPA's proposal to migrate, consolidate, and revise adjustable parameter provisions in a new
proposed section 1068.50, would apply broadly to on- and off-highway engine categories starting
in MY 2024. Among the updates are proposed provisions regarding the adjustability of
electronically controlled parameters, which manufacturers must limit through ECM password or
encryption protection. In that regard, if EPA learns that the new provisions drive significant
ECM changes such as hardware upgrades, EPA should provide additional lead time to implement
the changes at least for some applications. For example, it may not be possible to upgrade ECMs
for certain spark-ignited alternative fuel and off-highway families until MY 2027. EPA should
allow additional lead time, especially for lower volume and/or non-SCR engines such as in these
categories. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 129 - 130]
More generally, the proposed adjustable parameters provisions should be streamlined for
improved understanding and greater consistency. There are three main ways in which this could
be accomplished. First, the provisions could be restructured to define basic concepts, then to
break down how they apply to physically adjustable parameters, programmable adjustable
parameters, and replenishable parameters. Second, it is not necessary to define "operating
parameters" to achieve EPA's goals in these provisions. Finally, it is recommended to apply
greater consistency in terminology. We will discuss these points in detail, and make other
recommendations as well. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 130]
EMA recommends restructuring the proposed §1068.50 to improve clarity and consistency in the
application of the fundamental principles of EPA's adjustable parameter controls. The provisions
should start with the most fundamental principle that emissions compliance is required,
consistent with the standard setting part, over the range of adjustments to which the user has
access. "Adjustable parameter" should then be defined, including the specific requirements
regarding the "practical" range of adjustment with respect to the three types of adjustable
parameters of relevance: physically adjustable parameters, programmable parameters and user-
replenishable consumables. For each of those three types of adjustable parameters, EPA should
set forth the requirements and limitations that EPA considers appropriate for the practical range
of adjustment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 130]
Consistent with the recommendation of the previous paragraph, §1068.50(a) should be modified.
The provision as proposed, which states: The standard-setting part generally requires that
production engines, preproduction engines, and in-use engines with adjustable parameters meet
all the requirements of this part for any adjustment in the physically adjustable range, should be
modified to read: The standard-setting part generally requires that, as a condition of certification,
engines with adjustable parameters meet all the requirements of the standard-setting part for any
adjustment in the practically adjustable range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 130]
Related to the improved structure recommended above, the new provisions could be simplified
by eliminating the definition of "operating parameter." It is adequate, clearer and more efficient
to simply define an "adjustable parameter," including the special condition of the practical range
of adjustment, and the consequence of emissions increases. EPA should not finalize requirements
that could be interpreted as requiring manufacturers to disclose all "operating parameters,"
because on most modern engines there are thousands of programmable parameters coded into the
ECUs. For example, §§§1036.205(r) and §1039.205(s) require that manufacturers "Describe all
1699
-------
adjustable operating parameters (see §1036.115(f)), including production tolerances. For any
operating parameters that do not qualify as adjustable parameters, include a description
supporting your conclusion." The manufacturer's responsibility should be to disclose all
parameters to which users have practical access for adjustment. Descriptions of how
manufacturers will limit access to ECU code through passwords and encryption can be managed
without the complexity EPA included in the proposed definition of "operating parameter." [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, pp. 130 - 131]
EPA includes the following in §1068.50(c)(1): "An operating parameter is not an adjustable
parameter if... we determine that engine operation over the full range of adjustment does not
affect emissions without also degrading engine performance to the extent that operators will be
aware of the problem." However, §86.094-22(e)(ii) provides that, "The Administrator may, in
addition, determine to be subject to adjustment any other parameters on any vehicle or engine
which is physically capable of being adjusted and which may significantly affect emissions."
(Emphasis added.) The requirement that emissions impacts from adjustable parameters should be
significant as a condition for adjustment limitation requirements is an important consideration, as
adjustments should not be encumbered with regulated adjustment limitations and related
obligations when the emissions impacts are minor. The final provisions should not exclude the
"significant" qualifier when addressing emissions impacts related to adjustable
parameters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 131]
Regarding terminology, the term "physically adjustable parameter" should be used in lieu of
"mechanically controlled parameter," and "programmable parameter" in lieu of "electronically
controlled parameter" and "electronically controlled setting." In addition, §1068.50(c)(2)(ii) and
(iii) should not be limited to "mechanically controlled engines." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 131]
The proposed regulations require further consolidation related to adjustable parameters to
eliminate confusion as to definitions and applicability. For example, the definition of "Adjustable
Parameter" in §1039.801 should be replaced with a reference to the proposed §1068.50.
Additionally, §1036.250(r) and §1039.205(s) include further descriptive elements related to
adjustable parameters, including requirements to provide in the application for certification
"nominal or recommended setting, the intended physically adjustable range, and the limits or
stops used to establish adjustable ranges. Also include information showing why the limits,
stops, or other means of inhibiting adjustment are effective in preventing adjustment of
parameters on in use engines to settings outside your intended physically adjustable range."
(Emphasis added.) While perhaps reasonably descriptive, the various terms used may cause
confusion when referencing §1068.50. EMA stands ready to work with the Agency on improving
the consistency and clarity of the various CFR provisions related to adjustable parameters. While
we have made reference in these comments to the adjustable parameter provisions in Parts 1036
and 1037, our comments should be applied more generally to other sections where adjustable
parameters are included, such as Part 1042. Additionally, §86.094-22 may require modification
to terminate its applicability at the appropriate model year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1,
p. 131]
1700
-------
Many states are adopting "right to repair" legislation or regulations that compel manufacturers to
make service tools and instructions available to third-party independent repair facilities. Those
regulations usually require that manufacturers allow the independent repair centers to gain access
to programmability normally protected from anyone outside the OEM's dealer network,
including granting the ability to reflash ECUs with different ratings. EMA opposes those right-
to-repair laws and regulations because, among other concerns, they could lead to problems where
engines and vehicles are not in their certified configuration, or, even, worse, they open the door
for nefarious actions violative of EPA's tampering prohibitions. Notwithstanding EMA's
opposition, right-to-repair regulations are becoming more and more prevalent each year. Engine
manufacturers cannot be held liable for the actions of the independent repair facilities. It is
important for EPA to acknowledge this by providing appropriate protections in the adjustable
parameter provisions. To that end, EMA recommends that EPA add the italicized text to
§1068.50(d)(2):
Conversely, such parameters are not practically adjustable if you limit access to the
electronic control units with password or encryption protection. You must have adequate
protections in place to prevent distribution and use of passwords or encryption keys,
except where required by law to make them available. We may exclude... [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 131 - 132]
In addition to EMA's concerns related to right-to-repair laws, there are also concerns about the
adjustable parameter provisions as they relate to enterprises unlawfully marketing emissions
"delete" kits that employ various techniques, through programming or hardware changes or both,
to tamper with emissions control systems. While engine manufacturers take significant steps to
try to prevent those actors from "hacking" into the ECU to reprogram controls or to override
tampering detection capabilities, it is impossible to completely protect engine systems from such
actions. We therefore recommend that §1068.50(f)(3) be modified as follows:
If your engines/equipment have other electronic [programmable] settings that can be
legally modified or accessed as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, consider all
those settings to be within the practically adjustable range. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 132]
Similarly, §1068.50(d)(1) should be modified to say:
... Any such items that are legally sold at hardware stores, automotive parts supply stores
or on the Internet are considered available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 132]
As well, (d)(2) should be modified to say:
Electronically controlled parameters are considered "practically adjustable" if they can be
adjusted using any legally available tools (including devices that are used to alter
computer code). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 132]
These recommended amendments to the proposal are important to avoid undue manufacturer
liability as it relates to certain tampering actions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 132]
1701
-------
EMA also recommends a specific change to the adjustable parameters provisions applicable to
small SI engines ("SSIE"). In proposed §1054.115(b), after the reference to §1068.50, the
following language should be added: However, engine speed control (insert rabbit turtle symbol)
and governor (insert paperclip symbol) levers on engines regulated under Part 1054 are not
considered to be adjustable parameters as defined in §1068.50. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 132]
Due to the inherent design of SSIEs, it is inappropriate to include the engine speed control and
governor levers as adjustable parameters. EMA provided extensive background information to
the EPA Gasoline Engine Compliance Center, Compliance Division on August 24, 2020, in a
follow up discussion after the issuance of the May 11, 2020, Test Cycle Guidance Document.
The presentation appended as Exhibit "F" to these comments was used to demonstrate the
operation and function of speed controls and governor levers, and explained why it is
inappropriate for them to be considered adjustable parameters. We believe EPA staff understood
and agreed with EMA's position based on subsequent discussions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203-A1, p. 133]
From a broader viewpoint, EPA is proposing that the consolidated and modernized adjustable
parameter provisions of §1068.50, applying to on- and off-highway engine categories, would be
effective starting MY 2024. Among the updates proposed are provisions regarding the
adjustability of electronically controlled parameters, which manufacturers must limit through
ECM password or encryption protection. As noted, if the new provisions compel significant
ECM changes, such as hardware upgrades, EPA should provide additional lead time to
implement the changes, at least for some applications. For example, it may not be possible to
upgrade ECMs for certain spark-ignited alternative fuel or off-highway families until MY 2027.
EPA should allow additional lead time for such engines, especially for lower volume and/or non-
SCR applications. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 133]
Finally, EPA should review all guidance documents related to adjustable parameters and update
them as appropriate to be consistent with the revised adjustable parameter provisions. EMA
stands ready to support the Agency in this effort. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 133]
Organization: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (VWGoA)
40 CFR 1068.50 Adjustable parameters
We request clarification on the additional requirements to include driver-selectable modes in this
brand new additional section. This section seems to require the inclusion of information on each
selectable mode as an adjustable parameter. In some vehicles, this could reach hundreds of
possible drive modes and user-selectable features to be described in the certification application,
creating an unnecessary burden to timely review. Please update this section to exclude driver-
selectable modes such as 'sport' or 'trailer tow' from this description. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1296-A1, p.3]
1702
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
OPEI requested that EPA delay the new
requirements by at least one year to allow
manufacturers time to assess products,
implement necessary design changes, certify
products, and work though supply chain
challenges; manufacturers would also need to
prepare for the compliance responsibilities
identified in the proposed §1068.50(k). OPEI
stated that these tasks would need to be
completed by early 2023 for certifying all
their engine families for model year 2024,
including consideration of the effect of other
amendments in this rule. OPEI pointed out
that they cannot be expected to invest in
adjustable parameter analysis and redesign
before EPA completes the final rule.
Cummins commented that EPA should
provide additional lead time to implement the
changes, especially to account for reducing
the priority of lower-volume families in favor
of meeting requirements for high-volume
families in the 2024-2025 time frame.
EMA recommended that EPA provide
additional lead time as needed to account for
manufacturers' redesign efforts to improve
protections to prevent tampering with
electronic control modules. EMA suggested
that manufacturers may need until model year
2027 to comply with the new requirements for
lower-volume and/or non-SCR engines.
Preamble Section XI. A.2 responds to these
comments.
1703
-------
OPEI: Almost any small spark-ignited engine
parameter can be accessible in 15-minutes for
a person with small engine knowledge and a
desire to tamper. However, that does not
mean it happens with a frequency that impacts
overall fleet emissions or that the cost of
potential new requirements would be
justified. OPEI therefore does not believe the
additional provisions of 1068.50 are
necessary for small spark-ignited engines.
We have made several changes for the final
rule to more carefully align with the existing
guidance for Small SI engines. Where the
final rule includes provisions that go beyond
the existing guidance, we believe those
provisions are justified for establishing how
manufacturers need to improve tamper-
resistance with current or future engine
designs. The responses to more detailed
comments in this section elaborate on these
broad conclusions.
Honda suggested the need for defining terms:
Guideline of the determination of
"Operating parameter" for SSIE is
necessary in order to create application
document.
Definition of "mechanically controlled
adjustable parameters" should be defined
to clarify the criteria. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Definition of "practically adjustable"
should be made more clear, or should set
clear requirement for exemption. Current
description of 1065.50(d)(1) is too vague
and not practical.
The final rule includes several changes to the
proposed 40 CFR 1068.50 to reorganize and
clarify the content of 40 CFR 1068.50
including updates to 40 CFR 1068.50(d)
where we clarified the definition of
practically adjustable as compared to the
proposal. We believe this addresses the
concerns for clarity for identifying operating
parameters, adjustable parameters, and the
practically adjustable range. Note that we are
changing terminology to reference
"physically adjustable parameters" instead of
"mechanically controlled adjustable
parameters."
Honda: EPA should define "significantly
degrading engine performance".
The proposed regulation does not include the
expression "significantly degrading engine
performance". The proposed regulation
instead referred to "degrading engine
performance to the extent that operators will
be aware of the problem." We believe this
description, finalized as proposed, establishes
the degree of degradation necessary to
understand and apply the provision.
1704
-------
CARB: Consumers can readily obtain
specialized screwdrivers and other tools from
Amazon.com and other online retailers. This
should be accounted for in the proposed
regulation for Small SI engines. CARB staff
has already determined that this was
necessary and appropriate and revised their
regulation accordingly.
EPA's proposed rule specified that specialty
hardware from stores and online retailers
should be considered ordinary tools for
purposes of evaluating tamper-proof designs
for certification. We are including this
provision in the final rule. However, we
expect consumers operating Small SI engines
will not be likely to pursue specialty tools for
the purpose of tampering with their engines as
these engines are relatively inexpensive, are
generally in wide use, and there are many
repair shops for small engines. We believe
this applies equally for engines less than 30
kW that are used in recreational vehicles or
marine applications. We are therefore
identifying the list of "ordinary tools" for
engines less than 30 kW without naming such
specialty tools.
Honda: It should be clarified that any
approval of tamper resistance received in the
past is still valid.
The provisions we are adopting in 40 CFR
1068.50 are consistent with the existing
guidance for Small SI engines. We therefore
expect that Small SI engine manufacturers
will not need to make changes to comply with
the new requirements. However, if we find
that engine designs do not comply, we will
require them to upgrade the engine designs.
We note too that we intend to be aware of
ongoing developments and monitor in-use
experiences so that we can require
manufacturers to upgrade their engine designs
to reflect best practices that are in place for
each sector.
1705
-------
Honda - extraordinary measures.
1. According to proposed text, the service part
is considered "practically adjustable" if it
costs less than $30. However, the cost of the
SSIE carburetor would be less than $30. It
should be clarified that such cases are exempt
from adjustable parameters (i.e. Replacement
of the carburetor is not considered as
adjustable parameter).
2. The main jets or pilot jets are commercially
available in different sizes and can be
installed with common tools. Because the jets
should be easily removable for maintenance
which is necessary to prevent engine failure
or emission increase. In addition, the
necessity of jets for high altitude are
described in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
§7549) or regulations (40 CFR) and has been
approved by EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
3. It should be clarified that main jets, pilot
jets of carburetor are exempt from the
adjustable parameter.
4. As tamper resistant mechanism, for
example, adjustable range of the pilot screw
limited by limiter cap, even though the limiter
cap could be destroyed by the "ordinary tools"
which includes very wide range of tools
according to the proposed text, we believe
that this should not be treated as "practically
adjustable".
We have revised the proposal in the final rule
to acknowledge that manufacturers do not
need to include tamper-resistance measures to
protect against extraordinary measures. The
list of extraordinary measures includes fully
or partially removing carburetors and drilling
or grinding through caps or plugs. This
change to the proposal is consistent with
existing guidance for Small SI engines.
1706
-------
OPEI recognized that speed settings are
'adjustable' from high-idle to low-idle, but
stated that they are fixed in range for the end-
user, which fixes emissions in that range. In
this regard, adjustment of engine speed does
not 'affect emissions or engine performance
during emission testing or normal in-use
operation.' OPEI further argued that the
user's ability to operate the engine at low and
high speeds may be necessary for the
startability, performance, and safety, but
noted that equipment function and
performance are generally optimized for the
engine to be loaded from the normal operating
condition of 'high idle.' OPEI gave as an
example that lawn mower blade tip speed or
governor frequency are optimized from the
engine high idle speed and as a result
generally reflect normal operating
conditions. OPEI therefore believes idle speed
controls should not qualify as adjustable
parameters.
Honda requested that idle speed controls not
be considered adjustable parameters because
they are necessary to achieve proper idle
speed.
EMA also requested that idle speed controls
not be considered adjustable parameters.
Idle speed screws and similar adjustment
mechanisms are designed to allow operators
to make adjustments to the engine's speed at
idle. Those controls are therefore adjustable
parameters and manufacturers are responsible
for any setting in the adjustable range.
If it is important for engines to operate at a
high-idle speed as a normal operating
condition before applying a load,
manufacturers should design their engines to
ensure that idle speed increases without
depending on the operator to change the idle
speed setting. As long as the design depends
on the operator to establish the idle speed
setting, it is an adjustable parameter.
Manufacturers do not need to account for
adjustments between user-selectable operating
modes if the controls are designed to prevent
operators from selecting those operating
points.
Even assuming OPEI is correct that idle speed
does not affect emissions, there should be no
problem with manufacturers accepting the
responsibility to control emissions across the
engine's physically adjustable range.
Honda requested clarification that a manual
lever choke mechanism only used for starting
engine is not considered an adjustable
parameter.
Misapplied choke setting degrades engine
performance after engine warm-up to the
extent that the operator will be aware of the
problem. The regulation therefore allows for
considering this operating parameter to not be
adjustable (see 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(2).
1707
-------
EM A and Honda suggested that governor
adjustment mechanisms (such as "Turtle" to
"Rabbit" levers or governor springs) should
not be considered adjustable parameters.
User-selectable features, such as the rabbit-
turtle option for Small SI engines, and the
functions controlled by those features should
properly be considered adjustable parameters
under the proposed and final regulation.
These features are specifically designed to
invite operators to adjust an engine's control
settings to achieve the desired performance.
These are excellent examples of what
manufacturers should consider for
demonstrating that engines meet standards for
all settings within the physically adjustable
range. We have held this position consistently
from the earliest implementation of standards
for Small SI engines.
VW and Auto Innovators: Request
clarification on the proposed requirement to
identify driver-selectable modes. Section
1068.50 seems to require manufacturers to
include information on each selectable mode
as an adjustable parameter. In some vehicles,
this could reach hundreds of possible drive
modes and user-selectable features to be
described in the certification application,
creating unnecessary burden to timely review.
We recommend that EPA update this section
to exclude driver selectable modes such as
"sport" or "trailer tow" from this description.
We note that we did not propose to apply the
provisions of 40 CFR 1068.50 to vehicles
subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S. However, those vehicles are
subject to similar requirements under 40 CFR
86.1833-01. As with the Honda comment on
rabbit-turtle controls, user-selectable features
and the functions controlled by those features
are properly considered adjustable parameters
under both 40 CFR 86.1833-01 and 1068.50.
These features are specifically designed to
invite operators to adjust control settings to
achieve the desired performance. It is
therefore important for manufacturers to
comply with standards for all those settings
that fall within the physically adjustable
range.
1708
-------
Cummins suggests that EPA provide clarity
for manufacturers by adopting a limit on the
time and parts cost to be considered
"practically adjustable" for mechanically
controlled parameters on engines with rated
power at or above 560 kW. The limits should
be consistent with the higher cost of these
engines.
We recognize that manufacturers can't
reasonably be expected to design an engine to
be tamper-proof if a mechanic would have
unlimited time to modify an engine. We are
therefore adopting in the final rule the same
60-minute limit that applies for 30-560 kW
engines, as a change from the proposal.
An additional change from proposal in the
final rule to address this concern is the
provision naming cylinder head removal to be
an extraordinary measure that manufacturers
need not consider for tamper-proofing. We
consider any modifications to the engine's
internal parts to be inherently resistant to
tampering due to the degree of difficulty to
access and specialty knowledge required to
modify these components.
At the same time, we understand that cost
considerations for buying, servicing, and
operating these very large engines lead us to
believe that we should not exclude any
potential modifications based only on the
price of service parts. Therefore, we will not
be including a price exclusion for engines
with rated power at or above 560 kW.
1709
-------
NACAA: EPA should finalize the proposed
anti-tampering provisions.
Maine's Department of Environmental
Protection is fully supportive of provisions to
ensure that there are measures in place to
prevent engine control module (ECM)
tampering. Manufacturers should be required
to take definitive actions to prevent
unauthorized access to the ECM, ensure that
calibration values, software, or diagnostic
features cannot be overwritten or otherwise
disabled; and respond to repeated,
unauthorized attempts to reprogram the ECM,
if they become aware of such attempts.
NESCAUM OTC and MANE-VU support
EPA's proposed provision to ensure that there
are measures in place to prevent engine
control module (ECM) tampering.
NESCAUM also supports the procedural
requirements to describe measures to:
• prevent unauthorized access to the
ECM
• ensure that calibration values,
software, or diagnostic features cannot
be overwritten or otherwise disabled
• respond to repeated, unauthorized
attempts to reprogram the ECM, if
they become aware of such attempts
NCTCOG supports EPA's current anti-
tampering efforts outlined in the 2020
National Compliance Initiatives and
encourages significantly more attention to
minimize excessive vehicle emissions.
We acknowledge the affirmation that the
proposed rule appropriately addresses these
issues.
We note that the proposed and finalized
provisions do not aim to establish a definitive
approach for preventing unauthorized access
and modification to ECMs, or to ensure that
ECM software will not be overwritten or
disabled. Rather, we intend to evaluate
manufacturer statements in their application
for certification to monitor developments in
ECM security so we can ensure that
manufacturers are taking appropriate steps to
reasonably prevent unauthorized access to the
ECM as risks, vulnerabilities, and technology
solutions evolve over time.
We also note that the proposed and finalized
provisions do not include specific
requirements to respond to attempted
tampering with ECMs. Rather, if we
determine that ECM tampering exists with a
manufacturer's engines, we would expect to
engage in discussions with that manufacturer
to identify methods of upgrading ECM
security for the affected engines.
1710
-------
MIC recommends that EPA not consider
diagnostic tools normally sold or made
available to dealers and used by professional
service technicians for determining the
practicably adjustable range. Vehicle
manufacturers approve adjustments using this
equipment and they supply the tools to
dealers and professional service technicians to
push through updates related to customer
service campaigns and recalls, which helps to
maintain compliance with regulatory
requirements and keep vehicles safe and
compliant. These diagnostic tools do not open
ECUs so dealers or technicians can
independently adjust or create ranges of
engine and emission control operating
parameters or calibrations for making
performance or functional adjustability.
Rather, they overwrite and update entire ECU
calibrations. Including these professional
diagnostic tools would create manufacturer
confusion about how to determine related
adjustable operation ranges and parameters
for their consideration, potentially resulting in
certification delays.
We state in final 40 CFR 1068.50(e)(2) that
programmable adjustable parameters are not
considered practically adjustable if access to
the electronic control modules is limited by
password or encryption protection with
appropriate protections in place to prevent
distribution and use of passwords or
encryption keys. These access limitations are
intended to allow the manufacturer and agents
acting on the manufacturer's behalf to
perform any necessary diagnosis and testing.
If diagnostic tools allow independent dealers
and professional service technicians to modify
an engine to be outside of its certified
configuration, those modifications would be
included in the engine's adjustable range.
OPEI recommends retaining the current
language in §1054.115 to recognize that
permanent seals can be used to demonstrate
that operating parameters are not physically
adjustable. OPEI is also seeking clarification
regarding 'extraordinary measures' that are
outside the scope of EPA's anti-tampering
assessment. It is OPEI's interpretation that if
a 'parameter' (setting) is sealed with, for
example, a durable interference-fit plug, not
intended to be accessed or serviced, and if an
end-user uses a hammer, chisel, screwdriver
or drill to destroy the plug and access the
parameter, this is tampering, and does not
otherwise constitute a parameter as
'adjustable'.
We agree with the comment but are not
adopting the suggested modification to the
proposal. We have instead modified from
proposal the final 40 CFR
1068.50(e)(l)(vii)(C) to explicitly call out
"drilling or grinding through caps or plugs" as
an extraordinary measure that we will not
consider in assessing an engine's tamper-
resistance. We agree that the actions
suggested in the comment to destroy
permanent seals would qualify as tampering
and the associated engine modification would
not qualify as representing part of the
engine's practically adjustable range.
1711
-------
OPEI believes altering computer codes would
be considered extraordinary measures and
tampering if done so without 'reasonably
available ordinary tools' provided by the
manufacturer.
EM A expressed a concern that enterprises
may unlawfully market emission "delete" kits
that employ various techniques, through
programming or hardware changes or both, to
tamper with emission control systems.
The proposal acknowledged that we would
not automatically hold a manufacturer
responsible if a third party independently
created a tool for reflashing an ECM. On the
other hand, as described in the proposed rule,
we intend to review a manufacturer's plans
for limiting access to ECM software to
prevent unauthorized changes. Rather than
defining unauthorized ECM modifications as
an extraordinary measure, we would
implement these requirements by evaluating
whether the manufacturer should do more to
prevent unauthorized access to their ECM.
We would then expect to engage with the
manufacturer to consider whether or how to
upgrade future designs for better protection
(see Section XI.A.2.ii of the preamble).
If someone alters an engine from its certified
configuration, they will be liable for violating
the tampering prohibitions of §1068.101(b)(1)
or the defeat device prohibition in
§1068.101(b)(2).
1712
-------
OPEI: Arguably, the engine compression
could be considered an adjustable parameter
because it is an 'element of design' that could
be 'adjusted' by changing bore, stroke or
piston(s) and 'affect emissions or engine
performance during emission testing or
normal in-use operation'. Other (less
complicated) examples include fuel lines, or
intake flow restrictor plates, both of which if
changed could impact the air fuel ratio
element of design / operating parameter, but
need to be accessible for normal maintenance
and service. This creates complexity for
interpretation and enforcement of the
regulation not realized for other sectors
(specifically applications >30kW in which the
engines take significant time to access, adjust,
tamper and/or repair, likely much greater than
30 minutes).
One solution may be to update the Proposed
Rule to limit the responsibility of identifying
adjustable parameters to the components the
manufacturer offers. In the above example, if
the OEM did not provide service parts that
change the compression (for example
different pistons or conrods), the compression
would not be considered an adjustable
parameter (assuming the components can be
replaced in less than 15 minutes), regardless
of the availability of aftermarket components
not endorsed by the manufacturer
We agree that manufacturers' tamper-
resistance designs should not need to account
for replacing pistons and other actions
requiring engine disassembly. This applies
equally for engines above and below 30 kW.
We have therefore made a change from
proposal for the final regulations to specify
removing a cylinder head as an extraordinary
measure.
1713
-------
OPEI: If approval is required, or if a
manufacturer seeks a preliminary approval,
what is EPA's expectation for who will apply
for adjustable parameter approval?
Yearly approval is required by the
manufacturer as a condition of certification,
and all engines with adjustable parameters
need to meet all the requirements of the
standard-setting part. The standard setting
part for small SI engines includes the
provisions in 40 CFR 1068.50 so all
adjustable parameter approvals will be
included in the application for certification.
We expect that any request for approval or
preliminary approval for strategies that limit
adjustable parameters will be submitted by
the manufacturer during the yearly process of
applying for certification.
OPEI: Is approval component level, engine
level, and/or equipment level based?
We will review adjustable parameter approval
in the context of reviewing an application for
certification for a specific engine family or
vehicle family. We would expect to reach
consistent conclusions for technologies or
strategies that a manufacturer uses across
engine families and across model years unless
changes are made in tamper-resistant methods
of the engine or equipment, or we determine
that existing methods are no longer enough to
address concerns for tampering with in-use
engines. Manufacturers seeking preliminary
approval before submitting their application
for certification would be able to request
approval in a way that would apply more
broadly than for a single engine family or
vehicle family. We will consider all aspects of
any engine or equipment to ensure that any
adjustable parameters are limited to their in-
use range or appropriate steps have been
taken to limit access to operating parameters.
OPEI: Will EPA require a sample component,
engine, and/or piece of equipment for
determination of whether a parameter is 'not
practically adjustable'?
We have codified, as proposed, the ability to
perform inspection in §1068.50(j). We may
request the manufacturer to supply an engine
or equipment at any time for inspection.
1714
-------
OPEI: What will EPA require and what
analysis will EPA conduct if a CARB
approval is provided?
We expect that any CARB approval will be
provided for review during the engine or
equipment certification process. We would
expect to review the documentation related to
CARB's approval. We may also perform
additional review to ensure that engines meet
requirements.
OPEI: CARB is promulgating new rules that
will ban small engine-powered equipment.
Moving forward manufacturers will not likely
be receiving 'approval' (new or on-going)
from CARB for tamper resistant methods.
Will EPA recognize CARB approvals, and for
how long?
As is currently the case, we will consider any
available information from CARB's review
and approval of tamper-proofing designs. To
the extent further review is warranted, we
would expect to review available information
to determine whether engines meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 1068.50. We expect
that a new request for approval will be
submitted every year with the application for
certification process. We expect that this
application will be carried over from year to
year unless changes are made in tamper-
resistant methods of the engine or equipment,
or we determine that existing methods are no
longer enough to address concerns for
tampering with in-use engines.
OPEI: Will EPA provide a template for
evaluation and/or certification purposes?
At this time, EPA does not intend to create a
template. We plan to continue using the same
methods that apply today by reviewing the
application for certification.
OPEI: Where will testing be conducted and
by whom (for both certification and
compliance purposes)?
If we choose to perform testing on emission-
data engines as part of certification, or with
in-use engines after certification is approved,
we may perform that testing ourselves, or we
may choose any commercially available
organization to do that testing for us.
Manufacturers generally perform testing in a
selective enforcement audit, but we may
include testing instructions to adjust engine
controls to any setting within the physically
adjustable range.
1715
-------
OPEI: What steps/process will be in-place to
assure consistency across testing personnel?
As with all implementation questions for
certification, EPA reviewers make every
effort to maintain a consistent approach for
ensuring that manufacturers comply with
regulatory requirements as adopted. Where
there is a need to apply judgment for testing
engines or establishing consistent
performance criteria, we would expect to EPA
staff to adopt a coordinated approach for all
manufacturers within a given industry sector,
and, as appropriate, for all industry sectors.
OPEI: How will EPA determine an
adjustment 'does not affect emissions'?
How will EPA determine 'significant engine
performance degradation' and 'the effect of
adjustments on engine performance' (see
(g)(1))?
As proposed, we have retained language from
40 CFR 1054.801 as a criterion for excluding
an operating parameter from being an
adjustable parameter. As proposed, it is
further defined in final 40 CFR 1068.50(d)(2)
as "degrading engine performance to the
extent that operators will be aware of the
problem". If a manufacturer claims that an
operating parameter is not an adjustable
parameter because it does not increase
emissions without also degrading engine
performance, we would start by reviewing
any available information and analysis from
the manufacturer to support that conclusion.
We might also operate engines as needed to
determine emission impacts and any
associated degradation of engine
performance. For example, manual choke
levers are exempt in the final requirements
from being considered adjustable parameters
because warmed-up engines have
unacceptable performance when operating
with the choke engaged.
1716
-------
OPEI: What does a report or approval look
like?
The final regulation describes what
manufacturers should include in the
application for certification. Manufacturers
may request preliminary approval before
submitting the application. EPA will review
available information and follow up as needed
for additional information. We may also
request that the manufacturer supply engines
or engine components for testing. The
approval will be included with the standard
certification approval, there will be no
separate approval process for adjustable
parameters. If preliminary approval is
received for adjustable parameters, this
information will need to be included in the
final submittal of the application for
certification and we can re-review as part of
the final certification approval. As
preliminary approval has already been
received, we expect there would be no issue
receiving final approval for adjustable
parameters unless changes are made in
tamper-resistant methods of the engine or
equipment, or we determine that existing
methods are no longer enough to address
concerns for tampering with in-use engines.
OPEI: What is the expected evaluation and
approval time?
Manufacturers should request preliminary
approval if the application for certification
will be time-sensitive with respect to a
manufacturer's plans for producing and
selling engines or equipment. We expect that
the evaluation and approval time will not
significantly extend the application for
certification process, but some additional time
may be needed if a manufacturer's description
is incomplete or if the designs do not clearly
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1068.50.
1717
-------
OPEI: How long is an EPA approval valid for
(what are the terms of an approval or
compliance inspection)?
EPA certification is always valid for one
model year. Information regarding adjustable
parameters will be required to be submitted
with each application for certification. EPA's
review for engines certified with carryover
emission data consistent with the prior model
year, will typically be rather cursory, but
manufacturers should not expect that EPA
will re-approve tamper-proof designs just
because they were approved for the preceding
year. New information could lead us to
determine those existing methods are no
longer enough to address concerns for
tampering with in-use engines
OPEI is seeking clarification regarding what
is 'adjustable' on circuit boards and onboard
computers? Requiring 'potted' circuit boards
for small spark-ignited engine electronic
components is an unnecessary cost and may
not be technologically practical for all
equipment.
As an example, EPA understands that sensor
inputs on an ECU can be modified to read
differently than their actual value and cause
the engine or equipment to run outside of
their intended in-use range. Implementation
of adjustable-parameter provisions for
programmable operating parameters focuses
on reflashing with different calibrations or
other settings. We are removing the
requirement of potting or encapsulating
circuit boards to prevent tampering from the
proposed rule. Manufacturers may still choose
to do this for durability concerns, but we
don't anticipate that owners or service
personnel would modify programmable
operating parameters by modifying circuit
boards since third-party programming tools
have become more widely available and user
friendly.
1718
-------
OPEI is seeking clarification of the term
'simple' tools'. OPEI is seeking clarification
that the intent is that 'simple tools' are used
for their generally intended purposes.
We have updated from proposal our final
terminology for the tools specified in 40 CFR
1068.50(e)(1) to "ordinary tools" for engines
at or below 560 kW and stayed consistent
with this terminology throughout the final 40
CFR 1068.50. We have also modified the list
of ordinary tools from the proposal to a
specific list of tools for engines less than 30
kW. This list is expanded for engines between
30 and 560 kW. The list of "ordinary tools"
for engines below 30 kW is a complete list of
tools. The final regulation specifies that these
tools need to be used for their intended
purpose for applying the provisions of 40
CFR 1068.50. For 30 - 560 kW engines, the
set of ordinary tools expands to include
reasonably available solvents or supplies, and
any hand tools that are available from retail or
online merchants. For engines above 560 kW,
all tools are considered available.
OPEI is seeking clarification that bimetal
springs contained within a housing with a
crimped cover are also considered not
practically adjustable.
We have updated from proposal our final
regulation text to address both crimped
fasteners and bimetal springs. 40 CFR
1068.50(f)(1) and (2) define the
characteristics of a physical limit or stop that
are adequate for limiting the practically
adjustable range. These characteristics include
crimped threads and bimetal springs recessed
within a larger permanently sealed body if
they meet the time and cost thresholds in 40
CFR 1068.50(e)(1).
OPEI is seeking clarification that 'specialized
tools' intended exclusively for servicing
dealers, including software and hardware for
analysis of electronics, and not intended for
retail to the consumer/operator are not
considered 'ordinary tools' if not otherwise
'reasonably available' as described in section
(d)(1) with regards to engines and equipment
powered by engines at or below 30 kW.
If manufacturer-specific service tools,
especially tools with the ability to reflash, are
not made directly available to the operators,
they will not be considered ordinary tools. An
inclusive list of ordinary tools for engines
below 30 kW is defined in 40 CFR
1068.50(e)(l)(vi)(A).
1719
-------
OPEI is unclear why a product unique or
'specialty' tool sold for the purpose of a
specific repair or adjustment, for specific
equipment, should be excluded from the cost
of repair. 'Specialty' tools, such as diagnostic
tools and software specific to a product, likely
have significant cost in comparison to the
outdoor power equipment product cost, which
industry believes minimizes the risk of such
tools being purchased for tampering. As a
result, such 'specialty' tools should be
included in the tampering cost threshold,
and/or excluded from 'ordinary' and 'simple'
tools, even if provided by the manufacturer.
Such specialty tools would alone almost
always exceed the cost threshold without
considering the cost of service parts.
Including consideration of the cost of such
specialty tools would therefore automatically
prevent us from determining that
modifications with those tools is tampering.
Moreover, we would expect anyone
purchasing a specialized tool to be ready to
use that tool for modifying multiple engines
to justify the significant cost of purchasing
the tool.
However, we are modifying the final rule to
align with existing guidance for engines
below 30 kW. Specifically, we name the list
of tools that manufacturers must consider for
evaluating tamper-resistance for engines
below 30 kW. That list includes unique or
specialty tools only to the extent that those
tools are supplied by the manufacturer. We
would not expect a typical user of engines
below 30 kW to seek out third-party or
aftermarket specialty tools to modify engines.
If the manufacturer designs, produces, and
supplies such specialty tools, we would
consider those tools to be available to typical
users.
1720
-------
OPEI is concerned that right to repair
regulations may impact consumer safety
specific to outdoor power equipment and will
directly conflict with U.S. EPA adjustable
parameter and tamperproof requirements,
both currently in place and outlined in the
proposed amendments. OPEI requests that
EPA investigate how the FTC's new policy
statement (adopted unanimously on July 21,
2021), the Fair Repair Act (HR 4006), and
proposed state legislation would impact
current and proposed adjustable-parameter
and tamper-resistance regulations.
EMA noted that many states are adopting
"right to repair" legislation or regulations that
compel manufacturers to make service tools
and instructions available to third-party
independent repair facilities. Those
regulations usually require that manufacturers
allow the independent repair centers to gain
access to programmability normally protected
from anyone outside the OEM's dealer
network, including granting the ability to
reflash ECUs with different ratings. Engine
manufacturers cannot be held liable for the
actions of the independent repair facilities. It
is important for EPA to acknowledge this by
providing appropriate protections in the
adjustable parameter provisions. To that end,
EMA recommends that EPA adds "except
where required by law to make them
available" when referring to the need for
manufacturers to prevent distribution and use
of passwords.
We are finalizing the adjustable-parameter
provisions without the exception
recommended by EMA ("except where
required by law to make them available").
This exception, coupled with a hypothetical
state law that requires disclosure of adjustable
parameters information beyond the
configurable range, would give owners and
mechanics the information they need to easily
modify the engine to be outside of its certified
configuration. Such modifications could
allow engines to operate with emissions
substantially exceeding emission standards,
with consequent negative environmental
impacts. This would frustrate the purpose of
the adjustable parameter regulations, as well
as the tampering and defeat-device provisions
of the CAA and EPA's regulations. EPA
therefore acts well within its authority in
adopting the adjustable parameters
regulations without the suggested exception.
The commenters did not identify with
reasonable specificity any existing state law
that conflicts with EPA's regulation or
specify how any existing federal law conflicts
with EPA's regulation. Any regulation or
guidance from FTC or other federal agencies
will not supersede the tampering and defeat-
device provisions of the CAA and EPA's
regulations. EPA will not speculate on
pending state or federal legislative processes.
However, we note that any state laws that
conflict with EPA's regulations are
preempted. We also note that the latest draft
of HR 4006 includes language to create a
specific exception for motor vehicles. EPA
intends to monitor the development of state
laws in this area and may issue clarifying
guidance as appropriate.
1721
-------
OPEI is seeking EPA feedback regarding how
the proposed regulations would impact the
specific guidance outlined in EPA's 2011
guidance document on adjustable parameters.
We intended for the proposed rule to be
consistent with the 2011 guidance document
for engines less than 30 kW. The comments
from OPEI and others have led us to make
several adjustments to the final regulation as
compared to the proposal to more carefully
align with the guidance document. Where the
new final regulation differs from the guidance
document, or where manufacturers didn't take
the guidance as normative, there will need to
be modest changes to the manufacturers
current approach to adjustable parameters.
Adding specifications for electronic controls
is the most significant new content compared
to the 2011 guidance document in the final 40
CFR 1068.50; however, we note that most
engines below 30 kW do not have electronic
controls.
EMA supports the consolidation of
adjustable-parameter requirements, and finds
most of the proposed requirements to be
reasonable and practical. EMA recommends
streamlining provisions for improved
understanding and greater consistency. The
provisions could be restructured to define
basic concepts, then to break down how they
apply to physically adjustable parameters,
programmable adjustable parameters, and
replenishable parameters. EMA also
recommends apply greater consistency in
terminology.
We acknowledge the affirmation that the
proposed rule appropriately addresses these
issues. We recognized that improvements to
the proposal were appropriate and the final
preamble and regulation text reflect more
organized and easier-to-read requirements
which in part use suggestions from the
commentor, to the extent EPA agreed such
suggestions aligned with the intent and
purposes of the new adjustable parameter
regulation.
1722
-------
EMA: Related to the improved structure
recommended above, the new provisions
could be simplified by eliminating the
definition of "operating parameter." It is
adequate, clearer and more efficient to simply
define an "adjustable parameter," including
the special condition of the practical range of
adjustment, and the consequence of emissions
increases. EPA should not finalize
requirements that could be interpreted as
requiring manufacturers to disclose all
"operating parameters," because on most
modern engines there are thousands of
programmable parameters coded into the
ECUs. The manufacturer's responsibility
should be to disclose all parameters to which
users have practical access for adjustment.
Descriptions of how manufacturers will limit
access to ECU code through passwords and
encryption can be managed without the
complexity EPA included in the proposed
definition of "operating parameter."
We are keeping the definition of "operating
parameter" because the application for
certification needs to identify any operating
parameters that the manufacturer does not
consider to be adjustable parameters. We
agree that manufacturers do not need to name
every programmable parameter coded into the
ECU to support EPA's need to evaluate
tamper-resistance. Rather, we have modified
the final regulation from proposal to state that
manufacturers should consider all
programmable parameters not involving user-
selectable controls to be a single, collective
operating parameter. This would effectively
treat the ECU with its access restrictions as
the operating parameter of interest for
purposes of 40 CFR 1068.50.
EMA recommends that the condition in
proposed §1068.50(c)(1) include a reference
to "significant" emission impacts. This would
preserve what already applies under 40 CFR
86.094-22(e)(l)(ii). The adjustable-parameter
provisions should not apply for things that
have only a minor impact on emissions.
40 CFR 86.094-22 and proposed 40 CFR
1068.50 set up the logic to allow EPA to
approve a decision to exclude operating
parameters from being considered adjustable
parameters if the effect on emissions causes a
corresponding performance degradation. The
important part of this assessment relates to the
performance degradation. If the operator is
aware of a performance problem, they can be
expected to operate the engine in a way that
avoids the degradation. Adding a further
restriction to allow EPA to exclude operating
parameters only if the emission effect is
significant would be both unwarranted and
adverse to manufacturers' interest. We are
therefore not revising final 40 CFR
1068.50(d)(2) to add the word "significantly"
to qualify the extent of emission impact that is
considered for excluding operating
parameters.
1723
-------
EMA: Regarding terminology, the term
"physically adjustable parameter" should be
used in lieu of "mechanically controlled
parameter," and "programmable parameter"
in lieu of "electronically controlled
parameter" and "electronically controlled
setting."
We have adopted this suggested terminology
in the final 40 CFR 1068.50 to present more
consistent, organized, and easier-to-read
requirements.
EMA: Proposed §1068.50(c)(2)(ii) and (iii)
should not be limited to "mechanically
controlled engines."
We have revised final 40 CFR 1068.50(f)(1)
and (2) for threaded fasteners and bimetal
springs to remove the limitation to
mechanically controlled engines since
threaded fasteners and bimetal springs are not
limited in application to mechanically
controlled engines.
EMA: There are also concerns about the
adjustable parameter provisions as they relate
to enterprises unlawfully marketing emission
"delete" kits that employ various techniques,
through programming or hardware changes or
both, to tamper with emissions control
systems.
If someone alters an engine or equipment
from the certified configuration, they will be
liable for violating the tampering prohibition
of 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(1) or the defeat-
device prohibition in 40 CFR 1068.101(b)(2).
The manufacturer will be responsible in each
certification application for ensuring that all
aspects of the manufacturer's statements
regarding adjustable parameters are still
appropriate. We may also engage with the
manufacturer to see if there is a need or
opportunity to upgrade future designs for
better protection as stated in final 40 CFR
1068.50(i)(2). For example, it may be
appropriate to design electronic controls to
recognize that certain programming or
hardware changes take the engine out if its
certified configuration and to include some
appropriate design algorithm to prevent the
engine from operating in the tampered
condition.
1724
-------
EMA suggested that modifying the proposed
§1068.50(d)(2) to reference "legally available
tools", rather than allowing for use of any
available tools.
As described in the preamble, we would
generally not hold manufacturers liable for
tools developed by third parties to tamper
with an engine's electronic controls. This
presumes that the manufacturer is not
cooperating with third parties to develop or
make available such tools. However, if we
find that such tools are available to operators,
we may engage with the manufacturer to see
if there is a need or opportunity to upgrade
future designs for better limitations and
protection. This measured approach
establishes a process for considering tools that
do not qualify as "legally available." As such,
it would not be appropriate to modify the
regulation to exclude consideration of such
tools.
EMA suggested replacing the definition of
"adjustable parameter" in §1039.801 and
other standard-setting parts with a reference
to §1068.50 to avoid confusion. EMA also
suggested that the description for the
applications for certification was perhaps
reasonably descriptive, but suggested that
there was a risk of confusion when comparing
to the provisions in §1068.50.
In the proposed rule we inadvertently left the
existing definitions of "Adjustable parameter"
in the standard-setting parts. The new
provisions in §1068.50 clearly replace those
existing definitions, so we are revising the
final rule to change all the definitions to
instead reference §1068.50.
We have modified the instructions for the
application for certification to more carefully
align with the terminology in §1068.50.
30.3 ULSD-related exemption for Guam
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA proposes to remove the exemption for aftertreatment-equipped engines sold into Guam
because USLDF is now widely available in that territory (§1036.655). EMA supports the
proposal, but manufacturers will need more time to plan for this change and to modify emissions
labels accordingly. To simplify planning of product supply and delivery, EMA recommends that
EPA implement this change to be effective at the start of a new calendar year. Given the
anticipated timing of the CTP rulemaking, EMA recommends that the exemption become
effective on January 1, 2023. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 134]
Also related to the ULSDF exemption, EPA has proposed to limit the exclusion for nonroad
engines in the territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
1725
-------
Islands to engines "at or above 56kW" (§1039.655). Many manufacturers' products below 56kW
use DPFs to control PM emissions. Those engines require ULSDF to ensure long-term emissions
control. EPA should not limit the exemption to engines at or above 56kW. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 134]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
EMA supports the proposed removal of the
exemption for aftertreatment-equipped
engines sold into Guam because USLDF is
now widely available in that territory
(§1036.655), but manufacturers will need
more time to plan for this change and to
modify emissions labels accordingly. EMA
recommends that EPA implement this change
to be effective at the start of a new calendar
year. Given the anticipated timing of the CTP
rulemaking, EMA recommends that the
exemption continue to be available until
January 1, 2023.
We recognize that manufacturers need some
established time frame to work out
commercial considerations related to
discontinuing the exemption for engines
shipped to Guam. This may be for managing
orders and inventory in addition to updating
emission labels. With the uncertain timing for
publication in the Federal Register, we
believe it is appropriate to identify January 1,
2024 as the fixed date for discontinuing the
Guam exemption. This applies equally for
highway and nonroad engines.
EMA also objected to the change in the
analogous proposal for nonroad diesel engines
in §1039.655, which applied the exemption
only for engines at or above 56 kW. Many
manufacturers' products below 56kW use
DPFs to control PM emissions. Those engines
require ULSDF to ensure long-term emissions
control and they therefore also need the
exemption.
The proposed limitation for engines at or
above 56 kW was based on a consideration of
the need for engines to have ULSD for SCR.
We recognize that similar concerns apply for
engines below 56 kW that may use DPF
technology to meet Tier 4 PM standards. We
are therefore retracting this amendment for
the final rule.
30.4 Deterioration factors for certifying nonroad engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
On page 17628 of the NPRM, U.S. EPA requests comments regarding the proposed alternative
for establishing and verifying DF for the identified nonroad engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 134]
CARB staff has concerns regarding applying the on-highway durability procedures to nonroad
applications and believes it would be premature and inappropriate for U.S. EPA to finalize
regulations allowing that at this time. The nonroad sector is very diverse in terms of operations
and the types of emission control systems used. CARB is currently funding a nonroad
1726
-------
demonstration contract to support the development of Tier 5 off-road standards. CARB staff
suggests that U.S. EPA and CARB staff work together to consider any changes to off-road
durability protocols. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.134]
Organization: Deere & Company
Section XI.A.8 of the NPRM proposes the addition of a new provision 40 CFR 1039.245(e) for
nonroad engines giving the engine manufacturer the option to determine Deterioration Factors
('DF') based on bench-aging aftertreatment per 40 CFR 1036.245 and 1036.246. It is not clear
which provisions of 40CFR 1036.245 and 1036.246 are applicable to nonroad engines. For
example, 40 CFR 1036.246(d)(2) requires the testing of at least five engines using the procedure
specified in 40 CFR 1036.520, which references the moving average windows calculations
described in 40 CFR 1036.515. These calculations are not directly applicable to nonroad engines.
Another example is the case of a nonroad engine family with low annual usage, never reaching
the minimum age requirement defined in Table 1 of 40 CFR1036.246(c): it is not clear whether
the provisions of 40 CFR 1036.246(c)(5) are applicable to nonroad engines or not. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2743, p.l]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins supports inclusion of the aftertreatment bench aging option as a more efficient and
accurate method for determining DFs for off-highway engine DF determination, as EPA has
proposed in §1033.245, §1039.245, §1042.245, and §1048.240. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 11]
Cummins appreciates that EPA proposes to allow aftertreatment bench aging as an option for DF
testing in lieu of traditional engine dynamometer-based aging for other regulatory categories
beyond on highway, including nonroad, marine, locomotive, and large spark-ignited (LSI)
engines. However, there are significant and unique differences in those regulations, customers,
and markets which warrant differences in DF verification requirements compared to on-highway.
While EPA seems to have taken some of this into account in its proposal, additional
considerations and flexibilities need to be incorporated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p.
12]
For marine engines in §1042.245, a manufacturer should be allowed to propose an alternate
verification method, similar to the alternative option (f) EPA included in their guidance
document CD-2022-02 for marine DF validation. For example, for any marine engine family that
is a direct carry-across from a previously certified nonroad engine family, the manufacturer may
submit durability-demonstration test data from that nonroad engine family, which will constitute
sufficient validation for the DF of the carry across marine engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1325-A1, p. 12]
For locomotive engines in §1033.245, EPA should leverage the existing in-use program in
Subpart E that already covers 50-75% of useful life and only additionally require a single-step
DF verification at >85% useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 12]
1727
-------
Finally, regarding LSI engines in §1048.240, it is unclear whether the experiences from studies
by EPA, the Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), and SwRI, which resulted in
the DF validation guidance documents issued by EPA for SCR-based diesel CI engines,
necessitate an additional verification program for LSI. Since LSI has an existing in-use program
in Subpart E, EPA should provide data to demonstrate that DF verification is additionally needed
for this category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 12]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA has proposed to allow bench-aging of aftertreatment systems as an alternative to traditional
dyno-based aging processes. EMA fully supports this approach for HDOH engines, as well as
locomotive engines in §1033.245, non-road engines as described in §1039.245, marine engines
in §1042.245, and LSI engines in §1048.240. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. Ill]
EPA proposes that non-road engine manufacturers may "alternatively determine and verify
deterioration factors based on bench-aged aftertreatment." (§ 1039.245(e)). The existing
provisions of (§1039.245), however, apply at the family level. EMA recommends that
§1039.245(e) applies only for each DF demonstration, not for all engine families to which DF's
were applied through carry-over or carry-across provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-
Al, p. 113]
For marine engines in §1042.245, a manufacturer should be allowed to propose an alternate
verification method, similar to the alternative option (f) EPA included in their guidance
document CD-2022-02 for marine DF validation. For example, for any marine engine family that
is a direct carry-across from a previously certified nonroad engine family, the manufacturer
should be allowed to submit durability-demonstration test data from that nonroad engine family,
which will constitute sufficient validation for the DF of the carry-across marine engine family.
For locomotive engines in §1033.245, EPA should leverage the existing in-use program in
Subpart E that already covers 50-75% of useful life, and only additionally require a single-step
DF verification at >85% useful life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 113]
Finally, regarding LSI engines in §1048.240, it is unclear whether the experiences from studies
by EPA, EMA, and SwRI, which resulted in the DF validation guidance documents issued by
EPA for SCR-based diesel compression-ignition engines, necessitate an additional verification
program for LSI. Since LSI has an existing in-use program in Subpart E, EPA should provide
data to demonstrate that DF verification is additionally needed for this category. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p. 113]
1728
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
CARB staff believes it would be premature
and inappropriate for U.S. EPA to finalize
regulations allowing the highway durability
procedures for nonroad applications. The
nonroad sector is very diverse in operations
and the types of emission control systems
used. CARB is currently funding a nonroad
demonstration contract to support the
development Tier 5 off-road standards.
CARB staff suggests that U.S. EPA and
CARB staff work together to consider any
changes to off-road durability protocols.
Current regulations allow us to approve
alternative DF demonstration programs for
individual manufacturers. The proposal
simply expanded on that broad authority to
clarify specific provisions that capture the
principles and general measurement
procedures for highway engines. We are
prepared to revisit all provisions related to DF
procedures in the context of future
rulemakings for the various types of nonroad
engines. In the meantime, we are confident
that the methodology we finalize for heavy-
duty highway engines will serve as a
reasonable starting point to establish
acceptable alternative DF demonstration
procedures for nonroad engines.
1729
-------
Deere: It is not clear which provisions of 40
CFR 1036.245 and 1036.246 apply to
nonroad engines. For example, 40 CFR
1036.246(d)(2) requires testing with the
procedure specified in 40 CFR 1036.520,
which references the moving average
windows calculations described in 40 CFR
1036.515. These calculations are not directly
applicable to nonroad engines. It is also not
clear how to apply the minimum age
requirement in 40 CFR 1036.246(c)(5) for a
nonroad engine family with low annual usage.
Deere raises these specific concerns:
1. The proposal included the instruction to
"use good engineering judgment to perform
verification testing using the procedures of §
1039.515 rather than 40 CFR 1036.520." We
used this approach specifically to avoid
relying on moving average windows from
§1036.515.
2. The proposal instructs manufacturers to test
engines after accumulating operating hours as
a percentage of the useful life. We would
expect manufacturers to preferentially select
equipment with a consistently high usage rate,
both to meet the testing requirements and to
compete testing as quickly as possible.
Deere also raises the broader point that the
regulation is unclear for performing DF
verification for nonroad engines. We
recognize that there is a need to apply
judgment in adapting the principles embodied
in the highway program for performing DF
verification with nonroad engines. We might
pursue further clarity in a future rulemaking
by adopting provisions that are specific to
nonroad engines. In the meantime, we are
confident that this provision can provide a
good option for manufacturers wanting to
accelerate the certification process and instead
rely on in-use testing to verify deterioration
factors.
EMA and Cummins support inclusion of the
aftertreatment bench-aging option as a more
efficient and accurate method for determining
DFs for off-highway engine DF
determination, as EPA has proposed in
§1033.245, §1039.245, §1042.245, and
§1048.240.
We acknowledge the affirmation of the
proposed provisions for the subject nonroad
engines.
1730
-------
EMA and Cummins elaborated that the
different types of nonroad engines have
significantly different regulations, customers,
and markets that should lead to different
approaches for implementing DF verification
requirements compared to highway engines.
They requested that additional considerations
and flexibilities be incorporated beyond what
was included in the proposed rule.
Marine CI (§1042.245): A manufacturer
should be allowed to propose an alternate
verification method, similar to the
alternative option (f) in guidance
document CD-2022-02. For example, for
any marine engine family that is a direct
carry-across from a previously certified
nonroad engine family, the manufacturer
may submit durability data from the
nonroad engine family, which serves to
validate the DF of the related marine
engine family.
Locomotive (§1033.245): EPA should
leverage the existing in-use program in
Subpart E that already covers 50-75% of
useful life and only additionally require a
single-step DF verification at >85%
useful life.
Large SI (§1048.240): Since Large SI
engines already have an in-use testing
program, EPA should provide data to
demonstrate that it is necessary to add DF
verification for this category. It is not
clear that the proposed DF verification
procedures designed abound SCR-
equipped diesel engines justify applying
the additional verification program.
1. We intend that the regulation for each
sector properly reflect the unique
circumstances that apply. To the extent there
is a provision that doesn't translate well from
40 CFR part 1036, we would expect to work
with the manufacturer to exercise good
engineering judgment in making any
appropriate adjustments.
2. The new provision allowing manufacturers
to rely on the DF verification approach from
40 CFR part 1036 applies in addition to the
existing guidance. Manufacturers may
continue to certify within the guidelines of
CD-2022-02. We may in a future rule broaden
or narrow the range of options for
determining deterioration factors in ways that
account for all the learning that will occur in
the years ahead.
3. It may be appropriate to apply good
engineering judgment to accomplish DF
verification with some incremental effort
relative to current in-use testing. This might
involve new testing at intermediate test points
in addition to the need for a final emission
measurement beyond 85 percent of useful life.
We would be ready to work with any
manufacturer wanting to pursue this option.
4. There is no additional burden to justify
because the final rule simply adds an option
for manufacturers to pursue a different
approach for establishing deterioration
factors. Even though the test parameters were
designed based on SCR-equipped diesel
engines, we are confident that the testing will
give results that are at least as effective as the
laboratory-based procedures that
manufacturers use today. We may in a future
rule revise these new procedures and perhaps
broaden or narrow the range of options for
determining deterioration factors in way that
accounts for all the learning that will occur in
the years ahead.
1731
-------
EMA—N on road CI (§1039.245): Existing
provisions for deterioration factors apply at
the family level. EMA recommends that the
new DF verification procedures in
§1039.245(e) apply only for each DF
demonstration, not for all engine families to
which DF's were applied through carry-over
or carry-across provisions.
The DF verification procedure will continue
to apply to all engine families to which the
DFs applied as there is no reason to limit the
family if there is an issue with the DFs. The
procedure to verify DFs will remain in 40
CFR part 1036.246 but will be optional only
upon EPA's request. See section IV.F.2 of
the preamble.
31 Provisions related to refueling light-duty and heavy-duty
vehicles
31.1 Gasoline dispensing rates for facilities serving heavy-duty
vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The NPRM states: 'We are proposing a requirement for all gasoline-fueled HD highway vehicle
manufacturers to comply with refueling standards, it is no longer appropriate to preserve the
exemption from the dispensing rate limit for dispensing pumps dedicated exclusively to HD
vehicles.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.123]
CARB staff agrees with this assessment. Unlike retail diesel dispensing facilities (i.e., truck
stops), gasoline dispensing pumps 'dedicated exclusively to heavy-duty vehicles' do not exist in
California because the gasoline flow rate at the nozzle is limited to a maximum of 10 gallons per
minute. For reference, the 10 gallons per minute flow rate limitation is contained in CARB
certification Executive Orders for Phase II (Stage II) systems. 187 In other words, in California,
heavy-duty gasoline powered vehicles use the same dispensing pumps that serve passenger cars
and light-duty trucks. As such, CARB staff agrees that there is no need to maintain an exemption
for heavy-duty vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.123]
187 Reference https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/vapor-recovery/vapor-recovery-
equipment-defects-list and Vapor Recovery Phase IIEVR Executive Orders | California Air
Resources Board
CARB staff also agrees with the assessment in the NPRM stating: 'Retail stations and fleets
rarely have dispensing pumps that are dedicated to HD vehicles. Since there are no concerns of
feasibility or other issues related to meeting the 10 gallon per minute dispensing limit, we are
1732
-------
proposing to remove the exemption upon the effective date of the final rule.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p.123]
The NPRM also requests comments regarding: 'We request comment on allowing additional lead
time for any legacy installations that continue to have higher dispensing rates for gasoline-fueled
HD vehicles. We expect few such cases. This may occur, for example, with a remaining fleet of
gasoline-fueled school buses or with farms that have refueling capabilities for delivery trucks
along with nonroad implements.' CARB staff does not believe additional lead time is necessary
in California, since there are no legacy installations in California. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p.123]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
CARB staff agrees that there is no need to
keep the exemption from the 10 gallon-per-
minute dispensing limit for stations dedicated
to heavy-duty vehicles. CARB staff does not
believe additional lead time is necessary in
California.
We acknowledge the affirmation to adopt the
proposed provision applying the 10 gallon-
per-minute limitation to any stations that may
be dedicated to servicing heavy-duty vehicles.
31.2 Refueling interface for gasoline-fueled motor vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Section 109 of the federal CAA authorizes and directs U.S. EPA to establish national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants, and U.S. EPA has promulgated NAAQS for a
number of air pollutants, including ozone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.124]
States that have not attained a NAAQS for a specified pollutant are required by section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA to adopt SIP that describe how they will attain the NAAQS in those regions by
certain deadlines. California has, and continues to experience some of the worst air quality in the
nation, and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, in particular, are in extreme non-
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 124]
CARB has developed regulations that require gasoline dispensing facilities to incorporate Stage
II vapor recovery systems. Such systems help to control the evaporative emissions that are
displaced from the fuel systems of motor vehicles as they are fueled. Several air districts within
California, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District, have incorporated CARB's Stage II vapor recovery
1733
-------
systems within their local regulations and have included those regulations within their SIPs, and
U.S. EPAhas approved such submissions. 188 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.124]
188 See, e.g., 78 Fed Reg. 21543 (Apr. 11, 2013) (approving SCAQMD Rule 461; available at
Regulations.gov), 80 Fed. Reg. 7345 (Feb. 10, 2015) (San Joaquin Air Quality Management
District Regulation 4622; available atRegulations.gov)); 78 Fed. Reg. 897 (Jan. 7, 2013)
(approving Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rule 449; available at
RULE449 CLEAN.doc (airquality.org))
NPRM states that: 'The filler-neck restriction is no longer needed to prevent misfuelling with
leaded fuel. There is also no need for new vehicles to be designed to accommodate Stage II
refueling controls now that they are subject to vehicle-based refueling standards. As a result, the
only remaining need for restricting the filler-neck diameter is for those vehicles that depend on
such a design to meet spitback and refueling standards.'
As discussed below, CARB staff disagrees with U.S. EPA's statement that 'there is no need for
new vehicles to accommodate Stage II controls now that they are subject to vehicle-based
refueling standards':
• a) Unlike other states that have decommissioned Stage II vapor control at gasoline
dispensing facilities, California has retained Phase II (similar to U.S. EPA Stage II) vapor
recovery requirements on a statewide basis. California's Phase II systems are dependent
on nozzles and vehicle fill pipes having uniform dimensions in order to achieve a good
seal, which is assisted by the fill pipe restriction, during the refueling process.
Specifically, a good seal enables the Phase II nozzle to detect if the vehicle is equipped
with on-board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) or non-ORVR. CARB field studiesl89
have concluded, without uniform dimensions (standardization) for the nozzle and vehicle
fill pipe interface, a poor seal will occur, resulting in excess air ingestion, storage tank
headspace overpressure, and excess breathing loss emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, pp. 124-125]
189 Reference: CARB field studies VR-OP-A3 and VR-OP-A4 available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/overpressure-studies-and-technical-support-
documents
As of 2022, approximately 90 percent of California's gasoline powered vehicle population is
equipped with a vehicle based ORVR emission control system. Despite this high percentage of
ORVR equipped vehicles, Phase II vapor recovery controls are still needed to capture the
displaced gasoline vapors that are generated by the remaining 10 percent of California's vehicle
population, not equipped with ORVR system. In a state where some regions have the worst air
quality in the nation, retaining Phase II control is needed to help achieve NAAQS attainment
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 125]
CARB staff estimates that even when about 98 percent of gasoline in California will be
dispensed to vehicles with ORVR (predicted to be about 2030 or later), Phase II controls will
provide volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reductions of about nine tons per day. 190
Making up nine tons per day VOC emissions in the 2030 timeframe may be extremely difficult
1734
-------
since most of the cost-effective VOC control measures have already been implemented. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 125]
190 Reference:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/gdfnozzles2018/fsor.pdf
• b) Gasoline vapors that are displaced during the storage and transfer of gasoline contain
benzene, a known carcinogen. CARB's Benzene Air Toxic Control Measurel91 requires
Phase II vapor recovery at retail gasoline dispensing facilities regardless of ozone
attainment status, in order to reduce public exposure to benzene. Reducing benzene
exposure requires a good seal between the fill pipe and the nozzle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 125]
191 Reference: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/benzene-retail-service-
stations#:~:text=The%20California%20Air%20Resources%20Board,Benzene%20from%20Retai
l%20Service%20Stations.
• c) In California, certain non-retail gasoline dispensing facilities are exempt from Phase II
controls if they serve a captive fleet of predominately ORVR equipped vehicles. In
2015,192 CARB adopted standards for Enhanced Conventional (ECO) nozzles that do
not include vapor recovery, but are required to control liquid releases including spillage,
post-fueling drips, spitting, and liquid retention. ECO nozzles are subject to a spillage
standard of 0.12 pounds per 1,000 gallons dispensed, which represents an approximately
80 percent reduction over spillage rates from conventional nozzles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 125]
192 Reference:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2015/vapor2015/vaporl5eo.pdf
Additionally, CARB staff found the currently certified ECO nozzles can comply with a more
stringent spillage standard of 0.05 pounds per 1,000 gallons, a 90 percent reduction. 193 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 126]
193 Reference: ISOR EVR 2020 (ca.gov)
In order to meet these liquid release standards, ECO nozzles are equipped with similar features
found on Phase II nozzles including spout design, insertion interlock (minimizes spillage), face
plate, and bellows. With ECO nozzles, adequate contact between vehicle fill pipe and nozzle
face plate is required for the insertion interlock feature to work properly. ECO nozzles are also
subject to almost identical dimensional standards as required for Phase II nozzles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 126]
According to the 2015 staff report, at least 17 states (other than California) will consider the use
of ECO nozzles. Those 17 states have a combined population and annual gasoline throughput,
that is approximately three times greater than California. If those states moved forward with
1735
-------
ECO nozzle requirements, the national emission reductions associated with the reduced spillage
of gasoline would be significant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.126]
As explained above in the CARB comments in subsections (a) through (c) above, the proposal to
delete the preexisting requirement for vehicles to incorporate a fuel filler restriction does not
consider the extent to which the proposal may adversely affect the effectiveness of Phase II
vapor recovery systems to capture displaced gasoline vapors generated by motor vehicles, or the
corresponding projected increases of VOCs, ozone emissions, or benzene emissions. These
considerations constitute an important aspect of states' abilities to attain or maintain compliance
with NAAQS and to maintain the effectiveness of state adopted measures to protect the health of
their citizens, and NPRM therefore improperly failed to address those considerations. State
Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. It is also clear that U.S. EPA's rationale that its proposal will not result in
increased emissions is directly inconsistent with the evidence presented in CARB staffs
comments, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 473. Moreover, these considerations arguably preclude U.S.
EPA from demonstrating there are good reasons for the proposal, including a justification for
'disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.'
FCC v Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. at 515-516. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2,
p.126]
The CAA requires that federal agencies ensure that their actions do not interfere with a state's
ability to implement its SIP and to attain applicable NAAQS. CAA section 176(c)(l)-(2). As
previously discussed, U.S. EPA's proposal will result in the increase of VOC emissions that
could affect ozone formation e, but U.S. EPA has not evaluated or considered the extent to which
its proposal will likely result in increased VOC emissions in states that have approved SIPs
containing Stage II vapor recovery systems that are dependent upon fuel filler pipe restrictions in
motor vehicles. It is accordingly clear that U.S. EPA must, at a minimum, reevaluate the
foreseeable increased emissions attributable to the proposal to ensure its proposal does not
violate its conformity obligations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.126-127]
The NPRM states: 'Since there is no longer an external emission-related design constraint for
filler necks, vehicle manufacturers will no longer be constrained to design their vehicles to meet
spitback and refueling standards with a limiting orifice. If vehicle manufacturers need to have a
narrow-diameter filler neck to achieve a mechanical seal for onboard refueling vapor recovery or
to prevent spitback, then they will need to include those design specifications. If they can use a
different orifice or no orifice at all and still meet spitback and refueling standards, that would
also represent a compliant configuration. We therefore propose to remove the filler-neck
restrictions from 40 CFR 80.24 without migrating those requirements to the CFR parts for light-
duty or HD vehicles.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 127]
CARB staff disagrees with the concept of eliminating fill pipe dimensional standards especially
removal of the filler-neck restrictions, which would result in excess emissions due
incompatibility between the vehicle fill pipes and Phase II/ECO nozzles. Doing so would also be
inconsistent with CARB regulations adopted in 2019 that are based upon findings and
recommendations of the SAE Fuel System Task Force (Task Force). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 127]
1736
-------
The goal of the Task Force was to identify design parameters to improve compatibility of
nozzles and vehicle fill pipes by establishing a set of dimensions to effectively standardize the
interface. In other words, the dimensional standards provide a 'design envelope' for both nozzle
and vehicle fill pipe manufacturers to follow. The dimensions are found in SAE J285 (April
2019) for Phase II194 and ECO nozzlesl95 and CARB Specification for Fill Pipesl96 and
Openings of 2015 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks (May 31, 2019). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 127]
194
https://www.arb. ca.gov/testmeth/vol2/cp201.pdf?_ga=2.178947043.654532313.1648057
694-1201589631.1627687357
195
https://www.arb. ca.gov/testmeth/vol2/cp207.pdf?_ga=2.189967724.654532313.1648057
694-1201589631.1627687357
196
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2018/fillpipe2018/finalspecs.pdf7_
ga=2.189967724.654532313.1648057694-1201589631.1627687357
In addition to forming a good seal between the Phase II and ECO nozzles and vehicle fill pipes,
the Task Force considered other factors when determining appropriate dimensions, including
pre-mature shutoff, loose latch, customer effort (insertion force), and likelihood of the nozzle
becoming caught within the fill pipe pocket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.127]
The NPRM also states: 'We acknowledge that there are commercial reasons to have standardized
specifications for filler necks. This is reflected by the referenced voluntary consensus standards
adopted to accomplish that purpose.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.128]
CARB staff agrees with this assessment and recommends that the U.S. EPA reference SAE J285
(April 2019) for Phase II and ECO nozzles and CARB Specification for Fill Pipes and Openings
of 2015 and Subsequent Model Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks (May 31, 2019) for the vehicle fill
pipe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.128]
As mentioned in the comment above, these documents retain the fill pipe restriction needed to
support Phase II and ECO nozzles and were developed after extensive deliberations by CARB,
nozzle, vehicle, and fill pipe manufacturers who participated in the SAE Task Force. In 2019,
CARB adopted the dimensional specifications listed in these documents. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 128]
Standardization of Phase II and ECO nozzle and vehicle fill pipe dimensions provides a defined
'design envelope' needed by the nozzle, vehicle, and fill pipe manufacturers to effectively
produce a compatible interface. These dimensional specifications provide flexibility to
manufacturers because they include a range of values, rather than a single value. As mentioned
in a prior comment, in developing these dimensional specifications, the Task Force considered
other factors such as pre-mature shutoff, loose latch, customer effort (insertion force), and
1737
-------
likelihood of the nozzle becoming caught within the fill pipe pocket. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1186-A2, p. 128]
Additionally, the NPRM states: 'U.S. EPA's existing specifications are compatible with those
published standards but allow for a much wider range of dimensions. The comment from the
earlier rulemaking requested that we update our specifications to match those in the voluntary
consensus standards.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.128]
CARB staff recommends that U.S. EPA consider updating the nozzle and vehicle fill pipe
requirements by referencing applicable portions of SAE J285 and CARB Specifications for Fill
Pipes and Openings of 2015 and subsequent Model Motor Vehicles (May 31, 2019). [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 128]
The NPRM also states: 'We request comment on the appropriateness of either keeping the
existing specifications or adopting the specifications from voluntary consensus standards into the
U.S. EPA regulations. We specifically request comment on the benefit of adopting such
standards and on the authority for adopting such standards under CAA considering that we
intend to remove the now obsolete requirements in 40 CFR 80.24.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1186-A2, p. 128]
CARB staff refers to previous comments concerning the need for U.S. EPA to update existing
specifications to include the new dimensional specifications recommended by the SAE Task
Force. Providing a standardized 'design envelope' will ensure Phase II and ECO nozzles are
compatible with vehicle fill pipes and will minimize emissions during refueling. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 128]
Organization: Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
EPA's assessment that the fill neck restriction was put in place in 1973 to prevent misfuelling
with leaded fuel is correct, and since leaded fuel is no longer in use, it is appropriate to suggest
that this requirement be eliminated. However, its purposes are not necessarily obsolete. Since the
implementation of this requirement, fuel system designers have considered its role in helping to
retain the nozzle in the fill pipe during refueling, its effects on air ingestion into the fill pipe
during refueling, and the dynamics of nozzle shut off at the end of a refueling event. In fact, the
presence of the fill neck restrictor is accounted for in the anchor spring requirements of SAE
J285 for gasoline fuel dispensing nozzles. Eliminating the regulatory requirement will not
necessarily lead the manufacturers to remove the fill neck restrictor from vehicle designs since
its presence is now considered in other functions which occur during the refueling event. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 7]
Furthermore, there is one other very important consideration of the role of the fill neck restrictor
which EPA did not mention in the NPRM. Note that within SAE J285 the nozzle spout outer
diameter specification for an unleaded fuel nozzle is 20.5/21.34 mm, and that for a diesel fuel
nozzle spout the specification is 23.6/25.5 mm for a low flow nozzle, and 28.5/38.5 mm for a
high flow nozzle. The provisions of 40 CFR §80.24 specify a not to exceed diameter of 23.63
mm for the inlet restriction for a gasoline-fueled vehicle. This regulatory specification effectively
1738
-------
eliminates the potential for diesel misfuelling, which is a special point of interest for
HDGVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1213- A 1, p. 7]
EPA also sought comment on removing the provisions of 40 CFR §80.22 and replacing them
with those of SAE J285 through incorporation by reference. We support incorporating by
reference the appropriate portions of SAE J285 as a means of updating these provisions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1213-A1, p. 7]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
CARB staff disagrees with eliminating the
filler-neck restrictions. CARB staff disagrees
with U.S. EPA's statement that 'there is no
need for new vehicles to accommodate Stage
II controls now that they are subject to
vehicle-based refueling standards. CARB has
developed regulations that require gasoline
dispensing facilities to incorporate Phase II
vapor recovery systems. California's Phase II
systems are dependent on nozzles and vehicle
fill pipes having uniform dimensions in order
to achieve a good seal, which is assisted by
the fill pipe restriction, during the refueling
process. As of 2022, Phase II vapor recovery
controls are still needed to capture the
displaced gasoline vapors that are generated
by the 10 percent of California's vehicle
population not equipped with ORVR system.
In 2015, CARB adopted standards for
Enhanced Conventional (ECO) nozzles that
do not include vapor recovery, but are
required to control liquid releases including
spillage, post-fueling drips, spitting, and
liquid retention. With ECO nozzles, adequate
contact between vehicle fill pipe and nozzle
face plate is required for proper operation.
CARB staff estimate that at least 17 states
will consider adopting California's
requirement to use ECO nozzles.
We recognize that state refueling-related
requirements depend on a consistent filler-
neck restriction to ensure a proper interface
for controlling emissions. We are therefore
preserving the longstanding requirement for
vehicle manufacturers to include the existing
filler-neck restriction for all vehicles up to
14,000 pounds GVWR. We are codifying this
provision in 40 CFR 86.1810-17 instead of 40
CFR 80.24. We are including no lead time for
this requirement because it is consistent with
the requirement from 40 CFR 80.24.
1739
-------
Ingevity: Fuel system designers consider the
filler-neck restriction to retain the nozzle in
the fill pipe during refueling and to account
for its effects on air ingestion into the fill pipe
during refueling and the dynamics of nozzle
shut off at the end of a refueling event.
Eliminating the regulatory requirement will
not necessarily lead the manufacturers to
remove the fill neck restrictor from vehicle
designs. The filler-neck restriction also
effectively eliminates the potential for diesel
misfuelling, which is a special point of
interest for gasoline-fueled heavy-duty
vehicles.
We recognize that the existing filler-neck
restriction has the additional benefit of
preventing operators from inadvertently
dispensing diesel fuel into fuel tanks for
gasoline-fueled vehicles. As described for the
previous comment, we are migrating the
existing filler-neck restriction from 40 CFR
80.24 to 40 CFR 86.1810-17.
Standardization of Phase II and ECO nozzle
and vehicle fill pipe dimensions provides a
defined 'design envelope' needed by the
nozzle, vehicle, and fill pipe manufacturers to
effectively produce a compatible interface.
CARB staff recommends that EPA update the
nozzle and vehicle fill pipe requirements by
referencing applicable portions of SAE J285
and CARB Specifications for Fill Pipes and
Openings of 2015 and subsequent Model
Motor Vehicles (May 31, 2019).
Ingevity supports incorporating by reference
the appropriate portions of SAE J285 as a
means of provisions to specify geometry for
gasoline refueling nozzles.
32 Sector-specific amendments to EPA's emission control
programs
32.1 Test procedures for electric vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 600.011 Incorporation by reference.
1740
-------
Auto Innovators generally supports the incorporation of the 2021 version of SAE J1634 by
reference at 40 C.F.R. 600.011(c)(2). Incorporating the 2021 revision of SAE J1634 would
harmonize BEV test procedures with the California Air Resource Board (CARB) proposed
Advanced Clean Cars II test procedures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.3]
We also request the option to allow use of the Short Multi-Cycle Test (sMCT) and the Short
Multi-Cycle Test Plus Steady State (sMCT+) procedures. Allowing these procedures would also
harmonize with the CARB proposed test procedures and significantly reduce laboratory test
burden associated with BEV testing while providing equivalent test results. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1303-A1, p.3]
EPA's current proposal prohibits manufacturers from using thermal conditioning during cold
soak periods. Unlike vehicles with internal combustion engines, managing battery temperature in
BEV vehicles is critical to battery durability, vehicle performance, and energy efficiency.
Thermal conditioning of the BEV propulsion battery can provide real-world benefits in these
areas. We would like to request for EPA to remove requirements explicitly prohibiting thermal
conditioning in order to not restrict emerging technologies that could improve real-world
performance and efficiency, for example under extreme cold start conditions during short trip
city driving. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.3]
We would also request for the use of thermal conditioning to be considered as part of the 5-cycle
test procedure approval process. Keeping in mind that the industry is still learning about
customer behavior related to BEV thermal conditioning, and any allowance of thermal
conditioning should be customer representative, either by default operation, manufacturer
instruction, or demonstrated real-word usage, we urge the EPA to allow manufacturers to
incorporate new technologies such as this one, when sufficient justification is provided. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.3]
40 C.F.R. 600.116-12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles.
(2)(i) We request that EPA omit the 15 second idle energy from the highway cycle energy
consumption. Including the idle in the highway phase data does not align with the highway test
for ICE vehicles. The idle energy should be included in the overall Usable Battery Energy (UBE).
(a)(4) We request that EPA remove the requirement to use Method 1 or Method 2 described in
SAE J1634 Appendix A to estimate the mid-test constant speed cycle distance (dM). OEMs are
developing methods to calculate dM which ensure the CSCe distance is less than 20% of the
overall distance with margin to reduce the risk of invalid tests. Requiring the use of the SAE
J1634 methods will require process changes and may result in less accurate determination of dM.
(a)(5) —"At the conclusion of each mid-test constant speed phase a minimum 5-minute key-off
soak will be performed."
We would like further clarification of this requirement. Specifically, we'd like to inquire whether
this means a key-off would be necessary before the dynamic UDDS3 segment?
(a)(8) We request that all energy measured during the entire test be included in the usable battery
energy (UBE). The UDDS and HFET cycles are used to calculate energy efficiency over these
1741
-------
cycles. The remaining test is used to determine total DC discharge energy. Including all energy
measured during the test, including key-off soaks and idles, represents the UBE stored in the
battery.
(a)(ll)(i)—"The 20 °F charge-depleting UDDS must be performed with a minimum 10-minute
key-off soak period between each UDDS cycle. Key-off soak periods of up to 30 minutes are
allowed."
With the final rule expected to be released shortly before MY 2025 vehicles are launched, there
is very limited lead-time to implement change for MY 2024, or even MY 2025 vehicles.
Therefore, we request to make this procedure optional prior to MY26 to allow labs to make any
necessary upgrades or training.
(a)(ll)(iii)— "Beginning with the 2024 model year the 20 °F UDDS charge-depleting
UDDS test will be replaced with a 20 °F UDDS test consisting of 2 UDDS cycles
performed with a 10-minute key-off soak between the two UDDS cycles."
It is of our opinion that MY24 is too soon for this type of testing requirement. We
propose the following changes: "Beginning with the 2026 model year, optional prior
to MY26, the 20 °F UDDS charge-depleting UDDS test will be replaced with a 20 °F
UDDS test consisting of 2 UDDS cycles performed with a 10-minute key-off soak
between the two UDDS cycles." This additional lead time will give OEMs enough time
to address any potential issues that may arise.
(a)(ll)(iv)(D)—"Beginning in model year 2024 the RunningFC equation used to calculate the
City Fuel Economy found on Page 30 in Appendix C of J1634 should be replaced with the
following equation when calculating City Fuel Economy."
We would like to align this requirement with our request for (ll)(iii) and extend the timeframe
to begin in MY26. We propose the following language: ""When 2 UDDS cycles are used, as
described in (a)(ll)(iii), the RunningFC equation used to calculate the City Fuel Economy found
on Page 30 in Appendix C of J1634 should be replaced with the following equation when
calculating City Fuel Economy."
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LI X" (Rivian)
Additional Considerations Reizardimz Proposed Amendments to LDV GHG and Fuel Economy
Testing. EPA used the NPRM to introduce a variety of amendments to LDV GHG and fuel
economy testing procedures. Beginning with M Y2024, EPA is proposing that manufacturers be
allowed to perform only two UDDS cycles when running the CTTP, with a 10-minute key-off
soak between the UDDS cycles to generate a BEV 5- cycle adjustment factor. Rivian
recommends a different approach to these amendments and offers additional related
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.6]
• Timeline. EPA should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to implement
changes. Testing for MY2023 is already underway and M Y2024 work will begin before
the conclusion of this rulemaking. The agency should provide additional time to
manufacturers before requiring any changes in test procedure.
• Flexibility. Rather than mandate a new approach to testing, the agency should provide
manufacturers with optionality. Specifically, EPA should allow up to 6 UDDS cycles
when running the CTTP at the manufacturer's recommended state of charge. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.6]
1742
-------
Organization: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (VWGoA)
40 CFR 600.011 Fuel economy and greenhouse gas exhaust emission of motor vehicles
EPA proposes to incorporate the 2017 version of SAE J1634 Battery Electric Vehicle Energy
Consumption and Range Test Procedure. We appreciate EPA's acceptance of this important,
consensus-based standard, however, there is an even more recent version. J1634 was
successfully updated in 2021 and VWGoA requests that this version be codified in this section
for use in its entirety throughout the testing process. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1296-A1, p.2]
We support allowing the option to use thermal conditioning during the cold temperature test as
defined in the 2021 version of SAE J1634. Unlike vehicles with internal combustion engines,
managing battery temperature in BEV vehicles is critical to battery durability, vehicle
performance, and energy efficiency. Thermal conditioning of the BEV propulsion battery
provides real-world benefits in these areas. By allowing the option to use thermal conditioning
prior to the cold test BEV vehicles will more accurately demonstrate real-world performance and
efficiency under extreme cold start conditions during short trip city driving. Significant
innovation continues in the area of battery thermal management. Prohibiting thermal
conditioning during the cold test may result in constraining innovation and limit real-world
benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1296-A1, p.2]
40 C.F.R. 600.116-12 (a)( 11) Special procedures related to electric vehicles and hybrid electric
vehicles.
It is our opinion that removing the option to perform a full charge depletion 20 °F cold test no
longer allows manufacturers to demonstrate the efficiency improvements of technologies more
prevalent in the full charge depletion test procedure. We see this as a barrier to investment in
advanced technologies. To preserve the 5-cycle test procedure pathway as a driver of efficient
technologies, we ask that the EPA reconsider the impact of the proposed change and preserve the
option of performing a full charge depletion 20 °F cold test beyond MY 2024. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1296-A1, p.2]
Organization: General Motors LLC (GM)
General Motors supports comments provided by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation related
to BEV test procedures. Allowing usage of the Short Multi-Cycle Test (sMCT) and the Short
Multi-Cycle Test Plus Steady State (sMCT+) procedures harmonizes with the California
Air Resource Board (CARB) proposed Advanced Clean Cars II test procedures and significantly
reduces laboratory test burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, pp.6-7]
General Motors supports usage of battery thermal conditioning as outlined in the 2021 revision
of SAE J1634. By applying a small amount of wall energy to keeping the battery at efficient
operating conditions, battery thermal conditioning leverages existing customer behavior of
leaving EVs plugged in when not in use and optimizes vehicle performance throughout a wide
range of ambient temperatures. It also improves system efficiency, fast charging performance,
and battery durability. The inclusion of battery thermal conditioning on test procedures would
1743
-------
advance the administration's goals for EV adoption by encouraging the introduction of vehicles
with this technology's improved real-world performance by making it visible to customers on the
label. Prohibiting thermal conditioning during testing could limit such innovation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.7]
For example, GM agrees with the EPA's statement in the NPRM that "the intent of the CTTP
(Cold Temperature Test Procedure) is to capture the performance of vehicles under extreme cold
start conditions during short trip city driving". BEVs utilizing thermal conditioning will
demonstrate improved real-world performance on short trip city driving under these conditions.
Reflection of this benefit on the label allows customers a more accurate comparison between
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.7]
Moreover, allowing these technologies on test procedures would incentivize manufacturers to
further encourage customers to adopt the desirable behavior of leaving EVs plugged in when not
in use. This practice will become increasingly important not just to benefit from vehicle
innovations such as thermal conditioning, but also to enable future transformative network
improvements such as smart grids. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1246-A1, p.7]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
EPA also proposes several changes to the existing light-duty BEV test procedures. 156 As per
below, Tesla provides response to a number of these specific proposals. In support of these
comments, Tesla has provided confidential business information to the agency containing this
relevant data.157 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.20]
156 87 Fed. Reg. at 17631-17635.
157 See, Appendix 2. Submitted separately as confidential business information.
A. EPA Proposal: For model year 2023, manufacturers may continue to perform full charge
depletion testing on BEVs when running the CTTP to determine the 5-cycle adjustment factor.
However, EPA is proposing that in model year 2023 manufacturers would be required to
perform a 10-minute key-off soak between each UDDS cycle performed as part of the charge
depleting CTTP. We are not proposing to change the existing requirement to submit a written
request for EPA approval to perform 5-cycle testing prior to beginning 5-cycle adjustment
procedure testing. EPA is proposing that manufacturers will be required to attest that the vehicle
was not preconditioned or connected to an external power source during the 20°F cold soak
period. 158 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.20]
158 87 Fed. Reg. at 17632/1.
Tesla disagrees with this proposal. Enforcing a 10-minute key-off soak during the CTTP will
increase the test length of the CTTP by approximately 45%. Based on our physics-based
modeling, the change from 0 to a 10- minute soak is expected to impact the cold running
consumption by 4.5% and overall consumption by 0.5%. This rule change would significantly
increase test burden with little impact to the overall sticker range/MPGe. Additionally, Tesla
1744
-------
proposes that EPA only require retesting on new vehicle lines or existing vehicle lines with
product changes significantly affecting fuel economy. For vehicle lines that are substantially
similar to the previously certified Model Year, EPA should allow carry-over of data from
previous Model Year. This would significantly help reduce the additional testing burden induced
by this proposed change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.20]
B. EPA Proposal: Beginning with model year 2024, EPA is proposing that manufacturers would
be allowed to perform only two UDDS cycles when running the CTTP, with a 10-minute key-off
soak between the UDDS cycles to generate their BEV 5- cycle adjustment factor. The running
fuel consumption for the City fuel economy equation would be modifiedfrom the equation
provided in Appendix C of the 2017 version of SAE J1634. The charge depletion value would be
replaced with the results from Bag 2 of the first and second UDDS and Bag 1 from the second
UDDS. The Agency would allow manufacturers to use their existing CTTP test results to make
these calculations, or they could perform new tests with the option to have the vehicle's state-of-
charge set to a value specified by the manufacturer such that the vehicle can capture
regeneration energy during the first UDDS cycle. 159 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
pp.20-21]
159 Id.
Tesla understands and appreciates the EPA's proposal and desire to reduce testing burden on
manufacturers. However, Tesla is concerned that the proposed change is not in the spirit of the
significance of the Cold Temperature Running Fuel Use as originally proposed in the EPA's 5-
cycle support document to capture the 'Fuel use once the engine is warmed up at colder
temperatures.' 160 The 5-cycle support document states explicitly that the assumption is that the
vehicle is fully warmed up by the end of Bag 1 of the FTP. 161 Per the document, the impact was
studied on conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(HEV) and the assumption was found to have a larger negative impact on HEVs (1.2%) than ICE
vehicles (0.3%) mainly because the powertrain had not adequately reached steady state operating
temperatures. 162 With BEVs, the impact is generally much larger for the same reason - it takes
longer for the HV battery and other powertrain components to heat up relative to other fuel
types. If we take inspiration from the previously accepted threshold of 1.2% impact on MPG for
HEVs, then this change being almost 3x that threshold is unacceptable and would put BEVs at a
disadvantage due to inaccurate representation relative to other fuel types. Appendix 2, Error!
Reference source not found, provided in Tesla's confidential business information (CBI)
submission summarizes the impact that the proposed rule change would have on all currently
approved Tesla vehicles, showing an average impact of 3.4%, far above the previously
acceptable 1.2% threshold established for HEVs and 0.3% for ICE vehicles. Tesla urges the EPA
reconsider the proposal and not put BEVs at a disadvantage relative to other fuel types. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.21]
160 EPA, Final Technical Support Document Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles:
Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates EPA-420-R-06-017 (Dec.
2006) at 4, 36.
161 Id. at 78.
1745
-------
162 Id. at 136.
EPA outlines its justification of the methodology a difference in calculation between BEVs and
other fuel types to include an additional datapoint (UDDS2 Bag2) in the calculation procedure to
account for the expectation that 'BEVs will require more than two UDDS cycles with a 10-
minute key-off soak between them for the vehicle to reach a fully warmed up and stabilized
operating point.' 163Tesla believes that the 2 cycles (even with the inclusion of the addition bag)
are insufficient to capture the cold steady-state consumption. Tesla has studied the impact on this
change and found it to decrease consumption by an average of 0.5% compared to the
methodology used for other fuel types as shown in Appendix 2, of Tesla's CBI
submission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.21]
163 EPA, Final Technical Support Document Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles:
Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates (Dec. 2006) at 220.
Tesla appreciates the acknowledgement of the differences in warm-up times and the desire to
reduce test burden, but Tesla believes the agency is heading in the wrong direction with these
proposed changes. EPA's goal should be to encourage automakers to produce more efficient
vehicles. Since most BEVs will not achieve steady state operating condition during the first 2
cycles, if EPA's proposed change is adopted, it will disincentivize manufacturers to improve
their steady-state consumption in the cold. In fact, it could do the opposite and encourage them to
make the consumption worse in hopes of reducing the cold start fuel penalty. Tesla believes the
actual stabilized cold consumption is an important aspect to capture in the five-cycle
methodology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.21]
If EPA is hoping to reduce test burden while also capturing the steady-state consumption during
cold city driving conditions without conducting a full cold depletion, Tesla highly recommends
that EPA consider an asymptotic convergence criterion for stopping the CTTP. Our simple
proposal is to stop the CTTP when the consumption has stabilized and take the average
consumption over the last few cycles as the cold running consumption. If we consider the
proposal of stopping when the latest cycle consumption is within 3% of the running consumption
of the last three cycles (as shown in Tesla's CBI submission Appendix 2, on the 2022 Tesla
Model 3 Long Range AWD) we could reduce the number of cycles driven in the CTTP from 41
to 5 (88%) with only a 2.1% increase in Cold Running Consumption, which translates to a 0.4%
change in range/MPGe. With this proposal, we would be in the same accuracy region as ICE
vehicles in the original proposal. Tesla believes a procedure such as the one proposed could
accomplish the EPA's goals of reducing test burden while more accurately capturing the true
steady-state cold energy consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp.21-22]
Applying the Tesla proposed convergence criterion methodology for all other currently Tesla
vehicles, we get an average impact of -0.1% with an average reduction of CTTP test cycles by
85% as shown in Appendix 2, in the Tesla CBI submission. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-
Al, p.22]
The proposed asymptotic convergence criterion by Tesla accomplishes the EPA's goal of
capturing the warmed up consumption in the cold while significantly reducing the testing burden
with only 0.1% impact to the overall MPGe on average. The method proposed here is also much
1746
-------
more robust to different vehicle architectures with larger battery packs and cabins than
specifying an arbitrary number of cycles to conduct the testing. Tesla urges the EPA to consider
further study this proposal as an efficient way to reduce testing burden while accurately capture
the warmed-up cold consumption. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.22]
Tesla would also like to urge the EPA to consider revamping the 5-cycle testing methodology to
capture important effects that are not yet captured in the current regulations specifically related
to BEVs. Tesla is open to working with the EPA together to support a new testing standard that
captures all the important considerations for BEV customers instead of making minor revisions
to existing standards that were not originally developed with BEVs in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1219-A1, p.22]
Namely, Tesla firmly believes that the range and MPGe should be decoupled from each other.
The two values represent different types of driving concerns that should not be linked.
Customers generally care about range on long trips where their behavior more closely mimics
highway driving, while MPGe should more accurately capture the lower speed stop and start
nature of day-to-day driving. Tesla also believes that the label should be broken out based on
temperature to give customers a more accurate representation of the consumption they should
expect under cold conditions, given that it is a large deterrent for customers from colder climates.
Other governments around the world have taken the lead in showing cold consumption estimates
on their label (Tesla will refrain from commenting on their methodology here). If customers in
the U.S. had information for how BEVs performed in the cold relative to ambient conditions that
were backed by a governing body, it could give customers more confidence in their buying
choice and help meet the federal government's goal of increasing the share of electric vehicle
sales on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.22]
C. EPA Proposal: EPA is proposing to update the SAE J1634 standard referenced in 40 CFR
part 600from the 2012 version to the 2017 version. This update will require manufacturers to
use 65 mph for the constant speed cycles of the MCT. In addition, this update will allow
manufacturers to use the BEV 5-cycle adjustment factor methodology outlined in Appendices B
and C of the 2017 version of SAE J1634 with the revisions described below. 164 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1219-A1, p.22]
Tesla supports the regulations update to reference the 2017 version of SAE J1634 that requires
the constant speed cycles to be conducted at 65 mph, but Tesla urges the EPA to instead adopt
the latest published version of SAE J1634 from April 2021. The April 2021 revision represents
the industry's best understanding of the real world use of BEVs and how to test them. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.22]
164 87 Fed. Reg. at 17631/3
D. EPA Proposal: The Agency is also proposing additional changes to the procedures outlined
in the 2017 version of SAE J1634 including: Specifying a maximum constant speed phase time of
1 hour with a minimum 5-minute soak following each one-hour constant speed phase; specifying
the use of the methods in Appendix A of the 2017 version of SAE J1634 to determine the constant
speed cycle's total time for the mid-test constant speed cycle; and, specifying that energy
1747
-------
depletedfrom the propulsion battery during key-off engine soak periods is not included in the
useable battery energy (UBE) measurement.\65 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.23]
165 87 Fed. Reg. 17632/1-2
Tesla does not support these changes to the regulations. First, Tesla does not agree that
mandating breaks during the CSCM is necessary or represents the real-world driving behavior. If
a manufacturer or an independent test lab can perform the complete CSCM without taking a
break, they should not be required to take a break. Mandating a 5-minute break every hour will
introduce another source of error by increasing the number of instances where a test operator
needs to act and potentially result in an invalid test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.23]
E. EPA Proposal: Manufacturers predetermine estimates of the mid-test constant speed cycle
distance (dM) using the methods in SAE J1634, Appendix A. 166 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1219-A1, p.23]
166 87 Fed. Reg. 17632/1
Tesla believes that each manufacturer should be given the flexibility to determine the length of
the CSCM using their own methodology. Specifying the exact calculation procedure is
unnecessary and will stifle innovation in this domain. Better methods (than those detailed in
Appendix A of SAE J1634 2017) exist and manufacturers should be able to use them if they are
capable. For example, the calculation in Appendix A of SAE J1634 2017 uses a target speed of
65 mph to calculate the time necessary to complete the target distance. What is not accounted for
is if the vehicle is not driven exactly at 65 mph but instead driven at speeds closer to 67 mph, the
CSCM will experience both a higher consumption and a larger distance travelled than intended,
potentially creating an invalid test if we were to run out of energy during the second dynamic
section. Tesla can monitor its cars remotely and can switch from the CSCM to the dynamic
section when necessary by measuring the appropriate signals. This helps ensure repeatability on
our end and significantly reduces the likelihood of us running out of energy during the second
dynamic section, creating an invalid test. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.23]
F. EPA Proposal: Discharge energy that occurs during the key-off soak periods is not included
in the useable battery energy. 167 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.23]
167 Id.
Tesla disagrees that the energy during the key-off soak periods should be excluded from the
UBE measurement. This proposal seems to be in direct contrast to the true intent of measuring
UBE, which is to determine the totality of the energy available in the HV battery available to the
vehicle for driving. If the energy during breaks is excluded, it would result in an artificial and
arbitrary limit to the total range and give a false impression to the user about the true capability
of the vehicle. Moreover, by including the energy during the CSCM break in the UBE, we can
realize the EPA's goal of reducing testing variability by ensuring that no matter how the CSCM
is conducted, each laboratory should be able to recreate the same energy number. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.23]
1748
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Auto Innovators, Volkswagen, and Tesla recommended revising the proposed rule to reference
the 2021 version of SAE J1634 to harmonize BEV test procedures with the California Air
Resource Board and capture the current best understanding of real-world effects for BEVs. Auto
Innovators also requested the option to allow use of the Short Multi-Cycle Test (sMCT) and the
Short Multi-Cycle Test Plus Steady State (sMCT+) procedures to harmonize with CARB and
significantly reduce laboratory test burden associated with BEV testing, while providing
equivalent test results.
It is EPA's understanding California will allow manufacturers to utilize the SMCT,
SMCT+, MCT, or SCT procedure to determine in-use BEV range values as part of
California's proposed BEV durability requirements beginning in the 2026 MY. California
retains the right to perform any of the test procedures. While California allows
manufacturers to submit data utilizing the SMCT and SMCT+ test procedures, California
may not utilize those procedures when performing their battery durability testing on the
same vehicles.
Currently EPA BEV testing regulations are used to determine BEV range and MPGe for
fuel economy labeling, the Agency currently does not have BEV durability requirements
similar to the requirements proposed by California. California's proposal is for in-use
vehicles to be tested to determine whether the vehicle meets the California battery
durability requirement. Manufacturer generated data submitted to EPA is used to
determine fuel economy label values and EPA routinely performs confirmatory testing on
BEVs.
The Agency is currently evaluating the updated test procedures in the 2021 version of
J1634. The Agency needs to understand if the different procedures produce different test
results. The Agency needs to understand prior to adopting the updated standard if any
differences in vehicle performance and UBE are observed between the SMCT, SMCT+,
MCT, and SCT test procedures. Prior to adopting the 2021 updates to SAE J1634 EPA
believes it is important to understand these differences and the potential impact on range
and MPGe label values.
EPA notes the Auto Innovators did not provide data supporting the conclusion that the
SMCT and the SMCT+ test results were equivalent with each other and with the 2017
J1634 version MCT test procedure. The Agency is aware that there is very little publicly
available test data that could be used to conclude the procedures produce equivalent test
results.
EPA understands managing propulsion battery temperature is important for battery
durability, vehicle performance, and energy efficiency. Current EPA regulations and the
proposed update to the 2017 version of J1634 do not allow for the use of thermal
conditioning during the cold soak portion of the Cold Temperature Test Procedure (CTTP
or 20°F charge depleting UDDS).
1749
-------
The Agency does not agree with the Auto Alliance's assertion that the current regulations
and policy "restrict emerging technologies that could improve real-world performance
and efficiency." The Agency understands that many BEVs available today have remote
start and battery and cabin preheating features. These features have been introduced by
the manufacturers without the benefit of these features being captured during the CTTP
and used to determine the 5-cycle adjustment factor. In addition, significant investments
are being made by industry to develop higher efficiency HVAC systems for BEVs
including adopting heat pumps. The improvements due to the higher efficiency HVAC
systems are captured when performing 5-cycle adjustment factor testing.
The fuel economy label essentially serves two purposes: (1) to provide consumers with a
basis on which to compare the fuel economy of different vehicles, and (2) to provide
consumers with a reasonable estimate of the fuel economy they can expect to achieve (71
FR 77873). EPA extended fuel economy labeling requirements to BEVs beginning in the
2013 MY with the adoption of the NHTSA/EPA Revisions and Additions to Motor
Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Final Rule in July 2011 (76 FR 39478). The 2011 rule
further extended the capability to compare fuel economy not only from vehicles using the
same fuel, but to vehicles using different fuels including BEVs with the adoption of the
equivalent MPG (MPGe) value for vehicles using non-liquid fuels. For the fuel economy
comparisons to be relevant it's important that the estimates are determined as EPA has
noted in prior rulemakings 'using a "common yardstick" - that is the same test run under
the exact same set of conditions, making the fuel economy estimates a fair comparison
from vehicle-to-vehicle' (71 FR 77874).
At this time the Agency is not prepared to adopt the 2021 version of SAE J1634. The
Agency is evaluating the new test procedures (SMCT and SMCT+) to ensure they
produce results equivalent to those generated using the existing SCT and MCT test
procedures. In addition, the Agency is assessing the use of pre-conditioning the battery
and cabin of BEVs prior to performing tests. The Agency is not prepared to adopt
preconditioning for BEVs during the soak period prior to starting the drive cycle for the
CTTP. The intent of the 12- to 36-hour cold soak period prior to the start of the drive
cycle for the CTTP is to stabilize the vehicle and its components at 20°F prior to starting
the driving portion of the test. While BEVs have technology and operating modes
designed to precondition the battery and cabin while the vehicle is soaking, for this
technology to function the vehicle must have access to a dedicated EVSE and the
operator must enable this operation. The Agency does not expect that a predominance of
BEVs will have access to a dedicated EVSE while the vehicle is 'cold soaking' prior to
many cold starts and the operator will also have enabled the preconditioning mode.
Therefore, the Agency is not prepared to adopt the 2021 version of SAE J1634.
Auto Innovators, General Motors, and Volkswagen requested that EPA remove proposed
requirements explicitly prohibiting thermal conditioning to avoid restricting emerging
technologies that could improve real-world performance and efficiency (for example, under
extreme cold start conditions during short trip city driving). Manufacturers further requested that
EPA consider allowing them to incorporate new thermal-conditioning technologies as part of the
5-cycle test procedure approval process, based on the manufacturer's demonstration that the
1750
-------
technology represents real-world operation (such as through default settings, instructions from
the manufacturer, or demonstrated in-use behavior). General Motors further suggested that
modifying the regulation to account for thermal-conditioning technologies would incentivize
manufacturers to motivate customers to adopt better charging practices, which could also
become important to enable future transformative network improvements such as smart grids.
EPA recognizes the Agency allows test procedures to be modified based on
determinations that the test procedure modification is something that will occur in
customer operation based on default operation or demonstrated real-world usage. One
current example relates to the use of premium grade fuel when performing testing to
demonstrate compliance with EPA's criteria pollutant standards. With the adoption of the
Tier3 regulation EPA revised the test fuel specifications for demonstrating compliance
with criteria emissions. EPA revised the fuel specification so that it more closely matched
commercial fuel. Compared to the Tier 2 test fuel, the Tier 3 test fuel has a lower octane
rating and includes 10% ethanol. The Agency, however, does allow manufacturers to
perform certification testing using a premium fuel when the manufacturer conditions the
warranty on use of premium gasoline. Based on broad market availability of premium
fuel and the manufacturer informing their customer that the powertrain warranty requires
use of the premium fuel, the Agency allows manufacturers to use premium fuel for
certification testing.
While EPA believes a manufacturer could instruct a BEV owner to 'precondition their
vehicle' by plugging it into an EVSE while the vehicle is parked and the ambient
temperature is below a specified cold temperature, the Agency believes this will not
occur for many of the cold temperature parking conditions BEVs will encounter. It is the
Agency's understanding that this type of conditioning occurs only while the vehicle is
connected to the EVSE and consuming power from the electric utility which will require
the owner to locate and connect to an EVSE during extended parking periods. BEV
owners who commute to a workplace will experience an extended soak at home and at
their workplace. The Agency would expect BEV owners, who also live in a single-family
home would have the ability to ensure their BEV is plugged in and the vehicle is
programmed to precondition the battery during the overnight cold soak. BEV owners that
live in communities without a specified parking spot most likely do not have 24-hour
access to an EVSE. These BEV owners therefore would most likely not be able to ensure
the vehicle is connected to the EVSE and programmed to maintain the battery
temperature during the overnight soak. In addition, at the workplace the vehicle will most
likely not have access to a dedicated charger. Therefore, the daily cold soak at the
workplace will most likely not include battery preconditioning.
The Agency is not prepared to adopt preconditioning for BEVs during the soak period
prior to starting the drive cycle for the CTTP. The intent of the 12- to 36-hour cold soak
period prior to the start of the drive cycle for the CTTP is to stabilize the vehicle and its
components at 20°F prior to starting the driving portion of the test. While BEVs have
technology and operating modes designed to precondition the battery and cabin while the
vehicle is soaking, for this technology to function the vehicle must have access to a
dedicated EVSE and the operator must enable this operation. The Agency does not expect
that a predominance of BEVs will have access to a dedicated EVSE while the vehicle is
1751
-------
'cold soaking' prior to many cold starts and the operator will also have enabled the
preconditioning mode. Therefore, the Agency is not prepared to adopt the 2021 version
of SAE J1634.
The possibility exists a manufacturer may decide to consume stored battery energy to
precondition the battery depending on the ambient temperature, the battery temperature
when the vehicle is parked, and other factors. Using stored battery energy for
preconditioning the battery temperature also has not been addressed in either EPA
regulations or SAE J1634. If a manufacturer were to implement such a strategy, the
Agency would expect the energy consumed during the extended cold soak prior to the
CTTP would need to be measured and captured as DC discharge energy. The current
BEV CTTP procedure does not require measuring BEV DC discharge energy during the
extended cold soak prior to performing the CTTP since it is assumed the BEV goes into
sleep mode during the extended cold soak and consumes minimal to no electrical energy
during this time. If a vehicle does not go into a minimal to no energy consumption
condition during an extended cold soak while not connected to an EVSE and this energy
is used for conditioning any vehicle components, including the battery or the cabin, the
Agency would want to work with the manufacturer to determine a means to capture this
energy consumption and include it in the measured DC energy as part of the test
procedure.
The Agency is not aware of any vehicles which when not plugged into an EVSE will
consume stored energy to maintain the temperature of the battery during extended cold
soaks.
Auto Innovators had the following comments on the changes proposed in 40 CFR 600.116-12:
§600.116-12(a)(2)(i) Auto Innovators request that EPA omit the 15 second idle energy from
the highway cycle energy consumption. Including the idle in the highway phase data does
not align with the highway test for ICE vehicles. The idle energy should be included in the
overall Usable Battery Energy (UBE).
We agree that the BEV measurement procedure should align with testing for engine-
equipped vehicles, for which emission sampling starts at the beginning of the HFET cycle.
We have amended the regulation accordingly. With respect to UBE, the 2017 version of SAE
J1634 specifies UBE as the summation of the measured DC discharge energy for the MCT
drive cycles. As the commentor noted, the measured portion of the HFET does not include
the idle period before starting the HFET. In addition, the measured portion of the UDDS
does not include the idle period following the UDDS; this 15 second idle is therefore not
included in either the UDDS or HFET energy consumption and therefore is also not included
in the UBE.
§600.116-12(a)(4) Auto Innovators request that EPA remove the requirement to use Method
1 or Method 2 described in SAE J1634 Appendix A to estimate the mid-test constant speed
cycle distance (dM). Manufacturers are developing methods to calculate dM to ensure that the
CSCe distance is less than 20% of the overall distance, with margin to reduce the risk of
invalid tests. Requiring the methods from SAE J1634 will require process changes and may
result in less accurate determination of dM.
EPA is adding an additional option allowing manufacturers to determine mid-test constant
speed distance using a method based on good engineering judgment, or using the methods
1752
-------
outlined in Appendix A. §600.116-12(a)(5) Auto Innovators request that EPA clarify the
requirement to perform a minimum 5-minute key-off soak at the conclusion of each mid-test
constant speed phase; specifically regarding the need for key-off before the dynamic UDDS3
segment.
As noted in Section 6.6 of the 2017 version of SAE J1634 the phase breaks during the
constant speed cycle require a 5- to 30-minute key-off soak period. The Agency is setting the
other soak periods (key-on and key-off) equivalent to those outlined in the 2017 version of
SAE J1634. Therefore, at the conclusion of the mid-test constant speed cycle, the vehicle
does not need to have a key-off pause before starting UDDS3.
§600.116-12(a)(8) Auto Innovators requested that all energy measured during the entire test
be included for determining usable battery energy (UBE). Auto Innovators stated that the
UDDS and HFET cycles are used to calculate energy efficiency over these cycles, and that
the remaining test is used to determine total DC discharge energy. Auto Innovators also stated
that including all energy measured during the test, including key-off soaks and idles,
represents the UBE stored in the battery.
This request is inconsistent with SAE J1634. UBE is the summation of the battery
energy captured during the measured phases of the MCT. DC discharge energy is not
measured during the key-off soak periods.
As noted in § 1066.425(e), sampling for a drive cycle concludes when the vehicle is
shut down at the conclusion of the drive cycle and the sampling response time
elapses. SAE J1634 does not specify a response time for the DC discharge energy
measurement; the standard does specify a maximum integration time of 0.05 seconds.
Therefore, the measurement of each cycle concludes once the vehicle speed reaches 0
mph at the conclusion of the drive cycle. SAE J1634 defines UBE as the total DC
discharge energy (Edctotai) measured for a full discharge test. SAE J1634 also defines
Edctotai as the sum of all discharge energies for all phases of a test. The key-off soak
periods occur before or after a measured phase or cycle. As the key-off soak periods
are not measured periods of drive cycles, we are writing the final rule to exclude the
key-off battery discharge from the UBE measurement.
§600.116-12(a)(ll)(i), (Hi), and (iv)(D) Auto Innovators requested that EPA modify the
proposed regulation by delaying the requirements to perform the 20 °F charge-depleting
UDDS with a 10-30 minute key-off soak period between each UDDS cycle, and the
requirement to perform the 20 °F test using two UDDS cycles. Auto Innovators stated that
the change to the regulation should be optional through model year 2025 to allow
manufacturers enough lead time to address any potential issues, make any necessary
upgrades, and to train testing personnel. Auto Innovators further requested that, to the extent
EPA delays implementation of the requirement to perform cold temperature testing with two
UDDS cycles, EPA should also delay the requirement to use the modified equation for
"RunningFC" to calculate city fuel economy.
Rivian recommended allowing additional lead time beyond model year 2024 for
manufacturers to implement the proposed requirement to perform only two UDDS cycles
when running the CTTP to generate a BEV 5- cycle adjustment factor.
We agree that the timing of the final rule does not allow adequate lead time for
manufacturers to comply with the updated requirements for model year 2024. We are
changing the final rule to require manufacturers to meet the new requirements starting in
model year 2025.
1753
-------
Rivian recommends changing the proposed requirement to perform only two UDDS cycles when
running the CTTP to generate a BEV 5- cycle adjustment factor to instead provide manufacturers
with options for a different amount of driving as part of the BEV procedure. Rivian specifically
recommends allowing up to six UDDS cycles when running the CTTP.
Volkswagen objected to the proposed change to §600.116-12(a)(l 1) and requested that EPA
instead preserve the option of performing a full charge-depletion 20 °F cold test beyond model
year 2024. Volkswagen stated that removing the option to perform a full charge-depletion 20 °F
cold test would no longer allow manufacturers to demonstrate the efficiency improvements of
technologies more prevalent in the full charge-depletion test procedure, which would create a
barrier to investment in advanced technologies.
As noted in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking (87 FR 17632), allowing
BEVs to perform a full charge-depletion Cold Temperature Test Procedure (CTTP)
creates test procedure differences between BEVs and non-BEVs. The intent of the CTTP
is to capture the performance of vehicles under extreme cold-start conditions for the
shorter trips associated with city driving. The NPRM proposed two options for BEV
CTTP tests: (1) testing vehicles on two UDDS cycles with a 10-minute key-off soak
between the cycles, or (2) follow the existing CTTP test procedure by running one UDDS
cycle followed by a 10-minute soak and then running one Bag 1 phase from the second
UDDS cycle. Performing more than two UDDS cycles during the CTTP does not
represent extreme cold-start short-trip urban driving, which is the activity the CTTP
captures for fuel economy labeling.
Tesla disagrees with the requirement to perform a 10-minjute key-off soak between each UDDS
cycle. Tesla stated that enforcing a 10-minute key-off soak during the CTTP will increase the test
length of the CTTP by approximately 45% and impact the cold running consumption by 4.5%
and overall consumption by 0.5%, along with an increase in test burden with little impact to the
overall sticker range/MPGe. Additionally, Tesla proposes that EPA only require retesting on new
vehicle lines or existing vehicle lines with product changes significantly affecting fuel economy.
Tesla stated that, for vehicle lines substantially similar to the previously certified Model Year,
EPA should allow carry-over of data from previous Model Year to reduce testing burden.
The Agency has identified two testing procedural issues with the Charge Depleting Cold
Temperature Test Procedure (CD CTTP) for BEVs as outlined in the 2017 version of
J1634. The primary procedural issue is using a full charge depletion test to determine the
average UDDS energy consumption for the running fuel consumption calculation. The
second procedural issue when allowing a full charge depletion is to not require the 10-
minute soak between UDDS cycles following the second UDDS cycle. The CTTP is
designed to capture short trip urban driving, which typically consists of multiple short
trips with variable soak times between each trip. To not include the soak period after each
UDDS cycle except between the first and second UDDS cycles is not representative of
the driving experience the CTTP test is designed to capture. As noted by Tesla's analysis,
not including the 10-minute soak period improves BEV efficiency as the vehicle does not
lose heat.
It was not the intent of the Agency to force all BEVs to perform new CD CTTP testing
for model year 2023. The Agency intended for any new CD CTTP testing to be
1754
-------
performed with the 10-minute soak occurring between each UDDS cycle. As proposed
this change in the CD CTTP test procedure would create a discrepancy between vehicles
tested using the 5-cycle procedure prior to model year 2023 and vehicles tested in model
year 2023. The Agency also agrees with Tesla that this change to the CD CTTP would
add additional test burden due to the length of the CD CTTP for long range BEVs.
The Agency has concluded not to move forward with this proposal for a single model
year for the reasons described above. If the Agency were to move forward with this
proposal, the 5-cycle test procedures would be different between vehicles tested for
model year 2023 and vehicles using carry-over fuel economy label data from model years
prior to 2023. This is not consistent with the Agency's objective of maintaining test
procedure consistency for fuel economy labeling.
Tesla is concerned that the proposed testing changes in §600.116 are not in the spirit of the
significance of the Cold Temperature Running Fuel Use as originally proposed in the EPA's 5-
cycle support document. Tesla observed that EPA's 5-cycle support document explicitly assumes
that the vehicle is fully warmed up by the end of Bag 1 of the FTP. Tesla urges that EPA
reconsider the proposal and not put BEVs at a disadvantage relative to other fuel types. Tesla
believes that the two UDDS cycles are insufficient to capture the cold steady-state consumption.
Tesla stated EPA's proposed change would disincentivize manufacturers to improve their steady-
state consumption in the cold. Tesla believes the actual stabilized cold consumption is an
important aspect to capture in the five-cycle methodology.
Tesla highly recommends that EPA consider an asymptotic convergence criterion for stopping
the CTTP. Our simple proposal is to stop the CTTP when the consumption has stabilized and
take the average consumption over the last few cycles as the cold running consumption.
Tesla would also like to urge EPA to consider revamping the 5-cycle testing methodology to
capture important effects that are not yet captured in the current regulations specifically related
to BEVs. Namely, Tesla firmly believes that the range and MPGe should be decoupled from
each other. Tesla stated that the two values represent different types of driving concerns that
should not be linked and that, if customers in the U.S. had information for how BEVs performed
in the cold relative to ambient conditions that were backed by a governing body, customers
would have more confidence in their buying choice.
As noted in the Final Technical Support Document (Final Technical Support Document:
Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicle Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel
Economy Estimates, December 2006, EPA-420-R-06-017), the Agency understood that
vehicles using spark-ignition internal combustion engines did not reach fully warmed up
operating temperatures during Bag 2 and Bag 3 of the 20°F FTP, or Cold Temperature
Test Procedure (CTTP). The following language is from the Final TSD:
"As discussed in detail in the Draft Technical Support Document to the NPRM, it is not
clear that vehicles are fully warmed up during Bags 2 and 3 at 20°F. However, as
described above, the average city driving trip is only 4.1 miles, well below that of the
FTP (7.5 miles). Thus, Bags 2 and 3 of the cold FTP provide a reasonable estimate of
warmed up driving during city-like driving (i.e., the vehicle is warmed up to the extent
1755
-------
that it typically reaches during short trips). The effect of cold temperature on [running]
fuel use during city driving can be estimated from the difference in fuel use over Bags 2
and 3 of the FTP at 20°F and that at 75°F." (EPA-420-R-06-017, December 2006, pg. 78)
The intent of the CTTP and its use in the 5-cycle equation was to capture the running fuel
consumption observed during average city driving. As the average city trip was
determined at the time of the 5-cycle fuel economy label rulemaking to be 4.1 miles, bags
2 and 3 of the CTTP are representative of 'running' as opposed to 'cold start' vehicle
operation (Bag 1) during an average city trip. The intent for these data in the fuel
economy label calculation is to capture the running fuel consumption of the vehicle,
during a city trip and not to determine the fully warmed up energy consumption at the
colder ambient temperature. This criterion applies to all vehicles, independent of the
power source.
To reduce the CTTP test burden Tesla proposes to stop the CTTP once the BEV's energy
consumption has stabilized and take the consumption over the last few UDDS cycles for
the running fuel consumption calculation. Tesla indicates this would require
approximately 5 to 7 UDDS cycles. The Tesla proposal would use the energy
consumption measured after the vehicle has driven anywhere from 3 to 5 UDDS cycles to
represent the energy consumption occurring during the first two UDDS cycles.
The Tesla proposal would have the running fuel consumption used to represent city
driving be measured after the vehicle has driven a minimum of 22.5 miles. As this value
is intended to represent the running fuel consumption on a city trip which is typically
much shorter than 22.5 miles, this procedure would not generate representative fuel
consumption data for an average city trip during cold ambient conditions following a cold
soak.
Tesla is also requesting the Agency revise the 5-cycle regulations specifically for BEVs.
The Agency is not currently considering any further revisions to the 5-cycle regulations,
beyond the changes adopted in this rulemaking.
Tesla does not support changing the regulation to (1) specify a maximum one-hour constant-
speed phase time with a minimum 5-minute soak after each phase, (2) specify methods to
determine the total time for the mid-test constant speed cycle, and (3), specify that energy
depleted from the propulsion battery during key-off engine soak periods is not included in the
useable battery energy (UBE) measurement. First, Tesla does not agree that mandating breaks
during the CSCM is necessary or represents the real-world driving behavior. Tesla stated that, if
a manufacturer or an independent test lab can perform the complete CSCM without taking a
break, they should not be required to take a break, instead of introducing another source of error.
EPA believes it is appropriate to require breaks during the constant-speed portion of the
MCT. SAE J1634 allows for breaking the constant speed cycles into phases and the
Agency has concluded that it is appropriate to have a consistent approach to the operation
of the vehicle during the constant-speed portion. The Agency believes allowing drivers to
take a break after an hour of constant-speed driving is appropriate and will not add
significant time to the MCT procedure and will reduce driver/operator fatigue.
1756
-------
Tesla believes manufacturers should be allowed to determine the length of the CSCM for their
own testing, and that specifying the exact calculation procedure is unnecessary and will stifle
innovation in this domain. Tesla stated that better methods exist and manufacturers should be
able to use them if they are capable. Tesla suggested as an example that SAE J1634 2017 uses a
speed value of 65 mph to calculate the time necessary to complete the target distance, but it does
not account for the fact that the CSCM will experience both a higher consumption and a larger
distance travelled than intended if vehicle speed is closer to 67 mph than 65 mph, potentially
creating an invalid test. Tesla can switch from the CSCM to the dynamic section when
necessary, which helps ensure repeatability and significantly reduces the risk an invalid test
resulting from running out of energy during the second dynamic section.
EPA agrees with this comment and will include an additional option for determining the
length of the CSCM. The additional option is for the manufacturer to determine the
appropriate length using good engineering judgment. This will allow manufacturers to
innovate and utilize their extensive knowledge and understanding of their products to
determine the appropriate length of the CSCM.
Tesla believes energy during the key-off soak periods should be included in the UBE
measurement to reflect the true intent of measuring UBE, which is to determine the totality of the
energy available in the HV battery available to the vehicle for driving. Tesla stated that,
excluding energy during breaks would result in an artificial and arbitrary limit to the total range
and give a false impression to the user about the true capability of the vehicle. Tesla also stated
that they can reduce test variability by including the energy during the CSCM break in the UBE.
UBE is defined in the 2017 version of SAE J1634. UBE is defined as the total DC
discharge energy (Edctotai), measured in DC watt-hours for a full discharge test. The UBE
represents the total deliverable energy the battery can provide while a vehicle follows test
cycles on a chassis dynamometer. As noted in the definition, UBE is measured while the
vehicle is following test cycles. The measured portion of each phase does not include the
key-off portion of test cycle. This is the case for all vehicles, independent of whether they
use electricity or another fuel.
32.2 Miscellaneous amendments for light-duty vehicles
Comments by Organizations
Organization: Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
40 C.F.R. 86.117-96 Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.
1757
-------
We request a correction to the proposed methanol mass equation in 86.117-96(d) by replacing
the following NPRM proposed equation: [See equations at docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1303-A1, p. 2]
McH30H — Vn X
(TEf x (CMS1f x AVlf) + (CMS2f x AV2f))
^Ef x TSHEDf
(TE, X (CMSli x AVjj) + (CMS2i X AV2I))
+ (McH30H,out — MCH30H,in)
vEi
With the following corrected equation:
^Ei X TsHEDi
MchsOK — Ya X
TEf x ((CMSlf x AVxf) + (CMS2fx AV,:f))
Vef x TSHEDf
TE. x ({CnSlj x AVy) + (Cmsji x AV^..) j ^ ^
)l
We also request that an update be made for the Methanol Mass Equation in 86.143-96(b)(l)(i) to
align with the corrected equation 86.117-96(d). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.2]
Additionally, we request a correction for the THC density reference error in 86.143-96(c). The
THC density referenced in 1066.1005(f) is based on a hydrogen to carbon ratio of 1.85. As
defined in 86.143-96(b)(ii), for evaporative emissions the THC mass assumes a hydrogen to
carbon ratio of 2.3. We recommend a THC density with an H/C ratio of 2.3 (576.816 g/m3) be
added to 1066.1005(f) and that EPA update the reference in 86.143-96(c) accordingly. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.2]
40 C.F.R. 86.1823-08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions.
Auto Innovators requests the provisions in (m) be optional until 26MY.
Additionally, we request that the following edit be made in (iii):
(iii) For plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and any other vehicle model the manufacturer
determines will experience increased C02 emissions over the vehicle's useful life,
consistent with good engineering judgment, manufacturers must either install aged
batteries and/or other relevant components on test vehicles as provided in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section, determine a deterioration factor based on testing, or provide an
engineering analysis that the vehicle is designed such that CO2 emissions will not
increase over the vehicle's useful life. Manufacturers may test using the whole-vehicle
mileage accumulation procedures in 86.1823-08(c) or (d)(1), or manufacturers may
request prior EPA approval for an alternative durability procedure or an engineering
analysis based on good engineering judgment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1,
p.2]
1758
-------
40 C.F.R 600.311-12 Determination of values for fuel economy labels
In this section the phrase 'actual in-use driving conditions' is used. We would like further
clarification on the definition of this term or reference to previous section, and clarification on
the method or equation used to make the required adjustments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1303-A1, p.4]
40 C.F.R. 600.512-12 Model year report.
Auto Innovators requested similar revisions in 2020 and supports these proposed changes. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.4]
Labeling for Battery Electric Vehicles.
Auto Innovators would like to request EPA review testing, labeling and associated processes of
vehicles with advanced technology propulsion systems to ensure that drivers of these vehicles
are given a clear, concise picture of the capabilities of these vehicles. Testing should be efficient
and the labels should be understandable and reflective of understood processes. If items in the
testing and labeling process should be updated, EPA should begin to work with stakeholders
prior to the Multipollutant Rule to identify what items are outdated and require revision. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.4]
40 C.F.R 1066.420 Test Preparation.
We agree with EPA's revision to help minimize NMHC contamination in the sampling system
for LD diesel vehicles. The language in this section for LD vehicles (below 14,000 lbs GVWR)
refers to the HD requirement in 40 C.F.R. 1065.520 (f). 40 C.F.R 1065.520(f)(8) notes that if the
initial hang-up in the sampling system exceeds the greatest of the three values shown below, then
the source of contamination must be identified and corrective action, such as purging the system,
must be performed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.5]
(i) 2 % of the flow-weighted mean concentration expected at the HC (THC or NMHC) standard.
(ii) 2 % of the flow-weighted mean concentration of HC (THC or NMHC) measured during
testing.
(iii) 2 nmol/mol. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
The greatest of the three values for light duty will always be the 2 PPM (2 (j,mol/mol.). For LD, a
HC hang-up value on the order of 0.5 PPM is considered high and causes negative drift during
testing. The 2 PPM limit is not appropriate for LD testing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-
Al, p.6]
Auto Innovators proposes the following change to 40 C.F.R. 1066.420(b)(l)(ii) Perform the
contamination verification in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, except use 0.5 [j,mol/mol in 40
CFR 1065.520(f)(8)(iii) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
1759
-------
40 C.F.R. 1066.710 Cold temperature testing procedures for measuring CO and NMHC
emissions and determining fuel economy.
We support the agency proposal to move the test sequence figure to 40 C.F.R.
1066.710(f). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1303- A 1, p.6]
However, it isn't clear what the maximum temperature excursion allowance is during the
emissions test. Using the language that is already included in the precondition step, Auto
Innovators proposes to improve the clarity of maximum temperature excursion allowed during
the emissions test by adding the following to 40 C.F.R. 1066.710(b)(1) At no time may the
ambient temperatures be below -12.0 °C or above -1.0 °C. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1303-
Al, p.6]
Further, we find it confusing that the high and low limit temperature values aren't equidistant
from the nominal value. We suggest simplifying 40 C.F.R. 1066.710 by setting the temperature
limits to -7 ± 5 °C for maximum instantaneous excursions and -7 ± 3 °C for three-minute
excursions in the text and in the figure for consistency, ease of use, software and hardware
implementation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
40 C.F.R. 1066.835 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.
Auto Innovators supports the proposed changes in this section as we believe they improve the
clarity of the requirements overall. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
40 C.F.R. 1066.1010 Incorporation by reference.
While we support the decision to update to SAE J2263 MAY 2020, we request that the
implementation be optional until MY26 to allow time for track and environmental condition
updates to be completed. The most recent version contains several updates and tighter tolerances
for completion of coast-down testing. These may require construction and testing of new
surfaces and hardware. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
Auto Innovators generally supports the incorporation of the 2021 version of SAE J1634 by
reference at 40 C.F.R.1066.1010(b)(2). Incorporating the 2021 revision of SAE J1634 would
harmonize BEV test procedures with the California Air Resource Board (CARB) proposed
Advanced Clean Cars II test procedures. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1303-A1, p.6]
Organization: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (VWGoA)
40 CFR 86.1823(m) Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions
EPA proposes to add the requirement to generate deterioration factors for C02 and updates
language pertaining to PHEV test procedures.
1760
-------
VWGoA requests that EPA allow optional implementation of this until 26MY as this rule will be
finalized too close to the start of production for 25MY, and 24MY will already be underway by
the time this Final Rule becomes effective.
In subsection (m)(iii) we request the following addition to allow alternative engineering analysis
as an alternative durability procedure:
'[...] determines will experience increased C02 emissions over the vehicle's useful life,
consistent with good engineering judgment, manufacturers must either install aged components
on test vehicles as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, determine a deterioration factor
based on testing, or provide an engineering analysis that the vehicle is designed such that C02
emissions will not increase over the vehicle's useful life. Alternatively, manufacturers may
use Manufacturers may test using the whole-vehicle mileage accumulation procedures in
86.182308 (c) or (d)(1) to determine C02 deterioration factors, or manufacturers may request
prior EPA approval for an alternative durability procedure or an engineering analysis based on
good engineering judgment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1296-A1, p.l]
40 CFR 600.210-12 (d)(3)(ii)-(iii) Calculation of fuel economy and CQ2 emission values for
labeling
This section relates to the approval of an adjustment factor for deriving 5-cycle fuel economy
results from 2-cycle test data that is based on operating data from their in-use vehicles. As you
stated in guidance CD 15-15, the 0.7 factor was no longer to be used for conventional vehicles
because it was based on outdated data (then). It remained available for BEVs because there was
not enough data to generate a new factor. It has been 7 years since that guidance and BEV
models have increased. It is time for EPA to increase this factor. Current research shows that
using current model years and real-world driving patterns, this factor could be as high as 0.74.
[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1296-A1, p.2]
Label Range vs Tested Range
KfeteMftnge — — Det«
-------
Delta to EPA label
I. i. nilii.1 ii.li.i
Organization: Rivicrn Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
Labeling and Test Groups. EPA should approach the below in both an immediate and longer-
term approach including any changes that can be made in this rule, new guidance, or rules ahead
of the 2027 LD GHG program.
• Reexamine the label. Consider an approach that focuses on real-world highway driving for
range
• Allow for a broader definition of test group including the addition of 2WD and 4WD in the
same test group, irrespective of number of motors, with EPA approval.
• Additional test group flexibilities should be examined in light of upcoming battery durability
and testing requirements being considered by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB")
and POSSIBLE common test group definitions across CARB and EPA.
• Provide an analytically derived range and consumption method specific to EVs.
• Reconsider the default 0.7 adjustment factor to reduce unnecessary test burden and be more
reflective of the original 5-Cycle adjustment. This is especially important given the
experience gained in implementing EV technology in both hot and cold conditions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1229-A1, p.6]
Organization: Edwin J. Ward
Keeping Section 86.1823-08 as is, with the ultimate goal of ending the light-duty truck
loophole
The next source of potential emissions reductions I will address is the enduring light-duty truck
emissions loophole. Although this proposed rule is primarily targeted at heavy-duty vehicle
emissions, there is nevertheless a section dedicated to light-duty vehicle standards in Section X(E).
The light-duty truck loophole allows vehicles not considered heavy-duty, but still larger and heavier
than smaller vehicles and sedans, to escape the more stringent emissions requirements of smaller
vehicles.10 This loophole dates back to 1975, when few individual drivers were purchasing large
trucks for everyday use, and those vehicles were limited to commercial operations.11 The loophole
means that light-duty trucks have to comply with emissions standards that are 34-36% less stringent
than the ones that apply to smaller cars like sedans.11 Unfortunately, a huge proportion of vehicles
now sold in the US fall under the light- duty truck loophole. SUVs, pickup trucks, and even some
crossovers like the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V are considered light-duty trucks.11 Last year, twenty
of the top twenty-five bestselling vehicles in America were pickups, SUVs, and crossovers, presumably
falling into the light-duty truck loophole.12 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
EPA's proposed rule for light-duty trucks would eliminate the requirement for
manufacturers to perform emissions tests with vehicles fully loaded. The proposed revision is
quoted in its entirety below:
1762
-------
"Section 86.1823-08: Revising to specify a simulated test weight based on Loaded Vehicle Weight
for light light-duty trucks (LDT1 and LDT2). The regulation inadvertently applies adjusted
loaded vehicle weight, which is substantially greater and inappropriate for light light-duty
trucks because they are most often used like lightly loaded passenger vehicles rather than
cargo-carrying commercial trucks. In practice, we have been allowing manufacturers to
implement test requirements for these vehicles based on Loaded Vehicle Weight. This
proposed revision is responsive to manufacturers' request to clarify test weights for the
affected vehicles." [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
This proposed revision is disheartening for two reasons. First, by allowing
manufacturers to test light-duty trucks without a full load, EPA is in effect weakening
emission standards even further for light-duty trucks, which will widen the already large gap
between standards for light- duty trucks and smaller cars like sedans. Manufacturers have
fully taken advantage of this loophole over the preceding decades to transform their fleet
offerings by heavily investing in large trucks and SUVs, while discontinuing smaller car
models. EPA has accounted for this disturbing trend by labeling it simply as "market shift,"13
despite the fact that modelers have specifically attributed part of the auto industry's shift to
heavier, less efficient vehicles on the loophole.14 For instance, Ford Motor Company decided
in 2020 to axe every single sedan from its lineup15, leaving exclusively larger, more polluting,
and more dangerous16 trucks and crossovers for its customers.
The second dismaying part of the proposed light duty truck revision is that EPA
acknowledges that light-duty trucks are "most often used like lightly loaded passenger
vehicles rather than cargo-carrying commercial trucks." By declaring that trucks should be
tested as if they are passenger vehicles, EPA is effectively conceding that the light-duty truck
loophole doesn't make any practical sense. The loophole allows manufacturers to exploit a
broken system and undermine potential emissions reductions by simply not making any
vehicles subject to the more stringent standards (like Ford did). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1050]
Rejecting the proposed revision to Section 86.1823-08 will not close the light-duty
truck loophole. Rejecting it will, however, prevent any further erosion of emissions standards
for light-duty trucks until EPA has a chance to propose new light-duty vehicle emission
standards that finally, after nearly a half-century, close the loophole. Consequently, I urge
EPA to reject the proposed revision to Section 86.1823-08 of the light-duty truck Loaded
Vehicle Weight testing standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1050]
[Conclusion] In the medium term, EPA should finally close the light-duty truck
loophole so manufacturers aren't incentivized to sell larger, more polluting vehicles. EPA
should also evaluate potential idling technologies like start-stop to further reduce emissions.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1050]
10 Andrew Hawkins, US unveils stricter tailpipe emissions standards for new
vehicles, THE VERGE (Apr. 1, 2022),
1763
-------
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/l/23006139/us-new-tailpipe-emissions-standards-
fuel-economy-cafe-mpg- buttigieg.
11 Aaron Gordon, Biden's New Fuel Economy Standards Still Allow Cars to Pollute
More If They're Not Called Cars, VICE (Dec. 20, 2021),
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3abk7b/bidens-new-fuel-economy-standards-still-
allow-cars-to-pollute-more-if-theyre-not-called-cars.
12 Joey Capparella, Top 25 Bestselling Cars, Trucks, and SUVs of 2021, CAR AND
DRIVER (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g36005989/best-selling-
cars-2021/.
13 EPA, HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AUTOMOTIVE TRENDS REPORT,
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights- automotive-trends-report (last
visited Apr. 30, 2022).
14 Brad Plumer, CAFE loophole could lead to bigger cars, WASH. POST (Dec. 14,
2011), https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cafe-loophole-could-
lead-to-bigger- cars/201 l/12/14/gIQA3bGLuO_blog.html.
15 Brett Foote, Executive Explains Decision To Discontinue Ford Sedans In North
America, FORD AUTH. (Oct. 10, 2020),
https://fordauthority.eom/2020/10/executive-explains-decision-to-discontinue-ford-
sedans-in-north-america/. 16 Eric Jaffe, Op-Ed: The Troubling Tie Between Big Cars
and Pedestrian Deaths, STREETSBLOG USA (Oct, 20, 2021),
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/10/20/op-ed-the-troubling-tie-between-big-cars-and-
pedestrian-deaths/.
EPA Summary and Response
Auto Innovators and EMA requested that EPA correct equations in part 86, subpart B: (1)
Correcting the proposed adjustment to the methanol mass equation in §86.117-96(d) by applying
the TEf and TEi factors to the sum of the subsequent terms, and (2) Update the methanol mass
equation in §86.143-96(b)(l)(i) to match the updated equation in §86.117(d).
We agree with the comment and have revised the regulation accordingly.
Auto Innovators and EMA requested a correction for the THC density reference error in
§86.143-96(c). Commenters stated that the THC density referenced in §1066.1005(f) is based on
a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 1.85. Commenters stated that, as defined in §86.143-96(b)(ii), the
THC mass for evaporative emissions assumes a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 2.3. Commenters
recommended adding a THC density with a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 2.3 (576.816 g/m3) to
§1066.1005(f) and updating the reference in §86.143-96(c) accordingly.
The proposed rule did not include any changes to density reference errors. Auto
Innovators did not provide any data or rationale supporting their recommendation. If
there is a need to reconsider hydrogen-to-carbon ratios, we will consider that in a future
rulemaking.
1764
-------
Auto Innovators and Volkswagen requested that we amend the proposed regulation at §86.1823-
12(m) to make the new provisions optional through model year 2025 to allow manufacturers
enough lead time.
The revisions to §86.1823-12(m)clarify how certification and testing procedures apply in
areas that are not entirely specified in current regulations. The amendments in this final
rule reflect the procedures EPA and manufacturers have worked out in the absence of the
detailed regulatory provisions. We do not see any need to allow additional lead time for
these established procedures.
Auto Innovators suggested adding a reference in §86.1823-12(m) to "installing aged batteries
and/or other relevant components" instead of referring only to "aged components" for PHEV
durability testing.
We agree that it is appropriate to call out batteries as the specific component of interest,
along with other relevant components. There is no need to consider the other relevant
components separate from the battery, so we have omitted the "or" from the suggested
insert.
Auto Innovators and Volkswagen suggested adding a reference in §86.1823-12(m) to "or an
engineering analysis" in the description of the option for manufacturers to request an alternative
PHEV durability procedure.
The proposed regulation set up the sentence in question to describe how the
manufacturers have the option to either follow the specified whole-vehicle testing
procedures, or do something different based on good engineering judgment. There is no
specified limit to what the alternative demonstration might include, other than the need to
stay within the bounds of good engineering judgment. Manufacturers might properly
apply engineering analysis in conjunction with something other than the specified whole-
vehicle testing procedures. We therefore find it unnecessary to insert the extra words in
the description of option to pursue an alternative durability procedure. We also don't see
any possibility that an alternative durability demonstration would involve engineering
analysis completely separate from testing.
Auto Innovators requested that we clarify the meaning of "Adjust the values to reflect actual in-
use driving conditions..." in the proposed §600.311-12, and also clarify how to make the
required adjustments.
We have revised the regulation to instead say "Adjust these values to represent derived 5-
cycle values...". We have also made further editorial changes to more clearly describe
the process for adjusting values to give a proper result.
Auto Innovators stated that they supported the proposed changes to §600.512-12 and noted that
they had requested that we make changes similar to the proposed changes in 2020.
We acknowledge this comment supporting the proposed provisions.
Volkswagen suggested that we work with manufacturers to review or generate data as needed to
be able to update the 0.7 factor used in §600.210(d) to determine fuel economy and CO2 values
for electric vehicles. Volkswagen suggested that current research would suggest that data may
support a factor as high as 0.74. Volkswagen stated that the artificially low value leads
manufacturers to penalize electric vehicles a time that they are needed most.
1765
-------
We will consider whether to pursue the suggested amendment in a future rulemaking.
Auto Innovators would like to request EPA review testing, labeling and associated processes of
vehicles with advanced technology propulsion systems to ensure that drivers of these vehicles
are given a clear, concise picture of the capabilities of these vehicles. Testing should be efficient
and the labels should be understandable and reflective of understood processes. If items in the
testing and labeling process should be updated, EPA should begin to work with stakeholders
prior to the Multipollutant Rule to identify what items are outdated and require revision.
We will consider whether to pursue the suggested amendment in a future rulemaking.
Auto Innovators suggested three separate amendments: (1) Auto Innovators suggested amending
40 CFR 1066.420 to reduce the HC hang-up limit value for LD tests to 0.5 ppm, as the current
value of 2 ppm causes negative drift during testing because it is too high for LD testing. (2) Auto
Innovators suggested amending 40 CFR 1066.710(b)(1) with the following text to improve the
clarity of the specified maximum allowable temperature excursion: "At no time may the ambient
temperatures be below -12.0 °C or above -1.0 °C " (3) Auto Innovators stated that they support
updating the regulation to reference the 2020 version of SAE J2263 for coastdown testing
procedures, but requested that the implementation be optional until model year 2026 to allow
time for completing updates for track and environmental condition updates.
EPA agrees with the reasoning and conclusions in the comments and has amended the
final rule accordingly.
Auto Innovators found it confusing that the values for high and low temperatures in 40 CFR
1066.710 are not expressed as a range around a fixed nominal value. They recommended making
the change for consistency, for ease of use, and for implementing software and hardware. The
specifically suggest setting the temperature limits to -7 ± 5 °C (from the current -12.0 °C to -1.0
°C) for maximum instantaneous excursions and -7 ± 3 °C (from the current -9.0 °C to -4.0 °C)
for three-minute excursions.
EPA does not agree with the suggested change. The convention for specifying ranges in
the testing regulations, established at 40 CFR 1065.20(f), states that manufacturers must
target the nominal value if the range is expressed as a nominal value with a specified
range. Alternatively, expressing a range simply as a pair of minimum and maximum
values allows manufacturers to complete a successful test by targeting any temperature as
long as they stay within the temperature range over the course of the test. The current
approach is to specify the range based on the pair of minimum and maximum values.
Changing the format of the specified range may require manufacturers to change their
current test methods to more carefully control temperatures. We believe this change is
neither necessary nor appropriate for testing under 40 CFR 1066.710. Auto Innovators
provided no data or other numerical assessment in support of their suggested amendment.
Auto Innovators stated that they support the changes to 40 CFR 1066.835 for measuring exhaust
emissions for the SC03 testing.
EPA acknowledges the comment supporting the proposed changes.
1766
-------
Rivian recommends that EPA consider the following near-term and long-term amendments to the
regulation: (1) Revise labeling requirements to reflect real-world driving for range, (2) Allow
for a broader definition of test group, including the addition of 2WD and 4WD in the same test
group, irrespective of number of motors, with EPA approval, (3) Consider additional test group
flexibilities in light of upcoming battery durability and testing requirements being considered by
the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") and possible common test group definitions
across CARB and EPA, (4) Provide an analytically derived range and consumption method
specific to EVs, and (5) Reconsider the default 0.7 adjustment factor to reduce unnecessary test
burden and be more reflective of the original 5-Cycle adjustment to account for the experience
gained in implementing EV technology in both hot and cold conditions.
We will consider whether to pursue these suggested amendments in a future rulemaking.
VW and Auto Innovators request clarification on the proposed requirement to identify driver-
selectable modes. Section 1068.50 seems to require manufacturers to include information on
each selectable mode as an adjustable parameter. In some vehicles, this could reach hundreds of
possible drive modes and user-selectable features to be described in the certification application,
creating unnecessary burden to timely review. We recommend that EPA update this section to
exclude driver selectable modes such as "sport" or "trailer tow" from this description.
We note that we did not propose to apply the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.50 to vehicles
subject to standards under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. However, those vehicles are subject
to similar requirements under 40 CFR 86.1833-01. As with the Honda comment on
rabbit-turtle controls, user-selectable features and the functions controlled by those
features are properly considered adjustable parameters under both 40 CFR 86.1333-01
and 1068.50. These features are specifically designed to invite operators to adjust control
settings to achieve the desired performance. It is therefore important for manufacturers to
comply with standards for all those settings that fall within the physically adjustable
range.
Edwin J. Ward commented that EPA should close the "light-duty truck emissions loophole,"
which has since 1975 allowed passenger vehicles classified as light-duty trucks to meet less
stringent emission standards even though their usage is very similar to that for passenger cars.
Mr. Ward also objected to the proposed change to decrease the test weight for light light-duty
trucks (LDT1 and LDT2), since that further reduces stringency for these vehicles.
EPA adopted criteria exhaust emission standards for cars and light trucks in the early
1970s, and updated those standards several times since then. The Tier 3 standards that
apply today apply equally to all sizes of light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
Different measurement procedures and standards apply for heavy-duty vehicles (with
gross vehicle weight rating above 8500 pounds). For criteria exhaust emission standards,
there is therefore no longer any "light-duty truck emissions loophole.
EPA more recently adopted GHG emission standards that apply separately to cars and
light trucks. Those standards were based on a feasibility assessment for the different
types of vehicles. We are aware of the significant impact those standards have had on
marketing plans for several manufacturers. We are in the process of evaluating new
1767
-------
standards for model year 2027 and later vehicles that will revisit the question of relative
stringency for cars and light trucks.
The commenter may also have in mind evaporative and refueling emission standards. The
refueling emission standard is expressed in grams of emitted hydrocarbon per gallon of
dispensed fuel; the standard of 0.2 g/gal applies equally to all sizes of light-duty and
heavy-duty vehicles. The evaporative emission standards continue to allow for higher
emissions for the increasing size of light-duty trucks and heavy-duty vehicles. This
difference has decreased over the years as the emission standard became more stringent.
The remaining difference is generally based on the expected size of fuel tanks and
operating characteristics relative to the vehicles' ability to purge evaporative canisters.
Also, to be complete, OBD standards and requirements apply equally for all sizes of
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
Emission standards are most effective for controlling emissions if the measurement
procedure most closely represents in-use operation. As described in the proposed rule, we
are decreasing the test weight for LDT1 and LDT2 because they are operated more like
passenger cars than heavy-duty vehicles. The emission standards adopted for these
vehicles were assessed based on the lighter test weights. The proposed change simply
corrects an error in the test procedure to more appropriately measure emissions from
these vehicles.
32.3 Engine test speed - Small SI Engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
U.S. EPA proposed several amendments to Part 1054 regarding testing and certification of Small
SI engines at or below 19 kW. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 132]
With regards to engine test speed, CARB staff suggests that it would make more sense to run the
test at the engine's rated speed, and if this speed is not either 3060 or 3600 rpm, to use the special
provisions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 132]
1768
-------
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
CARB staff suggests that it would make more
sense to test at the engine's rated speed, and if
this speed is not either 3060 or 3600 rpm, to
use the special provisions.
EPA certification depends on testing
individual engines to represent families that
include a range of engine calibrations,
applications, and models. The proposed
approach directs manufacturers to test engines
within an engine family by grouping them
into sets of engines that can be properly
represented by testing at 3060 or 3600 rpm.
Different test speeds apply for engines with
rated speed below 2700 rpm or above 4000
rpm. We believe this approach allows
manufacturers to properly and consistently
perform testing that best represents engines
across their product line.
32.4 Steady-state duty cycles - Small SI Engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda)
1054.505(b)(2)
It should be clarified that 5mode is an option and that additional 5mode testing will not be
required for the engines approved in 6mode before (As no definition of Idle, necessity of 5mode
testing should be based on manufacturer's GEJ).
If the GEJ is not allowed, 5mode results should be allowed to be calculated from the 6mode
results in order to avoid retesting burden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1054.505(d)
In determining the worst case of emission when the test mode (5mode or 6mode) and/or test
speed (3060rpm or 3600rpm) are different, it should be clarified that it is not necessary to
prepare durability engines for all cases, and also the durability conditions during accumulation
cycle and EM testing for DF should be allowed to use one representative durability condition
determined by manufacturer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
1769
-------
It should be clarified that no certification tests other than worst case are required. Worst case
determinations should be based on GEJ or in-house tests. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2,
p. 1]
With regards to changes in requirements for engine test speed and duty cycle, it should be
clarified that retesting is not required for previously approved specifications, and the carryover is
allowed as long as the specifications don't change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
With regards to steady state duty cycles:
1. CARB staff sees no issue with the multi-mode duty cycle proposed.
2. It is not clear whether there is an advantage to removing the existing ramped-modal test
from the regulations, as it may have utility for other kinds of testing, however CARB
staff agrees that not adding an additional ramped-modal duty cycle for the new five-mode
test is reasonable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp.132-133]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
Honda: 1054.505(b)(2). Clarify that 5mode is
an option and that additional 5mode testing
will not be required for the engines approved
in 6mode before (As no definition of Idle,
necessity of 5mode testing should be based on
manufacturer's GEJ). If the GEJ is not
allowed, 5mode results should be allowed to
be calculated from the 6mode results to avoid
retesting burden.
The proposed regulation requires five-mode
testing for engines that are not designed to
idle. If the manufacturer designs all their
engines to idle, there is no need to determine
emission results over the five-mode cycle. If
the manufacturers make some engines
designed to idle and some engines not
designed to idle, they can measure emissions
using the six-mode duty cycle and then
simply recalculate a weighted emission result
for the five-mode testing using the same
testing to generate a six-mode test result.
We agree that manufacturers can and will use
good engineering judgment to determine
whether they have designed an engine to idle.
1770
-------
Honda: 1054.505(d). In determining the worst
case of emission when the test mode (5mode
or 6mode) and/or test speed (3060rpm or
3600rpm) are different, it should be clarified
that it is not necessary to prepare durability
engines for all cases, and also the durability
conditions during accumulation cycle and EM
testing for DF should be allowed to use one
representative durability condition determined
by manufacturer.
The regulation at 40 CFR 1054.235(a)
instruct manufacturers to select a
configuration from the engine family that is
most likely to exceed the HC+NOx standard,
using good engineering judgment. Further,
40 CFR 1054.240(a) establishes that an
emission family complies with standards if
tested engines representing the family have
test results showing deteriorated emission
levels at or below these standards. We agree
that a manufacturer meet requirements by
performing durability testing with a single
configuration to represent worst-case full-life
emissions. We are revising the regulation to
state that the manufacturer's reporting
obligation for certification is limited to the
worst-case condition between five-mode
testing and six-mode testing.
Honda: 1054.505(d). It should be clarified
that no certification tests other than worst case
are required. Worst case determinations
should be based on GEJ or in-house tests.
Manufacturers can select configurations using
engineering analysis and good engineering
judgment. That analysis may be informed by
additional testing. To the extent that
manufacturers perform valid certification tests
for such additional testing, they would need to
report those emissions results in the
application for certification.
1771
-------
Honda: 1054.505(d). With regards to changes
in requirements for engine test speed and duty
cycle, it should be clarified that retesting is
not required for previously approved
specifications, and the carryover is allowed as
long as the specifications don't change.
As always, the amended regulation does not
invalidate certificates issued under the
regulations that applied at the time.
We will approve an application for
certification based on carryover test data if the
earlier testing complies with current
requirements. This means that manufacturers
may need to perform testing at different speed
settings. They would also need to submit new
test results using the five-mode or six-mode
duty cycle if that is needed to properly
represent a worst-case test configuration for
the engine family. The amended regulation is
based on provisions that have applied through
guidance for many years, so we don't expect
manufacturers to need additional time to meet
these requirements. This expectation is
reinforced by the fact that engine
manufacturers, through their associations,
requested that EPA codify the proposed
amendments.
With regards to steady-state duty cycles,
CARB staff sees no issue with the proposed
multi-mode duty cycle. It is not clear whether
there is an advantage to removing the existing
ramped-modal test from the regulations, as it
may have utility for other kinds of testing,
however CARB staff agrees that not adding
an additional ramped-modal duty cycle for the
new five-mode test is reasonable.
We acknowledge the affirmation that the new
five-mode duty cycle is appropriate for Small
SI engines. We have gained clarity that
engine manufacturers will have an enduring
lack of interest in testing with ramped-modal
duty cycles. We also see no value in
preserving the ramped-modal duty cycle for
EPA testing separate from what
manufacturers do. We are therefore removing
the ramped-modal from the regulation, as
proposed.
32.5 Engine family criteria - Small SI Engines
Comments by Organizations
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
With regards to engine family criteria, CARB staff sees no issues with the proposed rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 133]
1772
-------
Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
Section 1054.230(b)(8) - How Do I Select Emission Families? OPEI is seeking clarification
(additional examples) of what methods of controls for engines may be grouped into an
emission family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.4]
The example provided in 1054.230(b)(8) may be confusing. It is OPEI's understanding that
different fuel injection technologies, such as open and closed-loop fuel injection systems, may be
included in the same emission family. OPEI recognizes an exhaustive list of examples is not
practical, however, some additional examples or guidance may be helpful to clarify common
emission family technology groupings. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.4]
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
In addition, in proposed §1054.230(b)(8) an example is included to provide additional guidance
to manufacturers. While this example is helpful, EMA recommends that the provision clearly
state that in cases where an engine manufacturer sources a component from multiple suppliers,
those components being made to the same specifications, the engines produced from those
components may be included in the same engine family. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203-A1, p
.133]
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
With regards to engine family criteria, CARB
staff sees no issues with the proposed rule.
We acknowledge the lack of objection to our
proposed provisions to establish clearer
criteria for defining engine families.
1773
-------
OPEI: The example provided in
1054.230(b)(8) may be confusing. It is
OPEI's understanding that different fuel
injection technologies, such as open and
closed-loop fuel injection systems, may be
included in the same emission family. OPEI
recognizes an exhaustive list of examples is
not practical, however, some additional
examples or guidance may be helpful to
clarify common emission family technology
groupings.
The regulation currently specifies that engines
should be grouped into a family only if they
have the same method of controlling engine
operation. We proposed to include an
example to establish that port fuel injection
with multi-cylinder engines is a
fundamentally different control method than
carburetion or throttle-body injection, but that
these latter two methods are not
fundamentally different from each other. We
don't see anything confusing about the way
we described that principle.
We are not ready to identify additional control
methods that we should identify as being
categorically alike or different. For example,
we may consider open-loop and closed-loop
systems to be alike or different, depending on
whether engines will operate differently when
adding the specific designs for a feedback
loop with closed-loop fueling.
EMA acknowledges that the example
proposed in §1054.230(b)(8) for defining
engine family criteria is helpful. EMA
recommends that the provision clearly state
that in cases where an engine manufacturer
sources a component from multiple suppliers,
those components being made to the same
specifications, the engines produced from
those components may be included in the
same engine family.
We have always implemented certification
requirements across all sectors without
requiring manufacturers to create separate
families based on sourcing components from
different suppliers. We will continue to
implement certification this way, and do not
believe it is necessary to describe this in the
regulation. The regulation instead identifies
how manufacturers must group engines that
are the same in regard to several defining
characteristics.
32.6 Miscellaneous amendments for marine compression-ignition
engines
Comments by Organization
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
The proposed modifications to § 1042.660(b) require clarification. EPA should define "non-
compliant operation" and "appropriate reductant." The provision should also be clarified as
1774
-------
being applicable to "all engines on covered vessels even if the engines are certified to U.S. EPA
Appendix VI..."
EPA Summary and Response
Comment Summary
EPA Response
EMA requested that we define or clarify the
terms "appropriate reductant" and
"noncompliant operation" where we amended
the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
1042.660(b) related to operation of SCR-
equipped engines without urea or other
reductant.
The reporting requirement in §1042.660(b)
is tied to SCR systems requiring the use of
urea or other reductants. The reductant
specifications are in turn driven by the
manufacturers' designs and the corresponding
operating instructions for users. The
regulation properly references "any operation
of such vessels without the appropriate
reductant." This means the operator needs to
take steps (1) to purchase reductant meeting
the engine manufacturer's specifications, (2)
to handle the reductant in a way that prevents
it from being diluted, degraded from extended
storage or exposure to high temperatures, and
(3) to operate the vessel with the appropriate
reductant.
Similarly, "noncompliant operation" is any
operation where the operator fails to take the
steps described above.
EMA also requested that § 1042.660(b) should
be clarified as being applicable to "all engines
on covered vessels even if the engines are
certified to U.S. EPA Appendix VI..."
The proposed rule already clarified that this
reporting requirement applies for all engines
on covered vessels even if the engines are
certified to Annex VI standards instead of or
in addition to EPA standards under part 1042.
It is not clear how we can further clarify how
the reporting requirement applies for engines
subject to different emission standards.
33 Comments outside the scope of the proposed rule
Comments by Organization
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
The EPA should, however, consider a filter-enforcing particulate standard for Medium Duty
gasoline vehicles. This will help the U.S. implement best available technology as done today in
1775
-------
China and Europe, where the PM/PN standards require OEMs to add filters. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1280-A1, p .3]
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
EPA should also close the apparent loophole in the Phase II mandate that Diesel Particulate
Filters (DPF) be installed on all new vehicles with Auxiliary Power Units (APU) starting in MY
2024, as set forth in 40 CFR 1039.699. APU manufacturers are avoiding the clear intent of the
Phase II rule to control PM emissions with significant public health consequences, particularly
for frontline communities. The final rule should contain a remedy for this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
Organization: American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda)
1051.501(C)(2)
In order to be consistent with the specification in 40 CFR 1060.515, Honda proposes to amend as
follows:
"Prior to permeation testing offuel line, precondition the fuel line by filling it with the
fuel specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, sealing the openings, and soaking it for
4 weeks at (23 5) °C. To measure fuel-line permeation emissions, use the equipment
and procedures specified in SAE J30 as described in 40 CFR 1060.810. Use the fuel
specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. Perform daily measurements for 14 days,
except that you may omit up to two daily measurements in any seven-day period.
Determine your final emission result based on the average of measured values over the
14-day sampling period. Maintain an ambient temperature of (23 ± 2) °C throughout the
sampling period, except for intervals up to 30 minutes for weight measurements. " [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1348-A2, p. 1]
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
US EPA must move quickly to ensure the transition to zero-emission trucking under the Phase 3
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards that follow this current proposed rulemaking. The shift to
zero-emission trucks will yield major clean air and climate benefits and provide much-needed
relief to communities most directly affected by trucking pollution today. The American Lung
Association recently issued a report finding that the United States could experience over $1
trillion in public health benefits between 2020 and 2050 through widespread shifts to zero-
emission transportation and electricity generation, with the potential for over 110,000 lives
saved.5 US EPA must move quickly to establish a clear and direct pathway to the full transition
to zero-emission trucks in the near term. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, p.3]
5 American Lung Association. Zeroing in on Healthy Air. March
2022. www.lung.org/ev
1776
-------
Organization: Amy Lane
The proposed rule regarding heavy duty engine standards beginning in 2027 is insufficient for
mitigating nitrous oxides (NOx) and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as intended.
Experts believe that our planet may hit "peak oil" in 13 years or less, triggering societal and
economic collapse if society has not drastically lessened its reliance on petroleum products.
(Withgott and Laposata 2018, 520) The most sustainable, logical, and efficient course of action
for addressing the emissions produced by heavy duty engines is a timely transition to renewable
fuel sources. With only 20% of our nation's electricity generated by renewables, electric vehicles
are not sufficient in reducing GHG emissions or our reliance on fossil fuels. (U.S. Energy
Administration n.d.) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1217]
On December 7, 2021, the EPA proposed a rule that would strengthen the Renewable Fuels
Standards Program (RFSP), with the claim by EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan that, "This
package of actions will enable us to get the RFS program back in growth mode by setting
ambitious levels for 2022, and by reinforcing the foundation of the program so that it's rooted in
science and the law." (EPA.gov 2021) The RFSP is required to set the volumes of biofuels used
by the transportation industry under the Clean Air Act (CAA). However, the EPA is proposing a
rule for heavy duty engines that relies on technology which excludes renewable fuel sources.
Also in December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced its plan to invest
$800 million in supporting biofuel producers and infrastructure, with an additional $100 million
available to expand the biofuel sales and use of biofuels derived from U.S. agricultural products.
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2021) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) even
provides financial assistance for new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure for
qualified biodiesel retailers under the Renewable Fuels Infrastructure Program (RFIP). (U.S.
Department of Energy n.d.) A lack of cohesion between statutes, agencies, and rules, along with
an unwillingness to act with the authority it has been granted has plagued the EPA for too long.
This is an opportunity for the EPA to apply best practices in a comprehensive, efficient, and
effective manner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1217]
A collaborative effort between the RFSP, RFIP, and a heavy duty engine standards rule would
create a high demand for renewables, which could also alleviate the burden felt by small
refineries to achieve compliance with the RFSP, thus lessening the amount of resources used for
exemption proceedings. By ignoring this obvious collaborative solution, the EPA is essentially
denying the refineries that are bound by the RFSP rule a market which gives them the
opportunity to both be in compliance with the RFSP and propel their business into the future
sustainably. Mr. Regan claims to want the RFSP back in growth mode, with a scientific
foundation. What better way to inspire growth in the production of renewables than to create
high demand through regulation which relies on sound science and best practices? [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1217]
The proposed Heavy Duty Engine Standards rule is counterproductive to mitigating
anthropogenic climate change, the RFSP and refineries that are required to comply with it, U.S.
farmers growing biodiesel feedstocks, the RFIP, and the industries that will suffer due to their
reliance on fossil fuels. The time to transition to renewables was yesterday, and the agency that is
1777
-------
entrusted with the protection of environmental health needs to make every effort to ensure that
transition is being made- across all rules, statutes, agencies, and industries. I strongly urge the
EPA to reconsider EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 and instead create a rule proposal that is in
alignment with the vision of the RSFP, the USD A, and the RFIP. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1217]
Organization: B & H Tractor & Truck
Also the way the government addressed truck drivers shortage by making them pay $4000.00
and go to school is ridiculous. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1751, p.l]
Organization: Brian Lopez
As addressed by the proposed rule document, early adoption incentives can be a useful
tool to encourage policy change. For this we can look towards incentives that have encouraged
policy change for renewable energy. Financial incentives have been used to encourage the use
of renewable sources of energy through the monetary advantages offered to encourage the
accessibility of renewable energy resources by reducing the burden of purchasing for
manufacturers and consumers. The use of financial incentives has encouraged the eradication
of barriers encountered when supporting the growth of the renewable energy sector. Policies
providing financial incentives have been used to reduce the risks characterizing the investment
in this sector, especially on long-term projects with extended break-even periods. Varying
levels of government have played key roles in supporting the advancement of company
investment into renewable energy in order to enhance the development of diversified sources
of reusable energy. Such a move has been considered as a strategy to encourage sustainability
in line with the current and future demands and capacity needs in the country. Since 2016, over
46 countries have instituted financial incentives to offer support to investors seeking to venture
into renewable energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1040]
Moreover, many consumers incorrectly believe that an increase in a vehicle's fuel
efficiency is correlated to an increase in fuel savings. Due to the curvilinear relationship
between fuel efficiency and fuel consumption, the combined fuel-efficiency value would
always be lower than the simple average, resulting in consistent overestimations of the actual
fuel efficiency. Therefore, it is possible that consumers can be making suboptimal choices
between vehicles, while at the same time believing that they are making rational and
environmentally positive choices. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1040]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB staff proposes to add 'State the regulatory subcategory that determines the applicable
emission standards for the vehicle family (see definition in 1037.801)' as 1037.135 (c)
(4). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.85]
CARB staff recommends U.S. EPA to adopt a zero-emission standard for off-road powertrains in
Part 1039. The standard could be an optional zero-emission standard with no other programmatic
1778
-------
tie-ins (i.e., no compliance credit), like the zero-emission standard established by California's
ZEP certification regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 134]
This change is needed because:
• One of the greatest opportunities to transition into zero-emission in the off-road sector
can be found in construction and farm equipment.
• CAA section 209(e) preempts California from establishing emission standards for 'new
engines which are used in construction equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment
or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 horsepower.'
• California is exploring various strategies to increase zero-emission technology
deployment in construction and farm equipment, including fleet rules that would require
fleets to purchase zero-emission equipment.
• By establishing a federal zero-emission standard for off-road powertrains, U.S. EPA
would clear the path for CARB to establish zero-emission fleet rules for construction and
farm equipment that may arguably fall within the section 209(e) preemption
category. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, pp. 134-135]
CARB staff believes that U.S. EPA's defect reporting and corrective action program would be
improved if U.S. EPA aligned with CARB's requirements for the reasons summarized below:
Defect Reporting - U.S. EPA's defect reporting requirements are not as robust as CARB's. The
defect reports currently required by U.S. EPA do not require as much information about the
defect as CARB's program. Also, U.S. EPA's defect reports are not required to be submitted
continuously throughout the warranty reporting period, while CARB's requirements have
manufacturers provide warranty repair information updates on a quarterly basis once the
reporting threshold has been exceeded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 129]
Corrective Action Requirements - U.S. EPA's corrective action threshold appears to be more
subjective than CARB's. The corrective action threshold is based on a 'substantial number' of
failures, while CARB's program is based on a percentage of defects exceeding a specific
threshold. CARB's recall requirements also have the added benefit of the Department of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) registration tie-in program. The DMV registration tie-in program helps ensure a
high capture rate for recalls by preventing owners from renewing their vehicle registrations until
after they have the recall repair work completed. U.S. EPA should consider requiring
manufacturers meet a high capture for all recalls like 90 percent like what is obtained by
California's DMV registration tie-in program. This can be done by International Registration
Plan holds, required multiple mailings or requiring that manufacturer provide owners incentives
to get timely repairs done. Lastly, the Omnibus rulemaking established automatic recalls based
on specified warranty defects rates. This change was critical, as it will allow CARB staff to
require manufacturers to take corrective action once the corrective action threshold has been
exceeded, without having to conduct costly and resource-intensive testing to prove an
exceedance of emission standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p. 129]
1779
-------
Organization: Clay Miller
I think that before the trucking industry is loaded down with more regulations the RXR industry
should be looked at because these old locomotives are still being used and emit more smoke than
any truck I have seen on the roads. Are they required to refit with exhaust the burn emissions or
DEF injection like trucks, tractors, pretty much every machine that runs on diesel [comment ends
here; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1539]
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
In addition to this rulemaking, U.S. EPA should support near-zero trucks and buses in all other
programs and future regulations pertaining to clean transportation and especially those which
seek to tackle air quality issues in environmental justice communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1350-A1, p.4]
Organization: Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
Additionally, as part of their PLANET 2050 environmental sustainability strategy, Cummins is
committed to powering a healthier environment, stronger communities, and robust and inclusive
economies. In the environmental part of their ESG plan Cummins has committed to Destination
Zero, whereby their mission is to power a more prosperous world by helping customers succeed
through innovative and dependable products that are good for their customers and the
environment.6 Cummins is focused on improving GHG emissions that come from the internal
combustion engines that dominate most industrial applications today. Cummins recognizes that
these reductions are projected to provide more cumulative carbon reductions than an alternate
scenario of waiting until the grid is green and deploying technology that relies on electric
charging. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1248-A1, p.3]
6 https://www.cummins.com/company/esg/environment/destination-zero
Organization: Clean Harbors Environmental Services
However, ZEV technology still is in its infancy. While the industry is investing heavily in a zero-
emissions future, the high costs of zero-emission trucks and the lack of the essential national
recharging/refueling infrastructure needed to operate those vehicles virtually guarantees that
trucking fleets cannot yet make the switch to zero. We must invest in a comprehensive strategy
to build the nationwide infrastructure that is essential to support widespread ZEV adoption while
also providing fleet owners - 97% of which are small businesses - with the incentives necessary
to offset the higher costs of ZEVs.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1063-A2, p.2]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
In addition, we ask EPA to add "ethanol" to the general categories of fuels that are included in
the agency's definition of "Fuel Type."12 Currently, the Proposal lists gasoline blended with 10
1780
-------
percent ethanol as merely one example of a fuel grade with the gasoline fuel type, just as
premium and regular gasoline are listed. Instead, we request that EPA adds an Ethanol fuel type
to list of general categories of fuels, alongside diesel fuel, gasoline, and natural gas. Within this
fuel type, we request that EPA include both E85 and E98 as fuel grades that can be used for
certification and other purposes. 13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
12 See Proposal, at 17724.
13 See Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(4) of Section 1036.530 - Reference Fuel Properties and
related discussion. This table and discussion does list high-blend ethanol, but does not
specify whether E98 can be used. This should be corrected in the final rule. See Proposal,
pp. 17703-17704.
Organization: David Pedersen
I also believe that the Agency should retroactively change standards for existing engines such
that DPFs and SCR are no longer required; in fact, I believe a separate rulemaking process to propose
banning the use of DPFs as public-health hazards would be beneficial as well. While the difference in
emissions may seem significant, the Administrator must take into account the study referenced
herein that shows that DPFs (and, to a lesser degree, SCR) are themselves contributors to the very
pollution that the Agency is mandated to address. Allowing the removal of DPFs would improve
safety, have a minimal effect on air quality relative to the status quo, and decrease safety and cost
concerns for owners and operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1059]
Organization: David Wong
The "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards" is a
proposed rule seemingly primarily concerned with "highway" heavy-duty vehicles and engines, based
on the emphasis in the first sentence of the rule summary. I have a few main concerns with this rule.
First, preexisting engines are not addressed, and little to no incentive is provided to encourage the
replacement of older engines. Second, the plan does not directly emphasize, encourage, or support a
focus toward improving public transit and public transit hotspots for human activity and thus
breathing conditions in those areas especially. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
Scalable increasing improvements should be pushed hard with financial and other penalties that can go
toward helping offset damage done by emissions. I recommend that locomotive companies be
incentivized to augment preexisting emission control systems and replace diesel engines with electric
entirely as soon as possible. I recommend the same thing for public buses and bus stations since
more people congregate there with the congregated bus diesel emissions than practically anywhere
except for possibly the most metropolitan intersections. I also recommend that the EPA jointly
propose another rule for preexisting heavy-duty engines that fairly holds extremely emission-heavy
older engines to the highest possible standards by the 2035 time- marker that this rule frequently
mentions. One possible idea is to tax the use/mileage of emission-heavy older motors based on
estimated or measured emission differences from recent standards, and apply the tax to air filtration
and emission control projects. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
1781
-------
The Clean Air Act is 52 years old now, and the Urban bus standards (section 219) have not been
significantly amended since 1990. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and particulates in
general (PM, aka PM10 coarse dust or PM2.5 fine dust) have been generally accepted as carcinogenic
and harmful to human breathing. Hydrocarbons (THC) and Volatile Organic Compounds are also
generally seen as very dangerous, but their specific contents and effects vary a bit more. Still, any
amount of these is not meant for human consumption. We can keep minimizing over and over, but if
we don't put a final goal date on the complete elimination of emissions, it's hard to see how the
environment can heal fast enough. So the final big question is: do we really want a completely zero-
emission society ever, and if so, when? What is the maximum amount of NOx, CO, and THC that 7
billion people could be personally responsible for emitting each day and the environment still be
sustainable? That's the emission max allotment figures we should be working toward today, but I
think the public transit systems and reailways should take the lead in going above and beyond by
moving to zero emissions soonest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
Locomotives may burn a much dirtier diesel fuel than trucks, containing up to 500 parts per million sulfur,
whereas trucks since 2006 have been limited to fuel with 15 parts per million sulfur (Lyderson, 2010).
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
A 2006 report called "Smokestacks on Rails" by the Environmental Defense Fund, a New York- based
nonprofit, estimated the economic impact of adverse health effects totaled 23.2 billion dollars due to
factors such as premature deaths, non-fatal heart attacks, breathing issues in children, and
approximately 290,000 lost work days (Scott & Sinnamon, 2006). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
Adverse health effects associated with 2104 locomotive pollution
Frerp~-u,ir? de.rbs
Kon-taial a'lackii
AclI'-i- bror«:hiiis m : asthma exacerbations in children
ILo=i werk Or'/s
"otal econcTt;c mpact of adverse health effects
Compare these figures to the EPA estimates by 2045 for their "most ambitious option" outlined in this
proposed rule, that would result in the following annual benefits:
• Up to 2,100 fewer premature deaths
• 6,700 fewer hospital admissions and emergency department visits
• 18,000 fewer cases of asthma onset in children
• 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma symptoms and allergic rhinitis symptoms
• 78,000 fewer lost days of work
• 1.1 million fewer lost school days for children
" (from https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-stronger-standards-heavy-duty- vehicles-
LJ,iOJ
i ioo
i I,CDC
2gC,C0'l
$23.2 bi lien
1782
-------
promote-clean-air-protect) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
Weighing the Environmental Defense Fund negative impact estimates for 2006 for locomotives against
the EPA estimated positive impacts of this proposed rule nicknamed the EPA's "Clean Trucks Plan", it
appears that a mild to moderate reduction of the locomotive emission adverse effects would be
approximately as impactful/beneficial as this rule. Because the scope could be narrowed down to just
locomotive engines and practically nothing else, I assume the implementation cost for locomotive
improvements would be immensely more cost-effective. An electric locomotive is about $4-6.5
million, compared to approximately $1-2 million for a diesel locomotive (Nally, 2022). With more
than 28,000 locomotives in the United States, the hardware cost to replace every single diesel
locomotive with an electric one might be about $168 billion (28,000 * 6,000,000), plus operational
transition costs. If the total economic impact of adverse health effects is actually over $20 billion per
year, we can assume that a radical change to electric locomotives would pay itself off in health costs
in about 8 years assuming implementation was instant. Furthermore, if public transport moved to
zero-emissions, it could finally be seen as the "greenest" option in practically every way and
encourage more people to take public transport and be even more environmentally economical than
probably all other (motor) transport options. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1097]
A Mayo Clinic study of 3,933 people found "children who lived in census tracts facing the intersections
with major highways or railroads had about 40% to 70% increased risks of developing childhood
asthma compared with those who lived in census tracts not facing such intersections". (Juhn et al.,
2010). I feel that diesel soot from train engines is particularly dense and noticeably smelly to my
backyard, which is directly adjacent and only a few feet away from Orlando's train tracks. The
hindered plant growth is clearly visible and more brown along the closer fenceline than the plant life
farther away and on the other side of the house. In addition to the toxic consequences to human
health, there must be devastating effects to wildlife that are much less measured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1097]
The last guidelines for the Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder were republished in June 2008. The
standards only began to take effect in 2015. That program was projected to reduce annual emissions
of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides by thousands of tons- but not eliminate them. I am
proposing that efforts be made immediately to move to ELIMINATE and not just reduce emissions by
2035 by switching to electric locomotive engines as soon as possible. Perhaps older exhaust systems
could be augmented to fully or 99% capture/filter particulate matter and nitrous oxides. Notice the
emission standards for the year 2023 in Table 1 below from Subpart B - Emission Standards and
Related Requirements § 1033.101 Exhaust emission standards. [EPA-HQ-QAR-2019-0055-10971
1783
-------
Table i to - - Line-Haul Locomotive Emission Standards
Standards (g/bhp-hr)
Year of original manufacture Tier of standards
NOx
PM HC
CO
1973-1 992*
Te;" 0;:'
8 0
0 22 - 00
5 0
1 9 93f-2004
Te" 10
74
0 22 0 55
2.2
2005-2311
T-er 2°
5 5
e 0 10 0 30
1.5
2012-2014
T-er 3:
5 5
0:0 0.30
1,5
2015 or later
T & 4-
*
0 03 0 14
1.5
The standards for locomotive engines before 2014 are roughly 4-6x less than those for (line-haul) engines
manufactured in 2015 or later. Switch-style locomotives are slightly different, but still similarly
comparable. I don't see policy that attempts to compensate or correct the older engine emission
levels by roughly 4-6 times the particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1097]
Busses may be seen similarly. The table 1 below from the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
"Average In-Use Emissions from Urban Buses and School Buses - Emission Facts"
published in 2008 shows typical bus emissions in grams per mile (note it is not
the same unit described for locomotive emissions). [epa-hq-oar-2019-0055-1097]
1784
-------
I ih l 1 i IS, 1 '-.till |._'i ' l~. 1 '!•>!>. I, 1 I, I ' I - 1. -I nib hi-., - 11 1. I In • ' I ll-I - V. ] , M1 1 -1 if":
Tisl'k' I; A*it,v^i rmioNiuu Katis l^r I'r hart Ini^o «uu1 ""vlnxil Huh*V
(in uniitis |H'f mill')
Pollutant
Urban Diesel Buses
School Diesel Buses
School Gasol-nc
Buses
M L/C
0 245
7 530
THC
0,35?
7 791
CO
NO»
3 370
,'U'i
r :<-i >•
10 533
85. BCD
>' 4
m ,
PM
OkVd
0 ?'j?
0 555
3034
(I *€4
(I
Approximately 65,000 public city buses were operational in December of 2017 (Carlier, 2021). A new
electric bus costs about $1,000,000 or more but is actually cheaper upfront than most diesel busses
and definitely cheaper and easier to maintain over time. Replacing all of this quickly is probably
much, much easier than replacing train locomotives, and it is good to see that the United States
seems well on it's way to making all busses electric. However, I recommend that new gas/diesel
buses for public city transport be forbidden by 2025, and only new electric be allowed. Perhaps
exceptions can be made for remanufactured gas/diesel engines up until 2030 or 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1097]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Reducing Emissions should be more than just Setting New Engine Standards, but also
Implementing More Immediate Term Solutions Like Use Of Renewable Fuels And Accelerating
The Turnover Of The Legacy Fleet
• The most substantial opportunities to reduce emissions in our communities in the relative
near term are ones that this proposed rule does not address, the use of renewable fuels
and the existing population of older commercial trucks — the legacy fleet. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1004 and Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2867]
• Consider if more commercial trucks were operating on blends of 100 percent renewable
low- carbon biodiesel fuels. According to EPA's own detailed analysis, the current pool
of biodiesel is of very high quality and blends of biodiesel may function seamlessly with
next-generation aftertreatment devices developed to meet this low standard. The fuel is
available now. The infrastructure to deliver it is available now. The vehicles qualified to
1785
-------
use it are available now. Putting it in operation now, can begin reducing emissions now,
and, like compound interest, we will be banking emissions reductions every mile, starting
now. It is a competitive strategy that is more affordable and available than mandating
ZEVs or very stringent future NOx standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004 and
Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
• As for the legacy fleet, it is large. According to our most recent analysis of vehicles in
operation (VIO) data from IHSMarkit as of the end of 2021, 53 percent are 2011 and
newer model year vehicles and 47 percent are an older generation. These are pre-2011
model year vehicles with relatively higher emissions. Those made before 2007 do not
have particulate traps and/or selective catalytic reduction technology to help combat
emissions. They are second, or third, owner trucks operated by independent truckers and
smaller fleet operators. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004 and Public Hearing Day 1
Testimony, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
• The potential for rapid mitigation of both NOX and PM emissions by accelerating the
turnover of this older fleet to advanced diesel technology, is tremendous. The Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act has played an important role in addressing turnover in this
legacy fleet and has delivered immediate improvements in local emissions. The new set
of options and standards proposed will continue to improve the health of all impacted by
the transportation network. While the proposals continue to clean the air, with as much as
a 90 percent NOx reduction across the vehicle fleet, we are setting the stage to gain the
benefits of these new proposals over the next 25 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004
and Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Evergreen Action
While we appreciate that the EPA is moving forward with a new NOx rule, we urge the agency
to ensure that the regulations are as strong as possible which includes limiting loopholes and
ensuring maximum compliance with pollution reduction controls. Currently 'glider' trucks which
use old engines in new trucks are still on the road even as the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy Duty Engines and vehicles
went into effect last year. These incredibly high polluting vehicles ignore the need to rapidly
reduce emissions and they continue to put the public at risk of excessive pollution. The EPA
must use this rulemaking as an opportunity to close the glider truck loophole for good. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1289-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: Ford Motor Company (Ford)
We would like to work with EPA in the future to develop an alternative compliance pathway for
2024 model year and later engine certification. Our recommended alternative compliance
approach would provide significant GHG and criteria emission reductions through greater
penetration of ZEVs in the Heavy-Duty fleet. In addition to providing emissions benefits, the
proposed alternative compliance pathway would simplify the criteria emissions and engine-based
C02 compliance requirements. The key elements of the recommended alternative compliance
pathway are:
1786
-------
• 50-state ZEV targets (using the same ZEV definitions and credit trading rules as the California
Heavy-Duty ZEV regulations)
• HD ZEVs would not earn NOx credits.
• No changes to GEM-based vehicle GHG standards
• Non-ZEVs would be allowed to trade criteria emission and engine-based C02 credits across
primary intended service classes (e.g., between compression-ignition Light Heavy-Duty and
compression-ignition Medium Heavy-Duty classes). This change would have no negative impact
on fleet NOx or C02 emissions and would enable manufacturers to more efficiently invest in the
powertrains of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1300-A1, p. 6]
Organization: Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA)
Finally, another significant non-financial incentive that would encourage fleets to purchase zero-
emission trucks is an activity that the EPA could conduct in coordination with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Currently, both battery
electric and natural gas-powered heavy-duty trucks benefit from the existing 82,000-pound
exemption due to their higher vehicle weights. EPA could work with FHWA to support
providing parity in this exemption to hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1187-A2, p. 2]
Organization. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
UAW members are ready and willing to build the advanced technology trucks of the future. In
fact, UAW members are already building a variety of zero-emission medium and heavy-duty
vehicles, along with a wide range of continuously improving ICE (Internal Combustion Engine)
vehicles. These zero-emission vehicles built by UAW workers include:
• Thomas Built Bus Saf-T-Liner C2 Jouley EV school bus in High Point, NC
• IC Bus Electric CE school bus in Tulsa, OK
• Ford E-Transit EV commercial van in Kansas City, MO
• Mack LR EV refuse truck in Macungie, PA
• Volvo Truck VNR Electric class 8 truck in Dublin, VA
• Components for these vehicles at supplier plants located throughout our country [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.2]
Organization: Kenny Sites
Furthermore has anyone considered that all of the airplanes in the air every day swirling the
atmosphere is causing an accelerated effect of climate change not just elevated levels of carbon
dioxide. We were told in science class that the different layers of gases in the atmosphere helped
shield the earth from the affects of the sun. Thousands of flights a day swirling all theses layers
up to 50000 ft. looks to me may be part of the problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1495]
1787
-------
Organization: Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS)
LNS writes to express our concern about the Rule's impact on workers in the trucking industry
and how EPA could address those impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.l]
Our comments are limited to the potential harmful impacts of the Proposed Rule on workers in
the medium and heavy duty trucking industry. The Proposed Rule fails to take into account the
industry's current independent contractor (owner-operator) model and the accompanying
problem of widespread worker misclassification. Failure to address this problem potentially
delays and even reduces the beneficial impact the Rule aims to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1257-A1, p.2]
As we show more fully below, the deregulation of the trucking industry and corresponding
decline of unionized trucking labor gave way to an independent contractor model of employment
for trucking and delivery occupations, which has accelerated worker misclassification and caused
the deterioration of wages and working conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.2]
As we will show, EPA has the authority to take further action including models for interagency
consultation that could help mitigate harmful impacts of the Proposed Rule to already severely
burdened truck drivers. Since EPA's Proposed Rule is being issued consistent with its authority
under the Clean Air Act and with Executive Order 14037 (E.O. 14037), Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, signed by President Biden on August 5, 2021,3 it has the
authority and the imperative for further action to protect workers, public health, and the
environment. Specifically:
• EPA must not leave emission reductions and requirements to future rule and should
transition to zero-emission trucks and buses by setting stringent emission standards and
zero-emission-vehicle sales mandates now.
• EPA should require that all new trucks have zero emissions beginning in 2035 and retire
all combustion trucks before 2045.
• EPA should take all available further action within its authority to help mitigate the
economic impacts of its Proposed Rule on misclassified and independent contractor truck
drivers and ensure that the companies hiring drivers bear the costs for leasing, operating,
and maintaining vehicles.
• EPA should enter into purposeful interagency consultation and collaboration with other
federal agencies, like DOL-DOT's Driving Good Jobs Initiative, and help develop a
system of information and data sharing that leads to enforcement of labor and
employment laws, which could protect misclassified and independent contractor truck
drivers from further cost burdens associated with the Proposed Rule and later
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.3]
3 Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, 86 Fed. Reg. 43,583 -
43,585 (Aug. 10, 2021)
More than 3.5 million people in the U.S. work as truck drivers4 transporting goods from the
ports where they arrive and factories where they are manufactured, across the Interstate Highway
1788
-------
System, and, increasingly, all the way to our front doorsteps. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-
Al, p.4]
4 Jennifer C. Day & Andrew W. Hait, America Keeps on Truckin', Number of Truckers at Ail-
Time High, U.S. Census Bureau, June 2019,
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/06/america-keeps-on-trucking.html
For years, analysts have been warning about a 'shortage' of truck drivers to fill the needs of the
industry. The American Trucking Association estimates that by 2028, the country will be 'short'
160,000 truckers. 5 This shortage has its roots in the deregulation of the industry and
accompanying devaluation of trucking jobs which began with the 1980 Motor Carrier Act. This
legislation, and similar laws, deregulated the trucking and logistics industries thereby enabling
carriers to reduce rates.6 But a core mechanism by which these rate reductions were made
possible was by imposing mass driver dislocation and insecurity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1257-A1, p.4]
5 Bob Costello & Alan Karikhoff, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2019, American Trucking
Associations, July 2019, https://www.trucking.org/sites/default/files/2020-
01/ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202019%20with%20cover.pdf
6 Jerry Ellig, Trucking & Rail Regulatory Reforms Provide a Model for Bipartisan Cooperation,
Regulatory Studies Center, The George Washington University, October 7, 2020,
https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edU/sites/g/files/zaxdzs3306/f/downloads/Commentaries
/ GW%20Reg%20 Studies%20-
%20Motor%20Carrier%20and%20Staggers%20Act%20Turn%2040%20-%20JEllig.pdf
Decline in unionization was one of the effects of deregulation. Union density in the regulated
sector of the trucking industry dropped from 60% to about 25% in 1990.7 Today, only 2% of
long-haul trucking jobs are estimated to be union jobs.8 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1,
P 4]
7 Barry T. Hirsch, Trucking Deregulation and Labor Earnings: Is the Union Premium a
Compensating Differential?, 11 J. Lab. Econ., 279 (1993),
unionstats.gsu.edu/bhirsch/TruckingDeregulation.pdf
8 John D. Schulz, Union-free carriers trying hard to stay that way, Logistics Mgmt. (Dec. 18,
2013),
https://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/union_free_carriers_trying_hard_to_stay_that_way
Deregulation and the accompanying de-unionization of the industry have caused the
deterioration of drivers' wages, benefits and working conditions. Even after adjusting for
inflation, median wages for truck drivers fell from $110,00 in 1980 to $47,130 in 2020.9 This
deterioration has also resulted in an average 100% industry turnover rate. 10 Further, it has given
way to an independent contracting model for truck driver employment. 11 and paved the way for
rampant misclassification of drivers who are employees in all but name and remain dependent on
the companies who hire them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.4]
1789
-------
9 Michael Sainato, 'This used to be a great job': US truckers driven down by long hours and low
pay, The Guardian (Dec. 27, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/27/us-
truck-drivers-economy-pay-conditions
10 America's Truck Driver Crisis Is Complicated, Nat'l Pub. Radio, (Mar. 7, 2022),
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1084923395/americas-truck-driver-crisis-is-complicated
11 Ibid.
The misclassification problem is especially acute for long-haul truck drivers who have been
identified as a segment having high concentrations of misclassified truck drivers. 12 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.5]
12 Appel, Sam and Carol Zabin. Truck Driver Misclassification: Climate, Labor, and
Environmental Justice Impacts. Center for Labor Research and Education, University of
California, Berkeley. August 2019. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/truck-driver-misclassification/
According to a 2010 national study conducted by the National Institute on Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) 'approximately 28% of long-haul drivers are leased contractors without
their own operating authority.' These are drivers who 'would likely be considered misclassified
under a number of legal tests . . . .'13 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.5]
13 Id. at 9.
For drayage drivers, the misclassification problem is even greater. It has been estimated that
'between 75% and 85%' of port truck drivers were likely misclassified. The plight of drayage
drivers has been well documented.14 15 16 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.5]
14 Gracey Kay, Truckers at backlogged ports say they've waited in miles-long lines for up to 8
hours without pay, Bus. Insider, (Nov. 4, 2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/truckers-wait-
outside-backlogged-ports-8-hourswithout-pay-2021-11
15 Ari Ashe, Port truckers battle over 'detention' pay, J. Com. Online, (Apr. 4, 2019),
https://www.joc.com/truckinglogistics/drayage/port-truckers-battle-over-
%E2%80%98detention%E2%80%99-pay_20190404.html
16 American Shipper Staff, LA drayage truckers file $lm driver misclassification suit against
employer, Am. Shipper, (Oct. 23, 2017), https://www.freightwaves.com/news/la-drayage-
truckers-file-lm-driver-misclassificationsuit-against-employer
Finally, when goods ordered over the internet make the last-mile journey to our doorsteps, they
are often delivered by drivers who are misclassified as independent contractors and bear the
burden of the high costs and maintenance associated with operating their vehicles. According to
UC Berkeley: 'In the package delivery segment of short-haul trucking, firms such as FedEx
Ground, Amazon, and XPO Logistics all use contract truck drivers, and studies and lawsuits
1790
-------
have documented evidence of widespread misclassification at these companies.' 17 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.5]
17 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12 at 8.
Similarly, the Netherlands-based Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO)
which recently analyzed the last-mile policies of six large parcel-delivery companies, including
Amazon, FedEx, UPS, and Walmart, with respect to global warming and found that
' [subcontracting practices in the last-mile delivery sector have been associated with poor
working conditions and labour rights violations in many countries.' 18 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1257-A1, p.5]
18 Ilona Hartlief & David Ollivier de Leth, Parcel delivery on a warming planet: The efforts and
ambitions of six companies, (December 2021), https://www.somo.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2021/12/Parcel-Delivery-on-a-Warming-Planet_Final.pdf
Amazon's practices, in particular, illustrate the pervasiveness of sub-contracting in the last-mile
delivery sector. Over the past few years, the company has brought the majority of its last-mile
delivery operations quasi-in house, with two models that have come to predominate. First, there
are Amazon Flex drivers 'who like their Uber or Instacart counterparts are classified
as independent contractors exempt from U.S. employment laws,' 19; second are employees of its
subcontracted Delivery Service Partners (DSP), whose fleets deliver Amazon packages almost
exclusively.20 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp.5-6]
19 Josh Eidelson & Matt Day, Drivers don't work for Amazon but company has lots of rules for
them, Detroit News, (May 5, 2021),
https://www.detroitnews.eom/story/business/2021/05/05/drivers-dont-work-amazon-
butcompany-has-lots-rules-them/495 5413001/
20 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-controls-delivery-drivers-without-paying-wages-
2018-9
DSP-type companies face 'strong pressure ... to reduce delivery costs and shorten delivery
times' and these '[subcontractors themselves often outsource activities to other subcontractors
or independent workers.'21 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.6]
21 Hartlief & Ollivier de Leth, supra note 18 at 18.
UC Berkeley, Labor Center describes the problem of misclassification as follows:
'While . . . even very large companies misclassify their workers, small firms that misclassify
proliferate in the highly fragmented trucking market and regulatory landscape, particularly in
local [e.g., last-mile] and port trucking sub-segments. Ultimately, misclassification is less an
episodic problem of misbehavior by large or small companies, and instead a failure of
public policy to create labor market conditions that incentivize fair competition towards high
1791
-------
road, environmentally accountable economic development.'22 (emphasis added) [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.6]
22 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12 at 13.
The problem with misclassification is greater than simply an evasion of the law. The model
promotes the deterioration of wages, hours, and working conditions of owner-
operators/drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.6]
According to a 2018 study of misclassified port truckers and the California Clean Truck
program, written by Claire Sears, drivers 'provide their own rigs, maintenance, fuel, insurance
and other incidental costs like phone service and retirement.'23 Sears further explains that 'after
expenses and deductions, independent driver's net income floats around minimum wage
rates.'24 Similarly, the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that drayage drivers
classified as independent contractors make an average of $28,780 annually on an average 59-
hour work week.25 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.6]
23 Claire Sears, Driver Misclassification and Clean Truck Programs: An In-depth Analysis of
Two Southern California Ports, Occidental College, (May 4, 2018),
https://www.oxy.edu/sites/default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/Claire%20Sears_Driver%20Miscalssi
fication%20and%20Clean%20Truck%20Program.pdf
24 Ibid, at 5.
25 Rebecca Smith, et al., The Big Rig Overhaul: Restoring Middle-Class Jobs at America's Port
Through Labor Law Enforcement, Nat'l. Emp. L. Project, (Feb. 2014), https://www.nelp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/Big-Rig-Overhaul-Misclassification-Port-Truck-Drivers-Labor-Law-
Enforcement.pdf
Additionally, 'long-haul truckers are typically paid on a per-mile basis with paid time averaging
between 7 to 8 hours per day. However, these same drivers are typically working upwards of
14 hours per day, with roughly half of those hours being unpaid time spent refueling or waiting
for cargo.26 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp. 6-7]
26 Naomi J. Dun, et. al, Driver Detention Times in Commercial Motor Vehicle Operations,
Dep't of Transp., (Dec. 1, 2014), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/193
In the last-mile sphere, Amazon's increasingly dominant model similarly overburdens drivers.
Amazon Flex drivers 'must provide their own vehicles (or rented delivery van).'27 Similarly, a
DSP is 'responsible for procuring delivery vehicles for its operations' and can also 'lease
Amazon-branded vans designed specifically for this program ... .'28 DSPs fleet sizes are
capped by Amazon at a maximum of 40 vans 'mak[ing] it difficult for these small firms to gain
leveraging power against Amazon, while giving Amazon flexibility.' 29 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1257-A1, p.7]
1792
-------
27 Jake Alimahomed-Wilson, The Cost of Free Shipping: Amazon in the Global Economy 74
(Jake Alimahomed-Wilson & Ellen Reese eds., 2020)
28 Frequently Asked Questions, Amazon, https://logistics.amazon.eom/marketing/faq#Here_L
(last visited May 16, 2022)
29 Alimahomed-Wilson, supra note 27.
UC Berkeley's Labor Center analysis describes the unequal distribution of costs between firms
and drivers concisely: 'Contracting out truck driving shifts the costs of truck ownership and
operation from trucking companies to individual truck drivers. Contract truck drivers,
particularly misclassified contractors, earn low incomes and face high capital costs. While
regulatory compliance costs for large trucking firms represent a small percent of total revenue,
contract truck drivers face compliance expenses far in excess of their yearly income. Under the
contractor business model, truck drivers least equipped financially to buy and maintain clean
vehicles bear the financial burden of attaining the state's climate goals in this sector.'30 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.7]
30 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12 at 1.
As a result of EPA omitting considerations of driver misclassification and the independent
contractor model, not only does the Proposed Rule ignore the risk of increased harm to truck
drivers, it consequently ignores the risk to its own objectives of getting cleaner heavy-duty
vehicles on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.9]
The analysis by UC Berkeley, looking at compliance with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) regulations of heavy-duty truck emissions, concludes that there is 'clear evidence that
non-compliance is concentrated in the contractor segment of the commercial trucking
industry.'38 The report finds that the low wages paid to contract drivers 'are the primary reason
contract drivers lack capital for clean vehicle investments' and goes on to cite a surprising
finding from a 2010 report by the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) that
cleaner diesel trucks 'cost approximately 70% more to maintain than conventional trucks.'39
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.9]
38 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12.
39 Ibid.
Sears similarly finds, for those owner-operators who must finance their own vehicles,
'misclassification prevents environmental improvements by requiring drivers to purchase and
maintain their own trucks' and that poor wages mean 'they often purchase older trucks which
typically are cheaper and emit larger amounts of diesel pollution.'40 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1257-A1, p.9]
40 Sears, supra note 23 at 7
1793
-------
The matrix whereby large firms use either independent contractor drivers, or increasingly,
smaller company subcontractors (who often in turn use independent contractor drivers) means
that the largest firms who control the nationwide flow of freight shipping can further shield
themselves from the responsibility of limiting their operations' harmful impacts to environmental
and public health. This Russian nesting doll model of subcontracting diffuses the operations of
the wealthiest actors, and obfuscates who shoulders the industry's labor and environmental
responsibilities, as distinct from who ultimately benefits and therefore should actually shoulder
these responsibilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.9]
Analyzing compliance with CARB regulations, UC Berkeley finds that 'fleets with 1 to 3 trucks,
where contract truck drivers are found, boast the largest share of non-compliant trucks, with 44%
of all non-compliant trucks.'41 They deduce that 'non-compliant trucks operated by
misclassified drivers are prevalent in the short-haul segment' where 'federal operating authority
may not be required and yet many drivers are still misclassified.'42 Likewise, in SOMO's
analysis of six major last-mile package delivery firms, they make it clear that the diluting of
responsibility from layers of subcontracting will not be righted by the companies themselves:
'None of the six companies in this research state explicitly whether their emission reduction
targets and fleet electrification measures also apply to outsourced activities.'43 SOMO further
observes that 'the strong pressure to reduce costs and the complexity of subcontracting relations
in the last-mile delivery sector reduce subcontractor companies' abilities to mitigate
environmental impacts.'44 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp.9-10]
41 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12 at 10.
42 Id. at 12.
43 Hartlief & Ollivier de Leth, supra note 18 at 18.
44 Id.
Still, UC Berkeley's analysis makes clear that 'even very large companies misclassify their
workers. CARB compliance data show examples of non-compliant trucks driven by likely
misclassified contract truck drivers for major corporations.'45 The port trucking sector provides
a clear example of the environmental consequences of even large firms' failure to properly
employ and compensate their drivers. One of the early attempts at addressing both heavy-duty
vehicle pollution and driver exploitation yielded a 2008 Concession Agreement between the Port
of Los Angeles and large carriers. The agreement was 'designed to encourage . . . Licensed
Motor Carriers (LMCs) [to] enter into drayage concession agreements with the Port and [be]
responsible for owning and maintaining the trucks used to perform drayage services at the
Port.'46 Sears shows a finding attached to the 2008 agreement explicating a primary reason for
mandating a reclassification to full employment status of port drivers:
'Many drayage truck drivers have testified at the Board of Harbor Commissioners meetings of
both Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, stating that they are unable to afford and maintain
the cleaner trucks needed to achieve air quality standards, even with the subsidies proposed to be
offered by the Ports.'47 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 10]
1794
-------
45 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12.
46 The Port of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles' Clean Truck Program Concession
Agreement and Application are Now Available for Licensed Motor Carriers, (July 18,
2008), https://www.portoflosangeles.org/references/news_071808ctp
47 Sears, supra note 23 at 36.
The Warehouse Workers for Justice (WWJ) published a complete sector analysis of the
warehousing and trucking hub in Will County, Illinois. WWJ's report shows how poor wages
and working conditions for drivers and warehouse workers are inseparable from environmental
pollution plaguing the surrounding, largely black and brown, communities and the feedback loop
that develops between the two. The community members rendered sick by the industry's
pollution are often the same workers who are hyper-exploited by the industry's dominant
corporations. In a detailed interview with an area truck driver, WWJ shows that poor
compensation models for drivers (e.g., 'per load') lead 'some drivers [to] cut through residential
areas to make the most money as they pick up and drop off a load as quickly as possible.'48
They show throughout their study that the 'same systems exploiting truckers at work also forces
truckers to contribute to pollution in residential neighborhoods.'49 If EPA is serious about its
objectives with the Proposed Rule, it must account for the ways in which misclassified and
destabilized trucking labor is undermining otherwise environmentally beneficial regulation.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp. 10-11]
48 Madison Lisle & Yana Kalmyka, For Good Jobs & Clean Air: How a Just Transition
to Zero Emission Vehicles Can Transform Warehousing 17 (2022),
https://www.ww4j.Org/uploads/7/0/0/6/70064813/wwj_report_goodjobs_clean_air.pdf
49 Ibid.
Once again, UC Berkeley's analysis encapsulates with particular concision the confluence of the
problems outlined throughout this comment:
'This report documents the significant problem of non-compliance with clean vehicle policies in
the commercial trucking industry. It presents evidence of the concentration of non-compliance in
the contract trucking sector .... The report also links contract trucking, where compliance is
lowest, to evidence of high prevalence of misclassification of truck drivers as contractors instead
of employees. It concludes that the low incomes of contract drivers, including misclassified truck
drivers, are a key obstacle to full compliance with clean truck standards.'50 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 11]
50 Appel & Zabin, supra note 12 at 13.
EPA's Proposed Rule is being issued pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act and with
Executive Order 14037 (E.O. 14037), Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and
Trucks, signed by President Biden on August 5, 2021.51 E.O. 14037, section 6(b) orders that
'the Administrator of the EPA shall consult with the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, and
1795
-------
Energy on ways to achieve the goals laid out in section 1 of this order,' such goals including 'to
grow jobs that provide good pay and benefits.'52 The White House Fact Sheet announcing E.O.
14037 states that to achieve its goal, it will 'leverage once-in-generation investments and a
whole-of-government effort to lift up the American autoworker and strengthen American
leadership in clean cars and trucks.'53 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.11]
51 Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, supra note 3.
52 Ibid.
53 Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces Steps to Drive American Leadership Forward
on Clean Cars and Trucks, The White House, n.d., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/08/05/fact-sheetpresident-biden-announces-steps-to-
drive-american-leadership-forward-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/
As such, EPA should be doing all that is within its authority to take these impacts into account
and assist in addressing misclassification, ensuring that the companies hiring drivers bear the
costs for leasing, operating, and maintaining vehicles. EPA can be a significant part of
the solution to these issues by participating in ongoing interagency collaborative frameworks
(and by developing new ones), which are being implemented to identify and address these kinds
of problems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp.11-12]
A prime and ready example would be for EPA to immediately formalize a framework of
consultation and data exchange regarding the Proposed Rule's impacts on misclassified drivers
in partnership with the Departments of Labor and Transportation's Driving Good Jobs
Initiative. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 12]
As a part of President Biden's Trucking Action Plan, launched in December 2021, the joint
DOL-DOT Driving Good Jobs initiative is aimed at 'supporting drivers and ensuring that
trucking jobs are good jobs ... for a strong, safe, and stable trucking workforce.'54 Objectives
include 'identifying longer term actions, such as potential administrative or regulatory actions
that support drivers and driver retention by improving the quality of trucking jobs.'55 An April
4th White House update states that as part of the initiative DOL and DOT are 'conducting joint
outreach and education to employers and drivers about these rights and responsibilities under
federal wage and hour law' and are 'committed to addressing core challenges, such as worker
misclassification . . . .'56 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.12]
54 Fact Sheet: The Biden-a Harris Administration Trucking Action Plan to Strengthen
America's Trucking Workforce, The White House, n.d.,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/16/fact-sheet-
thebiden-%E2%81%A0harris-administration-trucking-action-plan-to-strengthen-
americas-trucking-workforce/
55 Ibid.
1796
-------
56 Fact Sheet: The Biden Administration's Unprecedented Actions to Expand and
Improve Trucking Jobs, The White House, n.d., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2022/04/04/fact-sheet-the-bidenadministrations-unprecedented-
actions-to-expand-and-improve-trucking-jobs/
Manufacturing companies must obtain certificates of conformity from EPA under Clean Air Act
section 206 in order to sell each heavy-duty engine or vehicle they produce (i.e., each mobile
emissions ' source. ')57 Pursuant to an application for certification, EPA collects crucial testing
and demonstration data and other information from manufacturers in order to approve their
applications and issue certificates of conformity. A ready example, EPA requires Production
Volume data from manufacturers as a part of certifying compliance with its Proposed Rule.
Production Volume data is defined as 'the number of engines, subject to [the Proposed Rule]
produced by a manufacturer for which the manufacturer has a reasonable assurance that sale was
or will be made to ultimate purchasers in the United States.'58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1257-A1, p.12]
57 42 U.S.C. 7521 (2018)
58 EPA, Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17,726 (Mar. 28, 2022),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-03-28/pdf/2022-04934.pdf
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) within DOT, along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the
Wage and Hour Division (WHD) within DOL, would be ideal agencies with which to establish a
formal Data Exchange Committee whereby relevant data can be compiled, analyzed, and
identified for enforcement authorities. BTS collects data and reports on registered motor
carriers, including their truck assets, employment, and more. FMCSA maintains critical
registration information on motor carriers, the details of their operations, and enforces issues
pursuant to safe vehicles and safe driving. BLS likewise collects data and issues detailed reports
on employment and industry within the U.S. while WHD enforces cases of worker
misclassification, compensation, and other worker benefits and standards. EPA stands out as a
missing link that could enable the tracking of its Proposed Rule's impacts on misclassified
drivers by helping to monitor where newly compliant engines are purchased, by what
classification of driver they are eventually used, and to support enforcement to correct the
misclassified employment status of drivers - activities that will benefit both workers and the
environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp. 12-13]
There is ample precedent for such collaboration and interagency exchange from which to think
about and even model creative consultation frameworks. EPA and DOL's Occupational Health
and Safety Administration (OSHA) established a robust MOU in 1991 to better protect workers
and the environment, which included an 'Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Data
Exchange Program.'59 This program established a Data Exchange Committee to 'facilitate
understanding of each agency's data and data systems by exchanging data and system
descriptions and by providing presentations about data and data systems' for purposes including
'determining compliance histories or background information on specific facilities, industrial
1797
-------
segments or categories or related reasons.'60 A similar pathway can easily be imagined for the
purposes of EPA assisting in the enforcement of fair labor standards for truck drivers while
further ensuring environmental protection. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 13]
59 EPA & OSHA, Memorandum of Understanding between The U.S. Department of
Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Enforcement (Feb. 13, 1991),
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/1991-02-13
60 Ibid.
Perhaps just as crucially, EPA's assistance in tracking the proliferation of newly compliant
heavy-duty trucks would help identify to which carriers compliant products are not going. This
will be critical information in identifying smaller carriers, sub-contractors, and similar operations
that might be more likely to have drivers misclassified yet still controlled by the largest, most
wealthy companies. Smaller operations are also of course where UC Berkeley identifies the
largest gap in CARB's regulatory compliance correlated with high rates of independently
contracted drivers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 13]
Indeed, action by EPA in these and similar ways would also add some muscle to President
Biden's oft-stated commitment to being the most pro-union President in modern history. There
was established on December 8, 2021, an MOU between WHD and the National Labor Relations
Board with the purpose of improving 'law enforcement and greater coordination between the
agencies through information sharing, joint investigations and enforcement activity,
training, education, and outreach.'61 One of the goals set out in the MOU is 'the identification
and investigation of complex or fissured employment structures, including single or joint
employer, alter ego, and business models designed to evade legal accountability, such as the
misclassification of employees.'62 EPA entering into interagency consultation that establishes
robust frameworks for data sharing and analysis, consistent with its granted authority, could lead
to a virtuous feedback loop of interagency collaboration that benefits truck drivers, labor in
general, the public, and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, pp.13-14]
61 DOL/WHD & NLRB, Memorandum of Understanding Between The U.S. Department
of Labor, Wage and Hour Division and the National Labor Relations Board (Dec. 8,
2021), https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa/national-labor-relations-board-mou
62 Ibid.
Additionally, EPA could also vocally be taking advantage of the ample opportunity for ongoing
interagency consultation to boost the government-wide imperative to further environmental
justice. For instance, EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool would be of
great service in prioritizing, for example, in what communities the burgeoning 90-Day Trucking
Apprenticeship challenge should be supported and scaled. This initiative, led by the collaborative
efforts of DOL and DOT within the Trucking Action Plan referenced above, would greatly
benefit from EPA's input and would be consistent with providing direction in related efforts such
as prioritizing 40% of the benefits of federal support for communities historically burdened by
1798
-------
environmental injustices (i.e., Justice40). An assertive EPA could be directing the efforts to
establish good jobs in trucking in such manners consistent with its authority and with the
President's explicit commitments to justice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 14]
In sum, EPA must consider and acknowledge the impacts of its Proposed Rule on misclassified
and independent contractor truck drivers and then act to remedy the resultant harms. EPA must
make full use of and act creatively with its authority to work collaboratively with other federal
agencies consistent with E.O. 14037 and the President's ubiquitously stated 'whole-of-
government approach.'63 64 65 It should enter thoughtfully planned and lasting interagency
collaborative frameworks that truly further the purposes of this administration's lofty goals in
building clean infrastructure, establishing resilient domestic supply chains, ensuring family-
supporting jobs with the free and fair chance to join a union, and finally ending toxic
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 14]
63 Abigail J. Hess, Biden promises to be 'the most pro-union president'—and union
members in Congress are optimistic, CNBC, (Dec. 20, 2020),
https://www.cnbc.eom/2020/12/01/biden-promises-to-be-the-most-pro-unionpresident-
and-rep.html
64 Steven Greenhouse, Biden stakes claim to being America's most pro-union president
ever, The Guardian, (May 2, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2021/may/02/joe-biden-unions
65 Ahiza Garcia-Hodges, Biden's vow to be 'most pro-union president' tested in first
year, (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/bidens-vow-union-
president-tested-first-y ear-rcna12791
LNS recommends that EPA take the actions within its authority outlined above to ensure that the
Proposed Rule does not result in further devaluation and harm to truck driver labor and thus can
actually achieve what it sets out to achieve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.15]
Specifically, LNS recommends the following actions:
• EPA should take all available further action within its authority to help mitigate the
economic impacts of its Proposed Rule on misclassified and independent contractor truck
drivers and ensure that the companies hiring drivers bear the costs for leasing, operating,
and maintaining vehicles.
• EPA should enter into purposeful interagency consultation and collaboration with other
federal agencies, like DOL-DOT's Driving Good Jobs Initiative, and help develop a
system of information and data sharing that leads to enforcement of labor and
employment laws, which could protect misclassified and independent contractor truck
drivers from further cost burdens associated with the Proposed Rule and later
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.15]
1799
-------
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
Technologies exist to ensure that MD gasoline engines can meet stringent standards like
their diesel and natural gas counterparts. We encourage EPA to set tighter MD standards
as the agency has indicated in the forthcoming Tier 4 light-duty regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1320-A1, p.31]
Furthermore, we believe that technology available for reducing exhaust emissions from light-
duty vehicles and medium-duty chassis certified vehicles has advanced significantly and can be
applied to engine certified products. Engine-based technologies that can address cold start
emissions include cylinder deactivation, electrical heaters and heated catalysts, hybridization and
electronic variable valve timing. To control exhaust temperature under high load, technologies
that can be applied to engines include exhaust gas recirculation, Miller cycle, cooled exhaust
manifolds, electronic throttle control and advanced transmissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1320-A1, p.31]
In addition to the engine technologies described above, several aftertreatment choices can be
made to optimize emissions performance. The technology base of advanced three-way catalysts
deposited on high cell density, thin-walled substrates has evolved dramatically from light- and
medium-duty chassis certified vehicles to comply with Tier 3 and LEV 3 standards. Recent
advances have yielded high porosity, low thermal mass substrates with narrow pore size
distributions, which enable high emissions reduction efficiency with less precious metal loading
[49] [50], Catalyst manufacturers have developed coating techniques based on layered or zoned
architectures to strategically deposit precious metals in ways that optimizes their performance at
a minimum of cost. The coated substrates are then packaged using specially designed matting
materials and passive thermal management strategies, secondary air injection systems to allow
chassis certified medium-duty trucks to meet the stringent Tier 3 emission fleet average limit of
30 mg/mile or approximately 100 mg/bhp-hr. Close-coupled catalyst exhaust architectures have
been on light-duty vehicles starting with Tier 2 standards and are an effective strategy for
addressing cold-start or low load operation. These same approaches can be readily optimized and
applied to allow all medium-duty and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles to achieve the same ultra-low
exhaust emission levels being considered for diesel engines by this rule.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1320-A1, pp.31-32]
[49] T. Asako, D. Saito, T. Hirao and E. Popp, 'Achieving SULEV30 Regulation Requirement
with Three-Way Catalyst on High-Porosity Substrate while Reducing Platinum Group Metal
Loading (SAE 2022-01-0543),' in SAE WCX, Detroit, MI, 2022.
[50] J. Warkins, T. Tao, M. Shen and S. Lyu, 'Application of Low-Mass Corning FLORA
Substrates for Cold-Start Emissions Reduction to Meet Upcoming LEV III SULEV30
Regulation Requirement (SAE 2020-01-0652),' in SAE WCX, Detroit, MI, 2020.
In 2007, MECA applied the above-mentioned strategies to two full-sized 2004 pick-up trucks
equipped with a 5.4L and 6.0L engine [51], The aftertreatment systems were packaged with
dual-wall insulated exhaust systems and fully aged to represent 120,000 miles of real-world
operation. Even with 15 year old engine technology and limited engine calibration on one of the
1800
-------
vehicles, both vehicles achieved FTP NMHC+NOx emissions of 60-70 mg/mile. Although we
did not replace the cast-iron exhaust manifolds on these vehicles, an OEM likely would take
advantage of such cost effective passive thermal management strategies, including dual-wall
insulated exhaust or integrated exhaust manifolds, to further reduce cold-start emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.32]
[51] J. W. Anthony and J. E. Kubsh, 'The Potential for Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NOx
Exhaust Emissions from Large Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles,' in SAE Technical Paper 2007-
01-1261, 2007.
Engines and aftertreatment systems have evolved significantly over the past 15 years and in fact,
in support of the Tier 3 light-duty regulation [52], EPA tested a 2011 LDT4 pick-up truck with a
5.3L V8 engine that included a MECA supplied aftertreatment system. The aftertreatment
consisted of advanced catalyst coating on 900 cpsi substrates in the close-coupled location as
well as underfloor catalysts and was aged to 150,000 miles. The system was combined with
cylinder deactivation and achieved an FTP NMHC+NOx level of 18 mg/mile. We believe that
these same technology approaches can be deployed on medium-duty gasoline engines to meet
the same stringent emission levels being considered for medium-duty diesel engines. Best in
class Class 2b and 3 vehicles are currently reporting levels that are up to 75% below the Tier 3
NMOG+NOx certification standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.32]
[52] U.S. EPA, 'EPA,' March 2013. [Online], Available: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-
emissions-vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule-and-related-materials-control-air-pollution.
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
The exploitative practice of a freight transportation system that relies on misclassified workers
ultimately undermines any regulatory policy that aims to "clean up" the trucking industry by
shifting costs of emissions reductions to the most economically vulnerable within the industry.
However, with the correct policy levers in place and working with the whole of government
approach, while centering frontline and fence line experience and knowledge the EPA could be
proposing the necessary successful Rule that would move ZEVS with the goal of just transition
and entering environmental justice. Otherwise, we risk leaving zero emission transition up to
chance. 158 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 40]
158. https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2019/Truck-Driver-Misclassification.pdf
In the workplace, the just transition framework centers the voices of workers whose jobs will
radically transform by the promise of clean energy industries. Bearing in mind that the jobs of
truckers and some warehouse workers might look quite different in an electrified world, looking
to workers to provide leadership on what their needs will look like around training, affordability,
and working conditions is a way to ensure a fair progression to EVs. 159 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 40]
159.
https://www.ww4j.Org/uploads/7/0/0/6/70064813/wwj_report_goodjobs_clean_air.pdf
1801
-------
Port drivers have become indentured servants to their trucks. "Drivers are on the job five days a
week, from ten to twelve hours a day, earning an average income of $28,000 per year." 160
Because they are not considered to be employees they have no benefits — no health care,
pension, paid vacation, etc. As previously stated, drivers have to pay the total cost of their rigs
and of being on the road. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 40]
160. Bensman, David. (2009). Port trucking down the low road: a sad story of
deregulation. Rutgers University. DEMOS pg.5
In the National Employment Law Project Report in 2014, Big Rig: Poverty, Pollution, and the
Misclassification of Truck Drivers at America's Ports, found that over 60% of port truck drivers
are misclassified as independent contractors. 161 The labor practice of misclassifying workers in
the trucking industry undermines climate action by shifting the costs of emission reductions from
companies onto the most economically vulnerable in the industry: contract truck drivers.
Contract truck drivers often earn a low income and face high capital costs. These drivers
"purchase" the truck that will fall under the new emission standard at a higher cost and are
responsible for paying the for ownership and operation costs that can be significantly above their
earnings. Drivers are often in the position of absorbing the costs of upgrading to new
technologies, while trucking companies externalize their costs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1277-A1, p. 40]
161. https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Big-Rig-Overhaul-
Misclassification-Port-Truck-Drivers-Labor-Law- Enforcement.pdf
To begin to address the issues of exploitation of the workforce especially for port truck drivers
the EPA needs to propose a just transition towards zero emission vehicles. This means that there
would be supportive policies and programs needed to ensure that workers within the port
transportation sector are not further burdened but actually could benefit from the increases in job
growth. MFN is committed to a just transition towards zero emissions. 162 This means that the
voices of workers are critical to the success of policies and programs that will ultimately move
towards zero emission solutions across the freight transportation system. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, pp. 40-41]
162. The Just Transition Alliance defines this concept as "a principle, a process and a
practice. The principle of just transition is that a healthy economy and a clean
environment can and should co-exist. The process for achieving this vision should be a
fair one that should not cost workers or community residents their health, environment,
jobs, or economic assets. "What Is Just Transition?" Just Transition Alliance,
http://jtalliance.org/what-is-just transition/.
"Just transition advocates within the labor movement often say that while 'transition is assured,
justice is not.'" - Warehouse Workers for Justice, For Good Jobs & Clean Air, How a Just
Transition to Zero Emission Vehicles Can Transform Warehousing 163 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 41]
1802
-------
163.
https://www.ww4j.Org/uploads/7/0/0/6/70064813/wwj_report_goodjobs_clean_air.pdf
Organization: North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
EPA must ensure that legacy HD trucks are still maintaining their emissions components and
staying compliant with Clean Air Act requirements with regard to emissions component
tampering and deterioration. To continue efforts, EPA must address legacy HD trucks and
vehicles by providing funding incentives for replacing diesel engines with newer alternative fuel
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1254-A2, p.4]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica and its members submit the following recommendations for policies and programs
that the EPA and other federal agencies can advance to encourage the use of cleaner trucks.
3) Adopt incentives for hybrid electric vehicles that are powered by alternative fuels for a
number of years to aid in the commercialization of these technologies, which previously have not
been available and have not benefited from regulatory incentives; this includes extending sales
multiplier for hybrid electric and plug-in electric vehicles that are powered by alternative
fuel; [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp. 12-13]
6) Amend the greenhouse gas regulations for all types of medium- and heavy-duty motor
vehicles and incorporate the benefits of renewable natural gas as part of the engine and vehicle
certification regulations; these credits could be based on the percentage of RNG expected to be
used during the timeframe covered, or alternatively EPA could reinstate the 0.15 factor for
calculating GHG emissions for NGVs, which is in line with the expected reductions achieved by
the fuel mix of RNG and conventional fuel currently in use; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-
Al, p.13]
7) Provide enhanced SmartWay designations for trucks powered by low-NOx engines and fueled
by renewable natural gas; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 13]
8) Fund pilot programs and infrastructure development that demonstrate the ways in which
natural gas can be used to fuel a variety of different transportation sectors by supporting the
purchase of vehicles and equipment at multimodal facilities such as ports and rail
facilities; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 13]
10) Work with state authorities to ensure that transportation policies include performance metrics
and consider a variety of different technologies as opposed to only promoting specific
technologies regardless of their cost; [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 14]
11) Work with state authorities to ensure that they give effect to the recently enacted weight
allowance (i.e., 2,000 lb.) for natural gas trucks operating on the federal interstate system and
consider extending this provision to state roads to maximize the benefit of this provision; [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 14]
1803
-------
12) Work with Congress to extend the alternative fuel tax credit (AFTC) for natural gas used as a
motor vehicle fuel for a minimum of five years to stimulate real demand for cleaner new truck
purchases; [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p. 14]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR is committed to ultimately moving toward a zero emission future to help reduce the
carbon footprint associated with U.S. commerce, and we believe that a GHG Phase 3 rule will
help achieve this goal. PACCAR supports the GHG Phase 3 rulemaking and other rulemakings
that provide regulatory certainty and facilitate product planning. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1346-A1, p.3]
Organization: Red Fox Resources
We wish to point out that engine emission controls make use of Platinum Group Metals (PGM)
such as platinum and palladium. Due to their scarcity, recycling as part of sustainable circular
economy best practices, is critical to control costs and to ensure emission control products and
other products (such as hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers) remain affordable and cost
effective. Today, extractive mining accounts for approximately 70% of the global supply of
PGM, while the remaining 30% comes from recycling. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1209-A1,
p.l]
The environmental impact of recycling these metals is dramatically less than traditional
extractive mining, as recycling precious metals produces about one-twentieth the emissions than
mining (a 95% reduction). Also, increasing reclaimed PGM from the domestic use, lessens the
threat of supply interruptions from foreign countries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1209-A1, p.l]
For these reasons, we strongly encourage the EPA to make manufacturers aware of the
opportunity for recycling, and to incorporate best practices for end-of-life and sustainability in
the design, manufacture, and support of emissions components. Examples of this include OEMs
implementing core return programs to ensure the maximum number of components are
cost effectively aggregated for recycling, and kept out of the secondary markets, scrap metals
bins, or landfills. Without these core return programs, these components often get scrapped and
the PGM is lost. Another example is that the components are designed for ease of recycling; in
terms of both the types of material used and layout of the parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1209-A1, pp. 1-2]
One last consideration is that these catalyzed emissions components be designed with anti-theft
measure in mind. Given the increasing value of some parts, theft has become and will continue to
an important issue that causes downtime for fleets and adds to an overall cost increase to the
industry and their customers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1209-A1, p.2]
Organization: Repair Association/Repair, org
Given that the EPA has the goals; 'to reduce in-use emissions under a broad range of operating
conditions,' 'the CTI can be summarized as a holistic approach to implementing our Clean Air
1804
-------
Act obligations,' and 'CTI should support improved vehicle reliability' The EPA has stated that
this proposed rule shall apply to 'various types of nonroad engines' I hope that the EPA will also
promulgate this rule to equipment used in agriculture. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p. 1]
Hours of use verses miles traveled: Agricultural and Construction equipment do not use miles
traveled as a measurement of the usage or age of the engine. Industry standard is the hours of
operation.
Recommendation: The rule should include both measures and where appropriate, provide a
translation between the two measurement systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.2]
Adequate maintenance instructions: Agricultural equipment manufactures do not make
available service information of emission control systems as required by rule 74 FR 8310,
February 24, 2009.1 John Deere CTO Jahmy Hindman publicly stated that because of regulation
they do not allow for repairs by owners and independent service organizations.2
Recommendation: The rule should require all information provided to franchise dealership as
intended by the Clean Air Act, Section 202(m)(5)
Information availability - The Administrator, by regulation, shall require (subject to the
provisions of section 7542(c) of this title regarding the protection of methods or
processes entitled to protection as trade secrets) manufacturers to provide promptly to any
person engaged in the repairing or servicing of motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines,
and the Administrator for use by any such persons, with any and all information needed
to make use of the emission control diagnostics system prescribed under this subsection
and such other information including instructions for making emission related diagnosis
and repairs. No such information may be withheld under section 7542(c) of this title if
that information is provided (directly or indirectly) by the manufacturer to franchised
dealers or other persons engaged in the repair, diagnosing, or servicing of motor vehicles
or motor vehicle engines. Such information shall also be available to the Administrator,
subject to section 7542(c) of this title, in carrying out the Administrator's responsibilities
under this section. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, pp.2-3]
1 'manufacturers make available to the service and repair industry information necessary
to perform repair and maintenance service on OBD systems and other emission related
engine components.'
2 https://www.theverge.com/22533735/john-deere-cto-hindman-decoder-interview-right-
to-repair-tractors, June 15, 2021, accessed on 24-April-2022.
Warranty of 5 years or 50,000 miles: Warranties of agricultural equipment are typically one
year. Additional warranty coverage may be purchased from the dealer.
Recommendation: I recommend that the rule include explicit warranty requirements analogous
to current or proposed regulations in equivalent hours with regards to emissions
equipment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.3]
Usefulness of currently available emission diagnostic information and equipment: Some
agricultural equipment manufactures do NOT make emission diagnostic information available to
1805
-------
owners and independent service organizations. Some may provide the information on a limited
rental basis only to the equipment owner. In the Case of John Deere, the tool needed for
diagnostic information, Dealer Level Service ADVISOR is controlled in real time for exclusive
use by current dealer service technicians. Additionally, full completion of an emission repair
may require a technician be provided additional resources from exclusively the original
manufacture often in an encrypted format. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.3]
Certain manufactures of agricultural equipment have error codes that are colloquially known as
'latch codes.' They are often associated with issues with the emission control system that can
disable the equipment's designed functionality until cleared. These 'latch codes' exclusively
require an franchise dealership technician to clear the code and restore the equipment to full
working order. It is useful to note that a 'latch code' does not necessarily involve a repair. But
rather can be tripped by an inadvertent action by the equipment operator and corrected by the
equipment operator. Nevertheless, the equipment would need to be serviced by a dealer
technician using the restricted software tool. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.3]
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.3]
The adequacy of emission-related training for diagnosis and repair of these systems:
Training of emission related diagnosis and subsequent repair is only provided to franchise
dealership technicians.
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.4]
The readiness and capabilities of repair facilities in making repairs: The availability of
qualified technicians is an decades old problem that is well documented by Diane Benck,
General Operations Manager and Owner, West Side Tractor Sales Co., in her testimony before
the U.S. House of Representatives Small Business Committee's Innovation, Entrepreneurship
and Workforce Development Subcommittee on March 31, 2022 3
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.4]
3 https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=l 14554, Statement:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/SM/SM22/20220331/114554/HHRG-l 17-SM22-Wstate-
BenckD-20220331.pdf, accessed 24-April-2022.
The reasonableness of the cost of purchasing this information and the equipment: Some
agricultural equipment manufacturers such as John Deere's Customer Level Service ADVISOR,
make a reduced functionality version of the dealer level software or a 'lite' version. These 'lite'
1806
-------
versions of the software often limit information, diagnostics, and repair capabilities especially
with regards to emission issues. The annual license fee of this software tool is very high, hard to
order, and not well subscribed.
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities on fair and reasonable terms. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, pp.4-5]
The prevalence of repairing this equipment outside of large repair facilities: Because
agricultural equipment manufactures regularly limit the use of the software tools to only
franchise dealership both small and large, agricultural equipment dealers of other manufactures,
do not have access to the necessary tools.
Recommendation: I recommend that equipment owners and independent repair facilities be
allowed to either own or rent any information or software tools related to the service, repair,
installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers for
OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1036-A1, p.5]
If there are any existing barriers to enabling owners to quickly diagnose emission control
system problems: Agricultural equipment manufactures suggest existing paper-based manuals
as an alternative to software tools. Often those materials exclude information on the maintenance
and repair of the emission control system and certainly are not regularly updated. A recent
review of a John Deere 8530 Tractor Operation Manual listed 706 error codes of which 627
(89%) referred the user to contact their dealer for the indicated repair. See Appendix A.
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.5]
Inadequate maintenance instructions lead to Mal-maintenance: Because the information and
the required tools are often not available to owners and independent service organizations on the
maintenance of emission control systems owners may defeat, eliminate, or disable, emission
control systems out of desperation for meeting tight time limitations of planting, spraying, and
harvesting.4
Recommendation: I recommend that any information or software tools related to the service,
repair, installation or replacement of parts, or systems developed by third party (Tier 1) suppliers
for OEMs, to the extent they are made available to franchise dealerships be made available to
equipment owners and independent repair facilities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, pp.5-
6]
4 https://www.agequipmentintelligence.com/articles/3728-dealers-alerted-to-
consequences-of-illegal-modifications-to-ag-equipment-systems, accessed 24-April-
2022.
1807
-------
Broad comment on actions EPA should take, if any, to improve maintenance practices and
the repair experience for owners: The EPA should enforce section 2 of rule 74 FR 8310,
February 24, 2009, or promulgate similar rules as it pertains to off-road agriculture vehicles over
14,000 GVW. Additionally, the EPA should widely publicize the false and misleading
information that agricultural equipment manufactures, and their associations have promulgated
that the EPA limits agricultural equipment owners and independent service organization from
maintaining or repairing their equipment emission systems, such as 'Farmers and ranchers have
the ability to perform the vast majority of repairs on their equipment unless it impacts federally
mandated safety or emissions regulations.'5 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.6]
5 https://r2rsolutions.org/right-to-repair-legislation/, accessed 24-April-2022
Organization: Saahil Pasha
The EPA is proposing a legislation to significantly reduce dangerous emissions from such heavy-
duty gasoline and diesel engines. As a public health professional, I strongly support the EPA in
this legislation. Although there is opposition displayed from the partners in the trucking industry
about costs or government overreach, the EPA must prioritize the protection of air, land, and
water to ensure public health and welfare. Furthermore, the EPA should bolster this proposed
regulation with:
1. Congress sponsored, incentive-based tax credit to encourage industry
participation.
2. U. S. Department of Transportation sponsored modified trucking and freight
routes to avoid urban areas.
3. Longitudinal study to assess outcomes and impacts of the proposed legislation.
The proposed rule from the EPA to control emissions on heavy duty gasoline and diesel engines
is well structured and informed. It is the responsibility of the EPA to work towards protecting the
environmental conditions and public health and welfare. This rule definitely takes a step towards
improving the surrounding environmental conditions for North Texans. The projected reduction
in nitrogen oxide air pollution and the positive monetized health benefits align with achieving the
goals of cleaner air in North Texas. Nonetheless, there are some recommendations that must be
considered to increase industry participation, reduce risks for disadvantaged communities, and
identify emission and health outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1206]
RECOMMENDATIONS [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1206]
1. Work with the United States Congress to create a tax credit: through this strategy
the EPA would urge Congress to pass a bill that provides tax credits for industry partners
and businesses that choose to purchase heavy duty vehicles that follow the standards set
by the EPA's proposed rule. The tax credit could also be extended to include businesses
that use vehicles with zero emission engines or renewable energy engines. This strategy
would incentivize industry partners to participate in purchasing vehicles with stricter
emission standards and assist with the progression of the improved health outcomes
(German & Parilla, 2021).
2. Work with Department of Transportation (DOT) to modify trucking routes:
through this strategy, the EPA would urge the U.S. DOT to create regulations which
1808
-------
would alter trucking routes and prevent heavy freight traffic from passing through
densely populated or urban areas. This strategy would improve equity because trucking
routes and population impact minority and low-income populations at a higher rate. The
U.S. DOT would work with the Freight Advisory Committee to determine methods for
limiting freight trucking through urban areas. This strategy could include requiring large
freight trucks to dispatch their loads, outside cities, to smaller trucks with reduced
emission that could travel through urban areas.
3. Longitudinal research to study outcomes and impacts: this strategy would provide
the EPA with valuable feedback about the impact of the proposed regulation over the
years. This study would occur over a 15-30-year period and researchers would analyze,
biological indicators such as lung function, blood pressure, health outcomes, pollution
levels, etc. Longitudinal studies are important when analyzing policies that project to
have long term impacts (Adar et al., 2018).
CONCLUSION. With increasing temperatures and climate changes, the issue of ground level
ozone will only continue to get worse. Moreover, the impacts of ground level ozone and air
pollution are disproportionately impacting minority and low-income populations. The EPA must
focus all efforts toward passing the proposed legislation. The EPA must work with industry
partners to increase participation, attempt to change trucking routes in urban areas, and conduct a
longitudinal study to assess impacts. Future EPA regulations should work towards eliminating
the usage of fossil fuel combustion for energy. These efforts will significantly contribute to
improving the lives of millions of people across the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1206]
Organization: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
We also urge EPA to consider the other major portion of our 2016 petition and begin formal
rulemaking to reduce emissions from locomotives, another source category of growing relative
importance as the District and CARB work to reduce other sources of emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.3]
Organization: Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)
Additionally, TPA urges the EPA and Biden administration to consider deregulatory alternatives
that could decrease emissions while keeping inflation in check. For example, the administration
is currently exploring increased rail regulations, including crew size mandates (despite little
evidence of safety gains from such a rule).6 Because alternatives such as rail tend to pollute less
than heavy-duty vehicles, reducing the regulatory burden on different modes of freight
transportation would allow for the supply chain to embrace flexibility and lower emissions. This
is a far better strategy for controlling emissions than introducing ever-costlier rules. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1102-A1, p.2]
6 Ike Brannon and Michael Gorman, 'The Biden Administration's Rail Regulation Efforts Make
Little Sense,' The Regulatory Review (May 3, 2022).
1809
-------
Organization: Victoria D 'Amico
Small businesses should receive aid for the expenses they may incur in making these transitions. I have
read some other comments and that seemed to be a common theme among some small business
owners. The Political Economy Research Institute (2022) states that 100 companies are responsible for
70% of global emissions. This demonstrates that large corporations and governments are the biggest
problem in combating climate change. Large corporations are often given large tax breaks or incentives
for programs like these. A program designed to help small businesses continue to thrive during this
transition would be extremely important to keeping their businesses afloat and keeping public support
with this rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1214]
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
In addition to putting in place a national regulatory framework to reduce NOx and GHG
emissions by the end of the year, we urge the EPA to advance other policies that support
mandatory emissions reductions and remedy environmental injustices from the entire freight
transport sector. Complementary to encouraging the transition to all-electric trucks and buses by
2035, the Agency should encourage the rapid retirement of internal combustion trucks on or
before 2045. This would close the loop and ensure we truly reap the pollution reductions, public
health, and climate gains from the deployment of these zero-emission vehicles,28 especially in
overburdened communities. Federal and state coordination is needed to rapidly build out the
charging infrastructure to support this level of deployment. It is also critical that transportation
electrification be matched with aggressive movement towards renewable electricity generation,
displacing fossil fuels to avoid shifting emissions from vehicles to power plants. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.5]
https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/EDF
MHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21 .pdf
Organization: William Limpert
I would also like to see EPA promote other forms of transportation for environmental, health,
and climate benefits. My father worked for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and I am always
impressed by the extensive rail systems that are in place in other countries. Moving freight by
rail is 3-4 times more efficient in fuel consumption, pollution emissions, and greenhouse gas
emissions than moving freight by truck, even under current conditions, and without full
electrification. We may be able to attain full electrification of rail systems sooner than we can
with trucks. Moving freight by rail would also reduce the public safety issues with large trucks
on crowded highways. It would be of great benefit to move more freight by rail, especially for
long distance transportation across our country. Trucks could still be used for moving freight
from the rail terminal to local businesses and industry. The same may be true for moving freight
by boat or barges, and even more so if that freight is being moved downstream, or with the
prevailing winds. I don't think air freight transport would be more efficient than truck transport.
EPA should consider more efficient and less polluting freight transport, and rail and ship
transport should be greatly encouraged. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
1810
-------
- Reward manufacturers, especially American manufacturers who comply by offering
incentives for early compliance, and incentives for reducing emissions below the levels set in
the rules. Even more so, reward those who develop vehicles that are powered by only electricity
as quickly as possible. This could be done by public acknowledgement, including public
acknowledgement by President Biden. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
- Punish those who do not comply with the finalized rules with minimal penalties for initial
or minor violations, and escalating penalties for ongoing and major violations. The
penalties must be cost effective in assuring that the penalty costs more than the savings that
would be gained by the violation. For the most egregious violations, incarceration and a
fine should be considered. I, and the public, are frustrated and angry when the wealthy and
powerful pay a fine for violating the law, when ordinary citizens would be incarcerated for
the same violation. Volkswagen's falsification of emission test findings comes to mind in
this regard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
- Consider subsidizing the industry to enable a faster transition to low emission and zero
emission technologies. The revenue for subsidizing the industry should predominantly come
from wealthier tax payers, most of whom currently do not pay their fair share of taxes. In 2012
my elderly mom earned $17 thousand in income, and Mitt Romney earned $19 million in
income. My mom paid a higher percentage of her income in taxes than did Romney. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1190]
EPA Summary and Response
Comments on the proposed rule covered a wide range of topics across most of the industry
sectors that are subject to EPA emission standards and we appreciate the thoughtful
recommendations and information shared by commenters. Comments in this section are related
to topics that are out of scope for this final rule, as noted below.
We did not propose or request comment on the following topics raised by commenters and are
not taking final action in this rule related to: more stringent standards specific to the medium-
duty vehicle category, standards for sectors other than heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles
(e.g., locomotive, airplane, off-road vehicles, light duty vehicles, agricultural, industrial
applications), API! requirements in 1039.699, test procedures in 1051.501, requirements for
glider vehicles74, incentives for use of renewable fuels, adding ethanol as a fuel type in
1036.530, additional definition references in 1037.135(c), defect reporting, recalls, and
corrective action (i.e., "remedial action" for EPA) requirements. Smart Way designations, pilot
programs for natural gas fueled vehicles or infrastructure, coordination with states on alternative
fuel programs, and coordinating heavy-duty engine programs with renewable fuels programs
from EPA and other federal agencies. We may consider some of these commenter
recommendations in a future rule.
74 We note that, as part of our migration from 40 CFR part 86 to 40 CFR part 1036, we are finalizing a revision to 40
CFR 1037.635(b)(2) that updates the reference to the applicable standards for glider vehicle engines. Any other
requested changes regarding glider vehicle regulations are out of scope for this rule.
1811
-------
We did not propose or request comment on the following additional topics and are also not
taking final action in this rule related to: maintenance of emission components on legacy trucks,
addressing the resilience of the supply chain, recycling platinum and palladium, tax credits for
new technologies or usage taxes for older technologies, modification of trucking routes,
retroactive changes to emission standards for existing engines, incentives to replace older
engines, improvements to and incentives for public transit, truck driver shortages, truck driver
unionization, classification, or exploitation, direct financial incentives to encourage biodiesel
use, and financial assistance for small business to meet new standards.
We agree with comments recommending we coordinate with other federal agencies when our
programs overlap and that longitudinal research studies can provide valuable feedback on the
long-term impacts of our rulemakings. While generally not at issue in this rule, we may pursue
these recommendations in the future as applicable.
As explained in preamble Sections III and IV and sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not
finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization
of ZEV technologies, although manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through
using ZEV technologies, or other technology pathways than included in our demonstration
program. As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on
the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards.
Therefore, we are not taking final action at this time regarding issues raised in comments relating
to CO2 and other GHG emissions, ZEV infrastructure, manufacturers" and labor's willingness to
develop ZEVs, incentives and exemptions for fuel cell technologies, and coordination with other
federal agencies" ZEV or fuel cell programs. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking
regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and
may consider the comments in this section of this document in the development of that future
rulemaking. In response to comments on alternative compliance pathways that involve ZEV
targets for reaching GHG and/or criteria pollutant emissions standards, we refer readers to
discussion in section 3.1.1 of this document, as well as the discussion on not finalizing the
proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs,
which was previously noted as located in section 12 of this document.
34 Late Comments
The Agency has been, is, and will continue to be committed to considering timely comments
received on proposed rules. The compressed final rule schedule is necessary to finalize the
standards this year to ensure that these important emission reductions occur as soon as possible.
However, EPA was able to also consider late comments on this final action up to those submitted
on October 4, 2022. In the interest of transparency, we have included comments we received
after October 4, 2022 in the docket; however, those comments are not part of the record for
judicial review of this rule.
1812
-------
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB): EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2857
Since the submission of California Air Resources Board's (CARB) comments on May 13, 2022,
and the closing of the comment period for the Clean Trucks Plan (CTP) notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on May 16, 2022, CARB staff has reviewed the comments submitted by
other stakeholders on the CTP NPRM. I am writing this supplemental letter to comment on some
requests and statements made by other stakeholders in order to provide CARB's feedback and
clarity on "matters of central relevance to the rulemaking" before the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).l
1 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(4)(B)(i); see also id. §7607(d)(7)(A) (providing that such material
forms part of the administrative record for judicial review).
Because this letter bears upon such matters, please add it to the record of this rulemaking and all
appropriate dockets. The main points of our supplemental comments are summarized below:
• The Truck and Engine Manufacturer Association (EMA) has asked the U.S. EPA to
provide a 0.026 Grams per brake-horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) margin when setting
nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards. The margin requested by EMA is dangerously and
unnecessarily large, given the margins with which manufacturers have historically
certified. In addition, crankcase ventilation, which was not included in U.S. EPA's NPRM
technology package, offers a cheap, widely used way for manufacturers to provide
additional margin if needed.
• Regarding EMA's concerns about possible pre-buy and no-buy caused by the proposed
regulations, we expect any pre-buy and no-buy effects to be small. History shows sales
are driven by economic factors (recession, etc.) much more than any emission standard
changes. In addition, supply chain issues today make pre-buy impossible or unlikely.
Finally, sensitivity analyses CARB staff performed for the Omnibus regulation show that
even with a 20 percent pre-buy/no-buy, the Omnibus regulation was still cost-effective
and worth pursuing, and the same would hold true for U.S. EPA's program.
• CARB staff opposes Daimler's ask for regulatory relief for hydrogen-fueled internal
combustion engines (HrlCE) because such engines emit tailpipe NOx just like traditional
combustion engines. In addition, adding special flexibilities for HrlCE technology would
violate applicable public notice requirements because it is outside the scope of U.S.
EPA's rulemaking.
• CARB staff opposes EMA's request for U.S. EPA to retain the language defining the
parent engine based on existing requirements because doing that would allow
manufacturers to avoid testing the engine with highest potential emissions.
• CARB staff objects to EMA's assertion that biodiesel specification regulations are needed
as part of the CTP rulemaking.
• CARB staff disagrees with EMA's comments regarding a need for more consideration of
on-board diagnostics (OBD) requirements and capabilities before adoption of the
proposed standards.
• CARB staff believes there is a need to continue particulate matter (PM) and non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC) measurements as a part of the heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT)
program.
1813
-------
• Many private and public agencies are investing in future infrastructure activities to
support the heavy-duty (HD) sector's transition to zero-emission. Furthermore, CARB
staff believes that rollout of initial heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle (HD ZEV) volumes
is not dependent on the infrastructure of pre-existing public charging networks.
CARB staffs supplementary comments are presented in detail below:
Margin Requirement - EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203_Attachment_l.pdf (Pages 23-33),
EMA
In its comment letter, EMA uses a margin stack-up analysis to request a 0.026 g/bhp-hr margin
to be included in establishing future NOx emissions standard in order to ensure that 97.7 percent
of the future engine sales would have emission levels below the applicable standards (page 28 of
the EMA comment letter).
CARB staff conducted a historical survey of past margin levels used by HD diesel engine
manufacturers and submitted the information in its comment letter2 to U.S. EPA. If EMA's
margin stack-up analysis was correct, it should also apply to previous engine sales as these
engines would also require similar (or greater) margin levels in order to comply with the existing
emissions standards. Based on historical certification data, a 0.026 g/bhp-hr NOx margin
requirement would mean that 24 percent of the HD diesel engine families sold between 2010 and
2020 model years in California did not have sufficient margin levels to be certified but were
nevertheless certified by engine manufacturers. The historical data indeed suggests that engine
manufacturers do not feel the need to include any margins when certifying their existing products
for sale. It therefore does not make sense to include margin stack-ups for establishing future
standards.
2 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186 . Pages 41-44.
It should also be noted that engine manufacturers have many options to comply with the
proposed Option 1 standards including establishing a margin by deploying new emission control
technologies. For instance, today's diesel engines do not typically use closed crankcase
ventilation systems, and hence vented blowby or open crankcase ventilation presents an
untapped means to further reduce NOx emissions from on-road HD diesel engines. Rather than
closing crankcases, most HD diesel manufacturers instead measure and account for emissions
from the blowby gases, which are vented directly to the atmosphere. Some rudimentary physical
filtration is typically employed to reduce oil mist and a portion of PM emissions from the raw
exhaust of the blowby gases. But NOx aftertreatment has not been applied to these directly
vented blowby gases.
Blowby vented from the crankcase presents a ready opportunity for significant additional NOx
reductions. For 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOx certified engines, the blowby NOx contribution was typically
a very small fraction of total engine NOx emissions, which were dominated by the tailpipe
contribution. However, as the blowby percentage of total exhaust flow approaches the percentage
of NOx surviving the aftertreatment, the blowby becomes a much more important opportunity
for reducing an engine's overall NOx emissions impact. For example, if one percent of raw
1814
-------
exhaust is escaping via blowby and the aftertreatment reduces the remaining exhaust flow's
tailpipe NOx by 99 percent, then both blowby NOx and tailpipe NOx emission rates would be of
similar orders of magnitude.
Currently, technological pathways exist for eliminating blowby NOx emissions. Closed
crankcase ventilation is an obvious pathway to eliminate the NOx emissions contribution from
blowby. Routing the blowby crankcase vapors to eventually go through the existing exhaust
aftertreatment would render blowby NOx negligible and could be accomplished in a number of
ways.
Introducing the blowby gases into the inlet of the engine has been employed in the light-duty
sector for many years as well as in Cummins Optional Low NOx certified medium- and heavy-
HD engines certified through diesel test procedures since the 2016 model year.3 Cummins
reported a 70 percent reduction in methane emissions just by closing the crankcase of those
methane powered engines.4 They apparently valued the emissions reductions sufficiently to
merit working through whatever potential durability challenges the blowby gases in the intake
tract may have presented to turbo compressor wheels, various intake air sensors and the like.
3 https:/lwww.truckinginfo.com/137270/cummins-starts-production-of-isl-g-natural-gas-
engine
4 https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/0042998.pdf
Alternatively, one could avoid exposing the turbo compressor to blowby gases by routing
blowby gases into the main exhaust prior to the aftertreatment with the associated backpressure
on the crankcase. This could also be achieved without the crankcase pressure rise by actively
pumping blowby gases to a post turbo compressor (boosted) intake location or an exhaust pre-
aftertreatment location using a smaller version of the exhaust gas recirculation pumps available
today.5 Actively pumped crankcase ventilation strategies are used extensively across stationary
and marine reciprocating engines to control oil mist and reduce operator exposures.
5 https:/lwww.eaton.com/us/en-us/productslengine-solutionslsuperchargers/NS-
technology-applications/tvs- diesel-egr-pump.html
The fraction of gases escaping as blowby is also a potential target for engineering improvements.
The designs of valve guides and valve stem seals, turbocharger shaft seals, and the piston ring
stack and cylinder liners can each affect the amount of blowby experienced by a given engine
initially and as it wears. Each approach to eliminating blowby NOx would have different
engineering tasks to assure acceptable function and durability, but sufficient physical filtering of
these gases in preparation for combustion or catalytic treatment is an application engineering
endeavor not an act of technology invention.
Testing shows elimination of blowby NOx emissions would yield significant "compliance
margin" beyond current Low NOx Engine demonstrations. The industry typical approach of
including vented blowby emissions in the emissions measurement was also employed in the
Southwest Research Institute Stage 1 and Stage 3/Stage 3 Rework Low NOx diesel engines and
further work is being done on an Off-Road Low NOx engine. The performance reported
1815
-------
previously for these engines has not exploited the significant additional NOx reduction
opportunity from eliminating blowby emissions that are being directly vented to the
environment. Measurements with and without the blowby included were conducted on more than
one base engine platform and showed that blowby emissions contribute between 20-60 percent
of cycle average NOx depending on engine designs and test cycles. Applying this kind of closed
crankcase benefit specifically to the Stage 3 Rework engine is projected to yield an overall 20
percent federal test procedure (FTP) compliance margin at 435,000 miles, 35 percent FTP
compliance margin at 600,000 miles, and 18 percent at 800,000 miles (see attached presentation
by Southwest Research Institute).
Cost for closed crankcase ventilation is expected to be low compared to other means for
additionally achieving equivalent NOx reductions. Closed crankcase ventilation has already been
commercially demonstrated on medium- and heavy-HD Optional Low NOx engines for 6 model
years and across 3 displacements (6.7-liter, 8.9-liter and 12-liter). It is quite likely that the any
additional filtering of the closed crankcase blowby gases needed to maintain durability across
longer useful life could be accomplished for very reasonable cost. The cost of implementing such
filtering is expected to be very competitive compared to other methods of securing additional
margin from engines already well equipped with modern generation catalysts and aftertreatment
architectures, model-based controls, and cylinder deactivation and exhaust gas recirculation
cooler bypass thermal management hardware. Products for closing turbocharged diesel
crankcases already exist ready for evaluation and validation from many suppliers.6 7 8 One
might note that Cummins initially chose in model year 2016 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions relative to their existing ISL-G engine by capturing the blowby methane via external
closed crankcase methods rather than immediately investing in the spark-ignition specific
cylinder head and other engine internal design changes subsequently seen in their about-to-be-
released lower GHG spark-ignited products. This may be another indication of the closed
crankcase approach's practicality and cost effectiveness for reducing blowby emissions relative
to other means of improving the engine itself.
6 http://donaldson-
filters.com/donaldsonoemfiltration/library/files/documentslpdfs/053490.pdf
7 https:/lwww.cumminsfiltration.com/eme/closedcvfilters
8 https://oem.mann-hummel.com/en/oem-products/crankcase-ventilation-systems.html
Concern regarding possible pre-buy and no-buy caused by the proposed regulations EPA-
HO-OAR-2019-0055 1168 Attachment_l.pdf {Exhibit "D"}, EMA
EMA voiced concerns that the proposed regulations would cause economic disruption and have
less benefits than projected due to pre-buy or no-buy of vehicles due to the regulation's increased
cost of engines. But this scenario simply cannot offset the benefits of more stringent standards.
At a fundamental level, companies are not going to rush out and buy so many trucks in a few
years (especially under current economic conditions) as to undermine comprehensive national
rules, or fail to buy trucks for many years. Even very substantial responses along these lines,
should they occur, would not warrant setting weaker standards because remaining reductions are
still very large. As mentioned in the final statement of reasons9 (FSOR) for the Low NOx
Omnibus Regulation, CARB staff conducted an analysis to see the possible impacts of a pre-buy
1816
-------
no-buy scenario. Staff analyzed a scenario where there is a 20 percent decrease in sales and fleets
retain their existing vehicles longer throughout the life of the regulation. This would result in
fewer Low NOx engine sales in the analyzed time period up to 2050. The retained vehicles
would have engines meeting the current 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emissions standard. In this analysis,
from 2024 to 2050, the pre-buy and no buy effect resulted in approximately 40 percent less NOx
benefits compared to the assumed compliance. The cost effectiveness increased to $7.50 per
pound NOx. Even if a pre-buy no-buy would occur as a result of the regulation, there would be a
significant reduction in NOx in the time period adding up to 206,312 tons of NOx. The benefits
would be significant, cost effective and worth pursuing.
9
https:/l ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslownox/fsor.
pdf
The historical assessment of pre-buy based on HD emissions regulations was investigated in
Anticipation and Environmental Regulation by Rittenhouse and Zaragoza-Watikins, as cited by
U.S. EPA. 10 Their analysis shows minimal impacts on sales projections due to upcoming
regulations. Diesel aftertreatments were first introduced in 2007 and the analysis showed an
increase in sales slightly outside of regular variation for four months. There was a symmetric
decrease in sales lasting for four months. Their study shows the impacts of pre-buy due to
regulation changes are minimal and occur for only a short time span. The comments from the
Moving Forward Networkl 1 (MFN) also reached this conclusion on page 38. Additionally, the
MFN comments also showed the impact on sales of HD vehicles greatly depends on economic
factors. Events like the dot com crash, great recession and COVID-19 pandemic have a much
greater impact than any emission standard changes, affecting hundreds of thousands of engine
sales.
10 Draft Regulator Impact Analysis. Page 407. March 2022, EPA-420-D-22-00
11 https:/lwww.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277 ; page 38
In the current economic climate and supply chain shortages resulting from COVID-19, there are
doubts that pre-buy could even be possible. The supply chain delays have made the supply of
any type of vehicle very limited. We are a couple of years into low production/high demand
conditions where desired vehicle purchases are stacking up due to aging fleets because dealers
cannot secure vehicles from original equipment manufacturers (OEM) who are constrained on
accessing parts (e.g., computer chips, castings, and at times certain lubricants) 12* The vehicles
that were not manufactured are a permanent 'hole' in the age distribution of vehicles moving
through the fleet resulting in further demand for vehicles for the foreseeable future that will also
drive-up vehicle prices until the production volumes catch up. Because the cost of vehicles is
currently inflated due to supply chain problems, pre-buying additional vehicles today would not
provide savings. It is also expected that 2023 vehicle production will also suffer computer chip
and other supply chain constraints on manufacturer volumes! 3*14*15*16* Under these supply
chain limitations, ramping up production to make more vehicles in a year would not be possible.
Vehicle manufacturers will need to get back to their previous production volumes to satisfy
replacements, and then produce more to start working through the backlog of pent-up demand
1817
-------
and growth in the transportation sector. If it takes them half as many years to make up the 2020
to 2023 hole in production starting in 2024, that leaves only 2026 to execute a "pre-buy" effort.
Because fleets will likely already have been buying vehicles at an accelerated rate just to backfill
their delayed replacements, it is unlikely they would have the resources to further accelerate
purchasing to execute a pre-buy.
12 https:/lwww.wsj.com/articles/chip-shortage-curtails-heavy-duty-truck-production-
11630661401
13 https:/lwww.fleetowner.com/news/article/212428291chip-availability-continues-to-
hamper-oem-production- act-reports
14 https:l/www.busandmotorcoachnews.com/global-shortage-of-microchips-slows-bus-
production/
15 https:/lwww.truckinginfo.com/10173589/may-truck-orders-remain-constrained-by-
supply-chain
16 https:/lwww.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/04/12/chip-shortages-expected-to-last-
into-2023-auto-execs-say/
Request for Regulatory Relief for H2-ICE Hydrogen-Fueled Internal Combustion Engines
- EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 168_Attachment_l.pdf (Pages 125-129), Daimler Truck North
America LLC (Daimler)
Daimler is requesting the introduction of so-called regulatory relief measures applicable to future
model year HrlCEs. According to Daimler, the intent of these measures is to " ... foster
innovation and enable immediate penetration of innovative technologies with effectively zero
carbon dioxide (C02) emissions and near-zero NOx emissions such as HrlCE engines".
CARB staff is strongly opposed Daimler's request for two reasons:
• CARB staff does not believe that the H2-ICE technology is equivalent to other zero-
emission technologies such as battery- or fuel-cell electric vehicles. As stated by Daimler,
HrlCE technology does emit tailpipe NOx emissions, and the engine-out NOx emissions
are high enough that a complex selective catalytic reduction (SCR) aftertreatment system
would be needed to reduce the tailpipe emissions to a level that complies with the
regulations. It is therefore unreasonable to consider H2-ICE technology as an advanced
zero-emission technology. CARB staff firmly believes that future H2-ICE products
should go through a vigorous certification process to evaluate the durability of the
hardware as well as demonstrating compliance with auxiliary emission control device
requirements as well as all other regulatory requirements for internal combustion engines.
• As a threshold matter, Daimler's proposal would require U.S. EPA to take final actions in
contravention of applicable public notice requirements, 17 because such final actions
would impermissibly depart from "the terms or substance of the proposed rule", and
"[the] description of the subjects and issues involved"18 in the NPRM.19 U.S. EPA
expressly states that it is not proposing to enact policies to advance the introduction of
zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) in this rulemaking action, nor is it proposing to establish
nationwide requirements that manufacturers must produce a portion of their vehicle fleets
1818
-------
as ZEVs, but states it will consider such policies in the context of future rulemaking
proposals.20 Moreover, the NPRM does not contain either factual data, the methodology
of obtaining and analyzing such data, or the major legal interpretations and policy
considerations underlying Daimler's proposal, in contravention of 42 U.S.C. §
7607(d)(3)(A) through (C).
17 5 U.S.C. § 553(6), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(3)
18 5 u.s.c. § 553(6)(3)
19 Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d 992 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
20 NPRM at 17420.
It is accordingly clear that the NPRM notice fails to provide adequate notice and opportunity
to comment on a final U.S. EPA action that would finalize Daimler's proposal, given that
U.S. EPA expressly stated it would not enact policies or requirements regarding ZEVs in the
NPRM.21 Furthermore, the proposed final U.S. EPA action cannot be considered a "logical
outgrowth" of the NPRM notice since the logical outgrowth doctrine does not extend to final
rules that are not rooted in the agency's proposal or to situations where "interested parties
would have had to 'divine [the agency's] unspoken thoughts,'." Envtl. Integrity Project, 425
F.3d at 996. Moreover, the logical outgrowth doctrine only applies if the N PRM itself
provides recipients sufficient notice of the final action that U.S. EPA may take- i.e., U.S.
EPA cannot assert that requisite notice resulted from comments received. Shell Oil Co. v.
EPA, 950 F.2d 741, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v
EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 549-550 (D.C. Cir. 1983). First, this request is beyond the scope of the
CTP rulemaking and was not proposed in the NPRM. In order to evaluate the benefits and
feasibility of this request, an official proposal would need to be provided by U.S. EPA so that
all stakeholders would have the opportunity to evaluate and provide comments to U.S. EPA.
Daimler's request completely circumvents the rulemaking process and should not be
considered by U.S. EPA.
21 "If the APA's notice requirements mean anything, they require that a
reasonable commenter must be able to trust an agency's representations about
which particular aspects of its proposal are open for consideration." Envtl.
Integrity Project v. EPA, 425 F.3d at 998.
Request Regarding Selection of Test Engines - EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1203_Attachment_l.pdf (Pages 114-115), EMA
EMA submitted a comment requesting that U.S. EPA retain the language defining the parent
engine based on existing requirements in §86.096-24(b)(3)(ii) which allows selecting "the engine
that features the highest fuel feed per stroke, primarily at the speed of maximum rated torque and
secondarily at rated speed." It should be noted that this language was originally established for
combustion engines that did not deploy any aftertreatment systems. In making its proposal, EMA
has overlooked the requirement in §86.096-24(b)(3)(iii) which states:
The Administrator may select a maximum of one additional engine within each engine-
system combination based upon features indicating that it may have the highest emission
1819
-------
levels of the engines of that combination. In selecting this engine, the Administrator will
consider such features as the injection system, fuel system, compression ratio, rated
speed, rated horsepower, peak torque speed, and peak torque.
CARB's Omnibus regulation modified the applicable regulatory language in
§86.096-24(b)(3)(iii) by adding the following statement to the end of subparagraph:
For 2024 and subsequent model years, the Executive Officer will also consider the
aftertreatment conversion efficiency.
CARB staff supports the proposed U.S. EPA language in §1036.235(a)(1) that requires the
manufacturer to select an engine configuration for criteria pollutant certification testing that is
"most likely to exceed (or have emissions nearer to) an applicable emission standard or FEL...."
That approach would be consistent with the requirements in §86.096-24(b)(3)(iii). In terms of the
parent engine selection process, the methodology for determining the model with the highest
emission levels can be discussed with the certification staff.
Furthermore, given the introduction of GHG subfamilies under recent phase 2 technical
amendments in §1036.230(f):
Engine families may be divided into subfamilies with respect to compliance with C02
standards.
CARB staff does not believe that the requirement for parent engine selection would interfere
with GHG subfamily determination. While the parent engine would determine the certification
NOx level, different GHG subfamilies would be declared to represent the corresponding GHG
family certification levels for the various subfamilies.
Concerns Regarding Fuel Quality - EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1203_Attachment_l.pdf
(Pages 134-141), EMA
In addition to EMA, other engine manufacturers including Daimler, Navistar, and Paccar have
once again raised issues and concerns regarding the quality of biodiesel fuel in the U.S. and how
poor fuel quality may adversely impact the emission performance of diesel engines in the field.
Volvo's comments,22 while expressing a desire for tighter fuel standards, acknowledge that
biodiesel quality problems are not widespread. Navistar and others refer to a CARB study of
biodiesel NOx mitigation additive efficacy while ignoring the regulatory countermeasures23
CARB put in place in 2020 as a direct result of this study. The study showed that certain
additives to finished biodiesel were not mitigating non-aftertreatment engines' increased NOx
emissions while that fuel was being used. The study does not indicate damage to aftertreatment
systems but rather describes a compliance issue for fuel suppliers not vehicle or engine
manufacturers. CARB and U.S. EPA's vehicle and engine testing procedures already have
mechanisms for dealing with in-use vehicles encountered with demonstrably out-of-spec fuel in
their tanks. The range of engine-out NOx increases even for the out-of-spec fuels were within the
capability of SCR systems to compensate and control at the tailpipe. It is important to
differentiate between an engine's instantaneous and reversible NOx response between two
1820
-------
different fuel compositions that is the subject of the CARB study of biodiesel NOx mitigation
additive efficacy (especially so if a test fuel is not even legal for sale) and separately the potential
for actual damage to the aftertreatment from purported fuel contamination as might be the case
for high metal content fuels. Some of the commenters appear to conflate the former effect and its
limited effect duration during that given tank of fuel with the latter effect that rather integrates
toward long-term cumulative effect via a catalyst deactivation mechanism.
22 https:/lwww.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HO-OAR-2019-0055-1324
23 https:/lww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/adf2020
CARB staff performed an extensive field sampling study of diesel and biodiesel fuel quality in
the California market and found no evidence that would substantiate the claims by engine
manufacturers of contaminated fuel. The results of this study were provided to U.S. EPA24
during the Advanced NPRM comment period. CARB also analyzed nationally obtained samples
provided from a U.S. EPA sampling campaign with consistent results. EMA commented that a
Fuels Institute study found SO percent of samples contained detectable metals. Merely
possessing the analytical chemistry capability to detect the presence of a given element does not
address whether that element is present in sufficient quantities to be a practical concern. Indeed,
EMA notes that levels were well below recommended limits. The large field sample count
results of the Fuels Institute study and the several years of BO-9000 producer audit data are all
consistent with the CARB field sampling study's result that fuel contamination is not a
widespread issue.
24 https:/lwww.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0471
In the past, CARB staff has reached out to OEMs and requested information regarding the origin
of their poor-quality samples that have been identified. Each time, the OEMs have refused to
provide information regarding the source of these samples. Without further information, claims
regarding poor-quality fuels cannot be corroborated. Therefore, CARB staff firmly objects to the
need for new biodiesel specification regulations as part of the CTP rulemaking.
The most potentially significant issues OEMs raised allege the possibility for occasional
deviation outside of fuel specifications or an "off spec batch" that as discussed above has not
been found to be a frequent occurrence. This is much different from when the 2007/2010
standards necessitated an entirely new fuel to be able to even conduct the engine demonstration
testing in the lab and then the subsequent wide-spread oil refinery upgrades and 2006 rollout of
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel distribution to enable the proposed technology's commercial
introduction. Again, the OEM fuel quality control concerns raised here are much different than
the earlier situation of a current on-spec fuel (200 parts per million Low Sulfur Diesel) being
positively destructive to the proposed technology PM and NOx catalyzed aftertreatment). U.S.
EPA is not dependent on improvements in fuel quality to be able to move forward with standards
at least as stringent as the NPRM's Option 1.
CARB staff also note that an additional relief from chemical aging compared to today's situation
is anticipated on the lubricant composition side via recent American Petroleum Institute actions
to define a new generation of "PC-12" category oils. These new oils are expected to become
1821
-------
available in time for 2027 coinciding with CARB and anticipated U.S. EPA standards. Among
the target improvements is compatibility with longer useful lives and warranty periods and
"improved aftertreatment capability."25-26
25 https:/lwww.trucking info.com/1016027Sinew-diesel-emissions-regs-mean-
new-engine-oil-category
26 https:/lwww.forconstructionpros.com/equipment/fleet-maintenance/oils-
lubricants- greases/news/21940827Iapi-approves-development-of-pcl2-diesel-
engine-oil-category
CARB in the Omnibus FSOR responses27 to comments noted the likelihood of just such action
and its potential additional benefit, though the Omnibus standard stringency was not based on
assuming such lubricant improvements. U.S. EPA likewise is not dependent on such future
lubricant improvements to move forward with standards at least as stringent as the NPRM's
Option 1.
27
https:/l ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslown
ox/fsor.pdf, pages
378-379.
Concerns Regarding OBD - EPA-HO-OAR-2019-0055- 1203_Attachment_l.pdf (Pages 90-
101), EMA
CARB staff respectfully disagrees with EMA's comments on pages 90-92 of their comment
letter," Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Has Not Fully Considered All of the OBD
Requirements and Capabilities that Could Frustrate the Implementation of the Low-NOx
Regulations." CARB staff would like to note that EMA provided the same comments28 to
CARB for its Omnibus rulemaking, and CARB staff provided responses for all these comments
as part of the FSOR for the rulemaking.29
28 https:/lwww.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/10-hdomnibus2020-
JAxb8FFZFNoOFNbo.zip . Pages 98-101.
29
https:/l ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/rulemaking/hdomnibuslown
ox/fsor.pdf
CARB staff also disagrees with EMA's comments on page 93, "OBD threshold requirements,"
supporting U.S. EPA's proposed OBD thresholds. While CARB staff understand that U.S. EPA's
proposed OBD thresholds were intended to harmonize with CARB's Omnibus OBD thresholds,
CARB staff now believes the OBD thresholds can be more stringent than the proposed federal
OBD thresholds. While CARB staff did not have much data to support more stringent thresholds
when developing the Omnibus OBD thresholds, staff has since received information that some
diesel and gasoline engines certified to lower emission standards are able to meet more stringent
OBD thresholds than EPA's proposed OBD thresholds. As such, CARB staff believes that more
stringent OBD thresholds than those being proposed by U.S. EPA are feasible and recommends
1822
-------
that U.S. EPA adopt more stringent OBD thresholds based on available data. Should U.S. EPA
adopt more stringent OBD thresholds, CARB staff would likely propose harmonizing with U.S.
EPA's thresholds in a future rulemaking update.
In-Use Testing for PM and NMHC Should Be Eliminated - EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1168_Attachment_l.pdf (Pages 41-129), EMA
EMA is requesting to eliminate requirements to test the criteria pollutants PM and NMHC from
in-use testing. EMA argues there has only been one incidence in the in-use program where an
engine failed due to a cracked diesel particulate filter (DPF) and misfuelling. While this seems
compelling, U.S. EPA and CARB staff have discovered manufacturers have been inappropriately
screening their HDIUT vehicles. This includes but is not limited to rejecting engines likely to
have excess PM based on visual inspections which identify excess PM on the exhaust and
replacing DPFs prior to testing. These screening practices were discussed by CARB at the 2021
EMA workshop. These practices produce tests that are unrepresentative of real in-use PM
emissions. Since it is unclear how the historical engines were screened for in-use PM testing,
CARB staff believes it is prudent to continue PM testing using the appropriate test procedures.
EMA argues the costs of testing PM and NMHC are burdensome. CARB staff acknowledges the
costs of the portable emissions monitoring systems needed for the HDIUT program for all
criteria pollutants, however it is important to ensure all certified criteria pollutants are evaluated
in the real world to ensure compliance. Considering these arguments, CARB staff believes there
is a need to continue PM and NMHC measurements as a part of the HDIUT program.
Infrastructure for HD ZEV
In addition to these responsive comments, CARB staff noted multiple comments discussing
infrastructure issues. CARB staff would like to take the opportunity to emphasize that many
public and private organizations are currently working on projects focused on developing
charging and fueling infrastructure for HD zero-emission technologies. A partial listing of these
projects was provided on pages 6-8 of the CARB comment letter.30
30 https:/lwww.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-l 186
California is tackling Medium-HD Zero-Emission Vehicle (MHD ZEV) infrastructure from
many angles and providing funding for MHD ZEVs and supporting infrastructure to CARB,
California Energy Commission (CEC}, Department of Transportation, among other agencies.
For a primer, the California ZEV Market Development Strategy31 lays out the overall strategy to
meet the State's ZEV goals and addresses vehicles, infrastructure, end users and workforce. The
Zero-Emission Plan,32 developed by CEC supports and provides a fuller description of near- and
long-term actions to ensure that ZEV infrastructure will meet the needs of the growing ZEV
market.
31 https://business.ca.gov/industries/zero-emission-vehicles/zev-strategy/
32 https:l/www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/CEC-600-2022-054.pdf
1823
-------
Today, one source of infrastructure funding for HD ZEV fleets is EnergllZE, which provides
funding for charging and hydrogen stations for HD vehicles. EnergllZE has 4 funding lanes
covering (1) fleets that need fast assistance to accommodate pending electric truck deliveries, (2)
small fleets, transit or school bus fleets, or fleets operating in disadvantaged communities; (3)
public DC fast charging; and (4) public hydrogen refueling. The program opened with initial
allocation of $50 million with the state legislature sending strong signals to provide additional
funding to this program on an annual basis. In addition, the Innovative Small e-Fleets program,
which is expected to launch this summer will provide funding for creative mechanisms, like
truck-as-a-service, and will support both zero-emission trucks and infrastructure solutions to
small fleets that otherwise face barriers to electrification.
On the utility side, the larger investor-owned utilities have been authorized by the California
Public Utilities Commission to fund transportation electrification programs. With this
authorization, utilities can pay for utility upgrades necessary to bring power to the site as well as
provide power to the charging infrastructure make-readies.
CARB staff has observed that there is ample opportunity for electrification across many
applications without dependence on a pre-existing public HD charging network. While
availability of convenient and reliable public charging networks is helpful and being actively
worked on, it is not a necessary prerequisite for U.S. EPA to consider significant HD ZEV
penetration across the HD sector. This is especially true in the initial introductory period of
2027-2030 which U.S. EPA is considering for Phase 2 GHG updates prior to mature exploitation
of these electrification opportunities. Support for this observation of ample electrification
opportunity prior to wide-spread public charging networks comes from analysis looking at the
usage and operational characteristics of trucks in California conducted as part of the Advanced
Clean Trucks33 -34 and Advanced Clean Fleets35 regulatory development work. The Advanced
Clean Truck's one-time Large Entity Reporting (LER)36 from >50 truck fleets, entities with
>$SOM revenue and government agencies was conducted in early calendar year 2022. Of the
386,286 vehicles represented in the LER, 31 percent of day-cab tractors and 78 percent of non-
tractor trucks go less than 100 miles/day. The LER also showed daily return to base facility by
91 percent of day-cab tractors and 57 percent of non- tractor trucks. Furthermore, 65 percent of
day-cab tractors and 52 percent of non-tractor trucks reported having "predictable usage
patterns." Further detailed aggregated breakdowns of the LER data is available on CARB's
website. The ubiquity of low daily mileage usage patterns in the LER is consistent with the 2018
California Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS)37 data showing most "straight-trucks"
travel less than 100 miles/day and 2002 VIUS based on national data indicating almost 90
percent of Class 2b-Class 7 vehicles and 80 percent of Class 8 vehicles also travel less than 100
miles/day. 38 Despite the potential for individual fleet specific needs and constraints, there is
broad electrification opportunity for delivery, solid waste collection, short-haul, and a wide range
of Class 4-8 vocational applications and especially during the early deployment period when the
easiest routes and applications are still available to electrification early adopters.
33 https:/lww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/barcu/regact/2019Iact2019/isor.pdf
34 https:/lww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/barcu/regact/2019Iact2019/fsor.pdf
3 5 http s: l/ww2. arb. ca. gov/our-work/program s/advanced-cl ean-fl eetsl advanced-
clean-fleets-meetings-events
1824
-------
36 Large Entity Fleet Reporting - Statewide Aggregated Data (ca.gov)
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
02/Large_Enti ty_Reporting_Aggregated_Data_ADA.pdf
37 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-
planning/data-analytics- serviceslstatewide-modeling/california-vehicle-
inventory-and-use-survey
[Attachment omitted; proprietary information]
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from CARB on the proposed rule. Regarding comments on the
standards, in-use margin, and how we incorporated the emissions reductions from closed
crankcase systems in setting the standards, see our responses in preamble section III, and section
3 of this document. Regarding comments on pre-buy and no-buy, see our responses to comments
in section 25 of this document. Regarding the comment on the rule being cost-effective and
worth pursuing even with 20% pre-buy/no-buy, as explained in Section X of the preamble and
section 25 of this document, EPA maintains our assessment that any possible sales effects of the
final rule are likely to be minimal and short lived, see RIA Chapter 10 for more detail and we
have not undertaken such a sensitivity analysis at 20%. Regarding comments on supply chain
issues, see our responses to comments in sections 3.2 and 25 of this document. Regarding
comments on regulatory relief for hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines, see our
responses to comments in section 3.10 of this document. Regarding comments on the definition
of parent engine, see our responses to comments in section 29.3 of this document. Regarding
comments on OBD, see our responses to comments in section 7 of this document. Regarding
comments on heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) program, see our responses to comments in
section 11 of this document.
As explained in preamble Sections III and IV and sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not
finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization
of ZEV technologies, although manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through
using ZEV technologies, or other technology pathways than included in our demonstration
program. As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on
the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards.
Therefore, we are not taking final action at this time regarding issues raised in comments relating
to ZEV infrastructure. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent
HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider the
comments in this section of this document in the development of that future rulemaking.
Organization: Catherine Horine, Laura Ubasczewski, Jennifer Ryan: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-2872,
2873, 2875
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to reduce air pollution from medium- and
heavy-duty trucks. As a person who cares about the impact of pollution on lung health, I am
1825
-------
concerned that the proposed rule doesn't do enough to reduce dangerous air pollution or to
protect environmental justice communities that are often disproportionally impacted by pollution
from overwhelmingly diesel-fueled medium- and heavy-duty trucks.
This is important for all communities, especially those with higher truck traffic. The primary
concerns I have are as follows:
The proposed tighter tailpipe emission requirements don't kick in until 2027.
California and several other states are already requiring trucks sold within their borders to
meet tighter pollution standards by 2024. EPA should do what states are already requiring
by 2027. EPA should adopt the schedule and pollution limits in the California NOx
Omnibus Rule.
• EPA's rule allows for manufactures to make more dirtier diesel trucks if they
offset their impact by making electric zero-emissions trucks. EPA should account for
electric truck sales that are already being driven by state requirements in multiple states
and provide for adjustments if more states adopt such requirements. Credit should only be
given if manufacturers go above and beyond what they already must do.
• EPA needs to set a zero - emissions standard in this rule and a set a date by which
it is the default requirement. In short, EPA should require increasing sales of electric
trucks over time and require that all new trucks sold are zero - emission versions by
2035.
Additionally, because of the points above, I believe that the proposed rule fails Environmental
Justice (EJ) communities. It ignores the disproportionate impact that diesel pollution has on
community health, especially in communities already inundated with medium - and heavy -
duty vehicle traffic and pollution. The proposed rule punts meaningful action on stricter
requirements onto uncertain future decisions, which delays or possibly prevents cleaner air for
those communities. Forgoing action now to reduce harmful diesel pollution exposure to the
greatest extent possible will reinforce and entrench historic inequities.
The EPA should be proposing solutions aimed at phasing out our dependency on deadly diesel. I
do not accept partial solutions that leave the air we all breathe and the climate we all depend on
further burdened and damaged by pollution for decades to come, and urge the Agency to fix the
rule to address the above faults.
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Catherine Horine, Laura Ubasczewski, and Jennifer Ryan on
the proposed rule. Regarding the comments on the level of the standards and alignment with
CARB, see our responses in section 3.1.2 of this document. Regarding comments on credits for
zero-emission vehicles, see section 12 of this document. Regarding comments on setting
standards based on zero-emission vehicles, see sections 3.1.1 and 28 of this document.
1826
-------
Regarding comments on communities with Environmental Justice concerns, see section 22 and
23 of this document.
Organization: ChargeEVC-NJ: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1418
ChargEVC-NJ, a coalition of utilities, OEMs, technology companies, organized labor,
developers, power producers, environment, consumer and equity advocates, support the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in finalizing a Clean Trucks Plan that accelerates the
transition to zero-emission medium and heavy-duty electric vehicles. The Clean Trucks Plan
represents a unique opportunity for the US to transition to widespread electrification of trucks
and buses, spurring economic development, innovation, the creation of new jobs and skills.
Importantly, this transition will result in significantly cleaner air for the generations that follow.
New Jersey is among six states - representing twenty (20) percent (%) of national medium and
heavy- duty vehicle registrations - that have adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
standard, which sets a minimum level of zero-emission sales in these six states. This policy will
drive nearly 20% of Class 4-8 sales in model year 2027, nearly 30% in model year 2028 and
nearly 40% in model year 2029.1 There is a notable gap in EPA's assessment proposed updates
to the Phase 2 GHG standards, which calls for just 1.5% of Class 4-8 vehicle national sales in
model year 2027 versus the ACT's 20% requirement. Federal standards should not lag so far
behind the commitments of 20% of the market.
1 Based on sales-weighted averages of zero-emission vehicle sales requirements in the
Advanced Clean Trucks standard for Class 4-8 straight trucks and Class 7-8 tractors.
We call attention to the varied and multiple policy mechanisms the EPA can use, in coordination
with other Federal agencies and policies, to achieve this transition in an accelerated time frame.
There needs to be a whole of government approach to accelerate zero-emission vehicle
deployments over the next decade, that will set us up for future success.
Parallel to our support of regulatory action is our support of state and federal policies for
incentives, investments, and creation of new markets for zero-emission vehicles and
infrastructure. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is an important step towards
providing financial support for the transition to zero-emission vehicles, more is needed, such as
the tax incentives for zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure, including storage. Again, a
whole of government approach is required on the incentive and market side.
We have done a lot in New Jersey to help move along this transition but additional support from
the Federal Government is needed. We stand by ready to work with EPA and the other Federal
agencies to enable this market.
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Charge EVC-NJ in support of accelerating ZEV adoption and
the need for incentives to support the transition to ZEVs. As explained in preamble Sections III
and IV and sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for
1827
-------
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria
pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization of ZEV technologies, although
manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through using ZEV technologies, or
other technology pathways than included in our demonstration program. As noted in section 28
of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027
NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a
separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG
Phase 3 standards) and may consider this comment in the development of that future rulemaking.
Organization: Clean Air for the Long Haul; EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2889
We write to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize the strongest and most
protective heavy-duty trucks nitrogen oxides (NOx) standards by the end of 2022 to safeguard
overburdened communities and put us on a path towards a zero-emissions future.
As a coalition of environmental justice organizations from across the country, the Clean Air for
the Long Haul Cohort lives in and advocates for communities that are disproportionately and
adversely impacted by harmful air pollution from the transportation sector. Medium- and heavy-
duty trucks, in particular, are the largest source of harmful smog and soot-forming nitrogen
oxides in the U.S. 1 Our communities are unjustly exposed to greater concentrations of these
health-harming pollutants due to their proximity to "diesel death zones," composed of high-
traffic roadways and trucking routes, bus depots, and goods movement facilities.
Transportation pollution compounds upon similarly concentrated industrial air pollution in our
communities, all due to this country's legacy of discriminatory transportation and land-use
planning. Low-income and communities of color that are overburdened by unrelentingly poor air
quality face heart attacks, other cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, asthma-related
emergency room visits, and premature deaths. Chronic exposure to harmful air pollution is the
reason our friends and families are more susceptible to viruses that cause the COVID-19
pandemic.
Option 1 of the Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards (Docket no. EPA-HQ-QAR-2019-005 5) could provide necessary relief to
overburdened communities.8s This option, if aligned with the stringency and abridged timeline
of California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus rule,9 would require 90% NOx emissions reductions from
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines by 2027, avoiding $1.3 trillion in health damages
linked to fine particulates and ozone pollution from 2027-2050.10,11 In contrast, Option 2 would
require 75% NOx emissions reductions starting in 2027, achieving less reductions than Option
1,12 and would create less stringent useful life and warranty periods. This weaker option
prioritizes industrial interests and does little to alleviate the environmental and health burdens of
diesel pollution that has plagued our communities for generations.
To further strengthen Option 1, we ask that you eliminate zero-emission vehicle crediting and
not allow early action credits. These proposed flexibilities would undermine the emission
reduction standards and incentivize continued purchasing of dirty fossil fuel trucks and buses.
The 72 million people living within 200 meters of major trucking routes, many of which are low-
1828
-------
income and people of color, 13 will continue to suffer from unequal health impacts from
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle pollution if crediting is advanced.
The agency should set stringent standards that align with California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus
requirements, ensuring that stringent NOx emission reductions are achieved across the country,
and encouraging a ramp-up of zero-emission electric technology for all classes of trucks and
buses. To address the health and environmental burdens placed disproportionately upon
environmental justice communities, we urge the EPA to move swiftly in finalizing the Clean
Trucks rule with an enhanced Option 1.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue and we welcome any opportunities for further
discussion. For inquiries or to schedule a meeting with the Clean Air for the Long Haul Cohort,
please reach out Anastasia Gordon via email at anastasia@weact.org.
EPA Response
This comment was submitted to EPA as official correspondence to the Administrator. We
appreciate the comments from Clean Air for the Long Haul, on the proposed rule. Regarding the
comments on the level of the standards and alignment with CARB, see our responses in section
3.1.2 of this document. As noted in sections 3.1.1 and 28 of this document, EPA is not taking
final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD
GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more
stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider
this comment in the development of that future rulemaking. Regarding comments on credits for
zero-emission vehicles, see section 12 of this document. Regarding comments on communities
with Environmental Justice concerns, see section 22 and 23 of this document.
Organization: Clean Air Task Force etal: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2878
Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club ("Commenters") respectfully submit these
supplemental comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") Proposed Rule
for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17,414 (Mar. 28, 2022) (the "Proposal"). Here, we outline
important new developments that (1) provide additional factual support for the positions on
the criteria pollutant standards laid out in the Commenters' initial comments submitted on
May 16, 2022, and (2) provide information that EPA must consider as it develops a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking ("NPRM") on the GHG standards.1 Many of
the materials cited in these comments are attached as exhibits and are listed in the "List of
Attachments."
1 See Comments of Environmental and Public Health Organizations on Proposed Rule
Regarding Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302 (May 16, 2022),
1829
-------
https://wwwregulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302 ("Initial
Comments").
Introduction
Since the close of the comment period for the Proposal, additional information has
become available that further underscores the feasibility of promulgating strong rules to
curtail dangerous emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines. In particular, the recent
passage of the Inflation Reduction Act ("IRA") provides billions of dollars in funding for
heavy-duty ("HD") zero-emission vehicles ("ZEVs") and lends further support to a baseline
HD ZEV penetration rate much higher than the rate contained in EPA's Proposal, and
likely one even higher than the range suggested in Commenters' initial comments. EPA must
consider the IRA's impacts on the baseline HD ZEV penetration rate when setting the
criteria pollutant standards—which EPA still intends to finalize by December—because the
baseline HD ZEV penetration rate also informs the feasibility and appropriate stringency of
those standards.
EPA has recognized the IRA's impact on the Agency's rulemaking. The Agency has
announced plans to issue a supplemental NPRM in December on the portion of the
Proposal concerning updates to the HD greenhouse gas ("GHG") standards in order to
consider more stringent standards for model years 2027-2029.2 For that supplemental
NPRM, EPA must consider the IRA's impact on the baseline HD ZEV penetration rate,
which is integral to setting standards that fulfill EPA's mandate to protect health and
welfare.
2 David Shepardson, Exclusive: U.S. EPA to Consider Tougher Emissions Rules for Heavy
Trucks, Reuters (Sept. 21, 2022), https://wwwreuters.com/business/sustainable-
business/exclusive-us-epa-consider-tougher-emissions-rules-heavy-tru cks-2022-09-21/.
The forthcoming supplemental NPRM should reflect the significant support that the
IRA adds to the already substantial record regarding the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
zero-emission technologies. Through the IRA, Congress has encouraged the growth of
those technologies in all vehicle sectors. EPA must not only consider an updated and
accurate baseline HD ZEV market penetration rate but should propose standards that ensure
that nationwide levels of HD ZEV deployment go beyond the baseline rates that would
occur absent regulation. Only by doing so can EPA meet its statutory mandate to set
standards that are adequately protective of public health and welfare.
In addition to providing new information from the IRA in support of a baseline HD
ZEV penetration rate higher than that contained in EPA's Proposal, Commenters urge EPA
to issue the GHG standards supplemental NPRM and finalize the criteria pollutant
standards before the end of this calendar year. EPA should finalize the GHG standards no
later than May 2023.
Section I explains how the IRA, through which Congress endorsed and provided
substantial funding for greater development and deployment of HD zero-emission
1830
-------
technologies and related infrastructure, supports a higher baseline HD ZEV penetration rate
than that contained in EPA's Proposal. Section II explains how the IRA supports a greater
role for zero-emission technologies in upcoming rulemakings.
I. THE IRA PROVIDES FURTHER SUPPORT FOR A HIGHER BASELINE HD ZEV
PENETRATION THAN EPA'S PROPOSAL.
To meet its obligations under section 202 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must set
technology-forcing standards that spur improvements in emissions control
technologies and prioritize public health and welfare.3 And to fulfill its duty to engage
in reasoned decision making, EPA must consider a realistic HD ZEV baseline
penetration rate both in finalizing the criteria pollutant standards and in formulating its
supplemental NPRM for the GHG standards. EPA's proposed rate of 1.5% in MY 2027
is unreasonable because it is based on outdated information and flawed methodology,
and is "far below even voluntary industry commitments."4
3 Commenters' initial comments on the Proposal include a thorough discussion of the
legal requirements placed on EPA. See Initial Comments at 9-11.
4 Margo Oge, Inflation Reduction Act Doesn't Meet Biden's Climate Goals: How to
Close the Gaps on Transportation, The Hill (Aug. 31, 2022),
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3622646-inflation-reduction-act-
doesnt-meet-bidens-climate-goals- how-to-close-the-gaps-on-transportation/. For
example, Commenters' initial comments described projections from both Navistar
and Volvo of 50% ZEV truck sales by 2030 and projections from Navistar of 100%
ZEV truck sales by 2040. See Initial Comments at 39 & 43. Volvo also projects 100%
ZEV truck and bus sales by 2040, and Daimler expects 60% of its truck sales to be
ZEVs by 2030. Oge (2022).
The IRA's programs offer significant funding for HD ZEVs, further supporting a
baseline penetration rate far greater than EPA's proposed rate of 1.5% in MY 2027, and
likely one even higher than the baseline ranges proposed in Commenters' initial comments
(at least 8-11% for MY 2027 and 19-27% for MY 2030). In fact, early analyses of the IRA
have recognized that the law will support a high baseline HD ZEV number, explaining that
"the bill's investments will change the baseline for rulemakings.. .as it brings down the cost
of clean technologies"5 including HD ZEVs, and that the IRA will "accelerate the adoption
of clean vehicles across the sector" and "enable accelerated deployment,"6 such as can be
achieved through standards set by EPA.
In response to the Proposal, some commenters noted that federal and state measures
supporting ZEV adoption, manufacturing, and infrastructure would be helpful complements
to EPA's standards and would speed the adoption of zero-emission technologies. The IRA,
with its "tens of billions of dollars in grants, tax credits, and loan programs to develop
manufacturing and supply chains for clean energy components, batteries, electric vehicles,
1831
-------
and critical minerals,"7 does exactly that. In light of these developments, EPA's proposed HD
ZEV penetration rate of 1.5% becomes even more unreasonable.
7 Jesse D. Jenkins et al., Preliminary Report: The Climate and Energy Impacts of
the Inflation Reduction Act of2022, Princeton University Zero Lab 16 (Aug.
2022), https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IRA_Prelminary_Report_2022-08-
12.pdf.
As explained in our initial comments, an accurate baseline HD ZEV market
penetration rate is vital to EPA's standards.8 For the GHG standards, EPA's supplemental
NPRM must recognize a much higher baseline penetration rate than the 1.5% rate in the
Proposal. Because the GHG standards apply as a fleet average, by vastly underestimating the
penetration rate in the Proposal, EPA in turn underestimates the percentage of vehicles that
would be able to meet the current Phase 2 GHG standards without installing emission-
reduction technologies, undermining the program's goal of requiring all conventional
vehicles to install such controls.9 Moreover, failing to revisit the GHG standards with an
approach that would further drive adoption of zero-emission technologies—a regulatory path
that is clearly feasible—results in standards that fall far short of meeting the Clean Air Act's
mandate. Commenters' initial comments outlined information supporting a baseline HD ZEV
penetration of at least 8-11% for MY 2027 and 19-27% for MY 2030—rates far greater than
EPA's 1.5%) in MY 2027. The IRA provides support for a baseline HD ZEV penetration rate
likely even higher than the range in Commenters' initial comments, and EPA must consider
this new information in determining the baseline HD ZEV penetration rate used in its
upcoming supplemental NPRM for the GHG standards.
8 See Initial Comments at 20-23 (discussing the impacts of underestimating baseline
market penetration of HD ZEVs).
9 EPA explains in the Proposal that "[t]he intent of the existing HD GHG Phase 2
program was to set the stringency of the standards at a level that all conventional
vehicles would need to install some level and combination of emission-reducing
technologies or offset another conventional vehicle not installing such technology,
since at that time we predicted very little market penetration of EVs." 87 Fed. Reg.
at 17,603.
The baseline HD ZEV penetration rate also informs the feasibility and appropriate
stringency of the criteria pollutant standards, and considering a more accurate (higher)
baseline HD ZEV market penetration "could lead to a more stringent NOx emission
standard," as EPA acknowledges in the Proposal.10 EPA recognizes that, for the NOx
standards, "information showing higher [battery electric vehicle ("BEV")/fuel cell electric
vehicle ("FCEV")] market penetration in the MY 2027 or later timeframe" could require
"inclu[ding] [hybrid electric vehicle ("HEV")], BEV and or FCEV technologies in [its]
feasibility analysis," and that it may have to "re-evaluate [its] approach" in the final rule.11
1832
-------
The information provided regarding baseline HD ZEV penetration rates in Commenters'
initial comments, and the IRA's new programs and funding, all support a penetration rate
much higher than EPA's 1.5% in MY 2027 and beyond. The Clean Air Act commands EPA
to set standards that "reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable through
the application of technology" which "will be available for the model year to which the
standards apply,"12 and therefore EPA must consider and include zero-emission
technologies within its standard-setting analysis.
10 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,561.
11 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,458 (requesting comment on revising numeric standards to
include HEV, BEV, and FCEV technologies).
12 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(3)(A)(i).
EPA must also consider an accurate baseline HD ZEV penetration rate, informed by
the information contained in Commenters' initial comments and the new funding from the
IRA, when considering emissions credits for the criteria pollutant standards. Under EPA's
Proposal, HD ZEVs can generate NOx emissions credits—an especially problematic
departure from EPA's prior rules when an accurate baseline HD ZEV penetration rate is
taken into account.13 Underestimating the baseline market penetration of HD ZEVs will
lead to the generation of a significant amount of credits that will dramatically undermine
the goals of the NOx standards and fail to protect public health and welfare. The IRA
provides even more reason that EPA must consider a revised, more accurate baseline HD
ZEV penetration rate and revisit these credits to ensure that the rule reflects the greatest
degree of emission reduction achievable, as is EPA's statutory mandate.
13 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,556 ("However, under the current criteria pollutant program,
manufacturers do not have a pathway to generate NOx emission credits for HEVs,
BEVs, or FCEVs. For BEVs and FCEVs, current 40 CFR 86.016-1(d)(4) stipulates
that these technologies may not generate NOx emission credits..."); id. at 17,561-62
(proposing to allow ZEVs to generate NOx emissions credits); 40 CFR 86.016-
1(d)(4) ("Electric heavy-duty vehicles may not generate NOx or PM emission
credits.").
A. The IRA's investments in ZEV manufacturing will make many HD ZEVs cheaper to produce,
expediting the path to total cost of ownership and purchase price parity with HD internal
combustion engine vehicles.
Commenters' initial comments provide an overview of the extensive manufacturer
investments in and commitments to HD ZEV technology, even prior to receiving the IRA's
extra support.14 The IRA makes available billions of dollars of investment in clean energy
manufacturing, much of which can be used by HD ZEV manufacturers. As manufacturers
are able to pass these financial benefits on to HD ZEV purchasers, these manufacturing
1833
-------
investments will in turn expedite the path to both purchase price parity and total cost of
ownership ("TCO") parity with HD internal combustion engine ("ICE") vehicles. The IRA
will support further growth within the already rapidly expanding HD ZEV sector, enabling
manufacturers to increase production of HD ZEVs and resulting in a much higher baseline
HD ZEV penetration rate than EPA's proposed rate—and one that likely exceeds the range
included in Commenters' initial comments—even without considering the effect of future
EPA standards. To fulfill its obligations under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, then,
EPA must consider the impact of the IRA and these more accurate higher baseline
penetration rates.
14 See Initial Comments at 39-44.
First, the IRA provides for significant tax credits that will directly reduce
manufacturers' costs to produce HD ZEVs. For example, the IRA includes a production tax
credit for the domestic production and sale of qualifying components for energy projects,
including batteries and critical minerals. Under this Advanced Manufacturing Production
Credit, domestically produced battery cells qualify for a credit of $35/kWh of capacity, and
battery modules qualify for a credit of $10/kWh of capacity (or $45/kWh for battery
modules that do not use battery cells).15 Battery costs are the largest contributor to the cost
difference between ZEVs and conventional vehicles, and these credits could offset a
substantial proportion of those costs, bringing down total vehicle costs in turn. Because HD
ZEVs use large batteries, manufacturers could qualify for large credits. For example, Volvo
has explained that its HD trucks can use batteries with a total energy content of 540kWh or
more, contained in six 90kWh modules.16 For such a battery, a battery manufacturer could
receive a credit of approximately $24,300. And for Class 8 long-haul trucks, which could
include batteries between 1,173 and l,800kWh,17 the credits could decrease the cost of
production between $52,785 and $81,000 per vehicle.18 Furthermore, assuming a Class 8
short-haul truck with a 300-mile range and a battery of 682kWh, the Advanced
Manufacturing Production Credit could reduce cost of production by $30,690, and for a
Class 4 parcel truck with a battery of 155kWh, by $6,975.19 This credit will further lower
the production costs for manufacturers of HD ZEVs, supporting a higher baseline ZEV
penetration rate.
15 See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, 117th Cong. § 13502(b)(l)(K) & §
13502(b)(l)(L) (2022). The tax credit for each component decreases by 25% each
year beginning in 2029 and ends in 2032. Id. § 13502(b)(3)(B).
16 Matt O'Leary, Battery Packs for Heavy-Duty Electric Vehicles, Volvo Group
(May 17, 2022), https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-
media/news/2022/may/battery-packs-for-electric-vehicles html (explaining that HD
trucks can include around six battery modules with an energy content of around
90kWh each, for a total energy content of 540kWh).
1834
-------
17 Chad Hunter et al., Spatial and Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for
Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks, NREL 8 (Sept. 2021),
https://wwwnrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/71796.pdf. Battery size estimates are for 2025 for
Class 8 long-haul trucks with 500 and 750 mile range.
18 Assuming the full value of the credit passed along to HDV production.
19 Id. Battery size estimates are for 2025.
The IRA also revises and expands investment tax credits for projects that equip,
expand, or establish manufacturing facilities producing specified clean energy equipment,
including HD electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicle production and related technologies,
components, or materials, along with associated charging or refueling infrastructure.20
These Advanced Energy Project Credits offer a base credit equal to 6% of the qualified
investment, increasing to 30% if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship
requirements.21 The allocation for this program is $10 billion.22
20 IRA § 13501(a) & § 13501 (b)(2)(I); see also 26 U.S.C. § 48C.
21 IRA § 13501(a).
22 Id.
In addition to tax credits for HD ZEV manufacturing, the IRA also provides for
grants and loans to support ZEV production. The Domestic Manufacturing Conversion
Grants program allocates $2 billion for grants to retool existing automobile manufacturing
facilities for the production of electric, hybrid, and fuel cell electric vehicles.23 These grants
can cover up to 50% of the costs of a particular project.24 The IRA also expands the
Department of Energy's lending authorities under the Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing ("ATVM") program, adding $3 billion for direct loans for the cost of
establishing or expanding U.S. manufacturing facilities that produce advanced technology
vehicles or components with low or zero GHG emissions, including qualified HD trucks.25
The ATVM loan program has a history of successfully supporting progress in zero-
emission technologies. For example, an ATVM program loan to Tesla Motors in 2010
supported the company's commercial-scale deployment, helping create more than 1,500
jobs at Tesla's ATVM-supported facilities and securing Tesla as the largest automotive
employer in California.26 Tesla was able to fully repay its loan in 2013, nine years ahead of
schedule.27 The ATVM program will work with the Domestic Manufacturing Conversion
Grants program and the manufacturer tax credits to make HD ZEV production increasingly
attractive to manufacturers. Taken together, all of these programs are expected to increase
the baseline HD ZEV penetration rate even without taking emission standards into account.
23 IRA § 50143(a).
24 IRA § 50143(b).
25 IRA § 50142(a); 42 U.S.C. § 17013(a)(1)(B).
1835
-------
26 Department of Energy, Loan Programs Office, Tesla Project Summary,
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/tesla; Andrew
J. Hawkins, U.S. Resurrects Green Energy Loan Program That Helped Put Tesla on
the Map, The Verge (July 25, 2022),
https://www.theverge.eom/2022/7/25/23277838/doe-atvm-loan-gm-lg-battery-joint-
venture.
27 Tesla, Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine
Years Early (May 22, 2013),
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-repays-department-energy-
loan-nine-years-early.
Moreover, the IRA provides support not only for vehicle manufacturers themselves,
but also for related industries such as critical minerals and infrastructure development. For
critical minerals, the Advanced Manufacturing Production Credits offer credits in an
amount equal to 10% of the costs incurred by the taxpayer with respect to production of
critical minerals, including those used in ZEVs such as cobalt, graphite, lithium, and
nickel.28 The Advanced Energy Project credits for critical minerals projects are like those
described above for ZEV manufacturers, offering a base credit equal to 6% of the qualified
investment and an increase to 30% if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship
requirements.29 The Advanced Energy Project credits are available to projects that re-equip,
expand, or establish industrial facilities for the processing, refining, or recycling of critical
minerals, including those used in ZEVs.30 Additionally, the IRA allocates $500 million that
can be used for critical minerals processing under the Defense Production Act of 1950.31
28 See IRA § 13502(a).
29 IRA § 13501(a).
30 IRA § 13501(b).
31 IRA § 30001; see also Steven Mufson & Paulina Villegas, Biden to Use
Defense Production Act for U.S. Critical-Minerals Supply, Washington Post
(Mar. 31, 2022),
https://www.washingtonpost.eom/climate-environment/2022/03/30/critical-minerals-
defense-production-act/ (discussing authorization of Defense Production Act for
critical minerals).
The IRA also furthers the development of the infrastructure needed to support HD
ZEVs, including through the Advanced Energy Project credits and the Alternative Fuel
Refueling Infrastructure tax credits. Support for ZEV charging infrastructure can contribute
significantly to lowering total cost of ownership and reducing barriers to HD ZEV uptake.
For charging and refueling infrastructure related to HD electric or fuel cell vehicles, the
Advanced Energy Project credits are the same as for ZEV manufacturing and critical
minerals—credits equal to 6% of the qualified investment with an increase to 30% if the
project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.32 The IRA expanded and
extended the Alternative Fuel Refueling Infrastructure tax credit for the purchase and
1836
-------
installation of charging assets or infrastructure in
certain situations. The credit provides 30% of the cost per charger, and the IRA expands the
credit to up to $100,000 per site.33 The IRA also extends the credit through 2032,34 which
"improves the viability of projects with longer lead-times and allows for sequenced
development of new fueling station networks."35
32 IRA § 13501(a) & § 13501(b).
33 IRA § 13404(b)(2)(B).
34 IRA § 13404(a).
35 Jonathan Lewis, On the Road: Inflation Reduction Act Jumpstarts U.S. Transportation
Sector Decarbonization, Clean Air Task Force (Aug. 19, 2022),
https://www.catf.us/2022/08/on-the-road-inflation-reduction-act-jumpstarts-us-
transportation-sector-decarbonization/.
Together, all of these programs will reduce costs for manufacturers producing HD
vehicles utilizing zero-emission technologies. Manufacturers are already recognizing these
IRA benefits. Leaders at Daimler Truck, the nation's largest manufacturer of Class 6-8
commercial vehicles, extended a "special thanks" for the IRA's provisions that apply to
zero-emission commercial vehicles.36 And "[a]s a result [of the IRA], dozens of energy,
automobile and clean technology companies have announced plans to move forward with
new projects or accelerate the timeline on previous deals," including: Honda and LG Energy
Solution opening a new $4.4 billion battery plant with annual production capacity of
40GWh; Hyundai accelerating construction of a $5.54 billion EV and battery plant in
Georgia; Panasonic (battery supplier to Tesla) considering a second $4 billion domestic
battery plant; Tesla seeking approval to set up a lithium refinery in Texas with construction
possible in the fourth quarter of 2022 and commercial production by the end of 2024;
Volkswagen and Canada signing an agreement to advance a sustainable battery supply
chain and supply lithium, nickel, and cobalt; Sparkz (a battery startup) announcing West
Virginia as the site of a future plant that will commercialize a zero-cobalt battery; and
Piedmont Lithium Inc. announcing plans to build a $600 million lithium processing plant in
Tennessee that will begin production in 2025 with a target of 30,000 metric tons per year.37
36 Daimler Truck North America, DTNA Applauds Inflation Reduction Act's Support
of Zero Emission Trucks (Aug. 16, 2022),
https://northamerica.daimlertruck.com/PressDetail/dtna-applauds-inflation-reduction-
act-s-support-2022-08-16 (quoting Sean Waters, VP of product compliance and
regulatory affairs at Daimler Truck North America).
37 Valerie Volcovici, Pactbox: U.S. Climate Package Jump-starts EV, Clean Energy
Projects, Reuters (Sept. 12, 2002), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-climate-
package-jump-starts-ev-clean-energy-projects-2022-09-12/.
As a historic piece of legislation, the IRA provides "robust support for the
1837
-------
development of American manufacturing of.. .battery and electric vehicle components and
assembly as well as critical minerals processing,"38 all of which will make production of
HD ZEVs even more favorable for manufacturers. Commenters' initial comments provided
a thorough discussion of TCO projections for HD ZEVs, citing numerous studies that
estimate that different categories of HD ZEVs have either already reached TCO parity with
their diesel counterparts, and/or will reach TCO parity prior to 2027.39 Assuming
manufacturer cost savings are passed on to HD truck purchasers, these vehicles will reach
purchase price parity and TCO parity with HD ICE vehicles even sooner than the already
favorable pre-IRA projections. For example, a recent analysis by BloombergNEF found that
with the credits available in the IRA, "heavy-duty trucks operating in urban routes—which
are already near price parity—may get close to 20% cost advantage by 2023 over similar
diesel-engine vehicles," and long-haul electric trucks may reach TCO parity with diesel
counterparts by 2030.40 All of these manufacturer benefits in the IRA support a baseline HD
ZEV penetration rate of at least 8-11% for MY 2027 and 19-27% for MY 2030, and very
likely higher.
38 Jesse D. Jenkins et al., Preliminary Report: The Climate and Energy Impacts of
the Inflation Reduction Act of2022, Princeton University Zero Lab 20 (Aug.
2022), https://repeatproject.org/docs/REPEAT_IRA_Prelminary_Report_2022-08-
12.pdf.
39 See Initial Comments at 44-49.
40 BloombergNEF, Commercial Vehicles Decarbonization Monthly: Inflation
Reduction Act Eliminates Cost Premium of Electric Trucks (Aug. 25, 2022)
(subscription required) (TCO parity projections assume full battery credit is passed on
to the final customer).
B. The IRA's credits for HD ZEV purchasers will expedite TCO and purchase price parity with
HD ICE vehicles, supporting a HD ZEV baseline penetration rate well above 1.5%.
The IRA also contains significant funding to support HD ZEV purchasers that will
facilitate near-term TCO and purchase price parity with HD ICE trucks. The IRA's primary
funding for HD truck purchasers is through the Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicle tax
credit, which is expected to "turbocharge adoption of electric medium-duty and heavy-duty
trucks."41 Through this credit, purchasers of HD battery or fuel-cell powered trucks receive
a tax credit for either the vehicle's incremental cost over its ICE counterpart, or 30% of the
vehicle's purchase price, whichever is less, with a maximum credit cap of $40,000 per
vehicle purchase.42 At a starting purchase price of $150,000, a Tesla Semi, for example,
already offers a better cost of operation per mile than its diesel counterpart.43 This tax credit
will make the cost per mile "even more competitive."44 Numerous state and local
incentives, some of which are discussed in Commenters' initial comments,45 could reduce
the purchase price and cost per mile even further.
1838
-------
41 Ari Kahn et al., The Inflation Reduction Act Will Help Electrify Heavy-Duty
Trucking, RMI (Aug. 25, 2022), https://rmi.org/inflation-reduction-act-will-help-
electrify-heavy-duty-trucking/.
42 IRA § 13403.
43 Fred Lambert, Electric Trucks Like Tesla Semi Will Get Up to $40,000 in Incentives
with New Bill, Electrek (July 29, 2022), https://electrek.co/2022/07/29/electric-
trucks-tesla-semi-40000-incentives-new-bill/.
44 Id.
45 See Initial Comments at 33-35, 37-38.
This credit therefore will effectively decrease the initial purchase price of an HD
ZEV, with these vehicles likely to achieve TCO and purchase price parity with their ICE
counterparts even sooner than previously estimated. Industry leaders have called this credit
"a huge boost to support companies" committed to increasing the proportion of their fleet
made up of HD ZEVs, and have pointed out that it "can greatly reduce the cost difference"
between ZEVs and ICE vehicles, "allowing] fleets to make larger commitments to clean
vehicle acquisitions and charging infrastructure."46
46 Matt Donath, Breaking it Down: What Does the IRA Mean for Fleet Electrification,
Edison Energy (Aug. 18, 2022), https://www.edisonenergy.com/blog/breaking-it-
down-what-does-the-ira-mean-for-fleet-electrification/ (quoting Simon Horton,
Edison Energy's EV Infrastructure Lead).
A recent analysis by RMI found that this credit "makes owning an electric truck
cheaper than owning a diesel one in most use cases, with urban and regional electric trucks
being cost-superior to diesel ones as soon as 2023. Trucks can travel 100,000 miles per
year, and electrification creates significant fuel savings. Even many long-haul trucks that
are hardest to electrify could be transformed."47 Specifically, the RMI analysis found that
with the IRA, TCO parity would be achieved five years sooner than without the law, and
that this "is true for urban trucks that travel locally in cities an average of 50-100 miles a
day; regional trucks that move 100-250 miles per day and return to the same depot; and
long-haul trucks that travel 250 or more miles between cities and need to recharge in
route."48 RMI's data is illustrated in the following figure:49
47 Kahn et al. (2022).
48 Id.
49 This figure is copied from id.
1839
-------
Electric truck parity dates with diesel by duty cycle
Long-Hsul
Regional
Urban
In light of the IRA, the Environmental Defense Fund ("EDF") worked with ERM to
update a previously performed assessment of projected business-as-usual medium- and
heavy-duty ZEV sales, and came to similar conclusions.50 ERM's analysis included Class
4-8 trucks and found that when the IRA's ZEV tax credit is incorporated, "purchase price
parity for a wide range of M/HD ZEVs is reached at least 5 years and as much as 12 years
earlier than would occur without the credit."51 It also found that additional funding for ZEV
manufacturing and charging "could further reduce the total cost of ownership" of
commercial ZEVs.52
50 ERM, Memo to EDF re Investment Reduction Act Supplemental Assessment:
Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-
As-Usual Scenarios (Aug. 19, 2022),
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-
baseline-technical-memo-adden dum.pdf (to be submitted to the docket by EDF).
51 Id. at 1.
52 Id.
In addition, some fleets looking to install charging technology to support their
vehicles will qualify for the Alternative Fuel Refueling Infrastructure Tax Credit discussed
above, receiving a credit for up 30% of the cost per charger and up to $100,000 per site.53
53 IRA § 13404(b)(2)(B).
The IRA also provides direct support to federal, state, municipal and other public
entities looking to increase the share of ZEVs in their HD vehicle fleets. For example, the
new Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles rebate program provides $1 billion in rebates for states,
municipalities, Indian tribes and school associations to convert fleets to HD ZEVs, along
with funding specifically reserved for communities located in nonattainment areas.54 These
rebates can cover up to 100% of incremental costs of replacing non-ZEV HD trucks with
ZEVs, and 100% of the costs of charging, refueling, and operation infrastructure;
workforce development; and planning and technical activities directed at the adoption and
deployment of ZEVs.55 Other relevant IRA programs include:
• The U.S. Postal Service Clean Fleets program, providing up to $3 billion
for the Postal Service to purchase ZEVs and install related infrastructure.56
1840
-------
• GHG air pollution implementation grants, earmarking $4.75 billion for the
implementation of GHG reduction plans by states, air pollution control
agencies, municipalities, or Indian tribes, which includes replacing high-
emission ICE trucks with ZEVs.57
• $50 million in funding to address air pollution in schools, which could be
used to fund zero-emission school buses.
• $3 billion in grants to reduce air pollution at ports, which can be used to
purchase or install zero-emission port technology, including for HD
trucks.58
• $27 billion in direct and indirect financing in the form of grants to states,
municipalities, tribal governments and nonprofit organizations for projects
implementing zero-emission technologies to reduce GHG emissions,
which can include HD ZEV projects.59
• $5 million in funding to provide grants to states to adopt and implement
GHG and zero-emission standards for mobile sources (including HD trucks)
pursuant to section 177 of the Clean Air Act.60
• $60 million in grants, rebates, or loans for projects by state, tribal, local,
regional, or port authorities and for-profit and nonprofit entities that qualify
under the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which can include funding the
costs of emission reduction technology applicable to HD trucks.61
54 IRA §60101.
55 Id.
56 IRA § 70002.
57 IRA §60114.
58 IRA §60102.
59 IRA §60103.
60 IRA § 60105(g). See also 42 U.S.C. § 7507.
61 IRA § 60104. See also 42 U.S.C. § 16132.
C. Early modeling and analyses of the IRA further confirm that EPA's proposed baseline HD
ZEV penetration is far too low.
Early modeling and analyses of the IRA offer significant support for baseline HD
ZEV penetration rates far higher than EPA's 1.5% estimation. For example, modeling
conducted by RMI found that with the IRA, over 60% of new truck sales could be electric
by 2030.62 Energy Innovation also modeled sales shares of battery electric vehicles
("BEVs") under various scenarios and found that, with the IRA, 2030 BEV penetration
rates could be as high as 36—38% for light/medium trucks, 20-21% for buses, and 24-27%
for heavy trucks.63 ERM's updated analysis for EDF found that, for the five scenarios ERM
considered, ZEV sales for Class 4-8 trucks average 29% of total sales by 2029.64 ERM
found that post-IRA Class 4-8 ZEV sales were projected to be 46% higher in 2029 than
1841
-------
pre-IRAZEV sales projections, when averaging across the five scenarios.65 And a pre-IRA
analysis considering commercial ZEV tax credits similar to those contained in the IRA
found that 50-80% of several truck types could be ZEVs by 2035.66
62 Kahn et al. (2022). RMI's modeling considered vehicles greater than 14,000 pounds
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.
63 Megan Mahaj an et al., Updated Inflation Reduction Act Modeling Using the Energy
Policy Simulator, Energy Innovation 9 (Aug. 2022),
https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Updated-Inflation-
Reduction-Act-Modeling-Using-the-En ergy-Policy-Simulator.pdf.
64 ERM, Memo to EDF re Investment Reduction Act Supplemental Assessment:
Analysis of Alternative Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Business-
As-Usual Scenarios at 1. ERM's projections include Class 4-8 trucks but exclude
long-haul combination trucks. Id. at 1 n.l.
65 Id. This projection also excludes long-haul combination trucks.
66 The credits considered were more ambitious than those in the final version of the
IRA, but also excluded all of the bill's other incentives. See Joshua Linn & Wesley
Look, An Analysis of U.S. Subsidies for Electric Buses and Freight Trucks,
Resources for the Future Issue Brief 22-1, at 2 (Jan. 2022),
https: //medi a. iff. org/documents/IB_22-1. pdf.
Many analysts are still considering the IRA's impacts on baseline ZEV penetration
rates. Commenters expect that additional analyses could become available in the coming
weeks, and encourage EPA to consider any such information as it becomes available.
II. THE IRA SUPPORTS A GREATER ROLE FOR ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES IN
UPCOMING RULEMAKINGS.
EPA should also consider the impact of the IRA on "the potential for ZEV
technologies to significantly reduce air pollution from the heavy-duty vehicle sector" as the
Agency undertakes future light- and heavy-duty rulemakings, including its forthcoming
supplemental NPRM for the model year 2027-2029 GHG standards.67 The IRA strongly
supports a greater role for zero-emission technologies, including in the long-haul and fuel
cell electric vehicle ("FCEV") applications discussed in our initial comments.
67 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,420 (requesting comment on this topic).
Beyond its significant incentives for BEVs, the IRA includes unprecedented
investments in hydrogen-based systems like FCEVs and recharging stations, which offer
additional promise for long-haul and other heavy-duty market segments that may be slower
to electrify. The Qualified Commercial Vehicles tax credit, Alternative Fuel Refueling
Infrastructure tax credit, and Clean Heavy Duty Vehicle grants and rebates are all available
for hydrogen-based systems and FCEVs, and these investments in FCEVs and related
technologies will "giv[e] an unprecedented lift to clean hydrogen."68 EPA must consider the
1842
-------
impacts of these programs on the feasibility of FCEVs and their effect on baseline HD ZEV
penetration rates.
68 Glenn Zorpette, 2022—The Year the Hydrogen Economy Launched?,
IEEE Spectrum (Aug. 17, 2022), https://spectrum.ieee.org/hydrogen-
economy-inflation-reduction-act#toggle-gdpr.
By funding a variety of zero-emission technologies, the IRA provides support for an
even greater mix of transportation-sector zero-emission options, offering EPA several zero-
emission technology pathways to consider as it develops future rules. The programs and
funding in the IRA will further reduce the costs companies face in using zero-emission
technology of all types to comply with EPA's standards, and will favor both manufacturers
and purchasers of HD ZEVs.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in Commenters' initial comments and these supplemental
comments, EPA must finalize a strong criteria pollutant rule this year to curtail dangerous
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and engines. EPA also must include a higher, more
accurate baseline HD ZEV penetration rate in its forthcoming supplemental NPRM for the
GHG standards, and should propose standards that ensure HD ZEV deployment beyond the
baseline. Adopting Commenters' recommendations would result in feasible and cost-
beneficial rules that fulfill EPA's statutory duty to protect public health and welfare.
[Attachments omitted]
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Clean Air Task Force et al. with information relating to the
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and its potential impacts on ZEV technologies adoption. As
explained in preamble Sections III and IV and sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not
finalizing the proposed allowance for manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from
heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization
of ZEV technologies, although manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through
using ZEV technologies, or other technology pathways than included in our demonstration
program. In section 3.1.1 of this document we respond to comments requesting that the final
criteria pollutant standards be based on the projected utilization of ZEV technologies, which in
part discusses the timing of the IRA relative to this final rulemaking. As noted in section 28 of
this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM
regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate
rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3
standards) and may consider this comment in the development of that future rulemaking.
1843
-------
Organization: Jan Hughes: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2874
National Forests, which process carbon dioxide, produce oxygen, filter air pollution, and
house many endangered species, could be opened up to oil drilling. Because of the many
services forests provide us, destroying forests in order to produce fossil fuels would have far-
reaching effects not only on ecosystems but also on people.
The new rule proposed by the Department of the Interior would remove public input, stop
the Forest Service from doing environmental review, and remove the requirement for the Forest
Service to consent to oil leases. These changes would make it quick and easy for the fossil fuel
industry to move in and take over our forests, both destroying nature and increasing the effects
of climate change.
Forests are an extremely important part of our nation because of their effects on climate and
public health. Trees take in carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and in turn release
oxygen, which we need to breathe. In this way, trees can help to mitigate the effects of climate
change by taking up some of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. Trees also
clean the air as they take in carbon dioxide and filter out toxic particles. Besides these benefits
for humans, forests host a wide variety of plants and animals, which are already suffering from
intense deforestation.
Every year semi-trucks, busses, and other heavy-duty vehicles emit millions of tons of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other greenhouse gas pollutants driving climate change.
NOx air pollution from heavy-duty vehicles contributes to ozone and fine particulate
pollution, which are unsafe to breathe, especially for the young and elderly and anyone
exercising outdoors. This pollution is particularly dangerous for communities located close to
high truck traffic areas, affecting millions of people that live near highways, warehouses, or
ports. In our national parks it harms plants, trees, insects and other animals and it reduces the
ability of visitors to see and appreciate the views of our treasured park landscapes.
Heavy-duty vehicles are also one of the nation's top sources of climate pollution. Nearly
all of America's national parks are threatened by the symptoms of a warming climate
including more frequent heat waves, drought, sea level rise, coastal flooding, and extreme
wildfires.
To tackle this threat, the Biden administration must pursue the strongest possible NOx and
greenhouse standards for heavy-duty vehicle engines. Any standards adopted should achieve a
90% reduction in NOx pollution from new heavy- duty vehicles by no later than 2027, which
has already been implemented in a half-dozen states and counting.
Moreover, the administration should strengthen the rule's greenhouse gas requirements to set
us on a path towards 100% zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle sales by 2035.
EPA Response
The Agency's response to general comments with respect to the stringency of the criteria
pollutant standards can be found in Section 3.1.1 of this document.
With respect to GHG standards, we appreciate the comment in support of accelerating ZEV
technologies adoption. As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at
this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2
standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG
1844
-------
standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider this comment in the
development of that future rulemaking.
Finally, we acknowledge that forests are an important part of the national ecosystem. Actions
taken to directly preserve that ecosystem are led by the Department of the Interior and are out of
scope for this rule that sets standards for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles.
Organization: Martin L Dutcher: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-2870
Myself (Martin Dutcher), along with researchers, health professionals, economists, engineers,
and planners, respectfully submit this comment in support of the strongest possible heavy-duty
nitrogen oxides (NOx) truck pollution standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has made explicit commitments to climate, clean air, and environmental justice under this
administration. Environmental justice communities suffer a disproportionate burden of pollution
from the goods movement sector writ large. Thus: This NOx rule should be strengthened ASAP
to live up to these important stated commitments and to set us on a path to a zero-emission
transportation future.
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Martin L Dutcher in support of strong NOx standards and
EPA's commitment to climate, clean air, and environmental justice. See the Agency's response
to general comments with respect to the stringency of the criteria pollutant standards in Section
3.1.1 of this document. See also section 23 of this document for responses to Environmental
Justice concerns. As explained in preamble Sections III and IV and sections 3 and 12 of this
document, the final criteria pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization of ZEV
technologies. As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time
on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2
standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG
standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider this comment in the
development of that future rulemaking.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (96)
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to address pollution from medium and heavy-
duty trucks. I am worried about the impacts of the climate crisis on the health of our
communities, and I'm concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. I'm writing to you
today to ask that you please consider strengthening the final standards. The transportation sector
is the leading source of climate pollution in the US. The climate crisis is harming our families
and our communities today, and heavy-duty vehicles are a major contributor to this pollution. In
fact, despite making up only 10% of the total number of vehicles on the road, medium- and
heavy-duty trucks contribute a quarter of the total climate pollution from the transportation
sector. Trucks are also major sources of other deadly air pollution. Medium and heavy-duty
trucks are major contributors to NOx emissions, a potent precursor to ground-level ozone
pollution, and they account for more than 60% percent of the deadly particle pollution that comes
from vehicles. Particle pollution cuts short tens of thousands of lives in the US every year and
contributes to the heavy burden of asthma on our nation's children. Moreover, air pollution
1845
-------
impacts are inequitably distributed and disproportionately harm Blacks and Latinos compared to
whites. That's why the U.S. should enact standards that put the American truck and bus fleet on a
clear roadway to 100% zero-emission sales by 2035. To protect the health of our communities,
and to address environmental injustices, EPA must take urgent action to strengthen the proposed
standards today to reduce health-harming pollutants, including NOx and PM and greenhouse
gasses from medium and heavy-duty combustion vehicles — while continuing to accelerate our
transition to zero-emissions vehicles. By taking these steps, the U.S. will be well positioned to
protect our family's health, reduce fuel costs for truckers and fleets, strengthen our energy
security, and advance environmental justice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2876]
EPA Response
The Agency's response to general comments can be found in Section 1 of this document. See the
Agency's response to general comments with respect to the stringency of the criteria pollutant
standards in Section 3.1.1 of this document. See also sections 20 and 21 of this document for
responses to air quality impacts and health benefits.
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (157)
Every year semi-trucks, busses, and other heavy-duty vehicles emit millions of tons of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and other greenhouse gas pollutants driving climate change. NOx air pollution
from heavy-duty vehicles contributes to ozone and fine particulate pollution, which are unsafe to
breathe, especially for the young and elderly and anyone exercising outdoors. This pollution is
particularly dangerous for communities located close to high truck traffic areas, affecting
millions of people that live near highways, warehouses, or ports. In our national parks it harms
plants, trees, insects and other animals and it reduces the ability of visitors to see and appreciate
the views of our treasured park landscapes. Heavy-duty vehicles are also one of the nation's top
sources of climate pollution. Nearly all of America's national parks are threatened by the
symptoms of a warming climate including more frequent heat waves, drought, sea level rise,
coastal flooding, and extreme wildfires. To tackle this threat, the Biden administration must
pursue the strongest possible NOx and greenhouse standards for heavy-duty vehicle engines.
Any standards adopted should achieve a 90% reduction in NOx pollution from new heavy-duty
vehicles by no later than 2027, which has already been implemented in a half-dozen states and
counting. Moreover, the administration should strengthen the rule's greenhouse gas requirements
to set us on a path towards 100% zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2877]
EPA Response
The Agency's response to general comments can be found in Section 1 of this document. See
also section 23 of this document for responses to Environmental Justice concerns.
Organization: Nanette Diaz Barragan et al., Members of Congress and United States Senators;
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2886
In our shared effort to protect environmental justice communities and curb air pollution and
climate crises, we are writing to urge that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1846
-------
finalize the strongest possible heavy-duty vehicle requirements via the Clean Trucks Plan,
now released as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055. The importance of the heavy-duty rule in accelerating deployment of zero emission
vehicles cannot be overstated: it is critical for addressing the climate crisis, safeguarding clean
air, and improving public health in our communities. Due to strong state action, the medium- and
heavy-duty zero-emission truck market is growing, and EPA has a critical role to play to ensure
that zero-emission technologies for all types of trucks and buses are deployed so we can be on
the path for all new vehicles to be zero-emissions beginning in 2035. The rule should strengthen
EPA's proposed Option 1 by building on the successes of the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT)
rule adopted by seven states: California, New Jersey, Washington, Oregon, New York,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and set the expectation that at least 50 percent of sales should
be zero-emission by 2030, putting the United States on track for all truck sales to be zero-
emission by 2035. And as we advance our goals to transition to zero-emission trucks as quickly
as possible, it is also important that EPA ensure the remaining new diesel truck purchases
operate as cleanly as possible to protect public health, especially in our most overburdened
communities.
Diesel trucks play an outsized role in creating and perpetuating environmental injustice and
impose a disproportionate burden on Black, Latino, Asian, and Indigenous communities. All
diesel- and gasoline- powered trucks produce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and the secondary
formation of toxic particulate matter pollution, which causes an increase in cancer rates and
mortality. NOx also causes lung irritation and weakens the body's immunity on its own and
has worse health consequences when combined with ground level ozone exposure. Updating
the outdated NOx standards is a top priority and it is critical that this rule provide pollution
reductions that are at least as protective as the reductions that are codified in California's
recent Heavy-Duty Omnibus and Advanced Clean Trucks rules. This means, at a minimum,
EPA should meet or exceed California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus program by setting a standard
that achieves, by 2027, a greater than 90% reduction in NOx emissions from trucks that are
sold today relative to 2010 standards. Having a unified national program will provide needed
equity of reduced emissions across the country, reduced regulatory complexity, and reduce
unnecessary costs of complying with two separate regulatory requirements.
At the same time, this rule must accelerate the adoption of zero-emission trucks by providing
a clear signal for manufacturers to chart a path to eliminating tailpipe pollution. At a
minimum, the federal government should require that all new trucks must have zero
emissions beginning in 2035, with intermediate targets before then. In addition, after completing
this Heavy-Duty rule in 2022, EPA should move quickly to advance additional
policies to eliminate emissions from the freight sector to accelerate the retirement of all
combustion trucks by 2045.
At every regulatory opportunity, EPA must include policies that rapidly advance zero emissions
technologies for the entire truck sector. Road freight is the fastest growing source
of carbon emissions.i Heavy-duty vehicles make up only 10 percent of all vehicles on roads
in the U.S., but contribute 45 percent of the transportation sector's nitrogen oxide pollution,
57 percent of its fine particulate matter pollution, and 28 percent of global warming
emissions.2 These impacts fall disproportionately on low-income communities and people of
1847
-------
color due to proximity to heavy vehicle traffic and trucking corridors.3 Recent studies show
that diesel traffic is the largest source of nitrogen oxide disparity by race in the United
States.4 Transitioning from combustion to zero-emission trucks is therefore one of our greatest
opportunities to tackle both the climate crisis and environmental injustice.
During this transition, remaining sales of combustion trucks should be required to make full
use of the identified vehicle technologies that improve overall truck efficiency and reduce
fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions. Thus, EPA should strengthen the NOx and Phase 2
greenhouse gas requirements for trucks to account for the aggressive adoption of zero emission
heavy-duty trucks. The proposed Clean Trucks Plan underestimates a low penetration of zero-
emission trucks in assisting truck engine manufacturer compliance with diesel engine NOx and
PM. While we support policies that accelerate the transition to zero emission trucks, we cannot
afford dirtier diesel trucks that offset the benefits of successful heavy duty ZEV deployment.
Due to demand from fleets and state action, today there are already over 100 commercially
available models of zero-emissions medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses, with
additional models expected to enter production this year.5 Federal policy is vital to increase
zero-emission model availability and speed the transition towards clean transportation. More
expansive progress is achievable, given that two-thirds of the current truck fleet is already
ripe for electrification, based on their duty cycles and charging needs.e Additionally, states
are leading the way - six states have already adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule
and more states are expected to follow their lead this year. While the ACT states make up 17
percent of the national truck market, together they will cause only 8 percent of trucks sold to
be electric in 2027 and 13 percent in 2030. These percentages fall far short of the President's
goals and the urgency that the climate crisis and air pollution demand. However, if EPA were
to adopt requirements similar to the ACT, national market share for zero-emission trucks and
buses would exceed 30 percent in 2030.
Multiple studies support the consensus that zero-emission trucks produce substantial savings,
even more than electric cars; zero-emission trucks have short (and shrinking) payback periods
due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs and more predictable maintenance schedules.7 A
recent, in-depth total cost of ownership analysis by California Air Resources Board (CARB)
found that starting today, zero-emission trucks save money for their owners in many cases.s
By 2030, zero-emission trucks have superior cost savings compared to diesel in every
category analyzed, including Class 8 long-haul.9 In addition, a team of GridLab, Energy
Innovation, and UC Berkeley's Center for Environmental Public Policy found that
electrifying the nation's car and truck sales by 2035 would create a net of 2 million jobs.10
These benefits do not even account for the far greater health and climate savings, which with
targeted implementation would flow to disadvantaged communities who have borne the brunt
of truck pollution. New reports by MJ Bradley show the thousands of lives that would be
saved in each state if those states were to adopt California's Advanced Clean Truck Rule. 11
Thank you for your consideration. There is no time to wait; there is a critical need for the
EPA to take swift action moving towards a zero-emissions future to protect the health and
safety of environmental justice communities. We are confident that you agree on the urgency
of this issue.
1848
-------
EPA Response
This comment was submitted to EPA as official correspondence to the Administrator. We
appreciate the comments from Nanette Diaz Barragan et al., on the proposed rule. Regarding the
comments on the level of the standards and alignment with CARB, see our responses in section
3.1.2 of this document. As noted in sections 3.1.1 and 28 of this document, EPA is not taking
final action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD
GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more
stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider
this comment in the development of that future rulemaking. Regarding comments on credits for
zero-emission vehicles, see section 12 of this document. Regarding comments on communities
with Environmental Justice concerns, see section 22 and 23 of this document.
Organization: SherrodBrown et al., United States Senators EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2859
We write you today regarding the proposed rule on the "Control of Air Pollution From New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicles Standards" (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-QAR-
2019-0055). Achieving significant reductions in nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants for
new heavy duty engines and vehicles is imperative, and we encourage you to take an inclusive,
consensus-based approach as you finalize these regulations.
We support setting new, more stringent standards to reduce pollution from heavy-duty vehicles
and diesel engines, including emissions of smog- and soot-forming NOx from heavy-duty
gasoline and diesel engines. In developing new regulations it is critical that the federal
government do so in a manner that is durable and reflects a consensus view among stakeholders.
The proposed rule on the "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicles Standards" includes two options for reducing NOx tailpipe emissions.
Option 1 consists of a two-step process to achieve a 90% reduction, from 0.2 to 0.02, in NOx
emission reductions by Model Year (MY) 2031. Option 2 consists of a single-step 75%
reduction, from 0.2 to 0.05 by (MY) 2027. We have heard from a number of stakeholders,
including manufacturers and labor unions, concerned about the feasibility of option 1 and the
potential for unintended consequences.
A workable standard should support efforts to transition to zero-emission electric vehicles (EV) -
- which will ultimately result in the most significant improvement in air quality. The industry is
committed to developing zero-emissions vehicles and has been making considerable investment
in research and development. One of the likely unintended consequences of adopting option 1
would be a diversion of investment and resources from developing and scaling up zero-emission
EV technology to the development of new heavy-duty engines and vehicles that can comply with
option 1 and slowing the EV transition.
EPA has addressed emissions from heavy-duty vehicles since the mid-1980s, and has improved
emissions standards several times since, including actions in 2004, 2005, and 2008 to limit
emissions of NOx and particulate matter from heavy duty highway vehicles, marine vehicles,
locomotives, and aircraft. These improvements are the result of a process that has worked with
both advocates and industry. As you move forward with this this rulemaking process, we urge
1849
-------
you to take the same approach - working directly with major stakeholders in developing a final
rule that achieves significant NOx reductions and supports the transition to cleaner EV options.
Thank you for considering our request and concerns as you move forward with this important
initiative.
EPA Response
This comment was submitted to EPA as official correspondence to the Administrator, in addition
to being provided to the docket. Regarding comments on the standards, see our responses in
preamble section III, and section 3 of this document. As explained in preamble Sections III and
IV and sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria
pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization of ZEV technologies. As noted in
section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion of the HD
2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to
undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e.,
HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider this comment in the development of that future
rulemaking.
Organization: Tracey Gold: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-2871
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to address pollution from medium and heavy-
duty trucks. I'm writing to you today to ask that you please consider strengthening the final
standards. Trucks are major sources of other deadly air pollution. That's why the U.S. should
enact final standards that put the American truck and bus fleet on a clear roadway to 100% zero-
emission sales ASAP. Especially the public transportation system!! By taking bold steps, the
U.S. will be well positioned to protect our family's health, reduce fuel costs for truckers and
fleets, strengthen our energy security, and advance environmental justice.
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Tracey Gold in support of strengthening the final standards
and accelerating ZEV technologies adoption. See the Agency's response to general comments
with respect to the stringency of the criteria pollutant standards in Section 3.1.1 of this document.
As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final action at this time on the portion
of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends
to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more stringent HD GHG standards in the future
(i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider this comment in the development of that
future rulemaking. See also section 23 of this document for responses to Environmental Justice
concerns.
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2858
This memorandum is a follow-up to our discussions on June 16th, and a supplement to the
relevant portion of EMA's detailed written comments on the Agency's NPRM for the CTP. (See
EMA's Comments, pp. 162- 167.) As we discussed, EMA is requesting revisions to the
Agency's proposal to streamline and narrow the process for protecting manufacturers'
1850
-------
confidential business information (CBI). Perhaps the best way to do that will be for the Agency
to allow for manufacturers to collect and store certain types of "emission data," as opposed to
submitting those data routinely. EPA would retain the authority to separately request the
submission of those certain types of data when necessary to assist in compliance-related matters.
As discussed below, this kind of approach is necessitated by the need to preserve and account for
both the Agency's mandate to collect and make public "emissions data," and manufacturers'
statutory rights to the protection of their confidential "trade secrets."
The relevant statutory background to this issue is summarized briefly below.
Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require manufacturers to collect and submit to
the Agency testing data and reports to demonstrate that their products are in compliance with the
applicable emission standards and related requirements, and with the corollary test procedures. In
addition, and in particular, section 208(c) of the CAA provides that,
Any records, reports or information obtained [by the Agency] under this part or part C of
this subchapter shall be available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to
the Administrator by any person that records, reports, or information, or a particular
portion thereof {other than emission data), to which the Administrator has access under
this section, if made public, would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as
trade secrets of that person, the Administrator shall consider the record, report, or
information or particular portion thereof confidential in accordance with the purposes of
section 1905 of title 18. (42 U.S.C. §7542(c).) (Emphasis added.)
Under the foregoing provision of the CAA, "emission data" is carved-out from the types of data
for which CBI protection may be sought. In addition, 40 CFR §2.301(a)(2)(i) broadly defines
"emission data" to mean,
(A) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration
or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emission which
has been emitted by the source (or of any pollutant resulting from any emission by
the source), or any combination of the foregoing.
(B) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration
or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of the emissions which,
under an applicable standard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the manner
or rate or operation of the source), and
(C) A general description of the location and/or nature of the source to the extent
necessary to identify the source and to distinguish it from other sources
(including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the device
installation, or operation constituting the source).
The net result of the foregoing statutory provisions is that a broad range of "emission data" that
the Agency has "obtained" under CAA section 208(c) shall be made available to the public.
1851
-------
At the same time, federal law also provides broad protection for "trade secrets," including
potential criminal liability for the unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets. More specifically, title
18 section 1905, the statutory provision specifically referenced in CAA section 208(c), prohibits
the unauthorized disclosure of information that "concerns or relates to the trade secrets,
processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the confidential statistical data ... of any
person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association." In addition, the more recent enactment of
the federal Trade Secrets Act (see 18 U.S.C. §§1832, et seq.) expressly prohibits the
unauthorized communication or receipt of "trade secrets," which are broadly defined to include
"all forms and types of business, scientific, technical, economic or engineering information,
including patterns, plans, compilations, design, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes,
procedures, programs, or codes ... if the information derives independent economic value,
actual or potential, from not being generally known ... by another person who can obtain
economic value from the disclosure or use of the information."
From these various federal statutes, it seems clear that there are two important policy
considerations at issue: (i) ensuring the reasonable public availability of "emission data," and (ii)
ensuring the robust protection of "trade secrets." Of particular relevance in this instance is
ensuring that the public release of a manufacturer's emission data does not allow others,
including direct competitors, to reverse-engineer that manufacturer's emission-control strategies,
designs, methods, techniques, processes, programs or codes. Heretofore, the Agency has
understood this, and has treated such emissions data as CBI. Indeed, if that type of protection is
not afforded to this sort of emissions-related trade secret data, the independent economic value of
manufacturers' emission- control research, advancements and designs will be subject to forfeit to
any competitor that elects to file a FOIA request. The economic consequences throughout the
industry, and the disincentives to invest in the research and development of advanced emission-
control systems, would be both obvious and very significant.
Importantly, the basic rules of statutory construction prohibit the Agency from causing such
detrimental outcomes. More specifically, it is black letter law that overlapping statutes must be
construed to give effect to both. Thus, the Agency's directive to make "emission data" publicly
available cannot be implemented in a manner that nullifies manufacturers' statutory rights to the
protection of their "trade secrets."
One way to ensure that necessary reconciliation is for the Agency to limit in the first instance the
types of emission data it will routinely "obtain" from manufacturers, thereby limiting the types
of emission data subject to routine public disclosure. In that regard, the Agency has broad
discretion regarding the types of "emission data" it deems necessary for submission to verify
compliance.
With the foregoing in mind, and in order to guard against the risk of unlawful FOIA-enabled
reverse- engineering of manufacturers' trade secrets, EPA should confirm that the thirteen (13)
types of data described in the pending NPRM (along with any comments submitted in the
"comments field" of EPA's compliance reporting software) (see, 87 FR at p. 17619; proposed
sections 1068.11(c)(1) through (c)(13)) will remain eligible for CBI treatment and protection. In
addition, to enhance the protection for certain subsets of those data, EPA should refrain from
routinely obtaining the following types of trade-secret-related CBI:
1852
-------
(i) one Hertz (Hz) in-use emissions data, or any other similar second-by-second off-
cycle data, other than emission values and engine speed;
(ii) engine fuel maps, including any associated NOx data;
(iii)one Hz data from SEA reports or similar compliance-assessment reports, other
than emission values and engine speed;
(iv)data regarding the manner in which manufacturers electronically protect
passwords and/or encrypt data to restrict the adjustment of electronically
adjustable parameters and to prevent unauthorized reflashes (see section 1068.50)
and
(v) any other emissions data deemed capable of facilitating reverse-engineering of a
manufacturer's trade secrets.
It is vital that EPA protect the foregoing types of confidential emissions-related trade secret data
from public disclosure. The applicable federal statutes require as much. In that regard, the types
of 1 Hz data that could be subject to public disclosure under EPA's proposal are clearly CBI
because, using those data, manufacturers can reverse-engineer each other's emissions-related
designs and strategies, including warm-up controls, fuel-map configurations, and more—all of
which are carefully guarded trade secrets. Further, those types of 1Hz data are not otherwise
readily obtainable without resource-intensive configuration and testing of a competitor's product
in a test cell utilizing significant amounts of trained staff s time. The high bar necessary to gather
such data serves as protection for the independent economic value of those data and of the
manufacturer's related capital investments, such that giving away those data through routine
FOIA requests would destroy those capital investments and would violate the manufacturer's
rights to the protection of confidential trade secrets.
Similarly, manufacturers' engine fuel maps, including associated NOx data, are also CBI
because, from those maps and data, one manufacturer can reverse-engineer another's thermal
controls, fuel system and injection controls, and strategies for controlling engine emissions to
ensure they comply with the broad range of emissions tests (FTP, RMC, LLC, NTE) and GHG
limits that are required. As with the 1 Hz data at issue, these fuel maps and associated data are
not readily obtainable without resource-intensive analyses of a competitor's product in a test cell
using significant commitments of trained staffs time. The high bar necessary to gather such data
again serves as protection for the independent economic value of those data and the
manufacturer's investments therein, such that giving away those data through routine FOIA
requests would unlawfully vitiate those investments and the associated trade secrets.
Given the foregoing, it is clear that the stakes pertaining to this issue are very high. We look
forward to additional discussions regarding this critically important matter.
EPA Summary and Response
We appreciate the comments from EMA on the proposed rule. We have responded to this
comment, identified as #1203, in section 30.1 of this document.
1853
-------
Organization: Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2869
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) hereby submits its response to the
supplemental comments that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sent to EPA on June
20, 2022, regarding the NPRM for the Agency's Clean Trucks Plan. (See 87 FR 17414-17888.)
EMA filed its initial comments on the NPRM on May 30, 2022. EMA is filing these
supplemental comments to address certain incorrect assertions that CARB has made, and to
address "matters of central relevance to the rulemaking" before the Agency. 1 Because this
supplement involves such centrally relevant matters, please add it (and the attachments) to the
record for this rulemaking and all appropriate dockets. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2869]
1 See 42 U.S.C. §7607 (d)(4)(B)(i) (providing that documents that "are of central
relevance to the rulemaking shall be placed in the docket as soon as possible after their
availability"); see also 42 U.S.C. §7607 (d)(7)A).
The main points of EMA's supplemental comments are summarized below [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2869]:
• CARB asserts in its supplemental filing that a NOx compliance margin of 0.026
g/bhp-hr, similar to the compliance margin of 0.030 that EMA has recommended, "is
dangerously and unnecessarily high." That is untrue. Compliance margins are not
dangerous; they are an important consideration that account for the variety of real-
world conditions under which compliance is demanded, and the laws of physics as
they relate to the demonstrated technology. Moreover, a compliance margin of 0.026
(or 0.030) is not unnecessarily high. To the contrary, recent data from Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) proves that EMA's recommended margin was far too low.
More specifically, SwRI has completed emissions testing of the "Stage 3 RW"
prototype under cold ambient conditions (approximately 5°to 7°C) and has found that
the "Bin 3" NOx levels increase by approximately 0.04 g/bhp-hr under those
conditions over a representative in-use test cycle. That cold-ambient margin (0.04) is
much higher (nearly 20-times higher) than the margin component for "cold ambient
operation" (0.0023) that EMA used in the margin stackup analysis included in EMA's
original comments. Thus, factoring in the actual margin demand attributable to cold
ambient operation, EMA's margin stackup would increase to 0.064. Accordingly,
instead of reducing the compliance margin at issue, EPA will need to provide an in-
use compliance margin of approximately 0.065 g/bhp-hr (and likely even higher to
cover ambient temperatures lower than those tested at SwRI) to ensure that the
Agency's proposed NOx standards are feasible.
• Tests under similar cold ambient conditions over the Low Load Cycle resulted in even
higher NOx increases. The Stage 3 RW engine's NOx over this cycle increased from
0.032 g/bhp-hr to as much as 0.105 g/bhp-hr.
• A copy of the PowerPoint presentation that SwRI has prepared regarding the results of
its cold-ambient testing of the Stage 3 RW prototype is attached, and needs to be
included in the underlying rulemaking record. EMA's updated margin stackup
analysis reflecting these latest results is also attached.
1854
-------
• CARB contradicts their own assertion that data-based compliance margin allowances
are unnecessary by suggesting that manufacturers could "establish a margin by
deploying new emissions control technologies." CARB states that closed crankcase
ventilation ("CCV") systems could be used to enable compliance, without regard to
the fact that CCV is not commonly used on modern diesel engines (they refer to
Cummins use of CCV on natural gas engines, which is an altogether different and less
challenging application), without acknowledging that these systems are known to
cause turbo compressor damage that leads to C02 emissions increases, and without
having developed a shred of emissions data showing that engines using CCV systems
can withstand the rigors of heavy-duty engine service over the nearly-doubled useful
life periods included in the proposal. Moreover, EPA did not include the cost of CCV
components, nor the cost associated with their maintenance requirements, in the cost
assessment for the CTP rulemaking.
• CARB also asserts that any pre-buy and no-buy responses to a stringent and costly
low- NOx rule will be "small." That is not the case. As confirmed by a recent report
prepared by ACT Research, "Bigger Than Ever?: The Higher the Cost, The Bigger the
Prebuy," (a copy of which is attached for inclusion in the docket), a low-NOx rule that
aligns with EPA's Option 1 or CARB's "Omnibus" regulations would result in "the
largest truck prebuy ever, beginning sometime in 2025 or 2026."
• Another issue raised by CARB is that they disagree that current provisions related to
the determination of data engines should be retained. EPA's CTP standards will be
developed based on demonstrations using ratings typical of the current data engine
provisions. Furthermore, neither EPA nor CARB has evaluated the emissions
performance implications of revised data engine requirements. Setting up such a
disparity between a feasibility demonstration to establish new emissions standards,
and new rules regarding the engine rating selected to demonstrate compliance to those
standards, would be unreasonable and unfair.
• Also raised in CARB's supplemental comments is an objection to "EMA's assertion
that biodiesel specification regulations are needed as part of the CTP rulemaking."
CARB is simply ignoring the fact that the Stage 3 RW demonstration, aged to 800,000
miles under conditions representative of operation on quality-controlled pure
petroleum diesel, did not produce emissions results compliant with EPA's proposal
throughout the proposed useful life period. Fuel contaminants in biodiesel, including
biodiesel blends limited to B20, will further reduce the NOx conversion efficiency of
those same SCR systems. Biodiesel fuel quality standards absolutely must be
improved to enable compliance to the aggressive NOx standards EPA will establish in
the final rule.
• Yet another objection raised by CARB is EMA's recommendation that EPA eliminate
PM and NMHC testing when complying with an in-use test order. The basis for
EMA's recommendation is clearly stated in our comments. Any suspicion on CARB's
part concerning visual screening methods for PM exceedances on vehicles considered
1855
-------
for in- use testing would not be rectified by requiring measurement of PM emissions
during an in- use evaluation. EMA supports EPA's consideration to finalize the CTP
regulation to require PM and/or NMHC emissions testing requirements only in cases
where there is reason to believe exceedances may be present.
[Attachments omitted]
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from EMA on the proposed rule. Regarding comments on the
standards and in-use margin, see our response in preamble section III, and section 3 of this
document. Regarding EMA's updated margin analysis, as discussed in preamble III.C and
section 3 of this document, our assessment is that the final off-cycle standards that include
margin also include the emissions impacts due to cold ambient temperature. Regarding
comments on the definition of parent engine (data engines), see our responses to comments in
section 29.3 of this document. As discussed in preamble section III and section 3 to this
document, we have considered the emissions levels of other engine ratings within an engine
family when setting the final standards. Regarding comments on closed crankcase systems, see
our responses to comments in section 3.9 of this document. Regarding EPA's assessment of the
costs of closed crankcase systems, see RIA chapters 3.1 and 7. Regarding comments on pre-buy
and no-buy, see our responses to comments in section 25 of this document. Regarding comments
on fuel quality and its effect on feasibility, see preamble Section III.B and III.C for more
information on how we consider these elements in setting the standards. Regarding comments on
PM and NHMC measurements for the heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) program, see our
responses to comments in section 11 of this document.
Organization: Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments et al.: EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2879
On behalf of 21 health, environmental, and community groups, please find the attached on the
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Rule for Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17,414.
The undersigned organizations representing millions of members respectfully urge that, by May
of next year at the latest, EPA finalize rigorous and comprehensive standards for new medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles that help to ensure levels of new zero emitting vehicles in 2029 are at
least as great as those required by California's Advanced Clean Trucks Rule, if those standards
applied nationwide. These standards must also be consistent with and help ensure that all new
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2035. The Agency must, in setting
these standards, consider the game-changing clean vehicle provisions of the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA), which dramatically accelerate the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty zero
emission vehicles (ZEVs).
The IRA reinforces EPA's longstanding and well-established authority to adopt protective
pollution standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses. It also turbocharges the
availability of zero emitting solutions that eliminate lethal particulates, smog-forming nitrogen
1856
-------
oxides and climate-destabilizing pollution, accelerating vital protections for communities who
have been bearing the heavy burden of pollution for far too long, while mobilizing made-in-
America manufacturing - and high-quality jobs across our nation.
Experts have already completed analyses of the significant benefits the IRA will have in
accelerating ZEV deployment, including analysis by ERM concluding that the IRA will pull
ahead price parity for medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs by 5 to 12 years and result, on average, in
29 percent baseline levels of new vehicle ZEV sales in 2029, without considering the role of
EPA standards. 1 Additional analysis by Roush Advanced Engineering has likewise found the
IRA will result in many medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs reaching price parity in 2023, delivering
substantial savings to truckers and fleets over those vehicles' lifetime and further underscoring
the opportunity for protective standards.
1 Robo, Ellen and Seamonds, Dave. "EDF ZEV Baseline Technical Memo Addendum."
ERM. 19 Aug 2022.
https://www.erm.com/contentassets/154d08e0d0674752925cd82c66b3e2bl/edf-zev-
baseline-technical-memoaddendum.pdf.
Recent reporting has suggested EPA plans to issue a supplemental proposal this December to
consider the impacts of the IRA on EPA's proposed pollution standards for model years 2027-
2029 vehicles.2 We respectfully urge EPA to finalize the MY 2027-2029 standards by May of
next year at the latest. Swiftly finalizing these standards is consistent with the extensive
information already in the record on the need for and feasibility of medium- and heavy-duty
ZEV deployment3 and with the analysis that has likewise been developed documenting the
substantial impacts of the IRA. Moreover, finalization by May is important to ensure EPA
proposes and finalizes protective Phase 3 standards for MY 2030 and later vehicles on a timeline
consistent with the President's August 2021 Executive Order and EPA's commitments in its
regulatory agenda.
2 E.g., Shepardson, David, Exclusive U.S. EPA to consider tougher emissions rules for
heavy trucks, (Sept. 21, 2022); https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-
business/exclusive-us-epa-consider-tougher-emissions-rulesheavy-trucks-2022-09-21/.
3 See, e.g., Comments of Environmental Defense Fund, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265,
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265.
In addition, EPA's supplemental proposal must help to ensure nationwide levels of ZEV
deployment that are at least as great as those required by California's Advanced Clean Trucks
Rule (adopted as feasible even before enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
and the IRA). The IRA analyses add to a significant and compelling body of information on the
feasibility and benefits of ZEVs, including substantial investments and rapid introduction of new
models by manufacturers in advance of the IRA's passage. Standards consistent with
California's Clean Trucks Rule are critical to ensure America's communities and people realize
the full health, climate, equity and economic benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act. The robust
IRA programs enacted by Congress demonstrate the urgent need to dramatically reduce truck
1857
-------
pollution now, and only strong standards will ensure that the IRA programs are fully subscribed
and utilized.
There is a pivotal opportunity for EPA to finalize protective standards consistent with the game-
changing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Now is the time for action, and we look
forward to EPA's response to these requests.
EPA Response
We appreciate the comments from Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments et al. in support
of accelerating ZEV technologies adoption. As explained in preamble Sections III and IV and
sections 3 and 12 of this document, we are not finalizing the proposed allowance for
manufacturers to generate NOx emissions credits from heavy-duty ZEVs and the final criteria
pollutant standards are not based on projected utilization of ZEV technologies, although
manufacturers may choose to comply with the standards through using ZEV technologies, or
other technology pathways than included in our demonstration program. In section 3.1.1 of this
document we respond to comments requesting that the final criteria pollutant standards be based
on the projected utilization of ZEV technologies, which in part discusses the timing of the IRA
relative to this final rulemaking. As noted in section 28 of this document, EPA is not taking final
action at this time on the portion of the HD 2027 NPRM regarding proposed changes to HD
GHG Phase 2 standards. EPA intends to undertake a separate rulemaking regarding more
stringent HD GHG standards in the future (i.e., HD GHG Phase 3 standards) and may consider
this comment in the development of that future rulemaking.
1858
-------
Appendix l: Index of Commenters in Text
This appendix contains the following information:
• List of individual comments excerpted verbatim in this Response to Comment Document
• List of mass mailer comments (those received before the docket closed on May 16, 2022)
• List of late comments (received after docket closed thru October 4, 2022)
• Description of industry-related letter campaigns; a description of our approach to these
campaigns is provided at the end of this appendix.
o State Trucker Association (1)
o State Trucker Association (2)
o Engine and Truck Organizations
o Motorcoach Companies.
List of Individual Comments
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
350Marin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2474
Achates Power, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1216
Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1281
Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1251
Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1241 and 1421)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1421
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1166
Alabama Trucking Association (ATA) - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1132
AliP.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1031
Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1303
Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1280
Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1231
Amber Wheeldon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1154
American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1293
American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1070
American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1308
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2852
American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1163
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1262
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1348
American Lung Association et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1240
American Lung Association et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1271
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1171
American Reliance Industries Co. (ARI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1182
American Soybean Association (ASA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1309
1859
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
American Truck Dealers (ATD)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1321
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1326
AMPLY Power et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1236
Amy Lane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1217
Anne Mellinger-Birdsong
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1244
Anonymous Public Comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1032
Anonymous Public Comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1035
Anonymous Public Comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1038
Anonymous Public Comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1091
Anonymous Public Comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1412
Arizona Public Health Association
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2114
Arizona Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1156
Arizona Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1157
Autocar, LLC (Autocar)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1292
B & H Tractor & Truck
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1751
BarB Que Specialties, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2260
BBU Environmental Services
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1020
BBU Environmental Services
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1587
BorgWarner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1234
Brian Lopez
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1040
Brooke S.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1033
BYD Motors, LLC (BYD)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1207
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1253
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1186
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1301
California Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1092
CALSTART
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1313
Cameron Prescott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1058
Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and Central Texas Clean
Air Coalition (CAV)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1274
Carreras Tours, LLC (2032)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2032
Carreras Tours, LLC (2033)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2033
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1165
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1258
Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy)
Network
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2714
Champion Auto Carriers
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2733
ChargePoint, Inc. (ChargePoint)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1294
Charter Township of Redford
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1099
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. (CBF)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1295
Christopher Lish
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1147
1860
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
City Council District 8, Pittsburgh, PA, Erika Strassburger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2233
City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability & Environment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1287
Clay Miller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1539
Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1305
Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1302
Clean Energy (CE)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1350
Clean Energy Ventures et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2339
Clean Fuels Alliance America (Clean Fuels)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1248
Clean Harbors Environmental Services
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1063
CleanAirNow (CANKC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1239
CleanEarth4Kids
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1208
ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1261
ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1329
Climate 911
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1578
Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1307
Coalition for Clean Air
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1139
Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas (RNG Coalition)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1204
Coingecko Company Sa
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1847
Colorado Energy Office, et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1297
Columbia River Plumbing
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1014
Compass Coach Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2120
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
(CTDEEP)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1306
Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1260
Consumer Reports (CR)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1285
Creation Justice Ministries
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2482
CSM Trucking
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2131
Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1325
Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1045
Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1168
Dave Arndt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-994
Dave Luedtke
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1541
David Pedersen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1059
David Wong
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1097
Deere & Company
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2743
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1200
Delta Car Care LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2256
Department of Navy, Department of Defense (DoD)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1222
Diehl and Sons, Inc - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1235
1861
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Diesel Technology Forum
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1004
Dipert Travel & Transportation, Ltd. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1170
District of Columbia Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1299
Eaton Vehicle Group (Eaton)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1252
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1282
Edwin J. Ward
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1050
Elders Climate Action
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1218
Energy Innovation, LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1310
Environmental Community Advocates of Galena Park
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2825
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (1265 and 2855)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1265
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (1265 and 2855)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2855
Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1233
Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-993
Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1134
Evergreen Action
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1289
Evolving Electric Motor Company
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2488
Ezra Rumbold Trucking
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1013
Faessler Farms LTD
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2247
Farmington Road Wrecker Services
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2264
FitzGerald Brothers Bus Co.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1149
Florida Council of Churches
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1006
Florida Rock & Tank Lines, Inc. - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1161
Florida Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1085
Flower Shoppe & Gifts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2267
Ford Motor Company (Ford)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1300
Foxy Travel, Inc. dba FTI Coach
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2060
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1187
Gardener Manjikian Consulting LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2599
Gary Frederick
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1393
General Motors LLC (GM)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1246
George Agortsas
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1023
Georgia Motor Trucking Association (GMTA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1341
Georgia Motor Trucking Association (GMTA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1342
Great Rivers Environmental Law Center and Dutchtown South Community
Corporation (DSCC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1323
Greg Pagliuzza
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1215
Hawaii Transportation Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1075
Holiday Companies, Inc. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1135
Holiday Companies, Inc. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1199
Holiday Tours, Inc. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1150
1862
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Hyliion, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1238
Idaho Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1087
Idaho Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1101
Illinois Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1133
Indiana Motor Truck Association (IMTA) - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1095
Ingevity Corporation (Ingevity)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1213
Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law (Policy
Integrity)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1256
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1211
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America - UAW Region 1A
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1062
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1138
Iowa Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1089
J&M Tank Lines, Inc. - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1181
Jack Schneeman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1053
Jared Kurland
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1388
Jessica Stevens
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1028
K&M Outdoor, LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1008
Kali Bach
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1390
Kennesaw Transportation Inc. - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1185
Kenny Sites
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1495
King County, Washington County Executive
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1188
Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1257
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1034
Lawson Construction Group
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1007
Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1151
Lischkge Motors, Inc. - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1419
Loren Marz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1394
Louisiana Monuments and Signs
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1015
Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1304
Lydia Heye
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1397
Machinery Northwest Co.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1713
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1288
Maine Motor Transport Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1060
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1320
Marathon Cheese Transport
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2516
Mar-Jac Transportation, LLC - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1174
Maryland Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1086
Maryland Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1044
Mayer Automotive LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1018
1863
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Mayor, City of Albuquerque, NM et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1316
Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-996
Michigan Association of Timbermen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1169
Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131
Midwest Bus & Motorcoach Association (MBMCA) - Motorcoach
Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1158
Midwest Ozone Group (MOG)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1272
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1041
Minnesota Trucking Association (MTA) - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1167
Mississippi Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1128
Missouri Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1107
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1322
Motor Transport Association of Connecticut (MTAC) - State Trucker
Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1088
Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1212
Moving Forward Network (MFN)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1277
National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1279
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1232
National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1343
National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1130
National Center for Health Research (NCHR)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1227
National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1290
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1314
National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) and Propane Education &
Research Council (PERC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1263
National Religious Partnership for the Environment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1221
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1382
National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2625
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1242
Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1330
Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318
NC Chamber
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1434
Neste US, Inc
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1225
Nevada Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1155
New Flyer of America Inc. (New Flyer) and Motor Coach Industries, Ltd.
(MCI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1064
New Jersey Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1104
New Jersey Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1112
New Jersey Warehouse & Movers Association - State Trucker Associations
(1)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1110
New Jersey Warehouse & Movers Association - State Trucker Associations
(2)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1111
New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1268
1864
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Next Level Farmer, LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2785
North Carolina Assembly House of Representatives, John Faircloth
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2446
North Carolina Federation of Republican Women
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2450
North Carolina General Assembly, Philip E. Berger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1105
North Carolina House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, Tim
Moore
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1146
North Carolina State House of Representatives, Larry W. Potts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1061
North Carolina Trucking Association
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2888
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1254
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1249
Northview Service Center
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1016
NTEA - The Association for the Work Truck Industry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1164
NTH Equipment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1144
Nuss Truck & Equipment - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1177
NW Navigator
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2789
NW Navigator Luxury Coaches
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1098
Odyne Systems, LLC (Odyne)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1264
Oklahoma Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1093
Old River Companies, Inc. - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1420
Oshkosh Corporation
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1226
Our Children's Trust
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1317
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1205
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)75
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1266
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1250
PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1346
Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1319
Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1202
Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association (PMTA) - State Trucker
Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1094
Peoria Charter Coach Company - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1241
Performance Truck
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1009
Pinnacle Converting Equipment & Services, LLC
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1011
Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1312
Proterra
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1344
Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1417
Randolph M. Lyon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1100
Red Fox Resources
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1209
Repair Association/Repair.org
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1036
75 OOIDA provided individual comments from some of their members; these are included in the Response to
Commend Document under the name of the commenter but with the OOIDA docket document number reference.
1865
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1189
Rhode Island Trucking Association, Inc. - State Trucker Associations (2)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2051
Richard Leeds
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1333
Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229
Rocknaks Hardware Plus
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1019
Roush CleanTech (Roush)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1276
Royal Plastics, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1017
RV Industry Association (RVIA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1270
S&P Global Mobility
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1273
Saahil Pasha
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1206
Sage Lincoln
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1073
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1291
Scruggs Company
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2800
SEAM Group
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2574
Sexton Farms LLC - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1178
Sierra Club, NJ Chapter
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2558
Six Point Transport Incorporated
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2591
Sophia Dowd
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1043
South Carolina Trucking Association, Inc. - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2854
South Coast Air Quality Management District
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1201
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1247
State Soybean Associations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2035
States of California, et al. (The States)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1255
Stephen Jackson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1481
Straights Lawn & Garden
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1723
Sustainable Solar Systems
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2737
Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1102
Tenneco
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1284
Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1219
Todd Snyder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1391
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1224
Transteck, Inc. - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1179
Tri-County Truck Center - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2847
Truck & Equipment Corp. - Engine and Truck Organizations
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2853
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1203
Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180
Truck Trailers Manufacturers Association (TTMA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1024
Trucking Association of New York (TANY) - State Trucker Associations
(1)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1183
Trucking Association of New York (TANY) - State Trucker Associations
(2)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1184
1866
-------
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Truckload Carriers Association (TCA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1160
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1245
United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1042
United Motorcoach Association (UMA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1311
University of California, Berkeley, The Goldman School, Center for
Environmental Policy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1327
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1259
Valeria Trujillo
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1223
Valero Energy Corporation
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1328
Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2811
Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1267
Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1269
Vandalia Bus Lines, Inc. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1109
Various Academic Researchers
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1220
Victoria D'Amico
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1214
Virginia Motorcoach Association (VMA) - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2715
Virginia Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (1)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1106
Virginia Trucking Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1071
Voigt Motorcoach Travel, Inc. - Motorcoach Companies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1198
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (Volkswagen) (VWGoA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1296
Volvo Group
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1324
Walmart
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1191
Wayne Aarum
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1405
WE ACT for Environmental Justice
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1347
Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1230
Western Transport Logistics Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2236
Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1278
White Pine Construction Corporation
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1012
William F. Limpert
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1190
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1162
Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1048
World Resources Institute (WRI)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1298
Worldwide Equipment Enterprises, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1275
Wyoming Trucking Association, Inc. - State Trucker Associations (2)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1039
Yellowstone Integrated Architecture and Construction
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2816
Zero Emission Transportation Association (ZETA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1283
1867
-------
List of Mass Mailer Comments
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Lung Association (248)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (15,000)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1612
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (28)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1617
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (7,549)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1615
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (82)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1193
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Consumer Reports (CR) (17,499)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1613
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environment America (11,390)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1611
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Evangelical Environmental
Network (EEN) (67,755)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1610
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and
Arizona Climate Action Coalition (198)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1192
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Religious Partnership for
the Environment (4,677)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1122
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Natural Resources Defense Council
(28,240)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1614
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Neighbors for Clean Air and Elders
Climate Action (43)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1619
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by PennEnvironment (50)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1616
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Public Citizen (168)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1597
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Sierra Club (11,740)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1620
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The Climate Reality Project
(10,820)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1083
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The Outreach Team (95)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1618
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists -1
(13,985)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1194
Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 2
(959)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1608
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 1 (2,443)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1594
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 2 (984)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1596
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 3 (605)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1606
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown - 4 (20)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1607
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (1,027)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1598
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (1,087)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1602
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (1,357)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1603
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (165)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1599
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (2,804)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1605
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (396)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1601
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (4,668)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1604
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (5,967)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1593
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (52,051)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1600
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (40)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1595
1868
-------
List of Late Comments
Organization
EPA Docket Document Number
LATE COMMENT California Air Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2857
LATE COMMENT Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2858
LATE COMMENT Sherrod Brown, et al., United States Senate
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2958
LATE COMMENT ChargeEVC-NJ
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1418
LATE COMMENT Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2869
LATE COMMENT Martin L Dutcher
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2870
LATE COMMENT Tracey Gold
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2871
LATE COMMENT Catherine Horine
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2872
LATE COMMENT Laura Urbasczewski
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2873
LATE COMMENT Jan Hughes
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2874
LATE COMMENT Jennifery Ryan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2875
LATE COMMENT Mass Comment Campaign Sponsor Unknown (96)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2876
LATE COMMENT Mass Comment Campaign Sponsor Unknown (157)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2877
LATE COMMENT Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy
Center, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2878
LATE COMMENT Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environment et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2879
LATE COMMENT Clean Air for the Long Haul
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2889
LATE COMMENT Nanette Diaz Barragan, et al., Members of Congress
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2886
1869
-------
Description of Industry-Related Letter Campaigns
When reviewing the written comments posted to the docket for this proposal, we identified four
industry-related letter campaigns that were not treated like mass comment campaigns by the EPA
Docket Center:
• State Trucker Association 1
• State Trucker Association 2
• Engine and Truck Organizations
• Motorcoach Companies
To avoid repeating the same text up to 24 times in the same Response to Comment Section, we
include it only once, with the Docket Number for the reference comment. In those cases where
an individual comment provided additional information, the additional information is also
included in relevant section with the docket ID number for that comment. Note that many
companies submitted both the State Trucker Assn. 1 and State Trucker Assn. 2 comments. Some
submitted separate documents to the docket; others provided both comments under one
document. As a result, the same Docket ID number may occur in both lists. The letter
campaigns are set out in the following table.
Comment
Campaign
Docket
ID
Company
Addt'l
Info
Provided
State Trucker
Assn 1 (24
1075
Hawaii Transportation Assn.; REFERENCE
COMMENT
comments)
1085
Florida Trucking Assn.
1086
Maryland Motor Truck Assn.
1087
Idaho Trucking Assn.
1088
Motor Transport Assn of Connecticut
Yes
1093
Oklahoma Trucking Assn.
1094
Pennsylvania Motor Truck Assn.
1095
Indiana Motor Truck Assn.
Yes
1104
New Jersey Motor Truck Assn.
1106
Virginia Trucking Assn.
1107
Missouri Trucking Assn.
1110
New Jersey Warehouse & Movers Assn.
1128
Mississippi Trucking Assn.
1132
Alabama Trucking Assn.
1156
Arizona Trucking Assn.
1161
Florida Rock & Tank Lines Inc.
1167
Minnesota Trucking Assn.
1174
Mar-Jac Transportation LLC
1178
Sexton
1181
J&M Tank Lines
Yes
1870
-------
Comment
Docket
Company
Addt'l
Campaign
ID
Info
Provided
1183
Trucking Assn of New York
1185
Kennesaw Transportation Inc.
Yes
1342
Georgia Motor Trucking
1092
California Trucking Assn.
State Trucker
Assn 2 (24
1039
Wyoming Trucking Assn.; REFERENCE
COMMENT
comments)
1044
Maryland Motor Truck Assn.
1048
Wisconsin Motor Carriers Assn.
1060
Maine Motor Transport Association
1071
Virginia Trucking Assn.
1085
Florida Trucking Assn.
1089
Iowa Motor Truck Assn.
Yes
1092
California Trucking Assn.
Yes
1101
Idaho Trucking Assn.
1107
Missouri Trucking Assn.
1111
New Jersey Warehouse & Movers Assn.
1112
New Jersey Motor Truck Assn.
2888
North Carolina Trucking Association
1128
Mississippi Trucking Assn.
1132
Alabama Trucking Assn.
1133
Illinois Trucking Assn.
1155
Nevada Trucking Assn.
1157
Arizona Trucking Assn.
1174
Mar-Jac Transportation LLC
1178
Sexton
1184
Trucking Assn of New York
1202
Pennsylvania Motor Truck Assn.
Yes
2854
South Carolina Trucking Assn.
1341
Georgia Motor Trucking
2051
Rhode Island Trucking Assn.
Engine and
1177
Nuss Truck & Equipment; REFERENCE COMMENT
Truck
Organizations (8
1179
Transtek, Inc. (2 letters, Larry Hufford and Kenton
Good)
Yes
comments)
1235
Diehl & Sons, Inc.
Yes
1419
Lischkge Motors, Inc.
1420
Old River Companies, Inc.
2847
Tri-County Truck Center
2853
Truck & Equipment Corp.
1135
Holiday Companies, Inc.
1871
-------
Comment
Docket
Company
Addt'l
Campaign
ID
Info
Provided
Letter
1149
FitzGerald Brothers Bus Co.; REFERENCE
Campaign:
COMMENT
Motorcoach
1150
Holiday Tours, Inc
Companies (12
1170
Dan Dipert Coaches
comments)
1198
Voigt Motorcoach Travel, Inc.
Yes
1199
Holiday Companies, Inc.
Yes
1241
Peoria Charter Coach Company
Yes
1267
Vandalia
Yes
1269
Vandalia
2715
Virginia Motorcoach Assn.
Yes
1872
-------
Appendix 2: Other Comments Received, Not Reproduced
Verbatim in Text
This appendix contains a list of comments that are general in nature and do not require detailed
EPA response, and/or contain opinions or statements about issues without detailed information
or reasonable specificity.
Summary of Comments
We characterize the nature of these comments by classifying the statements along seven
dimensions based on whether one or more of the topics were mentioned (one statement may
reflect several dimensions):
• Generally support
• Program not stringent enough
• Program too stringent
• Human Health and Welfare (including air quality, benefits)
• Environmental Justice
• Costs
• Owner/operator concerns
About 21% of these commenters were supportive of the proposed program; 59% said they would
like EPA to adopt more stringent standards. Only 20% of these commenters expressed
opposition to the proposal.
Of the commenters that were supportive, about 27% mentioned an aspect of the health and
environmental impacts of emissions, and about 12% mentioned an aspect of environmental
justice.
Of the commenters that requested EPA do more to control emissions from these sources, about
27%) mentioned an aspect of the health and environmental impacts of emissions, and about 32%
mentioned an aspect of environmental justice.
Of the commenters that said program is too stringent, 49% mentioned an aspect of
owner/operator concerns and 42% mentioned an aspect of costs. In addition, of the commenters
that cited owner/operator concerns, 57% mentioned an aspect of costs.
Finally, about 100 comments did not comment on any of the 7 topics. The statements made in
these comments are outside the scope of this final rule; for example, they request EPA to
regulate other sources than what is covered within the scope of this rulemaking (e.g.,
locomotives, stationary sources) or they provided opinions on the workings of EPA or the federal
government generally on topics also outside the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA Response
See responses in Section 1 of this document.
List of Comments Not Reproduced Verbatim in the Response to Comments Document
1873
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1
Aaron Hopkins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1651
2
Abanob Mekhail
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2571
3
Abbey Conley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2722
4
Adam Burnett
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2475
5
Adam Carter
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1484
6
Adina Parsley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1125
7
Adrea Marilllero-Colomina
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1436
8
Adrina Keller
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2216
9
Agnes Puzak
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1881
10
Ainslie Noble
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1074
11
A1 Neils
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2061
12
Alan Carriere
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2240
13
Alayna Nowak
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1119
14
Albert Cheu
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1872
15
Alex Razkowic
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1822
16
Alexa Ross
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1630
17
Alexa Ross
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2462
18
Alexa Ross
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2463
19
Alexandra Star Weckerly
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2360
20
Alexanne Stone
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2248
21
Alexis Toone
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2608
22
Alice Madden
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2219
23
Alice Nguyen
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2074
24
Alice Nguyen
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2330
25
Allan Cain
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1554
26
Allan Williams
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2022
27
Allen Braumiller
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1446
28
Alston Anthis
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2723
29
Amanda Blackburn
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1820
30
Amanda Nichols
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2724
31
Amy Hartsough
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1711
32
Amy Henry
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1797
33
Amy Lewark
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1701
34
Amyana Trigg
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2300
35
Andrea Thompson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2441
36
Andrew Bird
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2690
37
Andrew Mclver
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1485
38
Andrew Millard
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2689
39
Andrew Smith
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2726
40
Andrew Walter
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2170
1874
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
41
Andrew Werthmann
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2725
42
Angela Githens
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2615
43
Angeline Fountadakis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1366
44
Angus Alberson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1452
45
Anisha Richardson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1957
46
Anita Dygert-Gearheart
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1708
47
Ann Berry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2111
48
Ann Eachus
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1656
49
Ann Littlewood
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1747
50
Anna Lars son
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2321
51
Anne Crowell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2688
52
Anne Whitefield
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2687
53
Anonymous / Robert M Hughes
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1588
54
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-0987
55
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1054
56
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1055
57
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1056
58
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1057
59
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1127
60
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1159
61
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1210
62
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1386
63
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1399
64
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1401
65
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1409
66
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1415
67
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1438
68
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1442
69
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1443
70
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1445
71
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1448
72
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1453
73
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1456
74
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1476
75
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1477
76
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1483
77
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1486
78
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1488
79
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1500
80
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1503
1875
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
81
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1506
82
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1514
83
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1517
84
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1518
85
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1524
86
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1526
87
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1531
88
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1542
89
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1555
90
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1557
91
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1558
92
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1563
93
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1564
94
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1566
95
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1572
96
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1592
97
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1624
98
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1625
99
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1633
100
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1634
101
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-163 5
102
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-163 8
103
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1640
104
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1643
105
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1646
106
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1647
107
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1648
108
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1649
109
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1650
110
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1657
111
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1662
112
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1680
113
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1686
114
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1705
115
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1714
116
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1717
117
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1724
118
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1728
119
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1729
120
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1736
1876
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
121
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1745
122
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1763
123
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1765
124
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1766
125
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1767
126
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1768
111
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1769
128
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1770
129
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1775
130
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1776
131
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1777
132
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1779
133
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1783
134
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1788
135
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1812
136
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1814
137
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1830
138
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1836
139
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1846
140
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1857
141
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1859
142
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1873
143
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1879
144
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1882
145
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1885
146
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1897
147
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1907
148
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1914
149
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1918
150
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1926
151
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1933
152
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1936
153
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-193 8
154
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1940
155
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1943
156
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1944
157
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1948
158
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1955
159
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1962
160
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1975
1877
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
161
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1983
162
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1986
163
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1995
164
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2001
165
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2017
166
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2020
167
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2021
168
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2026
169
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2046
170
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2055
171
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2064
111
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2081
173
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2082
174
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2107
175
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2159
176
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2161
111
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2169
178
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2173
179
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2181
180
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2182
181
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2186
182
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2187
183
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2191
184
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2223
185
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-225 8
186
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2259
187
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2266
188
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2270
189
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2272
190
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2274
191
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2285
192
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2286
193
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2312
194
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2335
195
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2336
196
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2337
197
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2338
198
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2347
199
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 50
200
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-23 54
1878
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
201
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2365
202
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2368
203
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2378
204
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 81
205
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 88
206
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2397
207
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2400
208
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2401
209
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2402
210
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2404
211
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2414
212
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2423
213
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -243 6
214
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-243 8
215
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -243 9
216
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2443
217
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2449
218
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2467
219
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2468
220
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2469
221
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2470
222
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2471
223
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2472
224
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2584
225
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2616
226
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2637
227
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2692
228
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2696
229
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2698
230
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2700
231
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2704
232
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2706
233
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2707
234
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2716
235
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2717
236
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2718
237
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2719
238
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2720
239
Anonymous public comment
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2721
240
Anthony Cardott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1669
1879
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
241
Anthony Cardott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1719
242
Anthony Serafini
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2576
243
Anthony Shead
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2149
244
Anthony Trapani
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2686
245
April Woods
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2320
246
Archie Abaire
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1966
247
Ariel Marquet
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2561
248
Ashley Orlet
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2206
249
Aubrey Sawyer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2727
250
Audrey Lima
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1702
251
Austin Wang
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2817
252
Ayann Kadir
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2818
253
Azusena Guerra
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2224
254
B Pepowski
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1695
255
Balmore A. Ramos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1103
256
Barbara Fukumoto
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1661
257
Barbara Mcnagny
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2442
258
Barry Fass-Holmes
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2370
259
Barry Peterson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2044
260
Bas Assaf
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2570
261
Becca Akiona
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2819
262
Ben Melle
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1140
263
Ben Porter
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2476
264
Ben Van Mar en
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2189
265
Benjamin Scott
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2728
266
Bennie Gamble
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2729
267
Beppie Shapiro
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2069
268
Bestway Disposal
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1458
269
Beth Grahn
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1375
270
Beth Russell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2136
271
Betty Beaudoin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2418
272
Beverly Richards-Smith
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1937
273
Beverly Roland
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2685
274
Bill Blaquiere
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1468
275
Blanche Scharf
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2000
276
Bob Gruntmeir
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1905
277
Bob Johnson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1835
278
Bob Seymour
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1466
279
Bobbie Flowers
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 53
280
Bobbie Flowers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1868
1880
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
281
Bonita Dilllard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2702
282
Bonnie Collins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2054
283
Bonnie Collins
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2405
284
Bonnie Sundance
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2477
285
Brad Coburn
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1537
286
Brad Miller
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2684
287
Brad Snyder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2683
288
Brenda Frey
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5 -23 72
289
Brenda Montgomery
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1917
290
Brent Hodson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2257
291
Brett Moore
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2287
292
Brian Carey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1832
293
Brian Edler
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2277
294
Brooke Pierce
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1921
295
Bruce Plenk
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2703
296
Bryan Bomberg
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2682
297
Buck Schall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2369
298
Burt Feuerstein
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2143
299
Burton Callicott
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2096
300
C. G.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0997
301
Caephren McKenna
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1941
302
Caephren McKenna
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2319
303
Caere Dunn
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2710
304
Cale Ledford
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2730
305
Calvin Beard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1465
306
Camille Hall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1758
307
Candace LaPorte
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2631
308
Carl Everitt
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1906
309
Carl Hollis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2177
310
Carl Mai strom
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2478
311
Carl Ross
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1958
312
Carl Wyant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0989
313
Carl Yarbro
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1946
314
Carla Epstein-Teliha
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1952
315
Carly Tanner
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2077
316
Carol Hautau
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1654
317
Carol Kiparsky
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2395
318
Carol Lubkowski
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-23 84
319
Carol Mead
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2295
320
Carol Nelson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1801
1881
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
321
Carol Thompson Nelson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2731
322
Caroline Cotugno
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2732
323
Caroline Francescutti
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2348
324
Caroline Nyzgu
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2211
325
Carolyn Ferdinand
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1942
326
Carolyn Riggs
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1930
327
Carrol Palmer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1498
328
Cassandra Carmichael
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-243 5
329
Catherine Carter
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2681
330
Catherine Kappel
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2680
331
Catherine Nelson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-263 8
332
Catherine Siegl
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2460
333
Cathy Penman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2009
334
Cathy Wootan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2820
335
Chad Anderson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1927
336
Charles Baldwin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2263
337
Charles Gilbert
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2323
338
Charles Kaiser
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1547
339
Charles Oliver
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1954
340
Charles Powell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1715
341
Charles W Graham
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1449
342
Chase Jubak
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2269
343
Chelsea Faith
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2582
344
Chelsea Hutton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2630
345
Cheryl Marcum
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2425
346
Chhaya Youc
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2583
347
Chloe McCabe
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2542
348
Chris Adam son
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-13 84
349
Chris Berg
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-23 83
350
Chris Conant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-223 5
351
Chris Matney
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1848
352
Chris Thomas
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2250
353
Christina Albers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1371
354
Christine Adams
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1816
355
Christine Lewis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2734
356
Christine Torres
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2821
357
Christopher Biltoft
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1799
358
Christopher Hannon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2679
359
Christopher Nelson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2479
360
Christopher Spruill
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2480
1882
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
361
Christy Folk
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2213
362
Cindy Carson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2262
363
Cindy Heiser
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2204
364
Clark Pulliam
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2246
365
Clark Rice
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-213 5
366
Claudia Lehan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1574
367
Claudia Schulte
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1782
368
Clayton Lehman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2481
369
Cliff Gauthier
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1709
370
Cloyd Martin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2123
371
Clyde Tomihara
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1084
372
Collette Castro
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1929
373
Constance Minerovic
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2678
374
Corbin Sylvester
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2590
375
Corey Husted
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2098
376
Cortney Harris
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1129
377
Cortrell Adams
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-273 5
378
Courtney Coon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2036
379
Curtis Murphy
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5 -23 94
380
Cynthia Hudley
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2047
381
Cynthia Rasemas
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1968
382
Cynthia VanDevender
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2315
383
D. Holl
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2677
384
D. O'Keeffe
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1971
385
D.Shaw
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2736
386
Daddy's Gun Shop
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1492
387
Dale Rose
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1858
388
Dallas Kendall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1841
389
Damonte David
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2822
390
Dan Lewis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1925
391
Dan Lewis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2095
392
Dan Moylan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1689
393
Dana Welch
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1462
394
Dani Adams
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2586
395
Daniel Hawley
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1428
396
Daniel Martinez
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1850
397
Daniel McCarter
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2062
398
Daniel Rempe
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2198
399
Daniela Salvador
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2573
400
Danny Schnautz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2148
1883
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
401
Danny Schnautz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2557
402
Danny Sego
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0988
403
Dara Marks Marino
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2218
404
Darin Lauffer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1501
405
Daryl Bensinger
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1473
406
Daryl Rush
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1591
407
Dave Boehringer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5 -13 92
408
Dave Heine
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1496
409
Dave ONeal
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-273 8
410
Dave Watson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1570
411
David Campbell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2084
412
David Cichon
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1504
413
David Coffman
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1842
414
David Ford
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1395
415
David Fott
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2824
416
David Friedman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2601
417
David Geer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2739
418
David Gould
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2676
419
David Griffith
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1123
420
David Hudson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2073
421
David Kaskowitz
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1571
422
David Kaskowitz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2675
423
David Katzen
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2674
424
David LeGrand
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2205
425
David Riley
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2129
426
David Sealander
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2823
427
David Sobelson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2672
428
David Teschner
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1987
429
David Valle
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1369
430
David Valle
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2671
431
David Vervynckt
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1459
432
David Watters
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2740
433
David Wheeldon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1920
434
David Williams
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1435
435
Dawn Nord
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2252
436
Dean Blumetti
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2296
437
Dean Borgeson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2741
438
Dean Moore
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2670
439
Deana Davis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1658
440
DeAndre SanAgustin
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2632
1884
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
441
Deanna Blankenship
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1805
442
Deborah Read
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1694
443
Deborah Read
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1969
444
Deborah Shook
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1684
445
Deborah Shook
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1698
446
Deborah Temple
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1909
447
Debra Hendrickson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2742
448
Denise Brush
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1003
449
Dennis Fox
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2089
450
Dennis Streif
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1843
451
Dennis Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2744
452
Denzil Cooper
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1508
453
Derek Benedict
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2454
454
Derek Lindberg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2483
455
Dev Gandhi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2745
456
Dev Patel
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2746
457
Devon Reese
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2217
458
Diana Bain
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2391
459
Diana Bohn
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2281
460
Diana Reing
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2747
461
Diane Brown
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1959
462
Diane Giangrossi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2025
463
Diane Selvaggio
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1370
464
Dianna Cole
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1988
465
Dianne Polasik
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1726
466
Dick Johnson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2212
467
Dominick DiCicco
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2669
468
Don Brashears
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2172
469
Donald Harbison
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1863
470
Donald Schwartz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2326
471
Donald Schwartz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2622
472
Donna Brian
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2668
473
Donna McCauley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1577
474
Donna Phillips
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1973
475
Donna Russell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1963
476
Donna Sharp
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2229
477
Donna Shaunesey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2748
478
Doris Ashbrook
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2332
479
Doris Luther
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1795
480
Doris Luther
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2303
1885
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
481
Doris Ward
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1780
482
Doris Ward
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2310
483
Doris Ward
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2749
484
Dorothea Leicher
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2565
485
Dorothy Broadman
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2175
486
Dotty Caldwell
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2667
487
Doug Gremillion
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1528
488
Doug Jergenson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1402
489
Douglas Gruenau
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2278
490
Douglas Hunt
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2793
491
Douglas Reeves
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1535
492
Dr. Demian
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1844
493
Dr. Deniam
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2053
494
Dudley Molina
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1919
495
Dudley Molina
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2183
496
Dunaway Rooks
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1507
497
E Broadbent
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1721
498
E. Buckingham
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1999
499
Ed Rosas
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2750
500
Edward Cohen
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2214
501
Edward Drinkwater
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2666
502
Edward Lieb
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2282
503
Edward Main
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1753
504
Edward Main
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2411
505
Edward Richard
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1837
506
Edward Richard
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2192
507
Eileen Murphy
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2751
508
Eleanor Quigley
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1903
509
Elin Becker
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2665
510
Elisabeth Hardy
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2424
511
Elizabeth Adams
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2752
512
Elizabeth Del Buono
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2227
513
Elizabeth Edinger
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1864
514
Elizabeth Sully
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1875
515
Ellen Sue Jacobson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2753
516
Eric Chapman
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1833
517
Eric Fey
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1583
518
Eric Lawson
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2162
519
Eric McMahon
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2155
520
Erica Silverman
EPA-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1784
1886
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
521
Erich Nolan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2485
522
Erick Allen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2754
523
Ericsson Broadbent
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2486
524
Erika Aschmann
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2664
525
Erika Neilson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2253
526
Erika Walton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2566
527
Ernie Clark
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1494
528
Esteban Ortiz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1126
529
Esther Pardue
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2429
530
Eugene D. Betit
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1981
531
Eva Bernacki
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1984
532
Eva Cicoria
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1692
533
Eva Cicoria
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2701
534
Eva Sophia
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2755
535
Eve Schwartz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2487
536
Ewan Plant
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2147
537
Felix Sabalza
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1807
538
FF, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1513
539
Forrest Roraback
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2241
540
Fran Adams
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2489
541
Frances Stewart
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2271
542
Francesco Acciai
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2210
543
Frank Copple
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1565
544
Fred Cason
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1880
545
Fred Sigworth
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1679
546
Freddy Saba
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2540
547
Fredrick Collins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2288
548
Fredrick R. O'Keefe
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5 -13 74
549
Freeda Cathcart
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2756
550
Gabbie Burns
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2109
551
Gabby Sojka
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2605
552
Gannett Bishop
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2757
553
Garry Thompson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2190
554
Gary Blackwelder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2334
555
Gary Blackwelder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 53
556
Gary Costin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2490
557
Gary Schultz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1406
558
Gary Woolard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2491
559
Gayle Joslin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1734
560
Gayle Joslin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-23 87
1887
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
561
Gay Ion Isley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1499
562
Gene Deatley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1463
563
Geoffrey Robb
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2121
564
Geoffrey Rotherham
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1115
565
George Brieger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1645
566
George Haling
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1898
567
Georgi (no surname provided)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1998
568
Georgia Kimmel
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2298
569
Gerald Graves
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2178
570
Gina Megay
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2071
571
Ginger Wireman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1118
572
Gladys Tchatal
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2758
573
Glen Hughes
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1854
574
Gloria Gunther
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1809
575
Gloria Weeks
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1888
576
Grace Zoller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2034
577
Grady O'Brien
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2492
578
Grant Holly
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1976
579
Greg Broyles
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1404
580
Greg Chester
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1671
581
Greg Sawyer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2275
582
Greg Spool stra
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1478
583
Gregg Kelley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1889
584
H. Fleishon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1432
585
Hailey Wang
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1740
586
Hal Richards
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2245
587
Hannah Mitchell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2708
588
Harriet Moulder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1928
589
Harry Russell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1851
590
Harry Shepard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1845
591
Harvey Pillersdorf
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2154
592
Heart of Texas Network Consultants, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1457
593
Heidi Pelot
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2268
594
Heidi Rogers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1010
595
Henry Neal
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2140
596
Herb Friske
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1525
597
Herman Whiterabbit
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2422
598
Hermance Luft
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-263 5
599
Horst Ralston
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1913
600
Horst Ralston
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2663
1888
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
601
Howard Hassman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1924
602
Howard Watts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2549
603
Hugo Manly
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1427
604
Hunter Nelson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-0990
605
Ian Kinniburgh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1354
606
Ida Domatpanah
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2759
607
Ileana Renfrew
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2317
608
Isaiah Alexander
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2399
609
Ishi Apta
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2760
610
Izzie Keaton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2451
611
J. Ruzi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2202
612
J. Salzman et al.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2493
613
Jack Ringhand
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2023
614
Jacob Radermacher
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1856
615
Jaden Earl
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2581
616
Jake Schwartz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2761
617
Jamal Mccovery
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2762
618
James Buchert
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2697
619
James Callahan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1502
620
James Carver
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2242
621
James Fox
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2151
622
James Frantz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2494
623
James Helms
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1460
624
James Hicks
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1754
625
James Hieronymus
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2373
626
James Holley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1383
627
James Hubbard
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1423
628
James Klein
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -13 72
629
James Loucky
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1884
630
James M Blackburn
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1817
631
James M. Van Nostrand
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2763
632
James Palmer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2495
633
James Pearce
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2265
634
James Perkins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2617
635
James Rosenberg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1561
636
James Schall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1890
637
Jamie Austin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1450
638
Jamie Dow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2496
639
Jana VanAmburg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1454
640
Jane Fasullo
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1629
1889
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
641
Jane Moosbruker
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2662
642
Jane Olive
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2661
643
Janeek Prince
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1977
644
Janet Callum Postcard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1380
645
Janet Wright
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1739
646
Janice Friesen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2434
647
Janyce Fadden
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-23 82
648
Jared Hancock
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2101
649
Jason Pies
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1838
650
Jason Shelly
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1411
651
Jay Hosty
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2165
652
Jay Morgan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1970
653
Jay Therdocien
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2764
654
Jayda Hurtado
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2765
655
Jean Buffardi
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2003
656
Jean Clemes
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2826
657
Jean Strawbridge
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2497
658
Jeanette Robinson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1659
659
Jed Hendrickson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1586
660
Jeff Denton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1520
661
Jeff Putnam
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1644
662
Jeff Ratheal
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1512
663
Jeff Sherff
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1825
664
Jeff Warrington
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1678
665
Jeffrey Downing
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1582
666
Jeffrey Rovner
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1338
667
Jeffrey Simms
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1997
668
Jennifer McClellan
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2766
669
Jennifer Pritchett
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2498
670
Jennifer Russell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1425
671
Jeremy Ehrlich
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1912
672
Jeremy Fryberger
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2041
673
Jeremy Gragert
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2767
674
Jeremy Troiano
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2768
675
Jerome Seguin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2660
676
Jerry Sharp
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2659
677
Je-Show Yang
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1802
678
Jesse Kelly
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2088
679
Jesse Simone
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2578
680
Jessica Rollins
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2363
1890
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
681
Jessie Brady
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2827
682
Jilian Newman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 85
683
Jim Bassett
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1437
684
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2292
685
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2499
686
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2500
687
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2501
688
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2502
689
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2503
690
Jim Brownfield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2504
691
Jim Gilligan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2769
692
Jim Hieronymus
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2828
693
Jimena Somelleda
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2829
694
Jimmy Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1550
695
Joanna Cross
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1120
696
Joanna Welch
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2505
697
Jodee Huylar
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1455
698
Jody Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1681
699
Jody Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1744
700
Jody Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2117
701
Joe Lendvai
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2010
702
Joe McClain
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2484
703
Joe Murphy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1339
704
John A Martin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2200
705
John and Verna OConnell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1865
706
John Bailey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1196
707
John Corbin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2572
708
John Crawley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2031
709
John Dunlap
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1472
710
John Dziak
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2447
711
John Edward
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1862
712
John Ferris
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1505
713
John Greenhill
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2658
714
John Harmon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1368
715
John Henderson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2506
716
John Lent
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1379
717
John Lent
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2042
718
John Librande
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1451
719
John Longenbaugh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1667
720
John Longenbaugh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1718
1891
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
111
John Longenbaugh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2122
722
John Longenbaugh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2408
723
John Lowry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1389
724
John Mannion
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2232
725
John Mc Caughey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2657
726
John Meyer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2656
727
John Oda
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 92
728
John Oda
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2559
729
John Omaha
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2693
730
John Pasqua
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2331
731
John Pasqua
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2396
732
John Raby
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 74
733
John Ramsay
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1891
734
John Rhoades
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2655
735
John Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2507
736
John Sonin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1022
737
John Sonin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2654
738
John Thomann
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2294
739
John Zeugner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2174
740
Johnnie Pigg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1652
741
Jon Durham
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1562
742
Jonathan Cook
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2770
743
Jonathan Stewart
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1697
744
Jordan Brady
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2830
745
Joseph Book
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1990
746
Joseph Geierman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2771
747
Joseph Jackson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1939
748
Joseph Medrano
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1867
749
Joseph Pochis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1887
750
Joseph Sergewich
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2457
751
Joseph Wimmer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2508
752
Josh Bolton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2289
753
Joshua Lewis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2453
754
Joyce Dillenberger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2713
755
Joyce Roberts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2105
756
Joyce Weir
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1335
757
Jshika Mukherjee
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2607
758
Juan Colon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2156
759
Judith Davidsen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1627
760
Judith Davidsen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-173 8
1892
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
761
Judith Davidsen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1787
762
Judith Hunich
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2772
763
Judith Zivanovic
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2011
764
Judy Gayer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2344
765
Judy Lukasiewicz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1877
766
Julia Tullis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1367
767
Julie Cato
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1065
768
Julie Glover
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1996
769
Julie Horn-Veach
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2193
770
Julie Putnam
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2290
111
Julie Unruh
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2024
772
Julie Unruh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2509
773
Junior Laws
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2221
774
K Nadeau
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2196
775
K&S Tank Line
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1413
776
K. Kain
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2085
111
Karen Ashikeh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2341
778
Karen Berger
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2831
779
Karen Bowman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2510
780
Karen Burtness Prak
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2371
781
Karen Campblin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2569
782
Karen Genest
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2090
783
Karen Genest
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2473
784
Karen Hunter
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1895
785
Karen Kraut
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2695
786
Karen Mendelow Nelson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1137
787
Karen Prena
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2773
788
Karen Thyne
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1806
789
Karen Vellutini
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2774
790
Karin Hemmingsen
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1878
791
Karl T (no surname provided)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1992
792
Katharine Penland
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2432
793
Katherine Baker
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2116
794
Katherine Bini
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2328
795
Katherine Delanoy
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2016
796
Katherine Stephens
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2079
797
Kathleen E. Jermann
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 85
798
Kathleen Murphy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1756
799
Kathleen Rennell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2043
800
Kathleen Rennell
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2045
1893
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
801
Kathryn Price
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2564
802
Kathy Labriola
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1067
803
Kathy Ranee
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1840
804
Katrina Morris
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1433
805
Kay Collins
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2092
806
Kay Wildt
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2452
807
Keith Cavallini
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2291
808
Keith Hilliard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1544
809
Keith Miller
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2775
810
Keith Rutherford
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1447
811
Keith Wheeler
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2776
812
Kelly Gillespie
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1794
813
Kelly Marie Martin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2653
814
Ken Box
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1772
815
Ken Box
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2832
816
Ken Bruton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0991
817
Ken Bruton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1387
818
Ken Dolsky
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1424
819
Ken Eschman
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1670
820
Ken Horkavy
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1665
821
Kenn Colclasure
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2652
822
Kenneth Lovett
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2222
823
Kenneth Van Bur en
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1663
824
Kenny King
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2651
825
Kent Lisius
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1666
826
Kent Lisius
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2158
827
Kent Lisius
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2413
828
Keri Bost
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1994
829
Kerry Lynch
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1796
830
Kevin Bridges
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2185
831
Kevin Bruesehoff
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2127
832
Kevin Limbeck
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2184
833
Kevin Mayle
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1861
834
Kevin McSwain
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1560
835
Kevin Serralta
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2833
836
Kevin Walsh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2327
837
Kevin Walsh
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-23 80
838
Kevin Walsh
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2614
839
Kevin Yoder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1490
840
Kim Sadlier
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 57
1894
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
841
Kimberly Gila
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1706
842
Kimberly Hornung-Marcy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2421
843
Kris Tachna
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2019
844
Kristen Brady
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1337
845
Kristina Isberg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1145
846
Kristine Baumstark
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2511
847
Kristopher Brown
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2152
848
Kylee Peterson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1749
849
Lari Bubile
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1874
850
Larry Clarke
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1831
851
Larry Cofield
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2512
852
Larry De Jong
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2070
853
Larry Sharp
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2231
854
Larry Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1934
855
Laura Dent
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2176
856
Laura Mueller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1637
857
Laurence Kirby
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1703
858
Lauriane Bellot-Hanson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2125
859
Laurie Clarkston
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2361
860
Laurie Fox
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2513
861
Lawrence Brown
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2514
862
Lawrence Hager
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1985
863
Lawrence Pareles
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1793
864
Lawrence Rosin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1336
865
Lawrence Sigwald
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -243 7
866
Layth Al-Sibai
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2834
867
Lee Anzicek
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2539
868
Lee Burton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2537
869
Lee Cole
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1972
870
Leesa Brieger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1752
871
Lehni Lebert
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1989
872
Leo Kucewicz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-283 5
873
Leslie McClure
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2650
874
Lewis Hoover
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1121
875
Lily Theis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2836
876
Linda Beattie
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1834
877
Linda Block
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2459
878
Linda Croxson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2777
879
Linda Drey Nightingale
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2445
880
Linda Garland
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2002
1895
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
881
Linda Greene
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2306
882
Linda Herman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2028
883
Linda Hodel
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1493
884
Linda Lively
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1821
885
Linda Racine
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -243 0
886
Linda Smithe
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1400
887
Linda Stevens
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2464
888
Linda Yow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 51
889
Linda Yow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1759
890
Linda Yow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1908
891
Linda Yow (not identical to 1351)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1355
892
Lionel Rub erg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1143
893
Lisa Dicksteen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2515
894
Lisa Pereira
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2004
895
Lisa Reutter
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2649
896
Lise A. Colgan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2444
897
Liz Greaser
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -223 0
898
Liz LaFour
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2778
899
Liz Russell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1978
900
Liz Wagley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1901
901
Logan Cayton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-253 8
902
Lois Sandy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2779
903
Loren Steiner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1556
904
Lori Gregory
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-223 8
905
Lorraine Thompson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 64
906
Louis Parham
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2056
907
LuAnn Glatzmaier
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 59
908
Luci Wright
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1964
909
Lyn Weick
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 56
910
Lynn Kearney
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1965
911
Lynn Williams
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1852
912
Lynn Yarbrough
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1904
913
M. Johanna Rickl
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2420
914
Madeleine Lee
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2325
915
Madeleine Reese
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2201
916
Madeline Helbraun
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1974
917
Maggi Joseph
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1748
918
Maija Schaefer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2058
919
Maile McGrew-Frede
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1710
920
Malcolm Cameron
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2008
1896
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
921
Malik Wiggins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2780
922
Mallory Lane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2781
923
Mara Giuliant
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2346
924
Marc Landry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1869
925
Marc Lipkowitz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1124
926
Marcel Liberge
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2305
927
Marcelo HInojosa
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1511
928
Marcia Bailey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2648
929
Marcia Burtt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1742
930
Marcia Gustafson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2142
931
Marcia Merry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2647
932
Marcus Hackston
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1664
933
Marg Chauvin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2027
934
Margaret Beebe
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2646
935
Margaret Garlan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2029
936
Margaret Kitts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1949
937
Margaret O'Halloran
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2375
938
Margaret Rinegar
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1855
939
Margaret Spaulding
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2412
940
Margaret Vernon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1746
941
Margret Cifaldi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1771
942
Margret Cifaldi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2645
943
Mari McShane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2782
944
Mari Mennel-Bell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1774
945
Maria Bartlett
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1000
946
Maria Finalet
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2072
947
Maria Salgado
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2308
948
Maria Salgado
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2358
949
Mari ah Wheeler
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1886
950
Marian Severt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1910
951
Marian Severt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2067
952
Mariann Ben way
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2428
953
Mariann Bjelica
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1117
954
Marianna Breton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1683
955
Marianna Breton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1699
956
Marianne Goldstein
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2644
957
Marilyn Breslow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2133
958
Marilyn Gooch
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1398
959
Marilynn Cencioso
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2643
960
Mari sol Acevedo
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1636
1897
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
961
Mark Baumiller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1467
962
Mark Brewer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1407
963
Mark Cook
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2517
964
Mark Feder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2642
965
Mark Kraemer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1439
966
Mark Morlock
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2160
967
Mark Olinger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1764
968
Mark Sentesy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2783
969
Mark Shoestock
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2134
970
Mark Wieder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1068
971
Marnie Cedillos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1653
972
Marnie Cedillos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2087
973
Martha Huggins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1377
974
Martha Jenkins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1529
975
Martha Lancu
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2141
976
Martha Lee
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2448
977
Marti Allen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1761
978
Marti Allen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2349
979
Martin Ellis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1824
980
Marvin Holder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1479
981
Mary Brittingham
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2078
982
Mary Eastman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1849
983
Mary Ellen Cunningham
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2113
984
Mary Hirose
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2115
985
Mary Jean Sharp
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2837
986
Mary Kemen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2108
987
Mary Kemen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2415
988
Mary Lou Robinson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2355
989
Mary Page
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-23 86
990
Mary Steele
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2316
991
Mason Grow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1049
992
Matt Hurley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2518
993
Matt Rion
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-283 8
994
Matt Rosburg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1575
995
Matt Steffens
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2641
996
Matthew Tooman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1755
997
Maureen Bittner-Tait
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2640
998
Maureen Buhl
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2083
999
Maurice Aziz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2595
1000
Maurine Canarsky
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2188
1898
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1001
Max Hyre
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-23 52
1002
McDaniel Air Conditioning & Heating
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1410
1003
Melanie Jones
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1773
1004
Melanie Thompson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1549
1005
Melinda Wood
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2100
1006
Melissa Gumenick
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2784
1007
Melissa Harper-France
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1047
1008
Melissa Ribner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2519
1009
Meredith McGuire
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1655
1010
Michael Britt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2144
1011
Michael Dack
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2520
1012
Michael Earney
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2521
1013
Michael Ford
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1815
1014
Michael Griffith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1672
1015
Michael Gude
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1340
1016
Michael Hopkins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1704
1017
Michael Hopkins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1720
1018
Michael Leonard
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1628
1019
Michael Leonard
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2343
1020
Michael Lewis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2104
1021
Michael Madden
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1876
1022
Michael Madden
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2333
1023
Michael Mauthe
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2522
1024
Michael Mueller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1527
1025
Michael Nunez
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1922
1026
Michael Scheriger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1567
1027
Michael Wauschek
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -223 7
1028
Michele Chernega
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2560
1029
Michele Frome
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-245 8
1030
Michelle Bruchs
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2839
1031
Michelle Castleberry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 51
1032
Michelle Enos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1489
1033
Mike Costner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2126
1034
Mike Fesperman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2251
1035
Mike Lohbeck
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1534
1036
Mike Swisher
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1641
1037
Mo McLoughlin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2030
1038
Monica Kruse
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2215
1039
Monika Klein
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1737
1040
Morgan Park
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1037
1899
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1041
Myrna Doering
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1730
1042
N. Dravis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2636
1043
Nadine Ferraro
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2049
1044
Nadine Ferraro
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2840
1045
Nadine Godwin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1396
1046
Nan Stevenson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2309
1047
Nana Serwaa-Bonsu
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 32
1048
Nancy D. Hall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2633
1049
Nancy Formisano
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2293
1050
Nancy Garret
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1360
1051
Nancy Holland
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1792
1052
Nancy Luomala
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1590
1053
Nancy Pierpont
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-245 5
1054
Nancy Raxter
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1923
1055
Nancy Royer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2301
1056
Nancy Silverman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2299
1057
Nancy Szabados
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1811
1058
Narayan Gopinathan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -13 64
1059
Natalie Houghton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2629
1060
Natasha Smith Antenor
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1029
1061
Nathan Harling
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1733
1062
Nathan Harling
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 59
1063
Nathan Hunt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1509
1064
Nayeli Garcia
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2075
1065
Neal Silvers
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 02
1066
Ned Rollins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1675
1067
Ned Rollins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1693
1068
Ned Rollins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-173 5
1069
Ned Rollins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1960
1070
Ned Rollins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2416
1071
Nedy Rosario
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2523
1072
Neil Hise
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1548
1073
Neil Sebring
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2596
1074
Neil Shaw
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1523
1075
Nellie Greer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1813
1076
Nelson Hoover
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1403
1077
Nicholas Chrisos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1953
1078
Nicholas Chrisos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1956
1079
Nicholas Dewar
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1911
1080
Nichole Munsch
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2249
1900
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1081
Nick Chiappe
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1991
1082
Nick Dudek
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1827
1083
Nick Schreiber
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1945
1084
Nick Skeriotis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1536
1085
Nicole Horseherder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2786
1086
Nicole Karnowski
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1533
1087
Nicole Marcot
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2563
1088
Nicole Walker
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2787
1089
Nigel Crawford
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1866
1090
Nik Enos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2585
1091
Nima Rosepiper
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1900
1092
Nina Haedrich
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1677
1093
Nina Haedrichous
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2057
1094
Nina Mucha
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1818
1095
Noel Levan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2171
1096
Noemi Clymer Kurtz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2788
1097
Norman Lane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1622
1098
Octavia Pleas
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1791
1099
Odette Mucha
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2790
1100
Opal Baker
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -223 9
1101
Owen Flett
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2628
1102
P Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1682
1103
P Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2118
1104
P. Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2406
1105
Paige McFall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2841
1106
Pam Magidson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2524
1107
Pamela Holley-Wilcox
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1915
1108
Partners in Parts
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1491
1109
Pat Burns
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1516
1110
Pat Ratkowski
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2106
1111
Pat Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1826
1112
Pat Sulllivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2627
1113
Patrice Gousie
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2376
1114
Patricia Derrough
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2311
1115
Patricia Kennish
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1899
1116
Patricia Phelps
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2093
1117
Patricia Rowell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 04
1118
Patricia Sauvageau
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1725
1119
Patricia Simmons
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1426
1120
Patricia VanMaanen
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-203 8
1901
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1121
Patrick Cunningham
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2112
1122
Patrick Kane
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2456
1123
Patrick Paulson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2254
1124
Patsy Peele
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1803
1125
Paul De La Torre
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2587
1126
Paul Felten
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1141
1127
Paul Malatesta
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2091
1128
Paul 01 sen
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2037
1129
Paul Price
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1568
1130
Paul Slentz
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2297
1131
Paul Todorovich
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2139
1132
Paul Weiler
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2284
1133
Paul Yoder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1804
1134
Paul Yoder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2065
1135
Paula Kramer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1626
1136
Pauline Bruno
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1853
1137
Peggy Gheta
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1716
1138
Penelope Fenner-Crisp
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2791
1139
Perry Kendall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1685
1140
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1789
1141
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2099
1142
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2426
1143
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2525
1144
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2526
1145
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2527
1146
Perry Kendall
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2626
1147
Perry Spiro
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2589
1148
Pete Gordon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5 -13 62
1149
Peter Anderson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2048
1150
Peter Catalano
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1175
1151
Peter Dempsey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2324
1152
Peter Jones
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2792
1153
Peter Pugliese
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1540
1154
Philip Carragher
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1762
1155
Phillip Lenz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1569
1156
Pierre Couture
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2243
1157
Pilar Page
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1632
1158
Polly Peterson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1961
1159
Prateek Tandon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1148
1160
Rachel Beck
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2063
1902
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1161
Rachel Rade
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -23 62
1162
Rachel Zimmerman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2261
1163
Ralph Bober
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2130
1164
Ralph Emerson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 34
1165
Ramon Munoz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2398
1166
Randall Tenor
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2228
1167
Randall Welch
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2124
1168
Randy Geiger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2244
1169
Randy Ladd
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1870
1170
Ranjit Singh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2624
1171
Raymond Mott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1727
1172
Raymond Mott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2403
1173
Raymond Mott
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2410
1174
Rebecca Gil
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2547
1175
Rebecca Reed
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1894
1176
Red MacDougall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2015
1177
Redjeb Mehmet
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2157
1178
Reginald Woodhouse
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2619
1179
Rene Rosenbaum
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2039
1180
Rhonda Fuller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1553
1181
Rhonda Mill
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2307
1182
Rich B. Stopczynski
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1173
1183
Rich Killmer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -243 3
1184
Richard Ferry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1712
1185
Richard Ferry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2623
1186
Richard Fitzgerald
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1474
1187
Richard Jones
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2794
1188
Richard Kanner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2620
1189
Richard Norton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2068
1190
Richard Payne
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2618
1191
Richard Perry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1552
1192
Richard Rothblum
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2103
1193
Richard Schwerin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1883
1194
Richard Sigler
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1573
1195
Richard Sigler
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2541
1196
Richard Thompson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1440
1197
Richard Tolliver
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2132
1198
Richard Wenger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1545
1199
Richard Youatt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1674
1200
Richard Youatt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1691
1903
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1201
Richmond Owusu-Ansah
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1116
1202
Rick Woodring
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1510
1203
Riley Williams
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2795
1204
Rita Carter
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2314
1205
Rita Clarke
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2691
1206
Rita Rozier
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1750
1207
Rob Bodner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2180
1208
Robert Carr
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1690
1209
Robert Carr
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2705
1210
Robert Dewey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2208
1211
Robert Elgin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2419
1212
Robert Ezerman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1676
1213
Robert Hayes
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2529
1214
Robert Hoekstra
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1352
1215
Robert Hoekstra
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2014
1216
Robert Hoekstra
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2711
1217
Robert Krist
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2097
1218
Robert Labenz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-213 8
1219
Robert Lowers
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2059
1220
Robert Morris
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2086
1221
Robert Page
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1950
1222
Robert Rao
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1487
1223
Robert Roucroft
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2234
1224
Robert Smith
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2164
1225
Robert Store
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1378
1226
Robert Strelke
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2612
1227
Robert Yarger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1461
1228
Robin Berry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-225 5
1229
Robin Deweese
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2225
1230
Robin Vosburg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2329
1231
Robinson Paving Co.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1441
1232
Rodney D. Stagemeyer, Nebraska Truck Center
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2887
1233
Roel Barrera
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1839
1234
Roger Barnhart
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1585
1235
Roger Ingersoll
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1893
1236
Roger Marquart
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1538
1237
Roger Ovink
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1786
1238
Ron Cash
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1471
1239
Ron Fuller
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2137
1240
Ron Harris
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1800
1904
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1241
Ronald Hartmann
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0992
1242
Ronald Neb el sick
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1521
1243
Ronnie Vincent
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2163
1244
Rose Hoover
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2466
1245
Rose Johnson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1373
1246
Rose Latino
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1668
1247
Rosemarie Santiesteban
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1358
1248
Rosie Hall
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2592
1249
Roxanne Crittenden
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1639
1250
Roxy Mirtolooi
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2842
1251
Rse Latino
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1696
1252
Ruby MacDonald
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2080
1253
Ruemica S.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1030
1254
Russell Woodward
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2342
1255
Ryan (no surname provided)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2797
1256
Ryan Davis
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1860
1257
Ryan Jean
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2796
1258
Ryan Mann
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2220
1259
Ryan McMurry
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2611
1260
S. Entwistle
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2609
1261
Sally Leque
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1757
1262
Sally Wambold
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2639
1263
Sandra Morey
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2798
1264
Sandy Dillon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1431
1265
Sandy Rhein
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2606
1266
Sandy Schott
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2600
1267
Santha (no surname provided)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2119
1268
Sara Blackburn
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1819
1269
Sarah Griscorn
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1722
1270
Sarah Martinelli
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2226
1271
Sarah Munson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1982
1272
Sari Fordham
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1741
1273
Sari Fordham
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2427
1274
Schyler Brown
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2530
1275
Scott Adams
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2799
1276
Scott Laue
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1470
1277
Scott Martinez
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2610
1278
Scott Moody
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1546
1279
Scott Pier son
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1444
1280
Scott Taylor
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1993
1905
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1281
Scott Walker
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1522
1282
Scott Wind
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2145
1283
Sean Higgins
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1408
1284
Sean Macomber
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1823
1285
Sean San Jose
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2801
1286
Sergio Pena
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2577
1287
Sergio Vargas
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2597
1288
Shannin Zevian
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2465
1289
Shari Mleczewski
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2340
1290
Sharon Burke
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1732
1291
Sharon Gootman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1808
1292
Sharon Nichols
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2440
1293
Shauna Haines
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1066
1294
Shauna Junco
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2604
1295
Shawn Baker
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2150
1296
Shawn Day
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2461
1297
Shealyn Leedy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2621
1298
Sheila Tran
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2602
1299
Shelley Martin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1579
1300
Shirley Paul
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2802
1301
Shukham Patidar
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2634
1302
Siddharth Mehrotra
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2712
1303
Simeon Dreyfuss
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2006
1304
Simmons (Bill) Isler
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2709
1305
Sina Pahlevan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2579
1306
Skyli Alvarez
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2207
1307
Small Trucking Company
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1551
1308
Sonia Diermayer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1781
1309
Sophia Georgi
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2843
1310
Spence Pennington
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1532
1311
Stacey Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1416
1312
Stacey Sullivan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1621
1313
Stacie Slay
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2283
1314
Stanley Rothbardt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1363
1315
Stelian Campian
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1828
1316
Stephanie Grout
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2588
1317
Stephanie Todd
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2803
1318
Stephen Hightower
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1376
1319
Stephen J. Simon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2407
1320
Stephen Kennedy
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1660
1906
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1321
Stephen Lane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1778
1322
Stephen Lane
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2377
1323
Stephen Luongo
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2556
1324
Stephen Mossbarger
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1422
1325
Stephen Mossbarger (duplicate)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1430
1326
Stephen Palmbos
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2153
1327
Stephen Spitser
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2531
1328
Stephen Wyman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2532
1329
Steve Barnes
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2533
1330
Steve Bean
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1798
1331
Steve Brucken
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2273
1332
Steve Carr
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2128
1333
Steve Folkner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1785
1334
Steve Gibson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-255 5
1335
Steve Goodwin
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2005
1336
Steven Greenspan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2804
1337
Steven Jones
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1519
1338
Steven Meier
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2194
1339
Steven Pilcher
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2805
1340
Steven Reneau
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2076
1341
Steven Weinberg
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2562
1342
Stewart Feketa
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1515
1343
Susan Babbitt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2318
1344
Susan Babbitt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-23 56
1345
Susan Babbitt
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2593
1346
Susan Bannister
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1951
1347
Susan Bannister
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2166
1348
Susan Barlow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1743
1349
Susan Benton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2699
1350
Susan Brown
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2806
1351
Susan Cox
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1623
1352
Susan Gendron
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1361
1353
Susan Hathaway
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1365
1354
Susan Ivovich
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2110
1355
Susan Kepner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2007
1356
Susan Lynch
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2018
1357
Susan Pate
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2409
1358
Susan Pate
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2554
1359
Suzanne Lemay
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1530
1360
Suzie Kidder
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2094
1907
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1361
Syed Abdali
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2012
1362
TagG
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1464
1363
Tamara Lowrie
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1760
1364
Tanmay Kar
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2807
1365
Tanner Beasley
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1871
1366
Tanya Kevorkian
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2808
1367
Tanya Lasuk
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2322
1368
Tara Wheeler
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 81
1369
Tate Wingo
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2199
1370
Taylor Chesney
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2844
1371
Terence Hero
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-23 89
1372
Teresa Paris
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1069
1373
Terry Barash
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1688
1374
Terry Burkey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2167
1375
Terry Crookston
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2040
1376
Terry Peterson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2345
1377
Terry Plamondon
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1543
1378
Terry Schiesser
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2553
1379
Thad Thurlow
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2197
1380
The Boyd Group, Architects
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1581
1381
Theo Lobdell
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2551
1382
Theodore Bartko
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1896
1383
Thomas Boman
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1902
1384
Thomas Burtnett
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-13 57
1385
Thomas DeWeerd
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1967
1386
Thomas Eager
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2568
1387
Thomas Hannan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2550
1388
Thomas Ohns
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2146
1389
Thomas Owens
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1114
1390
Thomas Radcliff
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2809
1391
Thomas Remmel
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1829
1392
Thomas Remmel
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2195
1393
Thomas Remmey
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1142
1394
Tiffany Howard
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2545
1395
Tim Wright
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2575
1396
Timothy Determan
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1687
1397
Timothy Hahner
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2168
1398
Timothy Jones
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2845
1399
Tina Krauz
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1932
1400
Tina Wilkinson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2552
1908
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1401
Todd Feitl
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2203
1402
Todd Jackson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1916
1403
Todd Snyder (not duplicate)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1559
1404
Tom Bennett
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1482
1405
Tom Johnston
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1673
1406
Tom Johnston
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2102
1407
Tom S
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1642
1408
Tom Sheafer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2209
1409
Tom Slater
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2810
1410
Tony Clark
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1469
1411
Tony Greiner
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2548
1412
Tracey Katsouros
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1790
1413
Tracey Katsouros
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2431
1414
Tracy Musgrove
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1027
1415
Tracy Pilson
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2050
1416
Tracy Pilson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2846
1417
Tracy Wang
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1195
1418
Tria Shaffer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2379
1419
Tristan Gonzalez
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2598
1420
Troy French
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2534
1421
TS CNC Works
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1584
1422
Tyrus Sayeh
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2543
1423
Ulysses Lateiner
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2393
1424
Val Farrelly
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-2313
1425
Valerie Carrick
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2546
1426
Valerie Lizarraga
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2417
1427
Valley Paving
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1497
1428
Victor von Salza
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-2544
1429
Victoria Hager
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1707
1430
Victoria Partida
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1005
1431
Victoria Usher
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1576
1432
Vinay Nanani
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2613
1433
Vince Menichino
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2848
1434
Virginia Sivigny
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1979
1435
Virginia Spencer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1810
1436
Vivian Christensen
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1331
1437
Vladimir Sushko
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1931
1438
W. E. Miller
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1892
1439
Wa Yang
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2812
1440
Wade Electric Company
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1480
1909
-------
Index
Commenter Name
Docket Number
1441
Wade Evans
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2594
1442
Wallace Elton
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-193 5
1443
Wallace Elton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1947
1444
Warren Gold
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2813
1445
Warren Stewart
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2528
1446
Wendy Rudder
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2390
1447
Wendy Smith
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5-1429
1448
Wesley Wharton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2849
1449
White's Construction Co., Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1580
1450
Will Willis
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2850
1451
William Drew
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1589
1452
William Flegenheimer
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2367
1453
William Gies
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1731
1454
William Gies
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2694
1455
William Hollingshead
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2366
1456
William Kawecki
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2814
1457
William Martin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1700
1458
William Martin
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1980
1459
William Pugh
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-253 5
1460
William Smith
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2603
1461
William Squires
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2815
1462
William Tang
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2179
1463
Winnie Tat
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2580
1464
Woozalia Staddon
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2013
1465
Yating Liou
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2851
1466
Yolanda Stern Broad
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2567
1467
Zachary Boyd
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-2536
1468
Zachary Sack
EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1475
1469
Zama Noyer
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5-1631
1910
-------
Appendix 3: List of Testifiers at Public Hearings
This appendix contains a list of individuals who testified at a virtual public hearing on the
proposal, which was held on April 12, 13, and 14, 2022.76 A redacted version of the hearing
transcript can be found in the docket for this rule (EPA-OAQ-HQ-2019-0055-2867).77
Over the 3 days of the hearings, 278 testifiers provided statements voicing their support for or
concerns about the proposal:
Number of Testifiers Per Day
Hearing Day
Number of
Testifiers
May 12, 2022
108
May 13, 2022
103
May 14, 2022
67
Total
278
Most of those who testified, 212 people, spoke on behalf of or identified as a member of a
specific organization. The remaining testifiers, 66, spoke in their personal capacity. The
organizations that were affiliated with the largest number of testifiers are as follows:
Number of Testifiers Affiliated with Selected Organizations
Organization
Number of
Testifiers
Moms Clean Air Force, various chapters
31
Sierra Club (Various Chapters)
19
Chispa (League of Conservation Voters, various states)
10
American Lung Association
8
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE)
5
CleanAirNow
5
Most of the hearing testimony is general in nature and does not require detailed EPA response,
and/or contain opinions or statements about issues without detailed information or reasonable
specificity. Those hearing statements that are more specific in nature and are not included
written comments submitted by the testifier or the testifier's organization are included verbatim
in this document.
Summary of Testimony
76 The third day was added to accommodate the large number of people who requested to be able to testify, and the
comment period for the rule was extended to accommodate that extra day of testimony.
77 The transcript was redacted to remove potential Personally Identifiable Information (PII) pertaining to third
parties.
1911
-------
We characterize the nature of the testimony by classifying the statements along seven
dimensions based on whether one or more of the topics were mentioned (one statement may
reflect several dimensions):
• Generally support
• Program not stringent enough
• Program too stringent
• Human Health and Welfare (including air quality, benefits)
• Environmental Justice
• Costs
• Owner/operator concerns
The vast majority of individuals, 87% testified on two or three topics, typically an aspect of
human health and welfare (90%), Environmental Justice (50%), and/or or the program doesn't go
far enough to reduce emissions (74%)
The breakdown of topic raised by the testifiers is as follows:
Number of Testifiers by General Topic
Topic
Number of
Testifiers
Human Health and Welfare (including air quality,
benefits)
249
Environmental Justice
138
Costs
35
Owner/operator concerns
10
Generally support
48
Program not stringent enough
207
Program too stringent
9
Many of those who stated that the program is not stringent enough also mentioned aspects of the
impact of emissions on human health and welfare (197) and environmental justice (111).
Similarly, many of those who expressed general support for the program also mentioned aspects
of the effects of emissions on human health and welfare (39) and environmental justice (22).
The 9 testifiers who said the program is too stringent mentioned owner/operator concerns (4)
and/or costs (5).
EPA Response
See responses in Section 1 of this document.
List of Testifiers
1912
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
246-248
Ada Stepleton
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
289-291
Alex Schay
Northwest Alliance for
Clean Transportation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
301-304
Alison Jaslow
National Parks Conservation
Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
293-297
Allen Schaeffer
Diesel Technology Forum
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
75-77
Almeta Cooper
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
107-109
Ana Rios
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
271-273
Andrea Vidaurre
People's Collective for
Environmental Justice
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
277-280
Anjuli Ramos
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
215-218
Ann Mellinger-
Birdsong
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
206-207
Avery Lamb
Creation Justice Ministries
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
307-310
Beatriz Soto
Conservation Colorado
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
338—341
Bob Yuhnke
Elders Climate Action
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
170-174
Brian
Urbaszewski
Respiratory Health
Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
59-62
Britt Carmon
NRDC
1913
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
88-90
Brooke Petry
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
71-73
Bryan Burton
American Lung Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
51-53
Carolina Pena-
Alarcon
Environmental Defense Fund
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
291-293
Carolyn Keiser
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
62-64
Celerah Hewes
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
111-115
Daniel Gage
NGV America
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
182-186
Danny Schnautz
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
347-350
David Arndt
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
151-154
Dian Van Vleet
American Lung Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
64-68
Don Ross
National Waste and
Recycling Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
162-165
Dr. Dave Cooke
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
78-90
Elizabeth
Bechard
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
115-118
Elizabeth Brandt
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
103-106
Elizabeth
Hauptman
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1914
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
251-254
Emily Kent
Clean Air Task Force
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
35-38
Erik White
National Association of
2019-0055-2867
Clean Air Agencies
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
325-326
Faraz Rizvi
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
316-318
Gary Ewart
American Thoracic Society
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
364-365
Gloria Guardado
Chi spa (League of
2019-0055-2867
Conservation Voters, various
attachment-1
states)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
94-96
Hazel Chandler
Moms Clean Air Force,
2019-0055-2867
various chapters
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
262-265
Janet McGarry
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
221-222
Jason O'Dell
2019-0055-2867
(Elliot)
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
84-87
Jed Mandel
Truck and Engine
2019-0055-2867
Manufacturers Association
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
193-196
Jenna
Asthma and Allergy
2019-0055-2867
Riemenschneider
Foundation of America
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
81-84
Jill Aquino
Alliance of Nurses for
2019-0055-2867
Healthy Environments
attachment-1
(ANHE)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
39-41
Jimmy O'Dea
CALSTART
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
266-267
Joel Schroeder
Evangelical Environmental
2019-0055-2867
Network
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
129-131
Jonathan Walker
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1915
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
154-157
Josh Nassar
International Union, United
Automobile Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement
Workers of America
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
259-261
Karen Campbell
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
249-251
Karen Heuer
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
189-191
Karl Aldinger
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
42-45
Katherine Garcia
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
354-357
Kathryn Dorn
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
24-29
Kelly Crawford
District of Columbia
Department of Energy &
Environment
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
366-369
Kenneth
Hammond
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
48-51
Kevin Brown
Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
310-313
Kidest Gebre
Virginia Interfaith Power &
Light (VAIPL)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
229-231
Kim Anderson
Evangelical Environmental
Network
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
176-179
Kim Gaddy
South Ward Environmental
Alliance
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
54-57
Laura Bender
American Lung Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
186-188
Laura Haider
Fresnans Against Fracking
1916
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
321-324
Laurie Anderson
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
342-344
Leigh Kauffman
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
360-362
Leslie Wharton
Elders Climate Action
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
298-301
Levi Kamolnick
Ceres
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
165-168
Lewie Pugh
Owner Operator Independent
Drivers Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
193-196
Liane Randolph
California Air Resources
Board
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
304-306
Lionel Mares
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
223-225
Louise Mehler
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
351-353
Maggie Segal
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
212-215
Manijeh Berenji
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
319-321
Margarita Parra
Clean Energy Works
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
135-137
Marguerite
Pennoyer
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
344-347
Mark Rose
National Parks Conservation
Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
140-143
Mary Greene
Consumer Reports
1917
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
255-258
Michael Walsh
Environmental Protection
2019-0055-2867
Network
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
99-102
Molly Rauch
Moms Clean Air Force,
2019-0055-2867
various chapters
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
273-276
Nadine Young
Elders Climate Action
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
335-338
Nick Torres
American Lung Association
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
208-211
Nicole Marcot
Moms Clean Air Force,
2019-0055-2867
various chapters
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
326-328
Oscar Hauptman
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
29-31
Patrice Tomcik
Moms Clean Air Force,
2019-0055-2867
various chapters
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
277
Patricia Duncan
Citizens Climate Lobby
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
31-35
Paul Billings
American Lung Association
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
204-206
Pedro Hernandez
Central Valley Air Quality
2019-0055-2867
Coalition
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
138-140
Peggy Ann Berry
Alliance of Nurses for
2019-0055-2867
Healthy Environments
attachment-1
(ANHE)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
280-284
Perry Spring
City of Tacoma,
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
Washington
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
313-316
Peter Bakken
Wisconsin Interfaith Power
2019-0055-2867
& Light
attachment-1
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
330-332
Phillip Streif
Vandalia Bus Lines
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
1918
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
143-146
Quinta Warren
Consumer Reports
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
284-286
Rachel Cywinski
United Women in Faith
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
45-48
Rasto Brezny
Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
357-360
Ray Minjares
International Council on
Clean Transportation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
236-238
Ray Pringle
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
188-189
Rebecca O'Brien
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
226-228
Rene St. Julien
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
158-161
Reverend
Mitchell Hescox
Evangelical Environmental
Network
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
127-129
Reverend Richard
Killmer
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
132-134
Rich Kassel
ClearFlame Engine
Technologies
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
239-240
244-246
Sandra Purohit
Environmental
Entrepreneurs (E2)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
109-111
Sarah McBride
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
200-203
Sasan Saadat
Earthjustice
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
267-270
Scott Fenwick
Clean Fuels Alliance
America
1919
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
232-236
Sean Waters
Daimler Trucks North
America
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
97-99
Shaina Oliver
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
179-180
Steven Sondheim
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
218-220
Susan Pate
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
121-126
Susie Robertson
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
68-71
Tiffany Werner
Environmental Law &
Policy Center
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
91-93
Timothy Cronin
Health Care Without Harm
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
118-119
Valencia &
Natalia Bednar
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
146-149
Wayne Nastri
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
1
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-1
174-176
William Beckett
Harvard Medical School
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
108-111
Adrian Shelley
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
191-192
Alex Stavis
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
325-327
Alexandra Tellez
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
295-297
Amy Rogghe
1920
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
268-270
Ana Ramos
CleanAirNow
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
142-145
Anastasia Gordon
WE ACT for Environmental
Justice
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
30-33
Andrea
Marpillero-
Colomina
GreenLatinos
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
242-245
Andy Su
Environmental Defense
Fund
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
69-70
Ann Brown
Tri-Valley Air Quality
Community Alliance
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
263-266
Atenas Mena
CleanAirNow
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
291-294
Avi Mersky
ACEEE
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
117-120
Ben Grumbles
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
63-65
Beth Jacobs
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
272-274
Beto Lugo
Martinez
CleanAirNow
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
337-339
Blanca Abarca
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
216-221
Brandon
Buchanan
American Bus Association
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
92-94
Brian Russo
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
340-341
Candido Ramirez
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
1921
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
161-163
Cara Cook
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
333-336
Carolina Chacon
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
44-48
Cassandra
Carmichael
National Religious
Partnership for the
Environment
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
301-303
Columba Sainz
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
103-106
Cynthia Rives
United Women in Faith
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
228-232
Dan Byers
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
42-43
Daniel Swartz
National Religious
Partnership for the
Environment
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
120-124
Darby Osnaya
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
82-85
Debra Rowe
U.S. Partnership for
Education for Sustainable
Development
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
327-332
Doug O'Malley
Environment New Jersey
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
266-268
Elise Gard
CleanAirNow
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
209-212
Elizabeth Chun
Hye
United Women in Faith
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
354-355
Elsa O'Malley
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
222-226
Erandi Trevino
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
1922
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
195-198
Eric Feeley
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
279-281
Eric Sippert
Environmental Law &
Policy Center
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
204-206
Eric Willadsen
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
106-107
Erica Dodt
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
353-354
Frank Beltran
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
22-25
Gail Good
WIDNR
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
101-103
Gregg May
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
193-194
Griselda Sutton
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
180-182
Heidi Leathwood
350 Colorado
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
342-344
Huda Alkaff
Wisconsin Green Muslims
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
287-289
Jacob Jones
NR. DC
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
239-242
Jacqueline Gelb
Navistar
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
176-177
Jasmin Martinez
Central Valley Air Quality
Coalition
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
270-272
Jayla Atkinson
CleanAirNow
1923
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
317-320
Jennifer Cantley
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
46-48
Jessica Moerman
Evangelical Environmental
Network
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
38-40
Jodie Teuton
American Truck Dealers
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
349-352
Joey Cantley-
Saba
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
284-287
Johana Vicente
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
303-308
John Sonin
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
87-90
Jorge Vasquez
NR. DC
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
74-76
Joseph Hoydilla
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
153-155
Kabyn Vikesland
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
76-78
Karen McElfish
United Women in Faith
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
141-142
Kathryn Westman
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
85-87
Kaye Romans
NR. DC
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
78-80
Kevin Goscila
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
167-170
Kindra Weid
MI Air MI Health
1924
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
173-174
Kristin Ziv
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
212-216
Larry Fromm
Achates Power
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
149-152
LaVaida Owens-
White
Alliance of Nurses for
Healthy Environments
(ANHE)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
177-179
Lily Zwaan
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
18-21
Liz Scott
American Lung Association
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
34-36
Lucia Valentine
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
156-158
Madison Lisle
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
27-30
Maggie Stritz
Calnin
Michigan Clean Cities
Coalition and Southwest
Detroit Environmental
Vision
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
96-98
Margarita
Chaidez
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
183-185
Maria Reyes
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
170-173
Mariela Ruacho
American Lung Association
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
257-260
Maria
DiBenedetto
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
253-256
Matthew Duffy
Ford Motor Company
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
70-73
Max Kiefer
1925
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
247-250
Maxine Lobel
Elders Climate Action
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
315-317
Mayela Bustos
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
60-62
Meredith Haines
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
226-227
Michael A.
McClain
National Baptist Convention
USA
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
282-283
Michelle Freeman
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
186-190
Michelle
Uberuaga
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
132-135
Milagros Elia
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
275-279
Molly Greenberg
Moving Forward Network
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
57-59
Patrick Quinn
Advanced Engine Systems
Institute
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
201-204
Paul Cort
Earthjustice
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
139-140
Phil Hernick
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
135-138
Rachel Meyer
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
251-253
Ramona Blaber
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
232-236
Randolph Lyon
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1926
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
308-311
Riva Fralick
Citizens Climate Lobby
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
236-238
Robert Speiser
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
49-52
Russell Meyer
Florida Council of Churches
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
164-167
Sam Wilson
Union of Concerned
Scientists
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
90-92
Seana Parker-
Dalton
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
321-324
Shelly Francis
EVHybridNoire
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
99-101
Susan Stanton
League of Women Voters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
346-348
Takayla Antonio
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
198-102
Tiffany Hartung
Interfaith Power & Light
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
356-358
Tim Gould
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
113-116
Tom Jordan
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
127-131
Tracy Sabetta
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
124-127
Vanessa Lynch
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
297-301
Will Barrett
American Lung Association
1927
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
2
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-2
52-55
Yasmine Agelidis
EarthJustice
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
89-93
Alana Langdon
Nikola Corporation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
48-50
Alejandro
Ramirez-Zarate
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
22-25
Amy Goldsmith
Clean Water Action &
Clean Water Fund
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
98-101
Anastasia
Montgomery
Union of Concerned
Scientists
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
20-22
Angelle Bradford
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
77-79
Ann Jaworski
Environmental Law &
Policy Center
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
228-230
April Griffith
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
94-96
Ariel Bethune-
Crawford
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
16-19
Athena Motavvef
Earthjustice
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
164-166
Barbara Bauer
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
203-206
Bill Mcnally
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
156-158
Brian Daugherty
Motor and Equipment
Manufacturers Association
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
26-28
Brian Ditzler
1928
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
30-33
Caia Farrell
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
168-170
Catherine Horine
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
209-213
Cemelli De
Aztlan
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
172-175
Claire Morgan
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
73-76
Coralie Cooper
NESCAUM
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
184-187
Darien Davis
Climate & Clean Energy
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
192-194
David Offen-
Brown
Consumer Reports
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
57-60
Dawn Fenton
Volvo Group North
America
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
45-47
Dj Portugal
Chi spa (League of
Conservation Voters, various
states)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
190-191
Douglas Gruenau
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
170-172
Eva Hernandez-
Thomas
Respiratory Health
Association
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
105-108
Evan Brockman
Georgia Clinicians for
Climate Action
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
41-44
Ezra Finkin
Renewable Energy Group
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
200-203
Francisco Sayu
RENEW Wisconsin
1929
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
133-135
Frank Copple
Arizona Climate Action
Coalition
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
219-222
George Agortsas
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
101-103
Gerald Pyle
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
120-124
Glen Kedzie
American Trucking
Associations
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
154-155
Gloria E. Barrera
IASN
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
81-84
Heidi Adelsman
Alliance of Nurses for
Healthy Environments
(ANHE)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
63-66
James Edwards
National Assoc. of Small
Trucking Companies
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
127-129
Jennifer Rennicks
World Resources Institute
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
52-55
Jerome Paulson
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
137-139
Jessica Mengistab
Alliance of Nurses for
Healthy Environments
(ANHE)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
217-219
Jessie Parks
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
139-142
Joan Schiller
Moms Clean Air Force,
various chapters
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
206-209
Joseph Gillis
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
37-38
Linda Smithe
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1930
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
34-37
Lucia Rodriguez
Hispanic Access Foundation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
117-118
Lyman Welch
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
111-114
Marcela Pinilla
Zevin Asset Management
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
108-110
Marianne
Comfort
Sisters of Mercy of the
Americas Justice Team
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
66-69
Martin Haverly
Renewable Energy Group
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
114-117
Melina Kennedy
Cummins Inc.
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
151-153
Michael Sauber
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
222-225
Michelle
Jorgensen
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
124-126
Mihai Dorobantu
Eaton Vehicle Group
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
130-133
Morgan Folger
Environment America
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
179-181
Nancy Dodge
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
230-234
Neil Carman
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
214-216
Odile Coirier
Interfaith Power & Light
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
50-52
Patricia Keefe
Franciscans of Rochester,
MN
1931
-------
Day
Docket Number
Page
Numbers
Testifier Name
Affiliation
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
159-164
Rev. J.D. Gee Iii
Eifort Elixers
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
225-227
Robert Sausedo
Carreras Tours LLC
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
144-147
Ronn Kistler
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
39-41
Sarah Clark
Colorado Sierra Club
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
195-199
Stacie Slay
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
142-144
Stephen Wyman
Evolving Electric Motor
Company
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
85-89
Syndi Smallwood
National Tribal Air
Association
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
182-184
Taylor Thomas
East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
175-178
Will Anderson
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
235-237
William Cox
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
70-73
Wyatt Robinson
United Methodist Church,
General Board of Church
and Society
3
EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2867
attachment-3
187-190
Yassi Kavezade
Sierra Club (Various
Chapters)
1932
-------
Appendix 4: General Statements Excerpted from the
Detailed Comments Included in the Document
EPA categorized the content of detailed written comment received on this rule by topic area and
assembled them for response in the various sections of this Response to Comment Document. In
addition to detailed comments on specific aspects of the proposed rule, many commenters also
provided general statements that indicate their support for the proposal as written, support for the
proposal while also stating that the proposal doesn't go far enough or general opposition to the
proposal. Because these statements are general in nature, they were not assigned to specific
sections of the document. Instead, these statements are summarized in Section 1; full excerpts
are provided in this Appendix for completeness.
Comments by Organization
Organization: 350Marin
President Biden promised actions to transform the U.S. into a zero-emission economy by 2050
But these EPA proposals do not require zero emission trucks and buses even though zero
emission vehicles are available now. Zero-emission electric trucks are the best available
technology to both reduce harmful NOx and climate pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2474,
p.l]
Therefore, we urge this administration to set the strongest standards possible because many lives,
especially our children and those most vulnerable in our communities, depend on it. The EPA
must put the country's medium- and heavy-duty fleets on a pathway to 100% zero-emission all
electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2474, p.l]
Organization: 350 Colorado
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Heidi Leathwood\ I am here in support of rules for
clean trucks and to urge even more protective rules to address climate change and right the
environmental injustice wrongs of the past and present. The effects of climate change are not
confined to the future. They are already here. The American West is in the worst drought for
1,200 years, and here in Colorado we are having year-round wildfires that are burning down
homes and killing people. Denver has very bad air pollution, a D rating from the American Lung
Association, and our ozone non-attainment rating is severe. Transportation is one of the top
causes of this. Here is my specific ruling representing 350 Colorado. Greenhouse gas standards
should be made more stringent in model years 2027 to 2029 and beyond. The goal is to get gas
and diesel vehicles off the road as soon as possible, but in the meantime adopt the strongest
technologies for reducing pollution from these vehicles and for state-of-the-art monitoring and
communication about the pollution. EPA should adopt provisions as strong or stronger than
California for all states. Natural gas should not be encouraged or incentivized as a fuel in any
way. Fuel transmission and combustion emissions would be locked into the 30- to 40-year life
of the vehicle. Zero-emission vehicle purchases should be the priority of the rule. Testing should
be conducted not only for engines alone but with the whole vehicle in use, and testing standards
1933
-------
for particulates should not be reduced. Particulate pollution is a serious health threat. Cost
should not be considered higher than protection of health. We support longer emissions warranty
periods, and we support the strongest possible rules to prevent tampering and to detect system
failures, also to ensure adequate maintenance of the vehicles and to ensure engine rebuilding
does not result in higher pollution. The IPCC continue to get more and more urgent. We need to
reduce greenhouse gasses now. Since the new rules cannot take effect until model year 2027,
they need to be even stronger. I am here to urge you to strengthen the rules and to complete
rulemaking in 2022. This will have a positive effect, not only on pollution but on the
development of clean transportation resources that our country and the world need in order to
stay under 1.5-degree of global warming. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Achates Power, Inc.
Achates Power has good and growing evidence that the CARB 2027 ultra-low NOx regulation
and the EPA 2027 GHGII regulation and the most stringent EPA NOx proposal can be met with
substantial compliance margin and with only existing conventional aftertreatment systems
making the solutions cost-effective and robust while utilizing existing manufacturing, servicing,
and fueling infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 4]
Transportation is vital to prosperity as it provides access to education, jobs, markets, health care,
and recreation. Yet our current modes of transportation inflict a heavy price in poor air quality,
environmental harm, and poor human health, particularly among the most impacted. We need to
take every reasonable measure to reduce the harmful impact of our transportation industry so all
can continue to benefit from what our society has to offer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1,
p. 4]
As a industry we can plan and hope that battery electric or fuel cell technologies provide reliable,
environmentally friendly, and cost-effective transportation solutions. But we cannot wait and
need not wait until these technologies are proven capable and are widely adopted to
meaningfully reduce the harmful impacts of transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-
Al, p. 4]
Achates Power has strong and growing evidence that meeting our near-term environmental goals
by substantially reducing both criteria and C02 emissions from commercial vehicles can be done
quickly without an increase in either the cost to purchase or use those vehicles, and with existing
facilities and infrastructure for manufacturing, distributing, fueling, and servicing. The EPA's
most stringent option can be met in a practical and cost-effective manner, and its adoption will
spur technology innovation to improve air quality and human health in the near term, with
benefits compounding even while complementary zero-emission solutions are brought to market
over an unknown and unknowable timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1216-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Adrian Shelley, Citizen.
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022] So I am joining today to a strong rule that limits NOx
pollution and other pollutants as well from the heavy truck industry. I want to just start by noting
that truck traffic is typically concentrated in what we think of as environmental justice
communities, low-income, communities of color, and the presence of traffic, particularly heavy
1934
-------
truck traffic, is often the result of structural racism, redlining, you know, a history of geographic
marginalization of communities of color. So those impacts are still felt today. In my own work I
have seen this in communities like Pasadena, in the East Harris County area, Galena Park, La
Porte, Morgan's Point, Channelview. These are communities that deal with this truck traffic
every single day. NOx improvements are obviously overdue and the strongest NOx standard
possible will provide the most health benefits. And a lot of those benefits will come from co-
pollutants. You know, particularly diesel particulates and ultrafine particulates are probably
understated in their health impacts. You know, those impacts begin in the womb, with
everything from brain development in infants to low birth weights to exacerbation of diabetes,
stroke, heart attack, and all the way up to premature death. So, you know, heavy truck pollution
kills, and it kills in a way that impacts certain communities the most, due to a history of injustice
and structural racism. So I think we need to keep that in mind. With that in mind, the health
impacts from just heavy truck pollution alone in a major U.S. city is going to be in the hundreds
of millions to billions of dollars. The calculated health impacts of this rule, I think if you are just
looking at NOx, show that it is outpaces the cost by billions of dollars. I want to encourage
investment in inherently zero-emission technologies, electric trucks. You know, the emissions
requirements can be met by other technologies but there are other consequences, you know,
natural gas, for example, fracking, and whatnot. You know, hydrogen and other technologies
might potentially have other impacts. So inherently zero-emission technology is what we prefer,
and, you know, there are concerns with control technologies as well. There has been a long
history of defeat devices, workarounds for equipment, BPS, and that sort of thing, and from
outright cheating from companies. So we want to discourage that and inherently zero-emission
vehicles are another way to do that. So, in conclusion, I support the strongest rule possible,
mindful of the inequitable health impacts of heavy truck pollution in communities today. I
encourage a transition toward electric vehicles, a good investment in zero-emission technologies
and equitable investment in electrification in communities, and a swift transition away from
polluting heavy trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Advanced Engine Systems Institute (AESI)
AESI members are committed to the following principles, which should underlie EPA's final
rule regulating NOx and GHG emissions from Heavy Duty vehicles and engines.
• ASEI members support the goals of clean mobility and reduced NOx and GHG emissions
that lead to the decarbonization of the transportation sector and clean air. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 1]
• AESI supports technology neutral standards which are performance based and cost
efficient. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 1]
• One set of National Standards for NOx is critical from the market perspective of
suppliers. EPA has an opportunity to ensure a single harmonized national HD NOx
standard by finalizing Option 1. A failure of EPA to align standards with the California
Omnibus will result in a patchwork of state standards. This would create unacceptable
market uncertainties; stifle innovation; and cause disruptions in freight with significant
economic impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 1]
• Long term regulatory certainty is essential for suppliers to make critical investment
choices regarding advanced technology, product development and production. Regulatory
1935
-------
certainty stimulates investment and job creation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p.
1]
• These regulations should drive simultaneous NOx and GHG reduction. Peer reviewed
published data cited here (below) and elsewhere demonstrate multiple technology
pathways are available to achieve simultaneous NOx and C02 reductions from ICE-
based powertrains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 1]
AESI strongly supports EPA's proposed Option I to regulate NOx emissions and believe that it
closely aligns with the California Omnibus Rule. Recently published data [Matheaus, A., Neely,
G., Sharp, C., Hopkins, J. et al., "Fast Diesel Aftertreatment Heat-up Using CDA and an
Electrical Heater," SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0211, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4271/2021-01-
0211] suggest that the stringent standards proposed in Option I can be achieved with a significant
margin for compliance. These data should be considered by EPA in shaping the Final rule, which
critically does not take effect for another 5 years during which further innovation will occur.
Option II is a completely unacceptable outcome for AESI members. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1281-A1, pp. 1-2]
There are more data, including the comprehensive technology demonstration program at
Southwest Research Institute (SWRI), underlying this rule than any in EPA's mobile source
history; all of these data support Option I. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
NOx emissions are a critical urban public health issue, which disproportionately effect frontline
communities. Data cited here in the Eaton/SWRI manuscript and data generated by other
suppliers, demonstrate that the Option 1 NOx standards can be achieved with a substantial
compliance margin at a reasonable cost while simultaneously reducing C02 emission from
medium and heavy duty vehicles. The diesel trucks that are sold going forward should be as
clean and fuel efficient as possible. This rule offers EPA perhaps the final opportunity to ensure
that goal is achieved. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1281-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) (1251 and 1421)
ARA supports practical, technologically feasible, and cost-effective efforts to promote newer
technologies that will reduce emissions in heavy-duty trucks and other motor vehicles with the
goal of cleaner air and healthier communities. However, the EPA's current proposals are not
practical or cost-effective and not technologically feasible in the near term. These new EPA
standards are being proposed at a time the United States continues to face record inflation and
cost increases on new and used vehicles as well as every other essential consumer good. This
proposal will lead to users keeping and maintaining older vehicles on the road longer, thereby
keeping emissions high and running directly counter to the EP As stated goals. ARA does not
believe either Proposal 1 or 2 establish a practical timeline to ensure vehicle performance and
reliability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, pp. 1 -2]
To be effective, any final rule must result in new trucks that are:
1936
-------
• Affordable: If trucking companies choose not to purchase new trucks due to cost or
reliability concerns, older trucks will stay on the road longer and environment goals will
not be achieved;
• Durable: New, more expensive trucks are not purchased to sit in repair bays. Trucks are
unproductive pieces of equipment unless they are moving freight;
• Safe: Safety is a top priority in every trucking operation. Putting off the purchase of the
newest equipment will delay the use of the latest safety technologies; and
• Cleaner: An unworkable rule will delay fleet turnover and impede environmental
progress. The long-term promotion of alternative, renewable fuels such as low-emission
biofuels need to be part of any long-term solution to promoting cleaner air and healthier
communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, p. 4]
Fleets do not make trucks — they are consumers that buy trucks. While this rule is directed at
manufacturers, it is agricultural retailers, trucking companies, and other businesses buying
modern technologies that determine the success or failure in the implementation of every truck
emissions regulation. Fleets remain extremely sensitive to the many difficulties involved in
running a company - a matter that is especially significant to the 97 percent of fleets classified as
small businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-A1, p. 4]
Here is a look at the numbers behind EPA's overly stringent proposed rule according to the
Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)3:
• 4.5 million: With more than 4.5 million medium- and heavy-duty trucks on the road
today delivering 72% of the goods, services, and freight that consumers depend on every
day, EPA's final rule would have a sweeping impact on the nation's economy.
• 98%: Almost all (98%) of U.S. fleet owners are small businesses operating fleets with 20
or fewer commercial vehicles. Nine out of ten of these fleets (91 %) operate six or fewer
trucks.
• 11.6%: Research from Ramboll Group shows NOx emissions could actually increase by
as much as 11.6% under EPA's more stringent rule because of delayed fleet turnover and
older, higher-emitting trucks staying on the road longer.
• $42,000: Contrary to EPA's claims that per-unit truck cost increases will be minor,
analysis from Ricardo Strategic Consulting found the per -unit cost increase for heavy-
duty diesel engines could exceed $42,000, including increased operating costs, making it
unlikely that fleet owners will be able to afford to purchase the new trucks. An earlier
cost study that the California Air Resources Board commissioned from the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reached similar conclusions.
• 221,000: ACT research found that, under one scenario, as many as 221,000 good-paying
jobs in the truck and engine manufacturing industries could be at risk if EPA pursues a
poorly designed rule such as the one it has proposed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1251-
Al, pp. 3-4]
3. http://www.truckandenginemanufacturers.org/file.asp?A=Y&F=EMA+Press+Release+on
+EPA+Hearing%2Epdf&N=EMA+Press+Release+on+EPA+Hearing%2Epdf&C=document
s
1937
-------
Organization: Ali P.
We need to implement as many pollution and greenhouse gas reduction measures as possible and
do so as quickly as we can to begin decreasing the detrimental effects that anthropogenic
activities have on the planet. This proposed rule would bring us one small step closer to
accomplishing this goal. It would begin reducing the negative effects that pollution has on
people's overall health and on the state of the world's ecosystems. It would also help begin
reducing the country's enormous volume of greenhouse gas emissions. It is a step towards better
preservation of both humanity and the environment. While humans have destroyed much of the
earth, it is not too late to actively work to restore it. But the time to act is now. Too many people
are either refusing to work towards improving the environment or are treating its improvement as
a lost cause. Both of these mentalities will result in our increase in global destruction and our
eventual downfall. We need to make every effort that we can to save the environment and
ourselves. Implementing policies such as this proposed rule should only be the beginning. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-1031]
Organization: Alliance for Vehicle Efficiency (AVE)
AVE supports EPA's effort to reduce emissions, specifically nitrogen oxides (NOx), and
particulate matter (PM) from this important segment of the transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 1]
AVE urges EPA to move beyond tailpipe only definitions for ZEVs and integrate lifecycle
analysis for future standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Defining ZEVs only at the tailpipe distorts the environmental gains of vehicles with known
upstream emissions. Relying on the current definition of ZEVs serves as a barrier to automotive
technologies that can deliver significant real-world emission reductions. For example, hydrogen
combustion engines can deliver significant emission reductions, and when compared to other
vehicles on a lifecycle basis, can match the environmental impact of vehicles currently defined
as ZEVs. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Continuing to focus solely on tailpipe emissions for future standards also ignores President
Biden's January 25, 2021, Executive Order, in which he stressed the need for environmental
standards to account for all greenhouse gas emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p.
5]
"Sec. 5. Accounting for the Benefits of Reducing Climate Pollution, (a) It is essential that
agencies capture the full costs of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including
by taking global damages into account. Doing so facilitates sound decision-making, recognizes
the breadth of climate impacts, and supports the international leadership of the United States on
climate issues." 10 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
10. 7040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 14 / Monday, January 25, 2021 / Presidential
Documents
1938
-------
Congress is also encouraging EPA to assess lifecycle emissions when setting future vehicle
standards: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
Vehicle Emissions Lifecycle Analysis. — The Committee believes it is essential that when
setting future standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Agency fully evaluate
emission impacts of vehicle technologies and transportation fuels (including electricity used as a
fuel) from well to wheel, and the vehicle cycle through material recovery and vehicle disposal in
order to capture the full impacts of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible. The
Committee encourages the Agency to develop standardized modeling to evaluate the full
lifecycle of vehicle technologies and transportation fuels, as new standards to reduce pollutants
are being developed, and to coordinate as necessary, with other federal agencies that are
conducting similar models for vehicles in an effort to accurately determine the full impact of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and
other actions. 11 (Emphasis added) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 5]
11. See, H. Rept. 117-83 - Dept. of the Interior, Environment, & Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2022 at P. 84.
In setting new national standards, AVE supports EPA adopting the most stringent standards that
are technically feasible and cost-effective. EPA's Proposal provides an excellent opportunity to
target the largest segment of NOx and PM emissions across the majority of the country for the
first time in almost 20-years and to provide much needed, cost-effective relief to states facing
daunting Ozone-attainment challenges. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 8]
The investments made over the last decade by automotive suppliers has made more stringent
standards possible. We believe that a strong and feasible national standard provides the greatest
public health benefits while providing the much-needed regulatory certainty for the industry to
continue to innovate and invest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1280-A1, p. 8]
Organization: Allison Transmission, Inc. (Allison)
EPA should consider whether there are any additional quantitative or qualitative impacts that
may be projected from imposing standards based on the control of criteria air pollutants like
NOx versus impacting GHG emissions. In addition to any available data, this review could
consider how the additional of additional emission control technology for criteria versus GHG
impacts may be perceived in the marketplace. Considering the commercial vehicle end-user
perspective there is significant capital involved in fleet-turnover that drives more caution and
slower willingness to adopt significantly different technology that goes beyond the total cost of
ownership ("TCO") or purely economic comparisons. Consideration of the need to conduct trials
and build confidence in technology prior to fleet turnover could drive a different estimates of
ZEV adoption in the medium- and heavy-duty market compared with the passenger car market.
This, in turn, reinforces the importance of a maintaining non-ZEV path for C02 reduction based
on more mature technology. Allison explores these issues further in Sections XVI and XVII of
these comments.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231 -A1, p.22]
1939
-------
Additionally, it is clear that EPA and CARB will increasingly need to consider not only tailpipe
and avoided GHG emissions, but also upstream components to the GHG profile of heavy-duty
ZEVs. As EPA is well aware, the overall emissions impact of a ZEV is tied to the carbon content
of the electricity used to charge its batteries; such content will vary across different areas of the
country, resulting in very real differences in net climate benefits. These differences can be very
substantial, varying from 12 grams of C02 per kilowatt hour ("kWh")to 2.23 lbs. per
kWh.69 While this rulemaking does not address this issue and the relative effect of upstream
emissions from electricity generation is not a current, major concern given the relatively low
penetration of ZEVs in the heavy-duty sector, by EPA's own estimates this effect will increase
over time. EPA should therefore more proactively discuss this issue going-forward during the
series of rulemakings that are currently part of its agenda in the HDV sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1231-A1, p.33]
69 Nationwide, C02 emissions per kilowatt-hour ("kWh") averaged 0.85 lbs./kWh in
2020. But the rate varied from near-zero for certain forms of energy (e.g., from 48
gC02eq/kWh for solar, 24gC02eq/kWh for hydropower and 12gC02eq/kWh for
nuclear) as compared with 2.23 lbs./kWh for coal-fired power plants. See, e.g.,
eia.gov/tools/faqs; www.hydropower.org.
Beyond scope of Clean Air Act, ZEVs also face numerous other environmental issues, including
the extent of recovery of battery materials, recyclability, and closed loop systems. Battery
material reclamation is a very important consideration for the long-term sustainability of ZEV.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1231- A 1,p.33]
While all of these issues may not be able to be addressed pursuant to the Agency's Clean Air Act
authority, these impacts have associated costs and cannot be ignored over the long-term.
Proactively discussing such issues would aid the vehicle manufacturing sector in planning for
future design and sourcing agreements early within vehicle development cycles. Such an
assessment should be performed prior to adoption of any explicit or implicit ZEV targets; EPA
should not in this rulemaking attempt to align final regulations with the measures and timing
contained in the CARB HD Omnibus regulation or the CARB Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1231-A1, p.33]
Organization: Amber Wheeldon
I have browsed the previously posted comments regarding the new rule being proposed by the
EPA. It is abundantly clear that no person commenting in favor of stricter emission controls has
any knowledge of the transportation industry. More stringent emission controls will be
detrimental to the trucking industry. When the American trucking industry struggles, so do the
American people. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1154]
Current emission controls already fail. They fail constantly. The technology we have currently
for emission control products isn't working. How can we believe further controls will work?
Large amounts of trucks are out of service in every state with emission control errors. The effects
of trucks out of service can be seen in our already low inventory shelves in the grocery stores.
But those inventories are also low for truck parts. For example, the truck parts necessary for
repairing the trucks with emission control errors. Trucks can be put out of service for months
1940
-------
waiting for repair. So, while the truck has no actual mechanical issues, it can't be used. Small
fleet owners cannot afford to be out of service for long periods. There is a significant loss of
income in just a few weeks. Once the parts are available, now they must pay high costs for the
emission control products that will still continue to fail. Small fleet owners will be forced out of
business because of the emission control failures. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1154]
Fleet Size
Fleet Size by
Number of
Carrier % of
Total Power
Power Unit%
Group
Power Units
Carriers
Total
Units
of Total
Very Small
1 to 6
502,626
86.00%
924,467
19.81%
Small
7 to 19
53,332
9.13%
583,105
12.49%
Medium
20 to 100
24,133
4.13%
955,280
20.47%
Large
101 to 2,000
4,212
0.72%
1,236,217
26.49%
Very Large
2,001 to 5,000
93
0.02%
278,517
5.97%
Mega
5,001+
41
0.01%
689,461
14.77%
Totals
584,437
100.00%
4,667,047
Data Source: FMCSA, Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), data snapshot of interstate carrier;
as of December 2020
As seen in the table above, very small - medium fleets, that will be most affected by the new
regulations, make up no small sum of the overall trucking numbers in America. More rigid
controls on emissions will be disastrous for the over 580,000 small carriers. Everyone would
agree that improving air pollution and greenhouse gases is a good thing. Unfortunately, this
particular program is a failure. If the products cannot be manufactured now to work efficiently,
we cannot move forward with more ineffective regulations that put small business owners out of
work and moreover the American people out of the products they need on their shelves. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1154]
Rules and regulations are passed too often without being aware of the effects it passes down on
the people. By passing more regulation that continues to fail them, it fails us all. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1154]
Organization: American Bus Association (ABA) (1070 and 1308)
Initially, ABA's overarching concern with the Proposal, and the EPA's review for that matter,
is the apparent lack of understanding of the types of vehicles and industries that use and rely on
heavy-duty, compression-ignition engines. Although the Proposal targets engine emissions by
way of regulating engine manufacturers, in reality it is the use of these engines on the nations
roadways that affects air quality. In the Executive Summary of the Notice, the Industry Overview
focuses exclusively on property-carrying vehicles (Notice, Executive Summary Section A. 1.). A
further description, and one of the few allusions to passenger transport, occurs in the
Introduction, where middle weight class heavy-duty vehicles are described as those that tend to
be used for municipal work to "transport people ... locally and regionally... " (Notices, Section
I. A.) A cursory reading of the lengthy Notice suggests the rulemaking has no bearing on engines
or vehicles used by the private passenger-carrying motorcoach industry. Clearly this is not the
case, as EPA does review a number of comments from motorcoach operators in discussing the
1941
-------
negative impacts of its current inducement policy (See Notice, Section IV. D.). However, the
emphasis on trucks or property-carrying vehicles, particularly in terms of data, does raise several
questions and concerns about the underlying assumptions and analyses used to support the
Proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1308-A1, pp.2-3]
Further, if the Proposal degrades the motorcoach industry it will have an impact on the economy
through job loss, reduced transportation capacity, and the loss of transportation options for the
most vulnerable and price-sensitive communities who rely heavily on motorcoach transportation.
In addition, the drivers of the motorcoach industry represent a diverse group, providing
employment opportunities for underserved communities at rates that exceed the national
averages for other industries. Meaning, that the loss of the motorcoach coach industry will lead
to increased unemployment for communities of color, as well as women. It is an expressed goal
of this Administration (see "Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad," January 2022) to create jobs in tackling climate initiatives, not take them away. Despite
the driver shortage, over 90,000 motorcoach drivers are currently employed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1308-A1, p.5]
Organization: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
ACEEE supports EPA in its effort to limit NOx emissions as much as possible to protect the
health of our communities. However, our comments are focused on the GHG components of the
proposal as global climate change remains a major economic and national security threat. After a
year of severe forest fires and flooding, EPA cannot miss an opportunity to make significant
progress on emission reductions. The stringency and structure of these standards will have
lasting impacts as they will determine which vehicles will be sold and used on the road for
decades to come and will also set the baseline that the upcoming Phase 3 standards will start
from. It is therefore crucial that EPA gets these standards right. Reducing carbon emissions is
critical to tackling climate change but increasing HDV efficiency will also have significant
benefits to air quality and reduce fueling costs for our nation's trucks and delivery vehicles, costs
that are passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices for their everyday goods and
groceries. Stricter GHG limits for heavy-duty vehicles will also decrease oil consumption. This
is key to supporting vital US security interests including moderating oil prices and ensuring a
stable oil supply for the US and allied nations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p.2]
EPA's medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emission standards are a vital tool to protecting vehicle
owners, the environment, and the public. Standards that push technology forward help
consumers save on fuel costs, reduce environmental damage, and reduce dangerous pollution that
increases the risk of breathing-related illness. ACEEE believes that EPA has built a good
framework in this proposed rule, but believes it needs to be more ambitious to reflect the White
House's new goals for emission reductions by 2030 and EV market development. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2852-A1, p. 10]
Organization: American Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau)
This rule has the potential to delay the turnover to newer vehicles with cleaner emission
technologies, forcing vehicle owners to keep their higher-emitting trucks longer. This not only
1942
-------
will delay EPA's anticipated environmental benefits, it also would cause environmental
backsliding that seems to be in conflict with the goals of the agency. Furthermore, a poorly
designed final rule will cause market disruptions, will delay or undermine the ability of
manufacturers to recoup their investment in developing compliant technologies, and worse,
could have significant adverse impacts on the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1163-A1,
p.l]
It is again important to emphasize that trucking is enormously important to the economy—the
industry moves 72% of goods in America and is the foundation of a well-functioning supply
chain. When trucking costs go up, the cost of nearly all goods go up with it. As the White House
recently noted, trucking costs grew more than 20% last year, and we know that sharply increased
fuel costs thus far in 2022 have only exacerbated economic burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1163-A1, p.2]
Farm Bureau believes the proposed rule is not technologically feasible, cost-effective or
acceptable to the needs of America's farmers and ranchers. Our policy, developed by
hardworking farmers and ranchers, clearly enunciates opposition to any further attempt to restrict
or regulate exhaust emissions on new or used farm equipment, heavy equipment or trucks. We
therefore urge EPA to take extra caution to avoid requirements that could intensify the already
challenging economic conditions facing rural America and the U.S. economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1163-A1, p.2]
Organization: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Finally, the Proposal's GHG provisions are reliant upon California's Advanced Clean Truck rule
for significant BET sales even though there is no California waiver in place for Heavy Duty
(HD) trucks. EPA is acting arbitrarily in depending on a preempted California standard to
demonstrate regulatory achievability. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
Heavy duty trucks can be used for more than a million miles, and this will mean that for BETs,
there will be several battery replacements during their lifetime. The battery is the energy storage
media on the vehicle, just as the fuel is on a diesel ICE (internal combustion engine)
vehicle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.2]
The analysis included in the Proposal does not assume battery replacements and essentially
ignores an issue of key importance to the problem EPA is working to resolve. Lithium-ion
batteries are made from critical minerals including cobalt, graphite, lithium, nickel, and
manganese. Electric vehicles (EVs) require six times the mineral inputs of traditional internal
combustion engines.3 One study suggests that the extraction and processing of critical minerals
are responsible for approximately 20 percent of the GHG emissions associated with battery
production.4 A typical light-duty lithium EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. While there are
dozens of variations, a typical battery contains around 25 pounds of lithium, 30 pounds of cobalt,
60 pounds of nickel, 110 pounds of graphite, and 90 pounds of copper. Since ore grades vary,
acquiring these five elements to produce a single battery requires mining about 90,000 pounds of
ore.5 Roughly 90,000 pounds of ore requires digging and moving between 200,000 and over
1,500,000 pounds of earth, a rough average of more than 500,000 pounds per battery.6 These
1943
-------
numbers are significantly higher for heavy-duty EV batteries. Further, the International Energy
Agency (IEA) pins the average GHG intensity for production of lithium carbonate at around 5
metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (C02e) emitted per ton of metal, and approximately
15 C02e metric tons per ton of cobalt sulfate.7 The mining of minerals for BETs typically
occurs in countries where environmental, health, and safety precautions are significantly less
stringent than those in the U.S.8,9 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1262-A1, p.3]
3 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report at 28,
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ffd2a83b-8c30-4e9d-980a-
52b6d9a86fdc/TheRoleofCri ticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf.
4 Kim et al., Cradle-to-Gate Emissions from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion
Battery: A Comparative Analysis, Environ. Sci. Technol 50 (2016), pp. 7715-7722. See
also Volvo, Carbon footprint report: Volvo C40 Recharge at 5,
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-
Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf
('The accumulated emissions from the Materials production and refining, Li-ion battery
modules and Volvo Cars manufacturing phases of C40 Recharge are nearly 70 per cent
higher than for XC40 ICE.'). The Volvo report notes that production of the Li-ion battery
modules account for 30 percent of the footprint of the C40 Recharge. Id. at 6.
5 See Mark Mills, Mines, Minerals, and 'Green' Energy: A Reality Check, The Manhattan
Institute (July 9, 2020), https://www.manhattan-institute.org/mines-minerals-and-green-
energy-reality-check., last visited, May 16, 2022.
6 Id.
7 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report, at 195.
8 See IEA's Critical Minerals Report. See also Securing America's Future Energy, The
Commanding Heights of Global Transportation (2020), https://secureenergy.org/the-
commanding-heights-of-global-transportation-2/,https://secureenergy.org/the-
commanding-heights-of-global-transportation-2/, last visited, May 16, 2022.
9 In addition to GHG emissions, such mining activities are also responsible for PM
emissions, NOx emissions, and other air pollutant emissions.
Organization: American Lung Association et al.
We view US EPA's proposed Option 1 as a far more health-protective pathway to cleaning up
trucking emissions than Option 2, which we do not believe is an appropriate pathway for health
protection or technology availability or to a zero-emission trucking future. Adopting a stronger
Option 1 is critical to reducing health and equity burdens and setting a stronger course to a
sustainable transportation system. Of the two options proposed, Option 1 would provide greater
health benefits than Option 2, including up to $33 billion in health benefits, and significant
ozone-related health benefits up to: 2,100 premature deaths avoided 16,000 pediatric asthma
1944
-------
cases avoided 2.8 million instances of asthma symptoms avoided 1.1 million lost school days
avoided 3 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1271-A1, pp. 1-2]
3 US EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis Draft at page 394 (Note: additional particle
pollution-related health endpoints are included in the analysis at page 393). March 2022.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf
In 2016, leading health and medical organizations called for stronger truck standards in a letter to
then US EPA Administrator McCarthy, noting then that standard in line with the proposed
Option 1 introduced in March 2022 was needed to protect health and align with the 2015 ozone
standards. Once again, we call on US EPA to establish a health-protective standard for all new
trucks. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1271- A 1, p.2]
The final standards must ensure a 90 percent reduction in emissions from new trucks compared
with the current standards, or 0.02 grams per brake horsepower hour of NOx emissions. The
standards must include stronger provisions to address pollution caused throughout the operations
of the truck, including low-load standards, idling and highway conditions. Option 1 must be
strengthened and - at a minimum - harmonized with the California Low NOx Omnibus rule
adopted in 2020 to deliver a 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions from new trucks as of 2027,
along with the California low-load and idle emissions requirements. US EPA should accelerate
Option 1 to align to this schedule. Further, we support the proposal to strengthen particle
emission standards to 5 milligrams per mile to account for advances in engine designs and to
protect against backsliding within any future engine technologies. Again, public health demands
that US EPA act to establish a long-overdue, comprehensive, and health protective standard: It is
imperative that the US EPA strengthen and adopt Option 1 in 2022. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-
0055-1271-A1, p.2]
In summary, we urge US EPA to strengthen the Option 1 standard and to adopt the final
rule this year to ensure implementation by 2027. We urge you to not only finalize strong
standards, but also ensure real-world benefits by requiring pollution controls for the full lives of
these vehicles and throughout all real-world operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1271-A1, p.3]
Organization: American Truck Dealers (ATD)
Prospective purchasers and lessors apply rigorous total cost of ownership (TCO) and return on
investment (ROI) decision-making when considering investments in new CMVs. Consequently,
CMVs equipped with HDEs subject to new NOx emission reduction mandates must be
affordable to buy or lease, must be cost effective to operate, and must offer acceptable levels of
reliability (i.e., uptime). The trucking industry learned this firsthand with HDEs subject to EPA's
2002-10 NOx standards. A study conducted in-house by ATD details the dramatic impact those
standards had because they proved costly to comply with and degraded vehicle .4 The study
found that EPA underestimated control strategy and technology compliance costs by a factor of
2-5, resulting in dramatically higher prices for new CMVs. It also found that EPA's mandates
resulted in significantly higher operating costs, due to increased maintenance requirements,
reduced reliability, and lower fuel economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1321-A1, p. 2]
1945
-------
4. See Attachment B, Calpin and Plaza Jennings, A Look Back at EPA's Cost and Other
Impact Projections for My 2004-2010 Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards (2/13/12)
Organization: American Trucking Associations (ATA)
In its capacity as the national representative of the trucking industry, ATA regularly comments
on matters affecting trucking's common interests and providing its expertise and understanding
of the industry. While HD2027 is not specifically directed at trucking fleets, the trucking
industry's purchasing decisions will ultimately decide the success or failure of this rule. The
consistent messaging from fleets to EPA regarding HD2027 is clear - minimize purchase,
maintenance, warranty, and operational costs; maximize performance, durability, and driver
satisfaction; maintain fleet flexibility in technology and fuel choices; do not re-open the
final Phase 2 rule; and do not create unintended consequences such as equipment pre-buys/low-
buys or no-buys, alteration of fleet turnover cycles, and fuel economy degradation. ATA
supports the underlying goals of HD2027 and appreciates EPA's receptiveness in receiving
stakeholder input, including ATA's testimony during the agency's April 12-14 virtual public
hearing. As always, ATA's path forward will be driven where the facts, science, and economics
leads us. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
While ATA cannot address every aspect of HD2027, we are supportive of the underlying
environmental objectives and several of the elements being proposed. ATA's areas of support
include:
• EPA acknowledgement that cleaner diesel trucks will remain integral for the foreseeable
near-term future as the nation transitions to the use of zero-emission vehicles ("ZEVs").
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
• Allowing manufacturer flexibility in their technology platform pathways. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1326-A1, p. 3]
ATA has established 12 fleet Guiding Principles that should be considered in the development of
HD2027 including:
• The rule should not be based on technology-forcing standards.
• Compliance pathways must remain fuel and technology neutral. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1326-A1, p. 5]
Organization: Anne Mellinger-Birdsong
I support this proposal and urges EPA to make it stronger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1244]
Organization: Anonymous 1032
The EPA should absolutely increase the air pollution standards for heavy duty vehicles. Even a
minor adjustment to the standards would have a noticeable positive effect on greenhouse gas
emissions. According to the EPA, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions currently come from the
1946
-------
transportation sector, and of that 29%, about 25% comes from heavy duty vehicles. This means
that over 7% of America's greenhouse gas emissions come directly from heavy duty vehicles.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
Time is running out on mitigating the effects of climate change. If all greenhouse gas emissions
were to cease this instant, the planet would still warm by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius.
While it is not possible to cause this drastic reduction, it is absolutely necessary that we curb our
emissions to a degree such that global warming will not exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius. An increase
of more than this amount would have catastrophic impacts on the global population, creating
severe weather, drought, and rising sea levels that would leave countless people dead or without
homes. Any viable options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be taken up as quickly as
possible, which is the primary reason that the implementation of this program is so important.
In terms of greenhouse gas reduction, the proposal would primarily be responsible for reductions
in NOx emissions. This is important because while NOx gasses are less prevalent in the
atmosphere than other common gasses like C02, they have much greater warming potential. The
NOx global warming potential is 298 times that of C02, meaning that emissions standards that
focus on that gas have the potential to have a large positive impact on mitigating our nation's
carbon emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
In addition, the emissions standards will have a positive effect on reducing the particulate matter
emissions of heavy-duty vehicles. There are multiple size categories for particulate matter, those
being 10 micrometers and 2.5 micrometers. Particulate emissions from heavy duty vehicles
would be primarily 2.5 micrometers. These particles are incredibly dangerous because they are
small enough that they can be inhaled and enter the bloodstream along with oxygen through the
process of respiration. This can cause serious health issues such as asthma, cardiovascular
disease, and lung cancer. PM 2.5 is responsible for approximately 95% of the public health
consequences caused by air pollution, and thus it is incredibly important to reduce sources of this
particularly damaging air pollutant. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
The proposal has the potential to have a really noticeable positive impact in the reduction of
emissions. There are two different proposed options for the plan. The first is more drastic, and
would cause a 50% reduction in NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles by the year 2045. The
second less drastic option would still be able to create a 47% reduction. By this point in time, the
majority of current vehicles will have outlasted their lifespan, and they will have been replaced
by new vehicles that will have to be created in accordance with the emissions standards in the
EPA's proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
The calculated positive impact of reductions in air pollutants will be drastic as well. The
feasibility of this plan can be calculated by weighing its expected loss (in the expenses of making
drivers meet these more strict emissions standards) versus the expected benefits that come from
implementing the action. Although it seems morbid to put value on human life, it is what must be
done in order to evaluate the benefits of implementing the program. In the lives that would be
saved from reducing the air pollution, the EPA calculated that approximately between 10 and 30
billion dollars would be saved annually, depending on discount rates and implemented options.
Either one of the proposed options should logically be implemented, as they will cause net
positive financial impacts with their implementation. By the year 2045 once the program has
1947
-------
been fully implemented, annual net benefits would outweigh annual net costs. All aspects of this
program were studied by the EPA and then peer reviewed, so it is clear that this information is
accurate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
Climate change is the most important issue of our generation, and anything that can be done to
reduce its impact on society should absolutely be implemented. This proposed program has the
potential to both positively impact human health through reductions in air pollution, as well as
drastically reducing NOx emissions, which contribute significantly to climate change. The
program has been carefully evaluated, and although it could be expensive to require these new
increased emissions standards, the net benefits provided by the mortality reductions from the
decreased air pollution are absolutely enough to justify the implementation of this program. I am
strongly in favor of this EPA proposal, and I think anyone who takes the time to look over the
benefits provided by these emission reductions will agree with me. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1032]
Organization: Anonymous 1091
As a nation and throughout the world, it is imperative to adopt EPA's most stringent proposal,
"Option 1," and aggressively pursue the follow-on programs of regulating GHG's and moving as
quickly as possible toward electrification of heavy truck transportation systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1091]
My comments are in part a response to the Diesel Technology Forum testimony, April 12 2022
"Testimony of the Diesel Technology Forum Before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING" [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091]
"The last thing anyone wants out of this is that truckers stop buying new trucks because they are
too expensive, too unpredictable, and too complex." Actually, the last thing anyone wants is
unbreathable air. The last thing anyone wants is a surface temperature of 140 degrees F as
recently reported in India. The last thing anyone wants is the continued destruction of the global
ecosystem. Ask people living in devastated wildfire zones, or coastal flood zones, what the last
thing is that they want. Let's keep our eye on what's truly important and the reality of what
people want and don't want. It is not the same as what the diesel fuels industry wants.
The last thing we want is delay, and complaints that it is "too expensive, too unpredictable, and
too complex" to eliminate the carbon pollutants from the delivery chain. What we want is a
responsible trucking and fuel industry that realizes ASAP that business as usual must come to an
immediate halt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091]
It should also be remembered that when government and industry are compelled, or if there is
enough profit to be made, nothing is too complex. Everyone says "Nothing stands in the way of
American ingenuity and industriousness" when there is a lot of money to be made. An
unimaginably complex global Internet gets built. Vaccines are developed in record time with
national-government-scale support and privatized profits. Spacecraft are built by the private
sector with unquantified benefit to mankind some time in an indeterminate future. If Business
wants it, it gets done. If Government mandates and supports it, it gets done. Professing that a
solution is too complex or too expensive is code for "We Don't Want To." [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1091]
1948
-------
"A balanced rule will alleviate undesirable outcomes like swings in the new truck market." The
petroleum-based economy is out of time to make timid steps with "balanced" rules. Swings in
the market seem acceptable to industries all the time, because that's how a free market is
supposed to work: the market converges on an equilibrium for all participants, not just new truck
makers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091 ]
If the scope and rate of environmental and climate destruction were "balanced" perhaps we could
afford to be "balanced" in our approaches to remediate it, but that opportunity ended decades
ago. Obstruction and deception from hydrocarbon-vested interests over decades caused delays
that eroded the bulwark of time available to mitigate and make slower, "balanced" changes.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091]
In Silicon Valley, land of astronomical technical achievements and astronomical riches, the
mantra is move fast and break things!" and up-and-coming groundbreaking developments are
called "disruptive." If that's the much-vaunted and adored approach Silicon Valley uses, with its
outsized share of spectacular successes of rapid adoption, why can't hydrocarbon-based
industries adopt this mantra as the way to get complicated expensive things done quickly? [EPA-
HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -1091 ]
Why is it good to disrupt workers with very complex robotic systems, replace drivers with labor-
free self-driving, hugely complex autonomous trucks, but not good to replace diesel engines with
electric ones? The hypocrisy is embarrassing. We don't want "balanced rules" - we want
disruption of the internal-combustion-engine sector, and we want it a decade ago. We don't want
"advanced diesel" or "renewable diesel" - we want radical change in improving and expanding
electrification. Better diesel is a hard requirement anyway and must proceed post-haste, but it is
not an excuse to delay urgent electrification efforts everywhere it can support the required carbon
intensity mandates. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091]
Since electrification of the heavy truck fleet at significant scale is an existential threat to the
diesel fuel industry, of course they will push for ways to stay in the game and slow the
inevitable, with costs borne by all other stakeholders. They aggressively market renewable
lower-carbon fuels as a front-line solution, and issues pleas that more stringent standards are
onerous, too expensive, too complex, and too costly. But they could, and should, instead be
investing now in a different future: scrubbing, full- lifecycle optimization, sequestration of
recovered hydrocarbons, and repurposed applications for hydrocarbon compounds, preventing
them being burned on our streets and highways. The means exist to do this. "Move fast and
break things. Nothing stands in the way of American ingenuity or industriousness." [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1091]
Mitigating the impacts of inadequate emissions reductions require solutions much more onerous,
expensive, and complex than electrification of the heavy vehicle ecosystem. Any argument that
claims the burden of implementing maximally stringent emissions requirements is too difficult
for the hydrocarbon fuels, or any other industry, is dissembling. If they thought they could make
enough money, and there was enough Government support, there would be no objection to
whatever scale adaptation is required. Objections, obstructions, and slow-track recommendations
1949
-------
socialize climate and ecological risks, putting them onto other industries, the public, and the
systems that support life on Earth. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1091]
Organization: Anonymous 1412
I oppose. More restriction which usually results in less miles per gallon is just shortening service
life of vehicles and causing more money to be spend on fuel. Focus your time on till-less
planting and limiting city expansions and quit pretending vehicle emissions impact is a
significant issue. This is a waste of time and money with the scope of what is available for you
people to focus on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1412]
Organization: BorgWarner
BorgWarner appreciates this opportunity to offer the following comments to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and strongly supports efforts to reduce tailpipe
emissions from Heavy-Duty Trucks, primarily nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter
(PM). [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 1]
BorgWarner supports lifecycle analysis for all future vehicle regulations. We support the
transition from a tailpipe-based standard (i.e., tank-to-wheel) to a more holistic assessment (e.g.,
well-to-wheel emissions, or more completely, full lifecycle emissions) as the proper metric for
determining the environmental impact of the vehicle as a product. This approach is consistent
with technology neutrality, global carbon neutrality goals, and a holistic environmental impact
assessment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1234-A1, p. 3]
Organization: B & H Tractor & Truck
This rule will harm the trucking industry even more by pushing truck cost up and creating more
expensive repairs. The smaller companies will not be able to do small repairs. DEF has added
unreliability to trucks also making simple roadside repairs difficult. This will raise the cost of
trucking to a point where the market cannot compete. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1751, p.l]
Organization: Bar B Que Specialties, Inc.
As a business owner who relies on the trucking industry to get my product to grocery stores, I
feel this rule will kill American small business. Gas prices already are having a huge impact on
the price of trucking, adding these emissions regulations will increase them even more. Small
businesses can't absorb these costs which in turn will make us raise the price of our product
which is a) make the price go up on the shelf b) increase the likelihood that businesses will not
continue to carry the product and c) decrease online sales because people will not like the new
price. No one wins in this situation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2260, p.l]
1950
-------
Organization: BYD Motors, LLC (BYD)
In the United States, BYD employs 700 members of the Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation
Workers Union in the manufacture of zero-emission transit buses and heavy-duty trucks that are
not only Buy America compliant, but contributing to the everyday well-being of communities
around the United States. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 1]
BYD supports the EPA's proposal to strengthen heavy-duty vehicle emission standards and, in
support of a request by the Environmental Defense Fund, respectfully urges the agency to further
strengthen the proposal in key areas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 1]
There is an urgent need to set protective standards that achieve deep reductions in pollution from
diesel and internal combustion vehicles, and to ensure greater pollution reductions via the
deployment of zero-emission technologies like battery-electric vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1207-A1, p. 1]
Immediate emissions reductions are crucial to mitigating the effects of climate change and
protecting public health — especially in low-income communities and communities of color that
are disproportionately affected by transportation air pollution. With continued commitment from
your agency, it can be done. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-A1, p. 1]
Globally, BYD has committed to corporate social responsibility, deeply monitoring its supply
chain in terms of human rights, environmental safety, hazardous substance control and
intellectual property rights. The company only selects suppliers who share its commitment to just
labor practices, human rights standards and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1207-
Al, p. 2]
Organization: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)
On behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), I respectfully
inform you of our strong support for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA)
proposed rule "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards" published in the Federal Register March 28, 2022. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1253-A1, p.l]
Organization: California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Heavy-duty trucks are a dominant source of dangerous air pollution in California, and especially
in communities already experiencing high levels of pollution along freight corridors. The Biden
Administration's commitment to environmental justice, its responsibility under the Clean Air
Act, and continuing technology improvements all support the strongest possible standards for
these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.l]
CARB is committed to working with U.S. EPA to finalize a comprehensive and effective federal
heavy-duty engine and vehicle program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A1, p.3]
1951
-------
CARB staff believes that the emissions standards and other emissions-related requirements
associated with Option 1, in conjunction with CARB-staff-recommended modifications to other
elements of the CTP that are described in greater detail in these comments, most closely
conforms to U.S. EPA's obligations under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), and that the
corresponding emission reductions will provide significant emissions benefits needed to ensure
the health and welfare of our nation's residents. CARB staff accordingly hopes that these
comments will assist U.S. EPA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1186-A2, p.10]
Organization: California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
The California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) appreciates this opportunity to
comment in support of the Proposed Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (Proposed Standards) released on March 28 for
comment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1301 -A1 ,p. 1 ]
The updates to the Proposed Standards are intended to balance incentivizing zero and near-zero
emissions vehicle (ZEV and NZEV) development with ensuring that the standards achieve an
appropriate fleet-wide level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, while also achieving
necessary reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) to satisfy existing
regulations. This is critical and we strongly support the approach.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1301-A1, p.l]
Organization: CALSTART
We support strong actions from EPA to reduce air pollution and global warming emissions from
vehicles and other sources. The transportation industry has made significant strides in developing
innovative, cost-effective emissions-reducing technologies and zero-emission powertrains. Now
we need the right balance of polices to encourage adoption of these technologies in the medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle industry as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.4]
In addition to zero tailpipe emissions, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles offer significant
reductions in global warming emissions compared to combustion vehicles. As shown in Figure 2
below, with the average sources of electricity in the US, heavy-duty electric vehicles reduce
global warming emissions by approximately 50 to 80 percent depending on a vehicle's average
speed over the course of its trip (O'Dea, 2019). Emissions associated with charging electric
vehicles will continue to decline as lowercarbon sources of electricity are required to be
deployed through state laws. Heavy-duty fuel cell electric vehicles also offer emission reductions
compared to vehicles fueled with diesel. For hydrogen generated from steam-reforming of
methane, a fuel cell transit bus, for example, has life cycle GHG emissions 40 percent lower than
a comparable diesel transit bus (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2016). Using hydrogen
generated from electrolysis of water using renewable electricity will provide significantly lower
life cycle GHG emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1313-A1, p.6]
1952
-------
Organization: Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) and Central Texas Clean Air
Coalition (CAV)
Since grants from the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) will enable accelerated
replacement of older trucks with newer, cleaner trucks, the Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown
MSA and other metro areas in Texas will be uniquely able to take advantage of these new
standards quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1274-A1, p.l]
The CAC supports this effort to further reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and
urges EPA to promulgate new standards and test procedures as soon as possible so that
communities like ours can benefit from cleaner air as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1274-A1, p.l]
Organization: Cameron Prescott
This rule proposes two options for feedback: Option 1 provides a more aggressive approach with
two parts that will result in lower emissions in the years 2027-2030 and then even more of a
reduction in the years 2031 and later; Option 2 provides a less aggressive approach that will
result in a smaller emission reduction than Option 1 by 2027 and later. I am writing this
comment to ask for a more aggressive response such as having net-zero emission goals rather
than either option for the following reasons. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
1. Emissions from transportation vehicles currently account for 27 percent of all emissions in
the United States alone. On a global scale transportation accounts for 41 percent of all
emissions. This is a pressing issue due to the effects that the emission of greenhouse
gasses are responsible for. The proposed options do not adequately account for the
serious risks that greenhouse gasses from transportation create (EESI, 2015). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
2. Health issues resulting from heavy engine use are imminent if use is not monitored
well. It has been studied that exposure to pollutants from cars, such as NOx and other
GHG can ensue health problems such as asthma, lung disease, and cancer as well as
others. Exposure to NOx, a major emission attempted to be regulated by this rule, has
shown a plethora of health issues it exacerbates. NOx exposure can often result in
bronchitis, emphysema, and heart disease (Ogunkle & Ahmed 2021). Additionally it
has been stated by the World Health Organization that there are 4.2 million deaths
each year globally that are due to pollution in the air (WHO). By not taking a more
aggressive approach than the one currently listed in the EPA's proposed options to
regulate emissions from heavy engines, the EPA is failing its responsibility to the U.S.
citizens affected by this issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
3. The lack of regulations on greenhouse gasses inherently is prejudiced and affects
minorities to a higher extent. Due to living conditions of minority populations in the
U.S. from systemic racism and demographically living in more urbanized areas, there
is more exposure to air pollution and climate affected areas. Beyond exposure, the
populations of minorities often live in areas where climate change can have more
intense effects on its populations. Statistics have shown that "black people are 40
percent more likely than other groups to live in paces where extreme temperatures
driven by climate chane will result in higher mortality rates" (Fears & Grandoni,
1953
-------
2021). To not create a more aggressive option for emission regulation, particularly one
that will eradicate emissions in general, is negligently ignoring the significant effect
towards minorities from the lack of efficient policy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
4. There is already technology in the realms of engines and heavy duty engines that have
net-zero emissions. This is technology needs to be pressured further into the realm of
heavy engines. By not creating an option that wants to achieve net-zero emissions, there
is less incentive to move to this technology at the rate that is needed by the U.S.
environment and its people. There is discussion that these engines are not feasible for
companies to transfer to, but the cost of a safer environment for people and the climate
are arguably more important. The costs of these engines will not compare to the
preservation of the future of the U.S. in regards to citizens' health and the prevention
of worsening climate catastrophes (Russel, et. al, 2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
5. The climate cannot handle weaker approaches to tackle climate change and GHG.
Over the previous years, climate change's effects have only become worse. It is shown
through various studies that in the upcoming years we are expected to see more climate
disasters: floods, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc. By going with Option 1 or Option 2,
the EPA is only prescribing a minimal change to emission regulations on the drastic
issue. There needs to be an approach that advocates for more government pressure for
companies to produce and use zero-emission engines for the preservation of the current
environment in the U.S. to preserve safety and viability in the country's land (NASA
2021). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1058]
Organization: Carreras Tours, LLC (2033)
Diesel pollution kills. Others face heart attacks, asthma, and respiratory conditions that damage
their wellbeing and quality of life. The EPA's proposed rulemaking on diesel emissions is much
needed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2033, p.l]
While these rules are a good start, they don't go far enough. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2033,
p.l]
EPA's plan needs to eliminate tailpipe emissions and transition the trucking industry to zero
emissions. Many states have already required truck manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions by
90% by 2027. EPA can build on these standards by incorporating strong greenhouse gas
standards in order to reach 100% clean trucking by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2033, p.l]
Organization: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES)
As underscored by the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), it is imperative that we reduce global greenhouse gas emissions as swiftly as possible to
keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 1 In the United States,
transportation is the largest sectoral source of emissions, and while medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles make up only 5 percent of vehicles on the road, they account disproportionately for
almost a quarter of all transportation emissions.2 Reducing the emissions from these vehicles
must be central to the United State's decarbonization strategy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-
Al, p.2]
1954
-------
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 'Summary for Policymakers,' in Climate
Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. [P.R.
Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. A1 Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S.
Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, and J. Malley]
(Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022),
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-2020 (Washington,DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2020),
https://www.epa.gOv/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghginventory-2022-main-
text.pdf.
C2ES welcomes EPA's proposed updates to the heavy-duty emission control program, including
the proposed updates to the emissions standards, test procedures, useful life, and other
requirements. C2ES also supports the proposed targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 2 program, particularly with regards to the greenhouse gas
standards for school buses, transit buses, delivery trucks, and short-haul tractors. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.2]
Recent geopolitical events have also demonstrated the need to accelerate the shift away from
unabated fossil fuels, including by electrifying the U.S. vehicle fleet. Russia's invasion of
Ukraine has sent Shockwaves through the global energy system, which has exacerbated price
volatility and exposed the economic and national security vulnerabilities of our dependence on
petroleum, the price of which is set in global markets and influenced by the actions of hostile
foreign powers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.3]
In addition to the climate impacts of burning gasoline and diesel, the fundamental role these fuels
play in our transportation system only makes it more imperative that we reduce our reliance on
them to bolster the resilience of the U.S. economy to future geopolitical shocks. Other agencies,
including the Department of Energy, are taking action to secure domestic supplies of critical
minerals used to produce batteries and are considering ways to onshore processing and domestic
production capacity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, pp.3-4]
Given the benefits of improved efficiency and fuel savings as outlined in the draft regulatory
impact analysis, EPA should adopt emissions standards at the more stringent end than the
proposed range. Setting stringent standards will support both innovation and reduced fuel
consumption across the medium- and heavy-duty transportation sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1165-A1, p.4] Both of EPA's proposed options, as well as the alternative, would
significantly reduce NOx emissions over the coming decades. To address historic injustices, EPA
should consider the most expedient course toward emission reductions, and should prioritize
real-world emissions reductions in the use cases that most disproportionately harm historically
marginalized communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1165-A1, p.4]
1955
-------
Organization: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ)
I am submitting this comments on behalf of the Center for Community Action and
Environmental Justice working with communities here in the Inland Empire which have suffered
under years of oppressive polluted and toxic air. While we are glad to see that some work is
being done to tackle the issue and move forward, we do not feel that the current proposals are
adequate enough for meeting the challenge. Instead, they provide too much leeway to polluters to
continue to inject toxins into our communities. Zero must mean zero. We call for the EPA to
move forward with a strong rule that the prioritizes community health and ends the onslaught of
pollution. Despite improvements of the last several decades, we continue to suffer from some of
the worst air quality in the nation, including a worsening of PM2.5. The EPA has an opportunity
to make a generational investment in clean air and a livable planet for historically marginalized
communities via this rulemaking. This means ensuring that it does not give a pass to false
solutions such as natural gas that perpetuate fossil fuel usage. Instead, we need to see a zero
emissions mandate to ensure that the communities will truly see the realization of the benefits
that the rule intends to provide. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and we
look forward to a strong and transformative rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1258, p. 1]
Organization: Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network
On behalf of the Ceres BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) Network - a
coalition of 75 major employers across the United States -1 am writing to urge you to strengthen
the proposed heavy-duty truck standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1, p.l]
BICEP Network members are committed to ambitious climate action, advocating for stronger
climate and clean energy policies at the state and federal levels in the U.S. Our members see
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by transitioning to zero-emission medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) as a major economic opportunity. They recognize that zero-
emission vehicles (ZEVs) bring significant economic and environmental benefits, including
operational cost savings, improved air quality, and GHG reductions. However, while BICEP
members are working to do their part as individual companies, strong standards are necessary to
ensure the widespread availability of clean trucks in the U.S., as well as to drive the economies
of scale that will reduce costs and accelerate the necessary transition to electrification. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A1, p.l]
Thus, on behalf of the companies in the BICEP network, I urge EPA to strengthen the proposed
standards, which are not sufficiently stringent to accelerate the cost-effective deployment of
electric commercial trucks at the necessary rate and scale, are inconsistent with climate goals,
and fail to adequately reduce air pollution in disadvantaged communities. Finally, given the
urgency of the climate crisis, and of remedying longstanding negative health impacts in
disadvantaged communities, we urge EPA to finalize the standards this year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2714-A1, p.2]
As a representative of this coalition, I am writing to urge you to strengthen the proposed heavy-
duty truck standards. Our members see climate change as a significant risk and reducing
1956
-------
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a major economic opportunity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2714-A2, p.l]
Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance members share a common goal of electrifying their on-road
fleets and networked vehicles as well as reducing their transportation carbon footprint, and
recognize that strong standards are necessary to affect this critical transition. In fact, a recent
survey of Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance members demonstrates robust demand for zero-
emission vehicles (ZEVs) over the next five years. However, while some ZEV classes are
becoming increasingly cost competitive with conventional models, electric medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles can be up to three to four times the purchase price of a comparable conventional
model. Strong policies are necessary to ensure the availability, adequate production volume, and
sufficient variety of zero emission trucks to meet the needs of commercial fleets. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2714-A2, p.l]
While our members are working to do their part as individual companies, we need strong
standards to ensure the widespread availability of clean trucks in the U.S., as well as to drive the
economies of scale that will accelerate the necessary transition to electrification. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal projects a ZEV sales share of 1.5% in key
market segments in 2027, which falls far short of corporate demand as well as what will be
needed to meet climate goals and several states' regulatory requirements. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2714-A2, p.l]
In sum, on behalf of the Alliance, I urge EPA to strengthen the proposed standards, which are not
sufficiently stringent to accelerate the cost-effective deployment of electric commercial trucks at
the rate and scale that we envision, are inconsistent with climate goals, and fail to adequately
reduce air pollution in disadvantaged communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A2, pp.l-
2]
As long-term investors with over $700 billion in assets under management, we are writing to
urge you to strengthen the proposed heavy-duty vehicle (HDV) standards. As investors, we see
climate change as a significant economic risk, and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by
transitioning to zero emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) as a major economic
opportunity. The U.S.' ability to meet climate and public health goals, and the future global
competitiveness of the U.S. truck industry, are contingent on strong engine and truck emission
standards that will drive a rapid shift to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) while reducing harmful
emissions in the interim. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations are inconsistent with climate
goals, the pressing need to improve air quality, particularly in disadvantaged communities which
bear the brunt of truck pollution, and stated corporate and manufacturer global
commitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A3, p.l]
The demand for zero-emissions trucks is growing as fleet owners and shippers increasingly
commit to net zero goals and recognize the economic benefits of ZEVs. For example, a recent
survey of Corporate Electric Vehicle Alliance members demonstrates robust demand for ZEVs.
In turn, major truck manufacturers are proposing ambitious goals; for example, Volvo has stated
that 50% of its trucks sales will be ZEVs by 2030 globally and Daimler has set a goal of 60%
ZEV truck sales globally. However, strong standards will be necessary to ensure the availability
1957
-------
of ZEVs in the U.S., and to accelerate the transition to electrification at the rate and scale
required by climate goals.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2714-A3, pp.1-2]
Robust truck standards are critical to meeting climate goals, ensuring the global competitiveness
of the U.S. truck industry, and reducing air pollution in communities that have suffered too long
from truck pollution. Accordingly, we urge you to significantly strengthen the proposed rules to
realize these critical climate, economic and public health goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2714-A3, p.2]
Organization: Christopher Lish
I am glad that, after 20 years of delay, the Environmental Protection Agency has finally proposed
stronger tailpipe toxic pollution standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks.
However, while these rules are a good start, they don't go far enough. Now is the time to
eliminate toxic tailpipe emissions from trucks. Black, Latino, Asian American, and other
marginalized communities living in highly trafficked areas have suffered the health impacts of
diesel trucks for far too long. To deliver on the Biden Administration's environmental justice,
public health, and climate goals, the Environmental Protection Agency must make the rules
stronger and finalize a strong heavy-duty vehicle rule this year that sets us on a rapid path to
cleaning up and electrifying the most polluting vehicles on the roads—our trucks and buses—by
2035, if not sooner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147; see also Section 1.2/2.4]
I appreciate President Biden making clean transportation a day-one priority and the
Environmental Protection Agency moving quickly to propose long-overdue regulations to clean
up pollution from dirty heavy-duty vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed
rulemaking on diesel emissions is much needed. However, our communities and our planet
require bolder standards that will reduce health-harming smog and cut greenhouse gas emissions
to a degree that matches the urgency of the climate and public health crisis. That can only happen
if both the nitrogen oxide (NOx) standard and the greenhouse gas standards are strong enough to
make trucks cleaner while moving quickly to get zero-emission trucks on the road. I ask you to
adopt the strongest possible standards to reduce pollution from diesel truck engines and establish
a national zero-emissions truck sales requirement to help phase out fossil fuels and slash air
pollution in the most-impacted communities more quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
We will not be able to tackle the climate crisis without cleaner trucks on our roads. The
transportation sector is our country's largest source of carbon pollution, with heavy-duty vehicles
contributing substantially to our total greenhouse gas emissions. In order to curb our emissions
by at least 50% by 2030, a pace that scientists agree is necessary to mitigate the worst effects of
climate change, we must adopt the strongest possible standards for trucks and buses. This will
promote a transition to fully electric vehicles and slow the sale of dirty diesel trucks over the
next decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
Moreover, the standards must not be undermined by giveaways to an industry that would allow
manufacturers to keep producing fossil fuel trucks far into the next decade. The Environmental
Protection Agency must strengthen the final rule by accelerating the trajectory towards zero-
emission vehicles and eliminating the various credit giveaways that significantly erode the
standard. We cannot afford more loopholes and giveaways for multi-billion-dollar companies to
1958
-------
get a pass on poisoning frontline communities in favor of increased profits. It's past time for the
Environmental Protection Agency to expire all avenues for skirting pollution standards. [EPA-
HQ-0 AR-2019-1147]
Time is of the essence: the administration must finalize this proposal by the end of 2022 for the
nation to realize the full health benefits of the rule. If the Environmental Protection Agency
misses this window of opportunity, it will mean a full additional year of production of polluting
trucks. This makes it critical to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles are as efficient as possible and
that we adopt and enforce strict emissions limits as we shift away from fleets powered by fossil
fuels. Our communities cannot afford to wait for cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
Disappointingly, the strongest version of this proposed rule does not do enough to build on the
work California and other states have already done to fight diesel pollution from trucks. The
Environmental Protection Agency has a responsibility to slash air pollution, protect public
health, and address the climate crisis all at once by pursuing strong standards for heavy-duty
vehicle emissions. The science and economics clearly shows that zero-emission trucks can be
deployed now. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
We have the technology and the ability to cut pollution and save money today. At this moment,
electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of the United States'
freight, delivery, and transit uses and needs—and there are dozens more zero-emission vehicles
coming to the market within a couple of years. Cleaner trucks are not only available and ready
now, they also are projected to deliver critical cost savings for operators and drivers. Across
nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to
own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-1147]
Many states have already required truck manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions by 90% by
2027. The Environmental Protection Agency can build on these standards by incorporating
strong greenhouse gas standards in order to reach 100% clean trucking by 2035, if not,
preferably, sooner. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
Thank you for initiating action on this important issue. Zero-emission trucks will save lives. I
look forward to the Environmental Protection Agency once again responding to health, equity,
and environmental advocates, and particularly frontline communities bearing the brunt of the
toxic diesel pollution, by making much-needed improvements to this rule. While Option 1 is a
start, the standards should at least align with California's recent clean trucks rule. These
standards must reduce deadly pollution from nitrogen oxides by 90% by 2027, and put our
nation's buses and trucks on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035.1
urge the Environmental Protection Agency to protect our health and eliminate toxic tailpipe
emissions from trucks by adopting a stronger rule that accelerates the rollout of zero-emission
trucks and to boldly pursue environmental justice as it reduces diesel emissions and improves the
health of communities near ports and freight corridors. Please finalize the strongest possible rule
to deliver cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1147]
1959
-------
Organization: ChargePoint, Inc. (ChargePoint)
ChargePoint, Inc. appreciates the EPA's dedication to the decarbonization of the transportation
sector and the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
as part of the "Clean Trucks Plan." ChargePoint applauds EPA's efforts to cut down on air
pollution through emissions standards 1 and continues to support efforts to reduce oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emissions in the medium and heavy-duty engines that traverse our nation's
highways swiftly and effectively by finalizing emission standards encouraging a zero-emission
medium and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1294-A1, p. 1]
Organization: City of Seattle, Office of Sustainability & Environment
This proposed rule has monumental implications for cities across this country, as it sets the stage
for the trucks and buses operating on our streets and in our neighborhoods for decades. As a
Port-City, we understand the importance of trucks and cargo movement in a thriving economy
and workforce. As we work to make our community strong, the City of Seattle urges you to
adopt the strongest possible rule to cut deadly pollution from heavy-duty vehicles, so that all
communities can thrive. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1287-A1, p.l]
Organization: Clean Air Board of Central Pennsylvania
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new vehicle emission standards for
medium and heavy-duty trucks. The Clean Air Board welcomes the proposed rulemaking. The
last medium and heavy-duty emission standards were established in 2002. Vehicles purchased in
the next few years will be on the road for many years and potentially for decades. It is critically
important to set standards now. This important rulemaking will help transition the transportation
sector toward lower emissions of harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1305-A1, p.l]
The proposed standards would significantly reduce emissions of NOx from heavy-duty gasoline
and diesel engines and set stronger greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles. Updated
NOx standards are technically feasible. Updated NOx standards are economically feasible.
Stricter NOx regulations reduce cumulative heavy duty vehicle NOx emissions (from existing
and new vehicles). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1305-A1, p.l]
Organization: Clean Energy (CE)
We support new EPA regulations for heavy-duty engines and vehicles which significantly reduce
NOx emissions and encourage the deployment of scalable early compliant technologies. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1350-A1, p.l]
We support the Option 1 NOx standard. California state authorities have already adopted new
engine standards that require moving to the 0.02 NOx level beginning in 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1350-A1, p.5]
1960
-------
Organization: Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Law & Policy Center, National Parks
Conservation Association, and Sierra Club
With this rulemaking, EPA has an opportunity to take critical steps toward addressing the public
health burdens, environmental injustices, and climate dangers caused by heavy-duty vehicles
(HDVs) powered by internal combustion engines. More than a decade after EPA's existing
criteria pollutant standards took effect, communities continue to suffer the impacts of air
pollution from these vehicles. EPA must set strong emissions standards for both criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in this rulemaking to achieve critically necessary
protections to public health and welfare, especially in light of the feasibility and increasing fleet
penetration of zero-emission technologies. We also urge EPA to finalize the rule before the end
of this calendar year, particularly the criteria pollutant standards given statutory lead time
requirements, so that the new standards take effect in model year (MY) 2027. See 42
U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)(C). Finalizing quickly is critical to avoid unjustifiably withholding both
necessary GHG reductions and the air quality benefits that overburdened communities need
now. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.7]
As detailed below, EPA must set protective, evidence-based standards in this rulemaking to
comply with the Clean Air Act's statutory commands, act in accordance with principles of
reasoned decisionmaking, and mitigate HDVs' contribution to ongoing public health and climate
crises. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-A1, p.9]
First, Option 2's minimal emissions reductions are woefully inadequate in light of the clear
endangerment that heavy-duty vehicles and engines pose to public health and welfare. See
Sections II.C. 1-2, supra (describing health impacts). EPA acknowledges the seriousness of these
threats to public health and welfare and the need to achieve greater reductions in emissions. See
generally 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,441-56; DRIA Ch. 4. And it correctly concludes, based on
extensive data, that both Options 1 and 2 are technologically feasible. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,436; see
generally DRIA Ch. 3. Option 2, however, would unjustifiably allow much higher criteria
pollutant emissions than Option 1 or a national program based on the Omnibus. See DRIA at
262, 277-87. In 2045 alone, Option 2 would create 120,000 tons more NOx than Option 1 and
achieve only a 47% reduction in NOx emissions from the baseline, compared to Option l's 61%
reduction. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,579-80; DRIA at 262 (Table 5-34). Option 2's higher emissions—
nearly 1.25 million more tons of NOx between 2027-2045 than Option 1, see DRIA at 262
(Table 5-34)—translate into worse human health outcomes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1302-
Al, p.50]
Organization: Clean Energy Ventures et al.
We strongly support EPA's efforts to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and greenhouse
gases (GHGs) from our nation's heavy-duty engines and vehicles. We also strongly support the
Biden administration's goal of reaching net zero GHG emissions by 2050. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2339-A2, p.l]
In sum, meeting the Biden administration's "net zero by 2050" goal requires EPA to implement a
regulatory model that will maximize the scale and cost-effectiveness of potential GHG emissions
1961
-------
reductions that are possible across the entire heavy-duty sector over the coming critical decade
and longer, regardless of the fuel, power source, or technology deployed. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2339-A2, p.2]
We strongly encourage you to finalize the Proposal in a way that sends the right market signals
and encourages data-driven innovation that is far more likely to result in greater and more cost-
effective GHG emissions reductions than a technology-specific approach that rewards only two
of the many decarbonization strategies being developed for the heavy-duty transportation
sector. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-2339-A2, p.2]
Organization: Clean Harbors Environmental Services
Clean Harbors has a shared interest in the proposed rule to establish a stronger national standard
to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from heavy-duty trucks. We support the push for
cleaner air and healthier communities for all and stand ready to serve as constructive partners as
EPA develops a workable final rule that will achieve those results.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1063-A2, p.l]
To that end, we strongly encourage you to keep two key considerations in mind as you work
toward a final rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1063-A2, p.l]
First, cleaner air and healthier communities for all require replacing older trucks with newer
ones. Today, roughly half of the trucks on the road were built before 2010, and those older
vehicles emit significantly more air pollutants than modern trucks equipped with effective
emission reduction technology. If the new rule does not facilitate the development of affordable,
durable trucks that can meet customer needs, fleet owners are more likely to hold onto their
older, dirtier trucks longer - which could result in the loss of good-paying jobs. Most
importantly, that also would delay the cleanest trucks from hitting the road and cause further
harm in communities near highways, ports, and warehouses that historically and currently suffer
from the highest concentration of air pollution. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1063-A2, p.l]
Second, we must ensure the final rule serves as a bridge, not a potential barrier, to a zero-
emissions future. Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) will eliminate all tailpipe emissions and
dramatically reduce the nation's reliance on burning fossil fuels, which will diminish our
dependency on foreign energy sources and greatly benefit public health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1063-A2, p.l]
We are committed to partnering with EPA and other stakeholders to further reduce emissions
from heavy-duty trucks without diverting resources necessary to foster a phased transition to
ZEVs. We look forward to working with you to finalize a cost-effective rule - informed by data
and science - that will further reduce emissions, protect American jobs, and result in cleaner air
and healthier communities for all.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1063-A2, p.2]
1962
-------
Organization: CleanEarth4Kids
It is critical that heavy-duty vehicles are as efficient as possible with strict limits on emissions as
we move from fossil fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1208-A1, p.l]
The EPA's proposed Heavy Duty Vehicle rule is not nearly strong enough. What is proposed is
weaker than many existing state rules and fails to quickly deploy zero-emission trucks. The EPA
must require a fast transition to zero-emission trucks by establishing a national zero-emissions
truck sales requirement while cutting nitrogen oxide and particulate matter pollution, revise all
exhaust emission standards, test procedures, and other emissions-related requirements for heavy-
duty trucks starting in model years 2024 with no exceptions or loopholes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1208-A1, p.l]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame), Remora, and SixWheel
We strongly urge the EPA to expand this incentive program beyond BEVs and FCEVs. To
maximize emissions reductions, this program should be fuel-neutral, technology-neutral, and
should rely on measurable performance-based emissions standards. In particular, this approach
should incorporate upstream emissions for all zero-emission and near-zero emission vehicles.
For example, the carbon intensity of the grid should be reflected in the emissions assumptions of
projected BEV sales, and a diesel engine running on biogenic carbon (e.g., ethanol) should get
credit for the improvement to the overall emissions performance of the engine provided by the
fuel. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1329-A2, p. 4]
Organization: ClearFlame Engine Technologies (ClearFlame)
ClearFlame Engine Technologies is pleased to present these commentsl in support of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Trucks Plan and EPA's proposal to reduce emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and greenhouse gases (GHG) from our nation's heavy-duty trucks and
buses.2 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1261- A 1, p. 1]
1. These comments supplement the oral testimony provided to EPA at its virtual hearing
on April 12, 2022, and a comment letter submitted by BJ Johnson into the ANPRM
record dated February 20, 2022. The oral testimony is attached hereto as Appendix 1, and
the February 20, 2022 letter is attached hereto as Appendix 2. Each document is hereby
incorporated herein.
2 "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards," Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055 (hereinafter, the "Proposal)".
Abbreviations and acronyms used herein that are not defined shall have the meaning
attributed to them in the Proposal. For additional information about ClearFlame or our
comments, please contact BJ Johnson at bj@clearflameengines.com or Rich Kassel at
rich@clearflameengines. com.
EPA Should Finalize this Proposal and Draft Next Year's GHG Proposal to Encourage Near-
Term GHG Reductions at Scale, This Decade. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 3]
1963
-------
Earlier this year, we all read the latest warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change that we cannot wait any longer to deeply decarbonize the entire economy and take steps
to adapt to a changing climate.3 The IPCC's message was clear: we need "urgent, more
ambitious and accelerated action and, at the same time, rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas
emissions. The quicker and further emissions fall, the more scope there is for people and nature
to adapt."4 In short, we need to deeply decarbonize all segments of our economy this decade in
order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, pp. 3 -
4]
3. IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Working Group
II Report to the Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
April 2022. ("Climate Change 2022").
4. IPCC, Climate Change 2022, Frequently Asked Questions, accessed on May 15, 2022
at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-questions/keyfaql
At ClearFlame, we could not agree more. While electrification appears to be the fastest pathway
to decarbonizing passenger cars, transit buses, school buses, and certain commercial delivery
vehicles, we must concurrently accelerate our efforts to deeply decarbonize the engines and
vehicles that will continue to run on liquid fuels for decades to come. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
This Proposal—and next year's expected proposal to reduce GHG emissions from all heavy-duty
engines and vehicles—should encourage innovation that results in engines and vehicles that are
dramatically lower in GHG emissions than the engines and vehicles they replace, and that can
scale up this decade. Speed and scale matters - just as individuals cannot save enough for
retirement by waiting until the last moment to invest in their future, we will not meet our societal
responsibility by investing only in solutions that will not scale for many years to come. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
Only by pursuing every pathway towards decarbonization at scale this decade—as a complement
to longer-term electrification strategies—will we be able to address and meet the global
challenge facing us. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 4]
As you finalize this proposal, we strongly urge EPA to finalize a rule that includes Option 1, and
that reduces NOx emissions from new heavy-duty diesel engines by 90 percent, starting in MY
2027. As you update the Phase 2 GHG standards and develop the agency's approach for next
year's expected Phase 3 GHG proposal, we strongly urge the agency to adapt the fuel-
neutral/technology-neutral approach that has reduced diesel PM and NOx emissions so
dramatically and cost-effectively over the past two decades to deeply reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from all heavy-duty and nonroad diesel applications, not just those vehicles that are
most ready for electrification. Towards that end, we ask that the final rule ensures that ethanol
can be used to certify diesel engines that comply with the Clean Trucks Plan's emission
standards, and that ethanol will be listed as a fuel that can be used by these engines throughout
their useful lives. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 9]
1964
-------
We are confident that adopting these approaches will help ensure a final rule that will meet the
administration's air quality, human health, and climate goals as quickly as possible - and more
quickly and more cost-effectively than any approach that limits the technology choices in
the marketplace and that hampers innovation by companies that are developing new approaches
to emissions reduction. We are similarly confident that this approach will continue the agency's
long track record of success that has become the model for nations around the world—and that
has enabled American businesses to be the world leaders in emissions reduction
technology. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, pp. 9 - 10]
We look forward to working with the Agency towards a successful Clean Trucks Plan that
improves air quality and health in disadvantaged and other communities across the country, and
that decarbonizes all heavy-duty and nonroad engines and vehicles in years to come. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1261-A1, p. 10]
Organization: Coach USA, Inc. (Coach USA)
The Proposed Rule is almost entirely trucking-centric and, while apparently applicable to
engines used in motorcoaches, devotes only sparse attention to the unique safety and other
considerations surrounding passenger versus cargo transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1307-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Coingecko Company Sa
Very interesting.
Very useful for the evolution of the planet. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1847, p.l]
Organization: Colorado Energy Office, et al.
Colorado data suggests that over 80% of our heavy duty truck traffic comes from vehicles that
are not registered in Colorado. While Colorado can influence change for trucks registered in our
state, strong EPA standards that improve the status quo for all trucks helps us to further improve
air quality, and also helps ensure parity for Colorado companies versus those in neighboring
states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.l]
We appreciate the Administration's efforts to re-establish the United States as a leader on
climate, and to regain ground on clean transportation. The President's agenda - including the
goal to ensure half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 are zero emission, and planned investments
in the IIJA and proposed Build Back Better - would be transformational. We now urge the
Administration to take the next step and codify this action by adopting the strongest national
NOx and GHG standards possible for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. We appreciate the
Administration's leadership [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1297-A1, p.3]
Organization: Columbia River Plumbing
I am absolutely against this clean air act regarding truck emissions going into for sore
application. The American trucking industry is so much farther ahead than the rest of the world
1965
-------
in a missions that until they catch up, do not hamper, hinder, or retard the American economy by
inflicting heavy cost like this at this time. I'm all for clean air and responsibility, but not at the
expense of our fragile economy right now. This is just one way to try pushing everything to an
alternative fuel before we are ready for it. This will increase costs across the country in all
products. Do not pass this new rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1014, p.l]
Organization: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP)
In this action, EPA seeks comment on the revised standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions
from heavy-duty (HD) trucks. Connecticut strongly supports EPA's development of new engine
and vehicle emission standards for heavy-duty trucks provided this action results in robust
emission standards that significantly reduce emissions. Connecticut has urged EPA to
promulgate robust federal emission standards to improve public health, advance environmental
justice and to address our State's intractable ozone nonattainment challenge. 1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1306-A1, p.l]
1 NY-CT-NJ-Letter-RE-Heavy-Duty-Truck-NOx-Emission-Standards_l 12321 .pdf
Organization: Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA)
On behalf of Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), I write today regarding the development of the
final rule on tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty trucks in support of a single national low-NOx
rule that is technologically feasible, protects vital American jobs, and does not cause further
damage to our critical supply chains. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1260-A1, p.l]
Our members support a rational, all-of-the-above energy policy that utilizes all our domestic
natural resources - both traditional and renewable - while ensuring commonsense environmental
protections are in place. Therefore, we support thoughtful emissions reduction strategies as we
move towards a greener and cleaner future that keep the cost and reliability needs of the
consumer in mind. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1260-A1, p.l]
Ninety-seven percent of trucking fleets are small, family-owned businesses that run on small
margins and often face issues with competitive pricing that is hard to overcome in a normal
market. With rising diesel prices and inflation, along with increased vehicle costs, family-owned
trucking companies are simply not able to weather the storm like the larger carriers can and are
now being forced to make difficult business decisions impacting the critical supply chains our
country relies on. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1260-A1, p.l]
The U.S. EPA must consider these small businesses in order to further environmental progress
without destroying jobs or damaging our fragile economic recovery. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1260-A1, p.l]
As such, a single national low-NOx rule must facilitate the development of affordable, durable
commercial vehicles that can meet customer needs while serving as a bridge, not a potential
barrier, to a zero-emissions future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1260-A1, p.2]
1966
-------
Organization: Consumer Reports (CR)
While the proposal is a good start, it can and should go further to lower greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Such reductions are imperative to lower dangerous
tailpipe emissions, to increase adoption of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and to achieve
President Biden's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% compared to 2005
levels by 2030.1 Heavy-duty vehicles deliver consumer goods to warehouses and homes across
the country. As e-commerce expands, consumer reliance on these trucks will grow. Such reliance
has hidden costs in the form of harmful air pollution to consumers making purchases, and to
communities living near freight routes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.l]
1 White House, Fact Sheet: Vice President Harris Announces Actions to Accelerate
Clean Transit, Buses, School Buses and Trucks,(March 07, 2022). Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/07/fact-sheet-
vice-president-harris-announces-actions-to-accelerate-clean-transit-buses-school-buses-
and-trucks/
CR supports a strong federal heavy-duty engine and vehicle (HDV) standard for NOx and
GHG. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, p.l]
CR is encouraged to see EPA working towards reducing tailpipe emissions that are dangerous to
public health and the environment. However, given the outsized impact of these vehicles on
air quality, EPA should go further to reduce emissions and to meet its obligations under the CAA
to establish emission standards that 'reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable
through the application of technology.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1285-A1, pp. 10-11]
Organization: Creation Justice Ministries
It doesn't have to be this way. The movement of people and goods can be a good thing. It can be
a blessing from God and a blessing to our world. But that's only if it is powered by clean and
renewable energy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2482, p.l]
That's why I'm submitting this comment on behalf of our Creation Justice community and the
millions of caring Christians in this country. Together, we ask the EPA to create the strongest
possible limits on heavy duty vehicle pollution and put our national bus and truck fleet on a clear
path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2482, p.l]
Organization: Cummins Inc. (Cummins)
Cummins Inc. appreciates this opportunity to provide comments in response to the NPRM. This
rulemaking provides a unique opportunity to achieve significant emissions reductions from
heavy-duty vehicles as the country transitions to the zero-emissions future we all envision. To
have a positive impact on the environment and communities, the final rule must be achievable
with technologies our customers can readily adopt. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1325-A1, p. 20]
1967
-------
Additionally, we urge EPA and CARB to work together towards a single, nationwide standard.
We are optimistic that all stakeholders can come together in support of a durable final rule that is
a win for U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and the environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1325-A1, p. 21]
Organization: Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA) (1045 and 1168)
In the comments that follow, Daimler Truck suggests that the Proposed Rule can and should be
improved by:
• Ensuring that EPA's next-tier emission regulations for HDVs are achievable and
supported by sound technical analysis and demonstration;
• Providing market incentives for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)—small and
large—to develop and sell quality next-generation ZEVs;
• Developing a fulsome analysis of the real cost and market impacts of the standards and
requirements proposed; and
• Striking the right balance between the environmental benefits and socio-economic
impacts of stringent emission reduction regulations, bearing in mind the unique role that
the heavy-duty (HD) freight sector as the literal 'engines' of the economy, particularly
with respect to consumer goods. Daimler Truck appreciates EPA's consideration of the
following comments and welcomes the opportunity for further engagement with the
Agency on this important effort. We request that the Agency reconsider its Proposed
Rule, that it take the time to engage with industry and stakeholders, and that it re-issue
the proposal once it has fully considered the technical, cost, and market impact data
gathered in this round of public comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.2]
Daimler Truck is ready and able to build upon its previous efforts to help the Agency make
needed changes to the Proposed Rule—potentially through the interim step of a supplemental
proposal and another round of public comment—to ensure that the end result is a win for the
environment and propels the industry towards investment in the technologies of the
future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.5]
Not included in the ACT Research Impacts Study, but equally important for EPA's impact
analysis, is the likelihood of diminished choices in the marketplace for new HDVs and related
impacts on consumers. As emissions stringency drives up manufacturing costs, manufacturers
are likely to decide that certain types of vehicles are simply not worth producing for commercial
sale, as profit margins are too slim, and a business case to invest in these programs may not exist.
The result will be significantly reduced product availability starting in the MY 2027 timeframe,
as manufacturers struggle to justify investments across all applications or as technical solutions
prove infeasible. This will almost certainly lead to decreased competition in the engine/vehicle
market and an increase in vehicle prices. We believe this is already the case for MY 2024
engines and vehicles in markets that have adopted the California Omnibus rule; we urge EPA to
study the impacts of the California Omnibus rule on product availability and to use this analysis
to inform predictions about the market impacts of the Proposed Rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1168-A1, p.23]
1968
-------
Another impact that EPA appears not to have considered are the environmental disbenefits of the
market shifts anticipated to follow from implementation of the Agency's proposed standards.
Manufacturers who have traditionally focused on the production of diesel engines and vehicles
may transition production to gasoline-powered products, to facilitate compliance with EPA's
proposed standards. Daimler Truck has seen this transition take place in the marketplace already,
with potentially unintended consequences: while the shift to gasoline in the HD market may help
to reduce NOx emissions from the sector, it is at the expense of other pollutant emissions, most
importantly C02. EPA GHG Phase 2 standards allow higher C02 emissions from gasoline-
powered vehicles as compared to their diesel counterparts, in recognition of the inherent
differences between gasoline and diesel combustion. Gasoline engines will have worse C02
performance, thus EPA's NOx stringency proposal potentially creates perverse incentives to
increase fleet contributions to climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p.23]
Finally, EPA needs to evaluate the economic impact of the Proposed Rule in comparison to other
regulatory or incentive programs that could achieve the same desired emission reductions for
significantly less cost. Such analysis is necessary to ensure that any decision by the Agency to
finalize its proposal is based upon a 'reasoned determination' that the benefits of the regulatory
program justify its costs and that EPA has fully assessed available alternatives to direct
regulation—such as economic incentives—as required under Executive Order 12866.62 For
instance, the Agency should evaluate whether it may be more efficient and cost-effective to
achieve the desired NOx and other pollutant reductions through a vehicle rebate program that
would encourage older vehicles to be taken out of service. Indeed, it stands to reason that an
incentive program that subsidizes the cost of turning over older, dirtier vehicles manufactured to
much less stringent standards would be a better use of resources than utilizing the Agency's
CAA Section 202(a) authority to target manufacturers, who are already looking beyond these
next-tier standards to develop the zero-emission technologies of the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1168-A1, p.24]
62 See Executive Order 12,866, 'Regulatory Planning and Review' (Sept. 30, 1993) at
Section 1 ,b(6) ('Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended
regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs.'); Section l.b(3) ('Each agency shall identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to
encourage the desired behavior.').
In summary, EPA's cost-benefit and economic analyses are undermined by significant omissions
and incomplete assumptions about what the impacts of the Proposed Rule will actually be. It thus
appears that EPA has failed to use the best reasonably obtainable economic information
concerning the consequences of the Proposed Rule, in contravention of the Agency's obligations
under Executive Order 12866. Daimler Truck encourages the Agency to re-visit its impact
analyses, to ensure that the real costs and likely impacts of the Proposed Rule are
captured. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1168-A1, p. 24]
1969
-------
Organization: Dave Arndt
[From Hearing Testimony, April 12, 2022] We need to tackle all the pollution sources one by
one. We have the technology today; electric trucks are a good start. Oh, by the why, I forgot to
mention the climate crisis, most of these neighborhoods are on the water and are not prepared for
the sea level rise caused by burning fossil fuels. Please pass at least option 1 this year, however
please have it go into effect in 2024, we don't have time to wait. Please put the health of our
citizens and the climate over the profits of companies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867; see
also EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0994]
Organization: David Pedersen
I have been studying air pollution in-depth for over two years now and it is an issue that is of
great concern to me. I am a pedestrian, and as a result I am forced to inhale diesel exhaust
against my will, thereby depriving me of my constitutional and environmental rights. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1059]
I am strongly in favour of cleaning up emissions from the transportation sector. It is
overwhelmingly obvious that mobile-source emissions pose real and immediate dangers to
public health (I do not need to cite any studies here since it is considered common knowledge),
especially to near-road communities (many of which are BIPOC, or racialized, which are already
overexposed to air pollution). Furthermore, I am deeply concerned about the impacts of mobile-
source emissions on my friends, acquaintances, and fellow activists - many of whom are forced
to remain indoors because of the regular diesel emissions (among other sources) outside their
homes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1059]
However, I disagree with the idea of lowering allowable emissions rates if the permissible values
are not reduced to zero. My reasoning for this is straightforward and grounded entirely in
science: there is no safe level of air pollutionl, so it does not matter how clean an engine is if it
emits any harmful pollutants whatsoever. Indeed, as Barnett (2014) states:
Change is long overdue. Air pollution can be complex. There are multiple gases and metals that
are measured on unfamiliar scales. Air pollution is often difficult to measure and many
pollutants interact with the weather, meaning measurements just 100 metres apart can be ery
different. However, the epidemiology of air pollution is simple: when average levels increase,
the average health effects increase, and this association has been shown repeatedly around the
world. I have lost count of the number of government-commissioned environmental reports that
have used the safe or dangerous fallacy. The practice should have ended years ago and proper
cost-benefit studies should be undertaken for the current massive projects that could affect many
people's lives, such as the expansion (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.llll/1753-
6405.12264) [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1059]
1 https://onlinelibrary.wilev.eom/doi/epdf/10.l 111/1753-6405.12264
1970
-------
Organization: Delta Car Care LLC
These additional regulations will do nothing but hurt the American people and the trucking
industry! This will escalate costs of all of our consumer goods! Emissions have already been
reduced a huge amount! It makes no sense to cause harm to the economy and the trucking
industry over something like this. The natural disasters already cause much more issues than
these trucks that are currently very clean already! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2256, p.l]
Organization: Diesel Technology Forum
Future Emissions Standards Must Encourage Continued Investment Through Proper
Balance In Timing, Stringency And Other Factors
The last thing anyone wants out of this is that truckers stop buying new trucks because they are
too expensive, too unpredictable, and too complex. A balanced rule will alleviate undesirable
outcomes like swings in the new truck market including a pre-buying of current generation
technology. We support the continued development of robust technologies that have proven they
meet the challenges of reducing emissions. The value of the technologies will need to be obvious
to the truckers in order to avoid outcomes that will be detrimental for jobs, the economy, and the
environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004 and Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Future And Zero Emission Vehicles
The agency's decision not to pursue a ZEV mandate is appropriate because ZEV mandates
effectively alter otherwise open markets and take away options and fuels that may be more
desirable, available, and affordable. Regardless of what today's studies and projections of total
cost of ownership might show, there are many uncertainties about the ultimate timing and market
for ZEVs, not the least of which is the adequacy and availability of the charging and fueling
infrastructure. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004 and Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Summary
Above all else, this proposed rule must enable continued investment in the next generation of
diesel technology by manufacturers, suppliers, and their customers. Without that, none of the
anticipated benefits will accrue, older trucks will stay on the road for longer, and both
manufacturers and suppliers will not have the capital to invest in future fuels and technologies.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1004 and Public Hearing Day 1 Testimony, EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2867]
Organization: Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA should finalize an ambitious rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1282-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Engine and Truck Organizations
[Comment provided by one company that joined this letter campaign:] As a whole, the trucking
industry in Pennsylvania is more than significant, and impacts every citizen in our
1971
-------
Commonwealth and in the United States of America. Considering the state of affairs in this
country today, why would we want to throw more disruption and costs to further disable the vital
trucking industry in Pennsylvania and this Country? [See Engine and Truck Organization letter
campaign at EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1177-A1, p.l; this comment is from EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1179]
Organization: EVHybridNoire
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Shelly Francis] Our mission is to increase awareness
of electric vehicles and accelerate the adoption of those vehicles so that all communities have
access to this new mobility. Our membership is made up of people and members who identify as
black and brown, so our organization is the voice of this technology. I live in Atlanta, Georgia,
but today, interestingly enough, I'm sitting in Cancer Alley in New Orleans, Louisiana, meeting
with key stakeholders from around the country who look like me, along with many names you
would recognize. We are also here with a number of allies who don't look like me, and we're
discussing ways to further climate justice and environmental justice. This evening I am here first
as a concerned citizen and then, second, as a public health and mobility expert. I want to thank
the administration for making it a priority to update these outdated rules and urge the EPA to
create the strongest possible ruling on heavy-duty vehicle pollution. These standards here in the
states where we live and work will begin to provide the much-needed relief from the burden of
diesel fumes and air pollution. Vehicle manufacturers have had the technology to meet stronger
standards but have failed to act on their own without the guiding hand of the EPA. I am
particularly concerned about transportation air pollution. As a child I was very active and loved
to play outside with friends, and played a lot of sports, and it was only a few years ago that I
began to use an inhaler and experience respiratory issues. I don't live next to a transportation
corridor. I don't live next to a refinery or waste facility, but imagine if I did. I have to be careful
when the air quality is poor because I will have respiratory programs. So this issue is critically
important to me from a public health and justice perspective, but it is also very personal for me.
This rule will set the standard for vehicles which will be on the road for decades to come.
Families in diesel death zones and in environmental justice communities, whether they are in
West Oakland [inaudible] or Cancer Alley, Houston, or eastern North Carolina, they have
suffered for far too long and as a result they have increased risk for cardiovascular disease, lung
cancer, and other respiratory health illness. Diesel emissions cause nearly 21,000 premature
deaths each year and impact nearly 135 million Americans, with these majority of these
individuals belonging to BIPOC communities, and that is black and indigenous people of color.
I like to refer to this as the public health crisis that not enough people are talking about. So I
conclusion, once again I want to strongly urge and encourage this administration to enact the
strongest standards possible. Every day we fail to act more families are falling victim to
preventable health diseases. Clean air is a necessity, and not a luxury. It's a human right. We
need to reduce deadly NOx pollution by 90 percent within five years, and fully realize the
positive health impacts of a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle fleet. If this administration wants
to make good on its bold climate goals it will really have to prioritize people and communities
first, not industry standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
1972
-------
Organization: Elders Climate Action
To contribute to timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS for all Americans, and slow global
warming and avoid the worst consequences of a warming climate, a zero emission standard for
HDVs is urgently need to accelerate the transition to zero NOx, PM and GHG emissions from
onroad transportation sources. EPA must signal now that the industry must plan for that
transition by establishing a zero emission standard and phase-in schedule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1218-A1, p. 28]
Organization: Energy Innovation, LLC
The EPA's proposed rules outline Option 1 as the more stringent between Option 1 and Option
2. However, both fall short of what is needed to meaningfully reduce harmful pollution from
HDTs. To the extent the EPA receives evidence to support the technological availability to meet
the more stringent Alternative Option, or more stringent standards beyond NOx reductions of
16.7 percent in CY 2030 and 61.3 percent in CY 2045, the EPA should pursue the highest
possible stringency and should minimize the credits allocated to polluting vehicles. Ideally,
EPA's standards should align with California's Heavy-Duty Omnibus requirement of 90 percent
reduction in NOx emissions beginning in 2027.xlii [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.7]
xlii California Air Resources Board, Facts about the Low Hox Heavy-Duty Omnibus
Regulation,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/hdlownox/files/HD_NOx_Omni
bus_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
In conclusion, we appreciate the EPA's efforts to update and improve the rules governing the
U.S. transportation sector and ensure new vehicles are built to high performance standards that
reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality and public health. We recognize there are always
tradeoffs in rulemaking, but accounting for the longterm impact of the actions made this decade
is imperative to address the most pressing threat of our time. Incremental improvements will be
insufficient to tackle climate emissions at the speed and scale necessary to avert climate
disasters. Communities cannot be expected to endure another decade or more of harmful
pollution due to inaction. We encourage the EPA to continue its laudable work to find cross-
cutting solutions that achieve policy goals and benefit communities, while continuing to raise the
bar for the private sector and technology innovation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1310-A1, p.7]
Organization: Environmental Defense Fund (EPF) (1265 and 2855)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) respectfully submits the following comments in support of
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Proposed Rule, Control of Air Pollution from New
Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 17414 (Mar. 28, 2022)
('Proposal' or 'Proposed Standards'). EDF supports substantially strengthening the heavy-duty
vehicle emissions standards and respectfully urges EPA to strengthen the Proposal in key
respects. These comments highlight the importance and urgency of finalizing health protective
standards that achieve deep reductions in pollution from diesel vehicles and that ensure greater
pollution reductions through meaningful deployment of zero-emission technologies. Near-term
1973
-------
emissions reductions are vital to mitigating the effects of climate change and to protecting public
health, especially the health of low-income communities and communities of color
disproportionately impacted by transportation air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.l]
EDF supports EPA's and the Administration's vision to 'lead the world on clean and efficient
cars and trucks' in order to 'improve our economy and public health, boost energy security,
secure consumer savings, advance environmental justice, and address the climate crisis.' 1 As
both the Proposal and President Biden's August 5, 2021 Executive Order 14037 recognize, the
substantial deployment of zero-emission vehicles ('ZEVs') will play an important role in
achieving this goal.2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.l]
1 Executive Order 14037, Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks,
86 Fed. Reg. 43583, 43583 (Aug. 10, 2021).
2 See id.
This Proposal is a critical piece of that overall vision, and indeed in his August 2021 Executive
Order, the President expressly directed EPA to consider the role ZEVs can play in EPA standards
for model years 2027-2029. However, the Proposal must be substantially strengthened to deliver
critical climate reductions, protect public health, achieve the administration's above-described
commitments, and provide a strong foundation for next generation standards that drive even
deeper pollution reductions from these vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.l]
We urge EPA to move forward swiftly with standards that protect human health and the
environment for all people and all communities, by reducing harmful diesel pollution and
ensuring greater deployment of ZEVs. We respectfully urge EPA to consider all available tools
to achieve deep pollution reductions and rapid ZEV deployment as quickly as possible. These
actions will save money for truckers and fleets, strengthen our energy security, and help to
support and grow domestic jobs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.3]
Accordingly, we urge EPA to substantially increase its ZEV baseline projections, which, as
proposed, fail to account for state and federal policies along with manufacturer and fleet
commitments and investments, and to finalize performance-based pollution standards that
substantially increase ZEV deployment beyond the baseline for model years (MY) 2027-2029. In
particular, these performance-based standards must help to ensure 80 percent of new school and
transit buses are ZEVs by MY 2029, which will protect America's children and transit riders and
mobilize the billions of dollars invested in buses through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. To
protect the millions of people afflicted by freight pollution we similarly encourage EPA to ensure
its standards achieve 40 percent of new Class 4-7 vehicles and Class 8 short-haul tractors are
ZEVs by 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.2]
Protective multipollutant standards that ensure these levels of ZEV deployment are
likewise critically important to provide a strong foundation for future Phase 3 standards
that achieve 100 percent ZEV sales by 2035. To that end, we likewise urge EPA to
commit to a swift and clear timeline for completing those critical next-generation
1974
-------
standards. Though, to be clear, those Phase 3 standards cannot substitute for the progress
we must make now to deploy available, cost-effective, and life-saving ZEV technologies
to reduce medium- and heavy-duty vehicle pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-
Al, p.2]
A rapid transition to ZEVs is critical to reduce climate pollution and protect public health, and
this must be paired with the strongest possible NOx standards for diesel vehicles that achieve
reductions consistent with the reductions that will be achieved by California's NOx Omnibus
rule. To ensure maximum possible NOx reductions, we identify several areas where EPA's
proposal must be strengthened, including recommending substantial adjustment to the credit
provisions for NOx, updating the ZEV sales baseline to reflect current expert projections, and
strengthening of the idle standards for NOx. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.2]
Numerous recent cost studies, clear market trends, recent federal investments, and strong state
actions all support the feasibility of significant near-term deployment of ZEVs. 89 Analysis from
ERM projects Class 4-8 ZEV sales as high as 34 percent in 2029. GHG standards must both
incorporate adjustments to the baseline and likewise strengthen standards to secure reductions
beyond business as usual levels. The attached EDF White Paper shows the significant
environmental and health benefits and the broad economic savings that would accrue from
ensuring some new ZEV sales by 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 19]
89 See supra Section I.B.
Establishing an accurate ZEV sales baseline is critical to the efficacy of EPA's NOx and GHG
standards. EPA's proposal assumes a ZEV uptake of only 1.5 percent in several early-adopting
market segments in MY 2027-2029. This estimate is far below the pace projected by industry
experts. As cited extensively above, manufacturer, municipal, and federal electrification
commitments together with state leadership and IIJA funding will continue to drive demand for
purchase of new Class 4-8 electric trucks and buses between now and 2029. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1265-A1, p.19]
EDF commissioned a study from ERM to evaluate baseline sales of medium- and heavy-duty
BEVs over the next 10 years given these trends.90 ERM evaluated five different scenarios
encompassing different assumptions about how many states would ultimately adopt ACT
regulations (the current six or a total of thirteen), as well as different assumptions for EV market
growth in non-ACT states. Low growth assumptions were based on BEV sales projections in
EIA's 2022 Annual Energy Outlook91 and high growth assumptions were based on a recent
report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which projects significantly
higher annual sales due to most BEV trucks reaching cost parity with ICE vehicles by
2035.92 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p. 19]
90 E. Robo and D. Seamonds, Technical Memo: Analysis on Alternative Medium- and
Heavy-Duty ZEV Baseline, ERM for EDF, May 10, 2022.
1975
-------
91 Annual Energy Outlook 2021,' Reference Case Projections Tables, US Energy
Information Administration (EIA), table 49,
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.php.
92 Ledna et al., Decarbonizing Medium- and Heavy-Duty On-road Vehicles: Zero-
Emission Vehicles Cost Analysis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2022.
The ERM analysis indicates that for all new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in 2029,
midpoint scenarios project medium- and heavy-duty ZEV deployment in excess of 20 percent
and more optimistic scenarios project ZEV sales of over 33 percent of all class 4-8 single unit
trucks, short-haul tractor trailers and school and transit buses. These estimates far exceed EPA's
assumption in the proposal. EPA must use the most current data and projections to update its
ZEV sales baseline for the final rulemaking. Failure to establish an accurate baseline will
significantly undermine the Agency's proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1,
P-20]
Zero-emission vehicles are already available and cost-effective. Deploying zero-emitting
medium and heavy-duty vehicles is critical to reach our health and climate goals. EPA must seize
this opportunity to protect human health and the environment for all people and all communities
by setting standards that ensure greater deployment of zero-emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1265-A1, p.20]
The White Paper EDF is submitting along with these comments documents in detail issues
surrounding cost, feasibility, and lead-time supporting the feasibility and reasonableness of EPA
establishing performance-based pollution standards that help to ensure 40 percent of new class 4-
7 and class 80 short haul vehicles are ZEVs by 2029 and 80 percent of new school and transit
buses are ZEVs by that year.93 We don't reiterate those findings here, but note only that it
provides extensive and well-documented evidence that, in the M/HDV market ZEV cost
reductions, technology advancements, company ESG commitments, state goals and regulations,
and federal funding under IIJA are all causing ZEV demand to increase. The increased ZEV
demand has, in turn, resulted in major manufacturers of gasoline and diesel vehicles introducing
ZEV models and making investments to increase ZEV production to meet the increased demand.
While starting a few years later, this is the same positive feedback loop that is happening in the
light-duty vehicle market. The light-duty ZEV market has dramatically accelerated in the past
few years, and there are strong signs that similar acceleration will happen in the M/HDV market
in the next few years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.20]
93 EDF, 'Medium- and heavy-duty ZEV market readiness summary,' (May 16, 2022).
(Attachment I)
However, it is critical that EPA establish pollution standards to support and reinforce these
trends, consistent with its statutory mandate. As ERM's baseline analysis makes clear, there are a
wide range of potential baseline values that might occur absent protective EPA standards, and
accordingly, EPA must act to provide a strong, clear, and realistic market signal to secure
urgently needed pollution reductions, ensure ZEV deployment levels consistent with what is
needed to protective communities and the climate, and provide a strong foundation for protective
1976
-------
Phase III standards going forward. Finally, while we have not included specific
recommendations for standards in model years 2027 and 2028, we would respectfully
recommend that EPA establish standards in those model years consistent with the above-describe
lead time and feasibility considerations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1265-A1, p.20]
Organization: Environmental Entrepreneurs (ER)
[From Hearing Testimony, April 12, 2022, Sandra Purohit] I urge the EPA to finalize a heavy-
duty trucks rule this year that is stronger than both Option 1 and Option 2, as currently proposed.
Just last week, in two new reports on climate, the Biden-Harris administration's Office Of
Management And Budget and the United Nations International Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate change made clear we simply do not have time for incremental change. Business
leaders agree. Climate-driven floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and droughts already threaten
businesses directly, disrupt supply chains, and drive up input costs by destroying raw materials
from produce to lumber. In 2021, climate-related disasters cost our economy $145 billion, the
highest in any — of any country. Along with the critical climate need, the EPA must do more to
address the air pollution that is driving workers, customers, and community members into
hospitals. In particular, aggressive action is needed to make a long-overdue difference on the
disproportionate impact of these emissions on workers, and communities of color, and low-
income communities. A few key points to make. [Technical difficulties during the hearing here;
resume testimony] Heavy-duty trucks are only 10 percent of the on-road vehicles but contribute
33 percent of mobile-source NOx emissions and are the second-largest contributor to mobile-
source greenhouse gas emissions, the point being that strongest standards here can make a huge
impact. We already have commercially-available zero-emission trucks that address NOx
particulate matter and climate emissions. These trucks also lower fleet operating and
maintenance costs. With a strong market signal from the EPA to help drive production, they will
become even more affordable to make and buy. What we don't have is the luxury of time. EPA
cannot lag behind the market or fail to advance the deployment of zero-emission trucks at the
pace needed to address the urgent public health and climate crisis. As such, we urge EPA to
disregard Option 2 as wholly inadequate and to strengthen Option 1 in three ways: to align with
heavy-duty omnibus rules stringency in Model Year 2027; eliminate the credit mechanism better
roads standard; and to adopt a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate. The greenhouse gas
standards should be updated to reflect existing state requirements that will lead to higher
penetration rates in Model Year 2027 and the 1.5 percent assumed by the Agency. The EPA has
the mandate and the authority to set standards that more assertively scale up solutions and moves
the needle on climate and public health-harming emissions. On behalf of E2 business leaders,
we urge you to do so, and once again, thank you for the time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Environmental Protection Network (EPN)
EPN recommends that EPA's decision be guided by the demonstrated need for very large NOx
reductions from the heavy-duty (HD) sector. This need is especially great for those populations
living near major traffic areas. The goal should be to achieve the lowest feasible NOx standard,
which will provide California, other states, and disadvantaged communities the NOx reductions
they desperately need. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
1977
-------
EPN advocates that decisions on the level of the standards, the useful life period, the applicable
Model Years (MY), and other standard-setting and compliance related issues should all be
guided by this goal. This means that when EPA balances the various relevant factors, EPN
recommends that EPA place great weight on the clear need for major NOx reductions to protect
public health and welfare. EPN suggests that EPA should be clear in its reasoning that this factor
appropriately carries great weight, and that it is an important part of EPA's justification for
deciding to make changes in the direction of more, not less, reduction of NOx emissions. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 1]
EPN strongly recommends that EPA strengthen both the NOx and GHG requirements in the
Final Rule in ways that maintain EPA leadership in improving air quality and public health and
addressing the global climate crisis. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1233-A1, p. 4]
Organization: Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN)
Our children's lives, health, and future will be decided by reducing all forms of air pollution
including climate change causing carbon. Addressing heavy-duty truck now, will go a long way
in deciding our children's future. Please promulgate the strongest possible standards to save our
kids, display our technical abilities to the world, and create a sustainable future with family
supporting jobs for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0993-A1, p.2]
Once again, I urge this administration to set the strongest standards possible because many lives,
especially our children and those most vulnerable in our communities, depend on it. Zero-
emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both reduce harmful NOx and
carbon pollution. The EPA must put our national bus and truck fleet on a clear path to 100%
zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1134-A1, p.2]
Organization: Evergreen Action
The most impactful way to reduce the public health burden from MHDV pollution and achieve
national and international climate goals is to utilize zero emissions technologies which are now
available for all heavy duty trucks. Zero emission heavy duty vehicles are increasingly becoming
cost competitive and have better range and lower maintenance costs than traditional heavy duty
vehicles. EPA's baseline analysis should reflect the growing market adoption of zero emission
MHDVs given that this new standard will not become effective until 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1289-A1, p.2]
Organization: Ezra Rumbold Trucking
Since 2007 emissions, our trucking industry has already cleaned up much of the air with DEF
fluid along side the diesel fuel on all truck applications. We also have had the onerous regen
feature which is inserting the exhaust fumes back through the engine for reprocessing a second
time. We have already cleaned up the air for almost 15 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1013,
p.l]
1978
-------
I'm not sure what this latest proposal would incur, however we are tapped out on further engine
restriction! Thanks for listening to my concerns on this topic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1013,
p.l]
Organization: Faessler Farms LTD
I think there is enough burden on the truckers and we should leave well enough alone. It is
getting harder and harder to get trucks and drivers because of all the regulations. Put yourself in
their shoes and I bet you would feel differently about all your regulations that you impose on
these hard working drivers trying to make a living. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2247, p.l]
Organization: Farmington Road Wrecker Services
As a small business owner, I'm concerned about what these new regulations would cost us and if
we could even afford it right now because of the state of our economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-2264, p.l]
Organization: Florida Council of Churches
I thank this administration for acting swiftly on clean trucks but urge EPA to create the strongest
possible limits on heavy duty vehicle pollution. The EPA must put our national bus and truck
fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. Life and breath depend
on this action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, p.l]
The dirty air we breathe plays a major role in cutting lives short. Establishing clean exhaust
regulations is a matter of life and breath for large numbers of Floridians. Removing the
pollutants from fuel, especially from trucks and other large vehicles, will restore the breath of
life to millions of people and the soil itself. The technology exists for clean vehicles. The market
is ready for them. Clean standards will move us all forward in ways that lead to health and
prosperity. Not to act now is to say we as a nation want those who bear the greatest burden of air
pollutants to die early deaths and their children to struggle with acquired learning disabilities and
other ailments. As a nation I know that is not who we are. EPA clean standards are life and
breath to millions of people and the environment itself. The standards EPA sets should achieve
100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2035. That sets a pace to
deliver much needed health benefits to all of us and especially communities of color and the
ground that sustains us. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1006, p.2]
Organization: Flower Shoppe & Gifts
Now is not the time to enact strict regulations on our national trucking system. We already face
shortages and delays in receiving goods not to mention the increased costs that are placed upon
us which drive up costs to our consumers. I strongly urge you to not pass these regulations on
heavy duty engines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2267, p.l]
1979
-------
Organization: Foxy Travel, Inc. dba FTI Coach
The number one issue with newer coaches center around the emissions system and it makes us
hesitant to upgrade our older fleet. Countless times we have had buses shuttling in Boston where
there is no place to do a parked regen and had to send a mechanic out to do a forced regen. We
have had numerous times we have sent our coaches away and had a failed nox sensor take a bus
out of service. Coaches were towed, other buses dispatched, passengers stuck on the side of the
road, it can be an absolute nightmare! If a coach is on a 7 day trip, even 60 hours isn't enough to
get it home and have it fixed. Instead we send out older coaches without the emissions systems
because we can't trust little things like nox sensors or having proper places in major cities to do a
regen. For the record, we use high quality DEF from Dennison Lubricants. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-2060, p. 1]
Organization: Gary Frederick
While it is commendable that the EPA is seeking to tighten clean truck standards, we need to
ensure that the rules do just that in a strong and meaningful way to truly tackle NOx and
greenhouse gases. The most recent United Nations report bluntly states that we are almost out of
time for curbing the worst effects of global warming. As such, each country, each state and each
town must dramatically do what it can to avert a catastrophe. New Jersey has been on the front
lines in the fight against global warming, with our large coastline, congested cities, and warming
climate. Unfortunately, we've also been on the front lines of 18-wheel trucks heading up and
down the Turnpike to New York City and beyond, immense FedEx, Amazon and other retail
warehouses, and more SuperFund sites than most other states. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1393]
The trucks targeted by this rule change will be on the road for decades, so it imperative we take
steps now to get dirty diesel trucks off the roads and replace them with cleaner trucks. There are
many zero-emission trucks ready for the market now or in the near future. Not only are they
projected to be cheaper to own and operate than their diesel engine counterparts, a recent Dept of
Energy study projects that by 2030, zero-emission trucks could be 42% of sales. A meaningful
rule change by the EPA could speed that along. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1393]
The proposed rule outlines two options for reducing NOx and other particulates. Option 1 is not
as strong as California's Heavy Duty Omnibus Rule. And Option 2 does not go far enough in
curtailing pollutants. It risks being a giveaway to the biggest polluters in the engine
manufacturing industry. That surely cannot be the intent of the proposed rule changes. [EPA-
HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1393] [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1393]
I am urging the EPA to take strong action to curb pollution and tighten heavy-duty engine and
vehicle standards, with a goal of 100% zero-emission electric vehicles by 2035. Zero-emission
electric trucks remain our best way to curb harmful NOx and GHG emissions and do our part to
avert the worst impacts of global warming.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1393]
1980
-------
Organization: Greg Pagliuzza
I am writing as a Christian, who after many years as an executive in hospital finance, has gotten
involved in taking care of God's creation. I view the Earth as a patient which needs a lot of
attention and requires all of us to invest back into preserving its health. It is comparable to the
work and investment one needs to take care of patients but on a much grander scale. I am
grateful that this administration is acting swiftly on clean trucks but urge EPA to create the
strongest possible limits on heavy duty vehicle pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1215]
I have lived the majority of my life in the Chicagoland area. As it is a hub for transportation,
there are many trucks which leave their tell-tale signs of diesel discharge for all of us to breath. I
recognize that my health and the health of my children and grandchildren has been negatively
impacted by trucking's tailpipe discharges. I look forward to the day when those discharges and
the negative impact it has on me, my family, my community, and the earth in total is eliminated.
Climate change is the existential threat to God's creation. The sooner action is taken to eliminate
the long-term threat of the polluting discharges from trucks and buses, the better it will be slow
down the degradation to our environment. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1215]
As a former hospital CFO and financial expert, I have to note that investing in the future jobs of
clean energy transportation will enhance the United States' economic strength for years to come.
It will also require less investment of healthcare dollars to treat those who will be harmed by
doing nothing. This is a message that both sides of the aisle should support wholeheartedly.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1215]
As a Christian, my specific concerns are:
• We have a moral and Biblical mandate to defend the health of all God's children,
including from harmful air pollution from highly polluting heavy duty trucks and
vehicles, which have an outsized influence on air pollution and climate change.
• As an evangelical Christian, I believe that all human life is sacred; that each person
conceived is of equal and innate value and dignity, and that all human life is worthy of
protection.
• Pro-life means protecting life - a theology shared by the National Association of
Evangelicals and Catholic social teaching under the guidance of Pope Francis in his
encyclical letter, Laudato si' on care for our common home.
• Jesus was especially concerned about vulnerable populations being denied abundant life.
"Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom
of heaven belongs to such as these.'" (Matthew 19:14)
• Medical research shows that ozone exposure increases the likelihood of reproductive and
developmental harm, including reduced fertility, preterm birth, stillbirth and low birth
weight
• Between 15,000 to 30,000 preterm births occur due to exposure to soot (PM2.5), that is
also emitted by heavy duty trucks. Soot-related pre-term births cost approximately $4.33
billion to the United States economy — and 33% of these children die at birth or shortly
after. 1
1981
-------
1 Teresa M Attina, Russ Hauser, Sheela Sathyanarayana, Patricia A Hunt, Jean-Pierre
Bourguignon, John Peterson Myers, Joseph DiGangi,R Thomas Zoeller, Leonardo
Trasande, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth:
I am writing because I know the following to be true and as man created this problem.
• Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the greatest threats to
public health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300 feet of a
major roadway or transportation facility.
• EPA has recognized that more than 13 million people (including 3.5 million children)
live near major marine and inland ports or rail yards, and that these individuals are
disproportionately low- income communities of color and susceptible to increased health
risks from air pollution.
• Heavy duty vehicles spew dangerous nitrogen oxides and other pollution into our air,
harming respiratory health, especially in marginalized communities.
• Diesel pollution from heavy duty trucks and buses is a massive public health threat.
• Diesel pollution worsens asthma and is particularly dangerous to children's developing
lungs.
• Dangerous nitrogen oxides and other pollution that heavy duty vehicles like trucks and
buses spew into our air hurt low wealth communities first and worst.
• The transportation sector is the largest single source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases
Now man can work to correct it.
• We have the technology and the ability to cut pollution and save money today.
• Today, electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of freight,
delivery, and transit uses and needs.
• Today, electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of freight,
delivery, and transit uses and needs.
• Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to
be cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5 years.
• In fact, a recent DOE study predicts that by 2030, zero-emission trucks could grow to
42% of sales just based on the fact that they will be cheaper to buy and own, but we need
strong policies to achieve this reality.
The bottom line is, I urge this administration to set the strongest standards possible as soon as
possible because many lives depend on it. It's past time to clean-up our air and defend our
children and families from harmful traffic emissions that threaten our health and fuel global
warming. These standards must accomplish two things: 1) reducing deadly NOx pollution 90%
by 2027, and 2) putting our national bus and truck fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission
all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1215]
Organization: Hyliion, Inc.
First, we write to thank the EPA for ongoing efforts to reduce emissions of toxic diesel
particulates and smog-forming oxides of nitrogen. It is clear that to achieve National Ambient
1982
-------
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), emissions from medium and heavy-duty vehicles must
decrease to zero and near zero levels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1238-A1, p. 1]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America - UAW Region 1A
Frankly, we are very concerned that the proposed rule from EPA on tailpipe emissions from
heavy-duty trucks as part of the 'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards,' may not be technologically feasible. That means Original
Equipment Makers (OEMs) will spend hundreds of millions of dollars chasing at worst an
impossible standard, and at best a costly standard, rather than strategically deploying critical
resources on proven technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, p.l]
We share, of course, your commitment to the environment and applaud the accomplishments
already achieved by commercial vehicle manufacturers to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions from heavy-duty trucks. We support the ongoing efforts for cleaner air and healthier
communities for all. However, we also recognize the importance of preserving - not effectively
dismantling through higher costs and wasted expenditures - this critical industry. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, p.l]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-
Al, p.l]
To be effective, the final rule must be: Environmentally beneficial. An unworkable rule will
delay fleet turnover and prevent environmental progress, creating greater harm in communities
most at-risk for high air pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1062-A1, pp. 1-2]
Organization: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW)
We support and value the EPA's mandate through the Clean Air Act to regulate harmful
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions to protect communities from negative health effects and
address the threat of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.2]
The UAW supports using regulations that help bring innovative technologies to heavy-duty
fleets, so long as the technologies are proven and cost-effective, regulatory timelines are feasible,
and manufacturers have flexibility to meet stringency requirements through multiple technology
paths. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.3]
Additionally, if regulations result in high regulatory costs and reduced vehicle sales, it could
place financial constraints on the industry at a time when companies require capital to make
major investments in new technologies. Truck manufacturers have shown a commitment to
major investments to transition to zero-emission vehicles, but that transition will require
significant financial resources. Poorly designed regulations could have the unintended
1983
-------
consequences of hampering the industry's ability to invest in the technologies of the future and
build them here in the U.S. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, pp.4-5]
We urge the EPA ensure new regulations do not create economic hardship for working families
by creating significant market disruptions. To achieve this goal, the final rule must be consistent
with the following principles:
• Create regulatory certainty and avoid disruptions to the trucking market
• Provide manufacturers with the necessary lead time and flexibility to meet stringency
standards
• Work towards a single national standard that is harmonized with existing regulations
• Build upon realistic analysis of the feasibility, cost, and market potential of new
technologies [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.5]
UAW commends the EPA's continued efforts to incorporate stakeholder input and create a
national program that incentivizes investment in US manufacturing, promotes US leadership in
advanced technology, supports fuel efficiency and reduced emissions, and provides the industry
flexibility to meet those standards. We believe a negotiated national standard derived from a
consensus-driven process that includes meaningful engagement with all stakeholders, including
states, workers, manufacturers, suppliers, environmental advocates, and fleet operators, working
together to reach an agreement on regulations will help the economy and the environment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1138-A1, p.5]
Organization: Jack Schneeman
I have always been a staunch supporter of using regulations to alleviate the effects of climate
change, and for this reason I fully support this proposed rule. Pollutants from heavy-duty
engines, such as those used in semi-trucks and other diesel engines, are a known threat to the
environment and to public health. According to the Congressional Research Service, these
engines are the biggest contributors to emissions of Nix, which was roughly 32% in 2017 (CRS).
Nix reacts in the atmosphere to form harmful pollutants such as smog (ozone) and particulate
matter (soot). Furthermore, heavy-duty engines emitted roughly 457 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide in 2019, equating roughly 25% of US C02 emissions from the transportation
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1053]
The adverse effects these pollutants have on human health and the environment is extreme, to
say the least. According to the Centers for Disease Control, ground level smog (ozone) and
particulate matter (soot) have the potential to cause many health problems for humans. Estimates
that contain no regulatory updates (meaning should this rule not be implemented) suggest that
roughly 1000-4300 additional premature deaths may be cause by the presence of smog and soot
by 2050 (CDC). Furthermore, health related costs of ozone air pollution have been estimated at
nearly 7 billion USD from a period between 2000 and 2002. Further, the Environmental
Protection Agency itself estimates that smog and soot cause other adverse health effects,
including premature death, respiratory illness (including childhood asthma), cardiovascular
problems, and other adverse health impacts. Thus, the impact of heavy-duty engines is clear, and
must be addressed. The effects of carbon dioxide produced by heavy-duty engines also pose a
1984
-------
threat to public health and to the global environment and ecological systems as well. According
to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS),
unregulated carbon dioxide emissions will cause irreversible damage to the planet's environment
for up to 1000 years after C02 emissions are curbed altogether (PNAS). The presence of
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a direct contributor to climate change, which has already
caused a great deal of damage to the environment due to global warming. If C02 emissions are
not regulated, the planet will see an increase in the melting of polar ice caps, causing sea levels
to rise, an increase in precipitation levels causing the potential for massive floods, increasing
natural disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes, and the global death of millions of
species, which would cause irreversible damage to ecosystems and food supply necessary to
sustain human life (PNAS). Essentially, it is imperative greenhouse gas emissions are regulated
in order to ensure the survival of the human species. Thus, it is clear that the EPA's proposed rule
must be implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1053]
The EPA seeks to change emissions standards to heavy-duty engines through the power vested in
it by the Clean Air Act of 1963 and Executive Order 14307: "Strengthening American
Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks" (CRS). This rule relates to companies that manufacture,
sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty highway engines, and would require them
to meet certain efficiency and emissions standards in order to sell, import, or manufacture new
heavy-duty engines for usage in the United States. According to the EPA, implementation of this
rule would reduce heavy-duty engine emissions by roughly 50% by 2040 and 60% by 2045,
which would be greatly beneficial for public and environmental health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1053]
While it is difficult to ascertain the overall public reaction to this rule, I would argue that
implementation of this rule would be very popular with the public. According to the Pew
Research Center, 2/3 of Americans believe that the government should do more to address
climate change, and thus targeting one of the biggest factors in emissions would be very popular
the overall population, although less popular for the companies targeted by this rule proposal.
However, the complaints of these companies must be ignored in order to promote public and
environmental health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1053]
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for this rule proposal. In order to
better secure a future in which public and environmental health is more valued, I express my
support for this rule and urge its implementation by the EPA. Attached below are references to
the sources I consulted in order to further research this rule proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1053; references omitted]
Organization: Jared Kurland
The EPA's new proposed rule on the control of air pollution from large heavy duty motor
vehicles and vehicle standards sounds like a great idea on the outside. Reducing air pollution
from highway bound heavy duty engines and vehicles is most certainly a benefit to society and
the world. The reduction of dangerous air pollutants to the ozone layer and we as humans sounds
great. Yet after reading several other public comments it seems as though the people who work
firsthand with large engines are not happy with how this action is going to affect them. These
1985
-------
changes will increase the challenges small business have in competing with big trucking
companies. As a supporter in small business, I would hope that the EPA is working to support
smaller trucking companies while still achieving their goal of making the engines cleaner. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-13 88]
Organization: Jessica Stevens
Considering the risks the emissions the transportation sector has on public health and the
environment, I would urge the Environmental Protection Agency to pass this regulation.
However, I would also encourage some adjustments to be made to the regulation. Particularly, I
recommend even stronger regulations to be put in place not only on heavy duty trucks, but on all
forms of transportation that are carbon and greenhouse gas producing. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we must keep global warming below 1.5 degrees
celsius to avoid catastrophic changes to our planet (Cho). This would require emissions to fall to
half of production by 2030 and to zero by 2050. Although 136 countries pledged to this at the
COP26,1 believe that we still need to take strong steps as a country to get there, with the hope
that other countries will follow in suit. This is why I do not think making standards, test
procedures, life use, warranty, and other outline requirements in the proposal for only heavy duty
trucks is enough to make sufficient progress against our climate crisis. I acknowledge that it is a
step in the right direction, which is why I am endorsing this regulation, but I am recommending
that further policies are put into place to make more progress in reducing our carbon footprint.
[EP A-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Additionally, I propose that more consideration is put into the economic strain this might place
on the transportation and connected industries. I do not think they should have to foot the costs
for the amendments made to requirements; the government should provide some form of
subsidies because it is moving the future of our country and planet in a safer direction. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
All in all, I support the implementation of this regulation. Transportation is the largest sector
responsible for the production of greenhouse gasses, which has severe negative consequences on
public health and environmental health. Furthermore, I urge that regulations are passed on a
wider range of the transportation sector as greenhouse gasses must be reduced to prevent global
warming from producing catastrophic impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1028]
Organization: K&M Outdoor, LLC
This regulation will hurt the trucking industry that is already struggling due to high fuel prices
and supply chain issues. Not only will this cause the cost of trucking to skyrocket but it will
directly impact the consumer which would only add fuel to the fire we already have also
considered 'Inflation'. Please do not do this to our trucker, they are the ones keeping the economy
moving...without them or by hurting them we will cause great harm to everyone in this
country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1008, p.l]
1986
-------
Organization: Kali Bach
I believe this rule is an excellent start to keeping our air clean and breathable for all, especially
for communities along the highways or busy roadways. One suggestion I would like to throw in
is a tax incentive for truck manufacturers and companies to not only comply with the new law,
but if they go beyond the requirements. If we can lessen our dependence on oil in this sector of
the economy, then I hope we can move towards fully electric trucks in the near future to have a
zero-emission fleet. This rule, in the meantime, is a good steppingstone towards that goal. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1390]
Organization: Kimmons, Kenneth (OOIDA)
I have been in the trucking business since 1966.My brother an uncle since the 40's. Have
watched the cost of equipment myself increase near tenfold since the mid 60's. Reliable on the
trucks gotten worse, repairs increasing yearly. Fancy so called emissions standards increasing at
expense of the owners of sad equipment. Will it never end? All this talk about cleaner air, I'm all
for it, but quit hitting trucks with more and more regulations. Great suggestion here for you in
DC that knows nothing about an owner-operator's daily problems. Shut it all down, no more
trucks burning diesel or any gas. No cars on the road no trains just shut it all down. Return to
horse and wagon, mules and horses pulling plows of farmers. No coal electric plants, no nuclear
power plants. Return to coal oil lamps and wood burning stoves an fire places to cook an heat
homes. Emissions problem solved. Back to our forefather's ways of life, sailing ships etc. See
how you like it then, good clean air you say, life expectancy mid 30-40. World population will
drop by 60-70 percent within 18 months. Wake up folks got to be better solutions, quit regulating
us out of business an into the poor house. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A2, p.4]
Organization: King County, Washington County Executive
As the elected leader of King County, Washington, the nation's 12th most populous county, I
urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize the strongest possible heavy-duty
vehicle requirements via the Clean Trucks Plan, now released as a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055. Passage of strong requirements
is essential to protect residents from the harmful impacts of air pollution, advance environmental
justice, and slow the release of global warming emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2,
p.l]
The heavy-duty rule must accelerate deployment of zero-emission vehicles in order to safeguard
clean air and improve public health in our communities. Our residents cannot wait a decade for
cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.l]
There is no time to wait; we must move with urgency to reduce emissions from the transportation
sector and protect the health of our most vulnerable communities. There is a critical need for the
EPA to take swift action towards a zero-emissions future in order to ensure a safe environment
for current and future generations. I am confident that you agree on the urgency of this issue and
I urge you to finalize a strong rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1188-A2, p.2]
1987
-------
Organization: Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS)
EPA's Proposed Rule and accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) (herein 'the
Proposed Rule') inadequately address the dangers of greenhouse gas and other polluting
emissions from fossil fuel powered medium and heavy duty vehicles and thus falls short of the
administration's commitment. LNS supports the rapid transition to zero-emissions vehicles
(ZEVs) that would eliminate these emissions. However, we defer to other community and
technical experts to address the shortcomings of the proposed final rulemaking with respect to its
impacts on environmental and public health. We incorporate by reference the comments,
testimony and recommendations submitted by the more than 50 organizations that make up the
Moving Forward Network (MFN) who have submitted individual/organizational comments, as
well as MFN's own comprehensive comment and public testimony. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1257-A1, p.2]
Given the realities of the independent contractor model, the Proposed Rule will likely result in
increased cost burdens on these already devalued drivers rather than where the cost burdens
of regulation should be placed, specifically the logistics corporations who fundamentally control
the operations of medium and heavy-duty fleets from seaport to consumer. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1257-A1, pp.2-3]
Increasing cost burdens on devalued drivers risks undermining the objectives of the Proposed
Rule and is likely to inhibit progress on our environmental justice, climate, and public health
goals. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p.3]
Specifically, LNS recommends the following actions:
• EPA must not leave emission reductions and requirements to future rule and should
transition to zero-emission trucks and buses by setting stringent emission standards and
zero-emission-vehicle sales mandates now.
• EPA should require that all new trucks have zero emissions beginning in 2035 and retire
all combustion trucks before 2045. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1257-A1, p. 15]
Organization: Law son Construction Group
We have enough regulations already! The impact has been very detrimental on our industry. Our
carbon footprint is the smallest in the world. To fix the world's environmental issues in the
United States alone is idiotic. Leave the industry be. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1007, p.l]
Organization: Lion Electric Co. USA Inc. (Lion)
As the United States moves towards a zero-emission future at an accelerated rate, it is even more
crucial that appropriate incentives are offered to facilitate this transition. Many states have
adopted their own zero-emission attainment goals and large numbers of fleet owners are eager to
comply ahead of schedule. However, price remains the deciding factor for many of these
operations, especially for small fleets with 10 or fewer heavy-duty vehicles. Lion assists fleet
owners throughout the United States to leverage local, State, and Federal funding towards new
1988
-------
zero-emission vehicles; however, there are often limitations that make funding difficult to
obtain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
For example, the scrappage requirement for many programs, such as the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Statewide Carl Moyer Program, or the Volkswagen Mitigation Fund,
renders many applicants ineligible. Narrow eligibility windows can exclude many fleets with old
diesel vehicles that do not qualify for funding. Without feasible financial options for
replacement, these vehicles may remain on the road long past their useful life, releasing harmful
emissions into the environment. Alternatively, small fleets or newer businesses may not have
vehicles available to scrap at all. For these reasons, we ask that the EPA to reconsider how to
apply scrappage requirements for future funding programs, and to consider offering flexible
options for applicants to meet them. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 2]
Lion cautions the EPA against providing high incentives for hybrid vehicles either as opposed to
or in addition to zero-emission vehicles. With the end goal being a maximum reduction in air
pollutants, the best way to achieve this is to encourage the adoption of all-electric vehicles. With
the proper incentives, many fleet owners can move straight into zero-emission, ensuring early
compliance with state goals and achieving the highest possible emission reduction. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1151-A2, p. 3]
Organization: Louisiana Monuments and Signs
Business's will be crippled if this is passed. One more thing struggling business's will have to
struggle with, so many people will lose their jobs. I am a small business and the struggle is real
on so many levels. This would be the last thing I would need to deal with. After struggles with
2020 situations still lingering. I Cant afford to buy a fleet of new trucks. I would be forced to
shut down both of my small business's. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1015, p.l]
Organization: Lor en Marz
I generally support the proposed action (Option 1) as presented in the proposed rule, although it
appears that regulated levels of non-GHG emissions are approaching diminishing returns. [EPA-
HQ-0 AR-2019-005 5 -13 94]
Organization: Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)
We commend EPA on a Proposal that will deliver critically-needed environmental benefits, as
soon as MY 2027. We support a final rule that includes Option 1 for NOx reduction, assuming
suitable cost-effective technologies are available in time for the MY 2027 implementation of the
new NOx standard. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1304-A1, pp.1-2]
Organization: Machinery Northwest Co.
I truly believe that we are the golden standard that all other industries and county's around the
world should want to have the same or better standards. We should not be forcing anyone
industry in the USA to conform or change their current good practices until the rest of the work
1989
-------
is able to catch up with and apply the same or better standards in there countries. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1713, p.l]
Organization: Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA)
The Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) is pleased to provide comments
in strong support of the U.S. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to revise oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emission standards for heavy-duty on-highway engines as well as update
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for heavy-duty on-highway vehicles. We believe an
important opportunity exists to continue to reduce NOx and GHG emissions from heavy-duty
engines and vehicles due to the evolution of engine and aftertreatment technologies in the 12
years since the last standards were fully implemented. In addition, we support continued
reductions in GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles through the
application of innovative technologies and fuels. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.l]
MECA thanks EPA for building upon the historic comprehensive test program that has
demonstrated pathways for heavy-duty engines to achieve ultra-low NOx levels without
impacting GHG emissions and provided data on end-of-life durability, performance over real-
world cycles, in-use system compliance with the new moving average window requirements,
emission sensor measurement capability, among others. MECA supports EPA's Proposed Option
1 with some modifications, which we feel will strengthen the regulation. We also support EPA's
amendments of the Phase 2 MY 2027 GHG vehicle standards and have some suggestions on how
the NPRM treats credits from electric vehicles [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1320-A1, p.2]
Organization: Marathon Cheese Transport
We do these things because of cost savings and safety of our drivers and public, and yet more
regulations that hamper the transportation industry, not help them. I do not support regulations
that add higher costs but little value to my business. California's CARB system shows the
imperfection of a standard that has pushed many trucking companies out of business or across
state lines to set up businesses and still run miles in state of CA. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
2516, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by American Lung Association (248)
As physicians, nurses, public health professionals and healthcare workers dedicated to providing
our patients with a healthy future, we urge you to finalize strong emissions standards for heavy-
duty vehicles and to move toward a zero-emission trucking sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1609-A1, p.l]
We thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for proposing rules to slash NOx
emissions from new heavy-duty vehicles, recognizing the need to immediately curb pollution
from the millions of heavy-duty vehicles on the roads today. We also appreciate the agency
continuing to lay the groundwork to transition to zero-emission vehicles by updating greenhouse
gas standards within this proposal. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609-A1, p.l]
1990
-------
The health community is calling for EPA to choose the most health-protective option possible,
achieve a 90% reduction in NOx pollution and finalize the rules by the end of 2022. We urge you
to not only finalize strong standards, but also ensure real-world benefits by requiring pollution
controls for the full lives of these vehicles and in realistic operating conditions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1609-A1, p.l]
Finally, we then urge EPA to move forward with the next phase of setting strong greenhouse gas
standards for medium and heavy-duty vehicles to drive the nationwide transition to zero-
emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1609-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (82)
I'm writing today to urge the EPA to create the strongest possible limits on heavy duty vehicle
pollution to limit dangerous diesel pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx). We need solutions for
pollution, and these standards will provide much needed relief from the burden of diesel and
other air pollution. The reality is that trucks regulated by this standard will be on the road for
decades, so these vehicles must be cleaned up as soon as possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1193, p.l]
The bottom line is that zero-emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both
reduce harmful NOx and carbon pollution. There are dozens of zero-emission medium- and
heavy-duty trucks already available or coming to the market within a couple of years, and across
nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to
own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5 years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1193, p.l]
Strong pollution limits on heavy duty vehicles are a solution for pollution, and the EPA can and
should use these standards to accelerate the transition to electric trucks. These standards must
accomplish two things: 1) reducing deadly NOx pollution 90% by 2027, and 2) putting our
national bus and truck fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by
2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1193, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (15,000)
I'm writing today to urge the EPA to create the strongest possible limits on heavy duty vehicle
pollution to limit dangerous diesel pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx). We need solutions for
pollution, and these standards will provide much needed relief from the burden of diesel and
other air pollution. The reality is that trucks regulated by this standard will be on the road for
decades, so these vehicles must be cleaned up as soon as possible.
- Families in diesel death zones, particularly communities of color and low wealth communities,
have suffered long enough and cannot wait extra model years for clean air, and drivers cannot
wait extra model years for more efficient, pollution-free trucks.
- Cleaner trucks are not only available and ready now, they also are projected to deliver critical
cost savings for operators and drivers.
- Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be
cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years.
1991
-------
- Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the greatest threats to public
health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300 feet of a major roadway
or transportation facility.
The bottom line is that zero-emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both
reduce harmful NOx and carbon pollution. There are dozens of zero-emission medium- and
heavy-duty trucks already available or coming to the market within a couple of years, and across
nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to
own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5 years. Strong pollution
limits on heavy duty vehicles are a solution for pollution, and the EPA can and should use these
standards to accelerate the transition to electric trucks. These standards must accomplish two
things: 1) reducing deadly NOx pollution 90% by 2027, and 2) putting our national bus and truck
fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
055-1612]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (7,549)
I'm writing today to urge the EPA to create the strongest possible limits on heavy duty vehicle
pollution to limit dangerous diesel pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx). We need solutions for
pollution, and these standards will provide much needed relief from the burden of diesel and
other air pollution. The reality is that trucks regulated by this standard will be on the road for
decades, so these vehicles must be cleaned up as soon as possible.
- Families in diesel death zones, particularly communities of color and low wealth communities,
have suffered long enough and cannot wait extra model years for clean air, and drivers cannot
wait extra model years for more efficient, pollution-free trucks.
- Cleaner trucks are not only available and ready now, they also are projected to deliver critical
cost savings for operators and drivers.
- Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be
cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within five years.
- Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are among the greatest threats to public
health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S. living within 300 feet of a major roadway
or transportation facility.
The bottom line is that zero-emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both
reduce harmful NOx and carbon pollution. There are dozens of zero-emission medium- and
heavy-duty trucks already available or coming to the market within a couple of years, and across
nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to
own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5 years. Strong pollution
limits on heavy duty vehicles are a solution for pollution, and the EPA can and should use these
standards to accelerate the transition to electric trucks. These standards must accomplish two
things: 1) reducing deadly NOx pollution 90% by 2027, and 2) putting our national bus and truck
fleet on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
055-1615]
1992
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Climate Action Campaign (28)
I'm writing today to urge the EPA to create the strongest possible limits on heavy duty vehicle
pollution to limit dangerous diesel pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx). Here in STATE, we
need solutions for pollution, and these standards will provide much needed relief from the
burden of diesel and other air pollution. The reality is that trucks regulated by this standard will
be on the road for decades, so these vehicles must be cleaned up as soon as possible. The bottom
line is that zero-emission electric trucks are the best available technology to both reduce harmful
NOx and carbon pollution. There are dozens of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty trucks
already available or coming to the market within a couple of years, and across nearly every
vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to own and
operate than their combustion engine counterparts within 5 years. Strong pollution limits on
heavy duty vehicles are a solution for pollution, and the EPA can and should use these standards
to accelerate the transition to electric trucks. These standards must accomplish two things: 1)
reducing deadly NOx pollution 90% by 2027, and 2) putting our national bus and truck fleet on a
clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-1617]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by The Climate Reality Project (10,820)
Even more important, accelerating the transition to 100% electric trucks would help protect the
72 million Americans who live by freight routes not just from NOx but also from soot and other
pollutants spewing out of tailpipes. As you know, those affected are overwhelmingly people of
color and poor families, making this not just about climate action and public health, but about
basic justice for Americans. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1083-Al,p.2]
Yes, the timeline is aggressive. But the health of millions depends on it, and with more and more
electric trucks options entering the market, we know we can do it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1083-A1, p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environment America (11,390)
We write to urge you to create the strongest possible limits on heavy-duty vehicle
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A1, p.l]
I urge the EPA to create the strongest possible limits on pollution from heavy-duty trucks and
buses. Trucks create pollution that is warming our planet and polluting our communities. Smog
pollution from trucks is a threat to public health, causing childhood asthma, cancer and even
premature death. To protect our health and fight climate change, you must strengthen the
proposed heavy-duty truck rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1611-A2, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Moms Clean Air Force and Arizona
Climate Action Coalition (198)
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to address pollution from medium and heavy-
duty trucks. We, the undersigned Arizona community organizations, elected officials, and
community members are joining together to ask for stronger heavy-duty engine and vehicle
standards. We are concerned about the impacts of the climate crisis on our children and
1993
-------
communities, and do not feel that the proposal goes far enough to address the urgency we are
facing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1 ,p. 1 ]
We are writing to you today to ask that you please consider strengthening the proposed standards
before they are finalized. The transportation sector is the leading source of climate pollution in
the US.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1192-A1, p. 1 ]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by National Religious Partnership for the
Environment (4,677)
The Environmental Protection Agency has an opportunity to help address the injustice of
pollution and climate change by enacting the strongest possible heavy duty truck standards. The
standards EPA sets should achieve 100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2035, which would
be at a pace that would deliver much needed health benefits to communities of color. With zero
emission trucks, which are commercially available, pollution from these trucks can be eliminated
in our neighborhoods. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1122-A1, p.l]
We strongly urge the EPA to advance its environmental justice mandate by prioritizing zero
emissions from heavy duty trucks and producing strong heavy duty truck standards that reduce
pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1122-A1, p.2]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Natural Resources Defense Council
(28,240)
Please accept these 28,240 public comments from members and online activists of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) asking you to adopt the strongest possible standards to
reduce pollution from diesel truck engines and establish a national zero-emissions truck sales
requirement to help phase out fossil fuels and slash air pollution in the most-impacted
communities more quickly. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1614, p.l]
EPA has a responsibility to slash air pollution, protect public health, and address the climate
crisis all at once by pursuing strong standards for heavy-duty vehicle emissions. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1614, p.l]
While we commend your agency for undertaking this effort, we are concerned that your draft
proposal doesn't go far enough and needs to be significantly strengthened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1614, p.l]
Even with strong emissions standards in place, it will take years for the benefits to reach the
people who need them most. That's why we also need a zero-emissions truck mandate. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1614, p.l]
By adopting the two abovementioned policies, we can make progress towards our climate goals
and protect the communities most at-risk. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1614, p.l]
1994
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by PennEnvironment (50)
We the undersigned organizations, businesses, and community leaders are writing to respectfully
urge EPA to create the strongest possible limits on pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses.
EPA's proposal to rein in pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses must be strengthened to
truly protect public health from air and global warming pollution. Trucks create pollution that is
warming our planet and polluting our communities. As the largest source of global warming
pollution in the nation, we must zero out climate emissions from our transportation sector by
2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. That means replacing trucks, buses, freight
vehicles, delivery vans, and other vehicles that rely on fossil fuels with clean, electric versions of
those vehicles. Smog pollution from trucks is also a threat to public health, causing childhood
asthma, cancer and even premature death. To protect our health and fight climate change, EPA
must strengthen the proposed heavy duty truck rule. While the limit on smog-forming nitrogen
oxides (NOx) in EPA's proposed rule is a start, it doesn't go nearly far enough to protect public
health. We call on the EPA to revise and improve the rule, and require NOx emissions to be
reduced by 90% by 2027 for heavy duty trucks and buses. The greenhouse gas emission standard
in the proposed rule is also far too weak, and must be improved to reduce global warming
pollution and accelerate the market for electric trucks. EPA must enact standards that put the
American truck and bus fleet on a clear roadway to 100% zero-emission sales by 2035. Vehicle
manufacturers have the technology to meet stronger standards than those currently put forth by
EPA in its proposed rule, and many recent analyses have shown that fully zero-emission trucks
will be cheaper to purchase and operate than diesel-trucks within the timeframe of these
standards. Cleaner trucks can deliver cleaner air. EPA can and must initiate a stronger rule that
will quickly cut harmful emissions, meet the climate crisis, and protect the health of communities
across the state and country. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1616]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Public Citizen (168)
While these rules are a good start, they don't go far enough. I call on the EPA to make the rules
stronger. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1597-A2,p.l]
EPA's plan needs to urgently eliminate tailpipe emissions and transition the trucking industry to
zero emissions. Many states have already required truck manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions
by 90% by 2027. EPA can build on these standards by incorporating strong greenhouse gas
standards in order to reach 100% clean trucking by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1597-
A2,p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Union of Concerned Scientists - 1
(13,985)
I am glad that, after 20 years, you have proposed stronger tailpipe toxic pollution standards for
heavy-duty diesel trucks. But the rule falls short. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1194-A1, p. 1]
I urge you to protect our health and eliminate toxic tailpipe emissions from trucks by adopting a
stronger rule that accelerates the rollout of zero-emission trucks. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1194-A1, p.l]
1995
-------
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Consumer Reports (CR) (17,499)
I urge the EPA to set the strongest standards possible to reduce greenhouse gas and nitrogen
oxides emissions from medium- and heavy-duty trucks manufactured in 2027 and beyond. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1613-A1, p.l]
It has been more than 10 years since these standards were updated, and we need the strongest
rules possible to protect our health, air, and climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1613-A1, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (20)
I support because Climate change action can't wait! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1607, p.l]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (5,967)
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to address pollution from medium and heavy-
duty trucks. I am worried about the impacts of the climate crisis on the health of our
communities, and I'm concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. I'm writing to you
today to ask that you please consider strengthening the final standards. The transportation sector
is the leading source of climate pollution in the US. The climate crisis is harming our families
and our communities today, and heavy-duty vehicles are a major contributor to this pollution. In
fact, despite making up only 10% of the total number of vehicles on the road, medium- and
heavy-duty trucks contribute a quarter of the total climate pollution from the transportation
sector. Trucks are also major sources of other deadly air pollution. Medium and heavy-duty
trucks are major contributors to NOx emissions, a potent precursor to ground-level ozone
pollution, and they account for more than 60% percent of the deadly particle pollution that comes
from vehicles. Particle pollution cuts short tens of thousands of lives in the US every year and
contributes to the heavy burden of asthma on our nation's children. Moreover, air pollution
impacts are inequitably distributed and disproportionately harm Blacks and Latinos compared to
whites. That's why the U.S. should enact standards that put the American truck and bus fleet on a
clear roadway to 100% zero-emission sales by 2035. To protect the health of our communities,
and to address environmental injustices, EPA must take urgent action to strengthen the proposed
standards today to reduce health-harming pollutants, including NOx and PM and greenhouse
gasses from medium and heavy-duty combustion vehicles — while continuing to accelerate our
transition to zero-emissions vehicles. By taking these steps, the U.S. will be well positioned to
protect our family's health, reduce fuel costs for truckers and fleets, strengthen our energy
security, and advance environmental justice. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-1593]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (40)
Thank you for your recently announced proposal to address pollution from medium- and heavy-
duty trucks. As a parent concerned about the impacts of the climate crisis on our children and
communities, I'm concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. I'm writing to you today
to ask that you please consider strengthening the proposed standards before they are finalized.
The transportation sector is the leading source of climate pollution in the US. The climate crisis
is harming our families and our communities today, and heavy-duty vehicles are a major
contributor to this pollution. In fact, despite making up only 10% of the total number of vehicles
1996
-------
on the road, medium- and heavy-duty trucks contribute a quarter of the total climate pollution
from the transportation sector. Trucks are also major sources of other deadly air pollution.
Medium- and heavy-duty trucks account for more than 60% percent of the deadly particle
pollution that comes from vehicles. Particle pollution cuts short tens of thousands of US lives per
year and contributes to the heavy burden of asthma on our nation's children. Moreover, this type
of pollution is inequitably distributed and disproportionately harms Blacks and Latinos compared
to whites. To protect our children's health and future, and to address environmental injustice,
EPA should take urgent and bolder action and strengthen the proposed standards today to reduce
health-harming pollutants, including NOx and PM, and greenhouse gases from medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. Thank you for your dedication to protecting public health and to advancing
justice and equity. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-1595]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (984)
We are attaching to this email a list of names of community leaders who are urging the EPA to
adopt clean truck standards. We know that by adopting clean standards, that will reduce air
pollution by 90% by 2027 and put us on a path so that by 2035 all-new trucks and buses are zero-
emission. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-055-1596]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (396)
I find the proposed rule to be weak and urge EPA to withdraw it. I believe it would be better to
establish a zero emission standard for all HDVs, for which zero emissions power trains are now
commercially available, beginning with model year 2027. The current proposal would reduce
C02 emissions by less than 1% compared to the existing rule, thereby allowing 2027 HDVs to
emit an estimated 28,088,000 metric tons of C02 annually. That's 1.78 billion metric tons over a
20-year useful vehicle lifespan and is unacceptable! Many HD vehicle types are currently
available with zero emission technology. By setting a zero emission standard for those vehicles
now available, EPA could reduce by about 2/3 the total greenhouse gas emissions from this type
of vehicle. Doing so would enable us to avoid roughly 1.25 billion metric tons of emissions
between now and 2050, which is the equivalent of shutting down five large coal-fired power
plants. The most recent IPCC report has told us that the climate crisis is accelerating and that we
are out of time to take action. We must not forego these easily-achievable reductions. We must
have a zero emission standard now! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-1601]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (1,357)
After decades of inaction that has allowed a growing fleet of dirty diesel trucks to pollute our
communities, EPA must enact strict emission reductions and accelerate the transition to zero
emissions trucks. I appreciate your agencys efforts in addressing these long-overdue updates to
emission standards, but the proposed rule fails to set the ambitious standards required to rapidly
adopt zero emissions requirements and address climate change. I urge EPA to propose stronger
standards that will protect the health of my community and support the progress in achieving the
pollution reduction goals laid out in the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. Nitrogen oxides
released from diesel engines contribute nitrogen to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, which
fuels harmful algae blooms and dead zones. If we are going to achieve and maintain the pollutant
cuts needed to improve Bay water quality and restore this national treasure, EPA must do their
1997
-------
part by adopting the strongest possible standards for heavy-duty truck emissions. Strengthened
standards for greenhouse gas emissions are vital to put us on a path to zero-emissions trucks,
tackling climate change impacts that are already threatening the Chesapeake region. Further, the
dangerous air pollution from these heavy-duty vehicles disproportionately impacts BIPOC and
lower income communities and communities of color, that are often the least able to advocate for
better environmental conditions. I urge you to propose tougher and more ambitious standards,
putting us on a path to zero-emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. This is a crucial opportunity to
tackle the urgent threat of climate change, improve water quality in the ecologically and
economically important Chesapeake Bay, and protect the health of our most vulnerable
communities. I followed a tipper truck in MD yesterday that, whenever it accelerated it emitted
more black exhaust smoke than a WW2 Destroyer laying a smoke screen to protect a convoy
from enemy action. For decades now some European countries have had toll-free phone numbers
for public use to report licence plate numbers of smokey diesel vehicles to their environmental
protection authorities. Time to set that up here. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-055-1603]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (2,433)
Every year semi-trucks, busses, and other heavy-duty vehicles emit millions of tons of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and other greenhouse gas pollutants driving climate change. NOx air pollution
from heavy-duty vehicles contributes to ozone and fine particulate pollution, which are unsafe to
breathe, especially for the young and elderly and anyone exercising outdoors. This pollution is
particularly dangerous for communities located close to high truck traffic areas, affecting
millions of people that live near highways, warehouses, or ports. In our national parks it harms
plants, trees, insects and other animals and it reduces the ability of visitors to see and appreciate
the views of our treasured park landscapes. Heavy-duty vehicles are also one of the nation's top
sources of climate pollution. Nearly all of America's national parks are threatened by the
symptoms of a warming climate including more frequent heat waves, drought, sea level rise,
coastal flooding, and extreme wildfires. To tackle this threat, the Biden administration must
pursue the strongest possible NOx and greenhouse standards for heavy-duty vehicle engines.
Any standards adopted should achieve a 90% reduction in NOx pollution from new heavy-duty
vehicles by no later than 2027, which has already been implemented in a half-dozen states and
counting. Moreover, the administration should strengthen the rule's greenhouse gas requirements
to set us on a path towards 100% zero-emission heavy-duty vehicle sales by 2035. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1594]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (165)
My faith urges me to care God's creation and protect human health. Doing so means attending to
climate change and addressing environmental justice. Therefore, I join United Women in Faith
and urge the Environmental Protection Agency to strengthen the current EPA proposed rule on
heavy-duty trucks to move the US to 100% zero-emission trucks by 2035. Trucks and buses
produce nearly 25 percent of the transportation sector's greenhouse gases, but only account for 4
percent of vehicles on the road. Smog and soot air pollution caused by trucks and buses are
among the greatest threats to public health for the more than 45 million people in the U.S.
Because of discriminatory transportation practices, highways and transportation depots are often
placed near and through communities of color, placing these communities in greater danger from
vehicle pollution. Reducing diesel emissions would not only address climate change but
1998
-------
significantly reduce pollution in communities of color. Cleaner trucks are not only available and
ready now, they are also projected to deliver critical cost savings for operators and drivers.
Today, electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of freight,
delivery, and transit uses and needs. Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric
trucks and buses are projected to be cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine
counterparts within 5 years. I urge the Environmental Protection Agency to address the injustice
of pollution and climate change by enacting the strongest possible heavy duty truck standards to
achieve 100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2035.We absolutely need cleaner vehicles
moving the vast amount of "stuff in this country. When driving behind a truck now, it's easy to
see the air pollution that it emits. If we are to have a more sustainable world, then changes need
to be made quickly!! [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1599]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (52,051)
Since the earliest days of his presidency and through subsequent executive orders, President
Biden and his administration promised bold action to set strong rules and standards to lower
emissions from the transportation sector, including heavy-duty vehicles. However, the EPA's
proposed Heavy Duty Vehicle (HDV Ruling) provides weak regulations to ensure the damages
of trucking pollution stop harming our community. I believe that the EPA needs to hear that the
cleanest possible standards are urgently needed. We need a 90% reduction in diesel truck
emissions. Time is of the essence: the administration must finalize this proposal by the end of
2022 for the nation to realize the full health benefits of the rule. If the agency misses this window
of opportunity, it will mean a full additional year of production of polluting trucks. This makes it
critical to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles are as efficient as possible and that we adopt and
enforce strict emissions limits as we shift away from fleets powered by fossil fuels. Our
communities cannot afford to wait for cleaner air. Black and Brown communities need a rapid
transition to zero-emitting trucks and a clear path towards 100% electrification of polluting big
rigs, trucks, and buses. Finally, we cannot afford more loopholes and giveaways for multi-billion
dollar companies to get a pass on poisoning frontline communities in favor of increased profits.
It's past time for the EPA to expire all avenues for skirting pollution standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1600]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (1,087)
As a person of faith and conscience, I recognize that we have a moral obligation to cut carbon
emissions and other pollutants that harm our health and our communities. People of all faiths and
spiritual traditions share a common bond to care for their neighbor and this planet we all share.
To stop climate change and ensure our national security we MUST get off fossil fuels! It's NOT
an option! That means electric vehicles. Again, NOT an option. This is a NECESSITY. Stop
denying the obvious, bite the bullet, do what needs to be done, and switch to electric vehicles!
Don't waste our time and money on fossil fuel vehicles when you KNOW our use of fossil fuels
has a very limited shelf life at this point (because if they don't, WE DO). President Biden's larger
climate agenda cannot be accomplished without a strong rule on America's 13million heavy-duty
trucks and buses. I view much of this rule as a good starting point, but I would like to see it
strengthened given the urgency of the climate crisis, the rapid advancement of EV technology
and the increasingly understood human health impacts, particularly on communities of color and
1999
-------
our most vulnerable residents. The EPA should use these standards to rapidly accelerate the
transition to electric trucks and put our nation's medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on a pathway
to 100% zero-emission electric vehicles by 2035.1 urge the EPA to set the strongest standards
possible recognizing the health and well being of current and future generations who will be
impacted by this rule. It is essential that the final standards reduce dangerous NOx pollution 90%
by 2027 and put our buses and trucks on a clear path to 100% zero-emission all-electric vehicles
by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1602]
Organization: Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (2,804)
Diesel pollution kills. Nearly 10,000 people in the United States die each year from exposure to
diesel emissions from the transportation sector, and hundreds of thousands of others face heart
attacks, asthma, and respiratory conditions that damage their wellbeing and quality of life. The
EPA's proposed rulemaking on diesel emissions is much needed. I appreciate the EPA for
proposing these new standards to better protect the climate and the health of people. Diesel
emissions most severely harm communities of color and working class communities, and
cleaning up dirty diesel pollution helps to create a more just society. Having failed to act for so
long to a health problem long recognized, these rules are at last a good start, but they fall well
short of what is needed. I call on the EPA to make the rules stronger. EPA's plan needs to
urgently eliminate tailpipe emissions and transition the trucking industry to zero emissions.
Many states have already required truck manufacturers to reduce NOx emissions by 90% by
2027. EPA can build on these standards by incorporating strong greenhouse gas standards in
order to reach 100% clean trucking by 2035. Improving these standards will improve health
outcomes for communities hardest hit by diesel pollution. EPA should adopt requirements to
address disproportionate health impacts so that those who are most harmed by diesel pollution
can find relief quickly. I encourage the EPA to boldly pursue environmental justice as it reduces
diesel emissions and improves the health of communities near ports and freight corridors. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1605]
Organization: Max Keifer, Retired (CDC NIOSH).
[.From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022] It is heartening to see the administration acting on
clean truck standards, and I would very much like to see the EPA establish stronger limits on
heavy-duty vehicle pollution. I have an undergraduate degree in environmental health and a
graduate degree in industrial hygiene and toxicology, and recently retired after a career in public
health. As such, I have a strong interest in regulatory efforts to reduce or eliminate exposure to
pollution from vehicles and other sources. I spent most of my working lifetime investigating
worker health concerns and evaluating exposure to a wide variety of contaminants, including
diesel and gas engine combustion products in trucking depots, bus maintenance facilities, and
fire stations. I am acutely aware of the adverse health effects that can occur from exposure to
heavy-duty vehicle exhaust, particularly to workers, who are the most heavily exposed. In
addition to reducing the significant contribution of greenhouse gasses, the public health code
benefits of strong regulation to reduce or eliminate emissions from heavy-duty trucks cannot be
overstated. Without further reductions, heavy-duty vehicles will continue to be one of the largest
contributors to mobile source emissions of oxides of nitrogen, greenhouse gasses, and particulate
2000
-------
matter. Vehicle exhaust emissions consist of a complex mixture of combustion products that
have been linked to adverse health effects such as eye and nose irritation, headaches, nausea, and
asthma. Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles contribute to poor air quality and health across the
country, especially in overburdened and underserved communities. The National Toxicology
Program, EPA, and IARC have all found that exposure to diesel exhaust is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen. The benefits of reducing exposure to these emissions
cannot be overstated. It is important that this proposed rule protects both people from both oxides
of nitrogen pollution and puts us on a path to having all trucks sold be zero-emission by 2035.
Electric trucks and buses are already available and capable of supporting most freight, delivery,
and transit uses and needs. Across nearly every vehicle class, zero-emission electric trucks and
buses are projected to be cheaper to own and operate than their combustion engine counterparts
within five years. The agency's most stringent proposal, Option 1, is insufficient and should be
significantly strengthened as it would result in higher emissions of smog and oxides of nitrogen
than that permitted by the California Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule. Option 2 would result in
unacceptably high levels of oxides of nitrogen pollution, and should not be considered. Again, I
urge this administration to set the strongest possible emission standards to ensure 90 percent
oxides of nitrogen reduction by 2027, and establish a clear roadmap to 100 percent zero-emission
vehicles by 2035. EPA last revised the oxides of nitrogen standards for on-highway, heavy-duty
trucks and engines in 2001, more than 20 years ago, and new technologies that are available
today can help achieve the additional reductions we need. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Mayer Automotive LLC
I am all for clean air, but the cost of what they are proposing ? It will drive up cost of goods. And
with driver shortages it will magnify the problem. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1018, p.l]
Organization: Mayor, City of Albuquerque, NM et al.
In our shared effort to protect our residents from air pollution, advance environmental justice,
and confront the climate crises, we urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize
the strongest possible heavy-duty vehicle requirements via the Clean Trucks Plan, now released
as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-005 5. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.l]
Thank you for your consideration. There is no time to wait; there is a critical need for the EPA to
take swift action moving towards a zero-emissions future in order to protect the health and safety
of environmental justice communities. We are confident that you agree on the urgency of this
issue and we urge you to finalize a strong rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1316-A1, p.2]
Organization: Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) etal.
On behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC), the National
Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB), and the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments' (COG) Climate, Energy and Environment Policy Committee (CEEPC), we are
writing to offer our support for the proposed rule to change the heavy-duty emission control
program — including the standards, test procedures, regulatory useful life, emission-related
2001
-------
warranty, and other requirements — to further reduce the air quality impacts of heavy-duty
engines across a range of operating conditions and over a longer period of the operational life of
heavy-duty engines. We also support the proposed targeted updates to the existing Heavy-Duty
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Phase 2 program that will further GHG reductions in the
model year (MY) 2027 timeframe. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-0996-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Michigan Association of Timbermen
On behalf of the membership of the Michigan Association of Timbermen, we would like to go
on record as opposing final rule on tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty trucks as part of the
'Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1169-A1, p.l]
We urge you to amend the proposed rule so that it reduces emissions, protects American jobs,
and results in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1169-
Al, p.l]
Specifically, the EPA must reject Option 1 and revise Option 2. An overly aggressive standard
will result in higher costs for fleet operators, jeopardize thousands of good-paying jobs, slow the
transition to zero-emission vehicles, and fail to achieve the desired environmental
benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1169-A1, p.l]
Instead, the EPA must recognize the importance of a single-step, national rule. To be effective,
the final rule must be:
- Customer-acceptable. If truck owners and operators choose not to purchase new trucks due to
cost or reliability concerns that result from a bad federal rule, older trucks will stay on the roads
longer and environment goals will not be achieved.
- Economically viable. If the final rule results in higher costs for manufacturers and fleet owners,
manufacturers and small business owners may have no choice but to lay off workers and
eliminate jobs.
- Environmentally beneficial. An unworkable rule will delay fleet turnover and prevent
environmental progress, creating greater harm in communities most at-risk for high air pollution.
- A bridge to a zero-emissions future. The final rule must not prevent continued progress toward
zero-emission commercial vehicles by forcing excessive, costly redesigns of traditional
combustion engines at the expense of investments in the research and development of zero-
emission vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1169-A1, p.l]
Under this proposed rule, we could see an increase in truck costs for 2027 models of between
$35,000 and $45,000 per unit under just Phase 1. Phase 2 would require additional costs to our
businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1169-A1, p.2]
2002
-------
Organization: Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) Air Quality Forum
The Air Quality Forum commends the EPA for undertaking emission reductions from heavy-
duty vehicles after last setting heavy-duty truck standards over twenty years ago. The benefits of
this proposed rule support the Air Quality Forum's mission to maintain the health-based National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Kansas City region and make progress in decreasing
emissions from heavy-duty trucks that disproportionately impact people of color and low-income
communities in the Kansas City region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131-A1, p. 1]
Despite heavy-duty vehicles representing only 5-percent of vehicles on the road, they have an
outsized emissions impact—contributing roughly a quarter of transportation sector GHG
emissions in the United States. Furthermore, we feel the proposed standards do not reflect the
urgency of the climate crisis and rapid advancement of zero-emission truck technology.
Therefore, the Air Quality Forum encourages the EPA to be more aggressive and adopt even
more stringent limits than those currently proposed under Option 1 as an update to Phase 2
emissions standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1131-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA)
Therefore, more stringent HD NOx emissions standards and a comprehensive HD rulemaking
have enormous implications on the motor vehicle supplier industry. The regulatory process
provides the industry the needed certainty to develop and improve future products and
systems. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 2]
As we have advocated in the past, it would also be beneficial to look at the entire lifecycle rather
than just "tailpipe" emissions. As vehicles become significantly more fuel efficient, both
upstream and downstream emissions become much more important when attempting to truly
compare them. Significant infrastructure requirements would also come along with these rules,
so if EPA were to try to match CARB there would need to be significant coordination with DOE
in terms of planning for the national electric grid. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 8]
Per EPA's request for information on heavy-duty electric vehicle sales projections, including for
what HD vehicle types, to help inform their HD electric vehicle sales projections in the MY 2024
through MY 2029 timeframe, MEMA urges the EPA to avoid regulations that allow backsliding
on ICE technologies to make sure that ICE vehicles are as clean as current technology will
allow. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1322-A1, p. 9]
Organization: Moving Forward Network (MFN)
For decades, communities across the country have been fighting for the right to breathe clean air.
They have been forced to hold their breath for over 20 years as EPA has delayed adopting new
standards that will once and for all clean up the deadly emissions from heavy-duty trucks and
buses. The Administration and EPA often note their commitment to place environmental justice
at the center of policies and programs, yet time and again, these efforts come up unacceptably
short. As MFN Campaign Director and environmental justice advocate Angelo Logan put it, "the
obvious answer is to dramatically speed up the use of zero-emission equipment—from the ships
2003
-------
entering the ports, to the cargo handling vehicles at the docks, to the rail terminals and heavy-
duty trucks moving goods to communities all over the country." 1 The question is not about
how—we have the zero-emission, life-saving technology to make sure every person in the
United States can breathe clean air. The question is whether the EPA and this Administration are
willing to take the necessary action that prioritizes the health and well-being of communities and
the planet over industry. 2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 1-2]
1. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/592963-bidens-opportunity-to-end-
diesel-pollution-of-port-communities/
2. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/592963-bidens-opportunity-to-end-
diesel-pollution-of-port-communities/
As it stands, the current proposed criteria pollutant standards, both Option 1 and especially
Option 2, will not relieve the daily burdens caused by the freight transportation system, felt by
environmental justice communities but in fact risk an increase in these burdens from this
polluting industry. The EPA's weak proposal is indefensible given the very real opportunity to
bring zero emissions into the freight transportation system. Critical to implementing this Rule
and subsequent Rules, the EPA must ensure that reductions in medium- and heavy-duty vehicle
emissions occur within environmental justice communities. Unless and until EPA's proposal is
significantly strengthened, this rule will, either perpetuate an already dangerous status quo and/or
increase the impacts from medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses that are killing
people. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 2]
The EPA needs to:
1. enact the most protective and stringent emission standards that ensure emission reductions in
environmental justice communities;
2. transition to zero emission trucks and buses by setting stringent emissions standards and
adopting a sales mandate;
3. require that all new trucks are zero emission by 2035 with intermediate targets and
prioritization for deployment of in EJ communities;
4. retire all combustion trucks on or before 2045; and
5. Ensure that its rules do not allow for false solutions like natural gas. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1277-A1, p. 2]
As we documented in our October 26, 2021 letter to EPA,3 EPA's legal duty is clear: the agency
must adopt emission standards that reflect "the greatest degree of emission reduction
achievable." But the agency's proposal is a far cry from meeting this obligation. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 2]
2004
-------
3. MFN Letter to Administrator Regan: https://www.movingforwardnetwork.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/MFN-Zero-Emission-in-Freight-Letter-to-EPA-10_26_21 .pdf
Zero-emission trucks are commercially available,4 economically compelling,5 and the single
most effective solution for reducing freight emissions.6 Advances in this technology are
outpacing even the best estimates from just a few years ago—cost and technology assessments of
battery-electric trucks from 2018 are already becoming obsolete. The barriers that once relegated
ZEVs to a niche solution are shrinking, allowing zero-emission trucks to become a real solution
in our battle against air and climate pollution. At every regulatory opportunity, EPA must include
policies that center environmental justice solutions and rapidly advance ZEVs not just in certain
market segments but for the entire truck sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, pp. 2-3]
4. See MJ Bradley & Associates, Medium- & Heavy-Duty Vehicles (July 2021)
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2021/08/EDFMHDVEVFeasibilityReport22jul21.pd
f.
5. See Amol Phadke et al, Why Regional and Long-Haul Trucks are Primed for
Electrification Now (Mar. 2021)
https://etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/updated_5_final_ehdv_report_033121.pd
f
6. OECD, International Transport Forum, Transport Outlook - 2019, at 157
https://doi.org/10.1787/transp_outlook-en-2019-enstating "[sjcaling up decarbonisation
measures for road freight transport that have already been tested and are comparatively
easy to introduce is one of the most immediate actions required."
MFN calls for the final proposal to include strong targets, including zero-emission targets, that
reflect the technical feasibility and availability of zero-emission heavy-duty technology:
1. MFN urges EPA to finalize standards that include a separate standard for ZE trucks and
require an increasing annual minimum number of ZE truck sales.
2. A zero-emission requirement should be separate and in addition to stronger heavy-duty
combustion engine requirements to ensure maximum emission reductions are achieved to cut
emissions from new combustion engines.
3. Barring a specific requirement for ZE trucks, EPA must lower the NOx standard to reflect
feasible ZE trucks sales. If EPA insists on retaining ZE trucks in a vehicle NOx standard, EPA
must lower the NOx standard to reflect the greatest degree of emission reductions achievable
across the entire truck fleet based on the feasibility of widespread transition to ZE trucks.
4. Unless EPA intends to drive ZEV adoption, ZEV credits must be excluded from the NOx
compliance calculation. Given the myriad risks posed by EPA's proposed averaging scheme, if
EPA refuses to adopt more stringent standards that reflect the feasibility of achieving significant
emissions reductions through the application of ZE truck technologies, EPA must remove ZEV
credits from the NOx compliance calculations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 3]
2005
-------
On October 26, 2021, the Moving Forward Network presented a letter to EPA detailing
recommendations to address the disproportionate burdens caused by the freight transportation
system on environmental justice communities. EPA must address the cumulative burdens across
the entire freight sector and, while these comments will focus on the proposed Heavy Duty Truck
Rule, we maintain that EPA must work from a "whole of government" approach and make
intentional efforts to address the pollution and public health threats impacting environmental
justice communities everyday. MFN's goals, priorities, and demands are summarized below:
1. First and foremost, any and all emission standards must eliminate all pollutant emissions,
rather than focusing solely on reducing or eliminating carbon emissions. In this rulemaking, EPA
should require that all new trucks be zero-emissions beginning in 2035, with robust interim
targets before then. EPA should also set standards that require the retirement of all combustion
trucks on or before 2045.
2. EPA must ensure that any new emission standards drive the market for zero-emission truck
and bus technology.7
3. In setting these standards across the freight sector, EPA must consider environmental justice
impacts and priorities "from source to tailpipe to grave."8 Put another way, the agency must
carefully consider any unintended consequences of the proposed regulatory design. For example,
regulations must avoid promoting false solutions (e.g., carbon trading and/or "greenwashed"
energy that comes from non-renewable and heavy-polluting sources such as natural gas, biomass,
etc.) that will only lead to further burdening our environmental justice communities.
4. Transportation electrification must be accompanied by standards and regulations that support
renewable electricity generation, i.e., wind and solar,9 that will not further burden
environmental justice communities. The EPA and its sister agencies should coordinate with
environmental justice leaders in determining the siting details for the supporting electricity
infrastructure to ensure that this does not lead to additional cumulative impacts and instead
ensure mandatory emissions reductions for EJ communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-
Al,pp. 6-7]
7. Regulations must avoid promoting false solutions, (e.g., carbon trading and/or "greenwashed"
energy that comes from nonrenewable and heavy-polluting sources such as natural gas, biomass,
etc.), that will only lead to further burdening our environmental justice communities
8. "To grave" means that how and where waste from retired zero emission and diesel vehicles is
considered in the planning and implementation of zero emission policies and programs.
9. Renewable energy may have many definitions based on the source of energy. MFN considers
solar and wind to be renewable energy. However, there are important EJ and equity implications
that come from these "cleaner" energy sources (i.e siting, manufacturing, shipping, etc). All of
these must be considered with EJ leadership before endorsing specific renewable energy
recommendations.
2006
-------
Moreover, MFN and its members have and continue to emphasize that a cumulative impact
framing is so critical because it demonstrates the need to move away from fragmented, limited
approaches as "solutions", and towards a more holistic, big-picture approach that will actually be
able to address the real-world harms environmental justice communities face. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 11]
Along with the announcement for this rule the EPA shared the Transportation and Environmental
Justice resource. In this document the EPA highlighted the impacts from the freight
transportation system on environmental justice communities and their "comprehensive"
approach to address the impacts from Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks. The above critical
recommendations on how EPA needs to strengthen this rule and move in an intentional and
significant way to zero emission vehicles does just that. The current two Options for emissions
standards fall dangerously short and leave environmental justice communities and the millions of
people who live in them at great risk for many years to come. The zero emissions component and
proposed averaging scheme in no way aims to drive ZE sales and in fact could lead to increased
emissions in environmental justice communities. MFN is committed to working with EPA to
ensure that the regulations around freight impacts does actually meet the intended call to action
that the Present set forth. We need EPA to act as the leaders the President is referencing and
prioritize solutions which protect and prioritize overburdened and underserved communities.
This Rule in its current draft does not meet this call to action. We cannot wait for future rules or
proposals to address these impacts. We need EVERY rule, program, incentive that comes from
EPA to prioritize addressing environmental racism, and protect environmental justice Now. The
lives of our communities are at stake. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1277-A1, p. 60]
Organization: National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD)
We agree that vehicle emissions should be reduced in the long term as emissions from heavy-
duty vehicles impact the communities of NACD member employees and drivers. However, they
must be reduced in a way that accounts for full economic impacts and allows for a realistic path
to compliance. NACD looks to government regulators to consider and implement policy that
provides for some level of reasonableness, certainty, and predictability. These three elements are
lacking in the proposed rule, and NACD urges EPA to rework the proposal to include them to
provide clarity and facilitate compliance. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1279-A1, p. 5]
Organization: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
We urge EPA to work thoughtfully and quickly to issue a final rule this year - incorporating
NACAA's recommendations - so thatNOx emission standards and related program
requirements apply beginning with MY 2027. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 17]
The gravity of timely compliance with the NAAQS requires this federal action. The protection of
public health and welfare, particularly in overburdened communities across the nation, demands
it. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1232-A1, p. 17]
2007
-------
Organization: National Center for Health Research (NCHR)
NCHR agrees with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the proposed truck
pollution standards, which would reduce emissions of smog- and soot-forming nitrogen oxides,
are a crucial step towards EPA's commitment to climate, clean air and environmental justice.
However, in light of the ongoing health and climate crisis, the proposed standards fall short of a
zero-emission transportation future, and we urge EPA to further strengthen the proposed
standards. This has also long been requested by environmental justice communities across the
country, because while truck pollution has been devastating the health of communities across the
country, it has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. [1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1227-A1, p.l]
[1] Moving Forward Network. Demand Zero Emission Freight Now.
https://www.movingforwardnetwork.eom/zero-emissions/.We are particularly concerned
that zero-emission trucks are not the number one priority of the proposed standards, even
though electric trucks are already available today. Zero-emission trucks been shown to
improve health outcomes, and new research demonstrates that by 2027 pollution-free
trucks will be cost competitive with diesel over the lifetime of the vehicle. [2] The rule
should also require the maximum possible reduction of emissions from diesel trucks.
Diesel trucks are proven to contribute to smog and pollution, causing thousands of
premature deaths nationwide each year [3], [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1227-A1, p.l]
[2] Environmental Defense Fund. New Study Finds Rapidly Declining Costs for Zero-
Emitting Freight Trucks and Buses, https://www.edf.org/media/new-study-finds-rapidly-
declining-costs-zero-emitting-freight-trucks-and-buses. February, 2022.
[3] Union of Concerned Scientists. Electrifying Trucks and Buses.
https://ucsusa.org/resources/electrify-trucks. February, 2022.
Strengthened truck standards are an integral aspect of ensuring the health of our nation, and
research has shown that pollution-free truck standards are feasible. Pollution also has long had a
disproportionate effect on communities of color, making the issue even more pressing. We thus
urge EPA to ensure that the proposed truck pollution standards are further strengthened so that
they can have the necessary impact in order to protect public health and to set the United States
on a path to a zero-emissions transportation future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1227-A1, p.2]
Organization: National Coalition for Advanced Transportation (NCAT)
NCAT strongly supports EPA adopting strong heavy-duty vehicle standards, including a ZEV
sales mandate that would culminate in 100 percent of new heavy-duty vehicle sales be ZEVs. To
lay the foundation for such an approach, NCAT encourages EPA to consider strengthening the
standards described in the proposal. Heavy-duty ZEVs are poised to play a bigger role in the near
future than the agency currently assumes for Model Year 2027, supporting greater stringency in
the standards. Five states have already adopted California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule and
additional states are poised to adopt this rule in the coming years. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1290-A1, p. 2]
2008
-------
In conclusion, NCAT strongly urges EPA to strengthen NOx and GHG emissions standards for
heavy-duty vehicles and to pursue a longer-term heavy-duty vehicle ZEV sales mandate to
transition new heavy-duty vehicle sales to 100 percent ZEV by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1290-A1, p. 9]
Organization: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)
This EPA rule represents a necessary step to reduce NOx and greenhouse gas emissions from
heavy-duty vehicles but falls short of CAA requirements and what is needed to ensure the health
and welfare of our parks, communities and climate. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1314-A1, p.7]
Organization: National Religious Partnership for the Environment
To uphold our moral obligations to God's creation and protect the health and wellbeing of all
human communities, the Environmental Protection Agency must move to zero-emission
medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2035. Electrifying these vehicles across the U.S. is key to
improving air quality and saving lives in communities with some of the dirtiest air in the nation.
It is also essential to achieving emission reductions needed to avoid the worst consequences of
climate change and its impacts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1221-A1, p.l]
A climate and pollution response grounded injustice demands that we move towards clean
transportation. Enacting strong medium- and heavy-duty truck standards that prioritize zero
emission vehicles will help ensure a more just future for communities of color and help protect
all of God's creation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1221-A1, p.2]
Organization: National Tribal Air Association (NTAA)
NTAA was encouraged by EPA's commitment expressed on March 7, 2022, that 'This proposed
rule would ensure the heavy-duty vehicles and engines that drive American commerce and
connect people across the country are as clean as possible...'. While this regulation proposed just
three weeks later is an important step in reducing emissions of the many harmful pollutants from
these vehicles, it would not achieve all that is possible. For example, - Given that proposed
requirements begin with vehicle model year 2027, emissions reduction technologies and
strategies should mandate those that are most current and rapidly developing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1382-A2, p.2]
While acknowledging emerging engine technologies including electric and fuel cell, (see FR
pages 17417 through 17418), the proposed rule is focused on promoting emissions reduction
technologies, operation, and maintenance of diesel-fueled and, to a lesser extent gasoline fueled,
vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1382-A2, p.2]
Climate change stimulated by emissions of greenhouse gases from many sources including
heavy-duty vehicles and engines impacts and threatens Tribal communities throughout the
United States. NTAA supports Executive Order 14037, the Clean Trucks Plan and EPA's
commitment to requirements that vehicles be 'as clean as possible'. This rule should be
promulgated consistent with these commitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1382-A2, p.2]
2009
-------
Organization: National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA)
As the industry that facilitates and conducts recycling throughout the country, NWRA members
support EPA's goals to make the environment a better place and increase the cleanliness and
efficiency of the vehicles their companies produce and operate. NWRA does not want to have a
regulation that limits the strides our manufacturers and operating companies are already taking to
incorporate zero emission vehicles (ZEV) into our fleets. An overly burdensome prescriptive
standard could limit or slow down the momentum that is currently occurring in the transition to
battery electric vehicles. NWRA-member truck manufacturers are already seeing an uptick in the
request and ordering of ZEVs. NWRA requests that EPA institute a technologically feasible
rule. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1242-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)
NGVAmerica supports EPA finalizing regulations that encourage much needed emission
reductions, are based on realistic expectations about the pace and cost of technology, and that
encourage engine makers and vehicle manufacturers to deploy a variety of available, scalable,
and cost-effective technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.l]
NGVAmerica supports the EPA's efforts in this rulemaking to promulgate more stringent NOx
and greenhouse gas emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles. As highlighted in
EPA's notice, trucks and buses powered by medium- and heavy-duty engines contribute a
disproportionate amount of pollution in urban areas throughout the U.S. In many cases, trucks
and buses are the most significant contributors to ozone pollution and smog. This is not because
cleaner technology does not exist but rather because cleaner technology is not being deployed in
effective numbers and older, higher polluting vehicles remain on our roads and in-use. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1330-A1, pp.2-3]
The emissions impact of battery materials and battery production are not inconsequential. An
ATRI study released this month 'found that while electric trucks have no direct tailpipe
emissions, C02 production associated with vehicle, battery and electricity production would
only result in a 30 percent decrease in C02 emissions when compared to a standard diesel
truck.' 14 According to ATRI, 'the marginal environmental benefits of electric trucks are due, in
large part, to lithium-ion battery production - which generates more than six times the carbon of
diesel truck production.' A story published by Politico included this significant datapoint: 'a
thousand-pound electric car battery requires the moving of 500,000 pounds of earth in the course
of mining.' 15 The Financial Times has reported that 'between 5 and 15 tonnes of C02 are
produced per tonne of lithium extracted. This is equal to the total electric usage of between 1 and
2 U.S. homes for a whole year.'16 [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1330-A1, p.7]
14 https://truckingresearch.org/2022/05/03/understanding-the-co2-impacts-of-zero-
emission-trucks/
15 'The Major Problems Blocking America's Electric Car Future,' Politico, August 31,
2021
2010
-------
16 'Financial Times, October 5, 2021. Available at: https://ig.ft.com/electric-car/
Organization: Navistar, Inc. (Navistar)
EPA's proposed changes include not only new NOx certification standards, but also
fundamentally new test procedures, and extended useful life and warranty requirements. Navistar
is concerned that in setting the proposed NOx compliance standards and in-use emission limits
that EPA did not fully take into account the cumulative effect of all of these new proposed
requirements on HDOH engine and vehicle manufacturers. When all of these changes are
combined, the magnitude of EPA's proposed rule is unprecedented, raising significant feasibility
and implementation concerns. In addition, the proposed rule has the effect of potentially slowing
the progress of Navistar's electrification and zero emission vehicle ("ZEV") development efforts
by requiring Navistar to divert significant time and capital resources to products that will provide
only limited NOx emission reduction benefits. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 2]
While Navistar does not support EPA's proposed rule as currently drafted, we remain hopeful
that a consensus set of standards can be reached, which balances the priorities as described in
this comment letter. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 2]
While Navistar supports EPA's ultimate emissions reduction and climate change goals, there are
a number of issues requiring clarification or modifications in the final rule. We remain hopeful
that a consensus set of standards can be reached that balances the priorities we have described.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1318-A1, p. 7]
Organization: Neste US, Inc
Neste has a demonstrated interest in sustainability and supports EPA's emphasis on reducing
NOx and GHG emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. As a company, Neste supports more
electrification and other zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) solutions because, fundamentally, they
provide a net benefit for addressing climate change. However, going 'all-in' on one potential
solution that won't be ready for decades, means ignoring proven, low-emission solutions that
work and are available today. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.l]
Neste urges the Agency not to adopt what is effectively an electric vehicle (EV) mandate at the
expense of clean, renewable diesel. While EVs and other zero emissions vehicles may be able to
reduce emissions from the transportation sector, replacement of existing fleets with entirely new
vehicles and technology will require significant time, financial investments, and other
resources. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.l]
Neste does not oppose EPA's proposal to impose more stringent GHG standards on heavy-duty
vehicles. Nor does Neste oppose EPA's endorsement of EVs as a method to reduce emissions.
However, Neste urges EPA to acknowledge the value of renewable diesel as an accompanying
measure to achieve immediate GHG emissions reductions with no additional infrastructure,
particularly as EV technologies continue to evolve.
EV benefits overinflated, while negative impacts overlooked
2011
-------
First, the benefits of EVs are often overinflated while the negative impacts are overlooked.
EPA's focus on EV's lack of tailpipe emissions fails to adequately account for the economic
impact of EVs or the lifecycle emissions associated with EVs, including the upstream emissions
from charging batteries. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.2]
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently conducted economic modeling of four
GHG emissions reduction scenarios encompassing a range of sectors. CARB concluded that all
four emissions reductions scenarios would slow job and economic growth. However, Alternative
1, which mandates carbon neutrality and 100% electrification of all sectors by 2035, would slow
employment growth by nearly five times and economic growth by six times more that
Alternative 3, which uses a broad portfolio of GHG reduction measures, including existing and
emerging fossil fuel alternatives, electrification, and other technologies. See Figures 1
(employment) and 2 (state domestic product). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.2]
Given the significant benefits associated with renewable fuels and the uncertainties regarding the
climate and economic benefits and drawbacks of focusing on EVs, EPA should not favor EVs
over other vehicle categories in planning for the de-carbonization of the U.S. transportation
sector. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1225-A1, p.3]
Organization: New York Farm Bureau (NYFB)
While air quality is of upmost importance to New York farmers, there are several concerns with
the proposed rule. This rule has the potential to delay the turnover to newer vehicles with cleaner
emission technologies, forcing vehicle owners to keep their higher-emitting trucks longer and not
update to model year (MY) 2027 in heavy-duty vehicles. This not only will delay EPA's
anticipated environmental benefits, it also would cause environmental backsliding that seems to
be in conflict with the goals of the agency. Furthermore, a poorly designed final rule will cause
market disruptions, will delay or undermine the ability of manufacturers to recoup their
investment in developing compliant technologies, and worse, could have significant adverse
impacts on the economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1268-A1, p. 1]
As emphasized previously, heavy-duty trucks are the lifeblood not only of farms, but also
throughout the entire supply chain. Increasing costs, decreasing availability and potentially
encouraging negative environmental impacts through public policy should always be avoided.
Yet, this proposed rule would multiply the supply chain, inflationary and input pressures New
York farmers and consumers are already facing. More needs to be done to invest in
infrastructure, vehicle and engine technology advancement and incentive programs before this
rule is considered. While New York State has its own program for financial incentives for
cleaner vehicle technology through the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program (NYTVIP),
the program is often over prescribed, and it's unclear if such a program could be replicated at the
federal level. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1268-A1, p. 2]
It is again important to emphasize that trucking is enormously important to the economy—the
industry moves 72% of goods in America and is the foundation of a well-functioning supply
chain. When trucking costs go up, the cost of nearly all goods go up with it. As the White House
recently noted, trucking costs grew more than 20% last year, and we know that sharply increased
2012
-------
fuel costs thus far in 2022 have only exacerbated economic burdens. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1268-A1, p. 2]
NYFB believes the proposed rule is not technologically feasible, cost-effective or acceptable to
the needs of farmers. Our policy, developed by hardworking farmers, clearly enunciates
opposition to any further attempt to restrict or regulate exhaust emissions on new or used farm
equipment, heavy equipment or trucks. NYFB therefore urges EPA to take extra caution to avoid
requirements that could intensify the already challenging economic conditions facing rural
communities and the U.S. economy. NYFB appreciates EPA's consideration of agriculture's
concerns. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1268-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Next Level Farmer, LLC
Diesel truck emissions are just a small part of the problem. Plus, the USA is experiencing high
rates of inflation because, of elevated fuel prices. All of America would be affected and most
surely the working class would go bankrupt with additional demands on their razor-thin budgets.
These bankruptcies would collapse the USA economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2785, p.l]
Organization: North Carolina Assembly House of Representatives, John Faircloth
Please do not discount the concerns expressed by commercial vehicle manufacturers. The
economy of North Carolina - indeed, the entire country - is dependent on their continued
growth, research, and reinvestment as we collectively work toward a cleaner environment. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2446, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina Federation of Republican Women
The U.S. economy has suffered a mortal blow with runaway inflation exacerbated by ever-
increasing fuel costs. Our nation cannot afford further financial damage, especially in an industry
that is vital to our survival. Historically vital industries were protected from unnecessary damage
from government regulations. In this proposed tightening of government standards, our vital
trucking industry will be forced to adopt new technologies that will cripple smaller businesses
and cause a jump in consumer prices. Truckers are the backbone of America and are rightly
proud of their role in clean air success. At this moment of crisis when container ships are
stranded off our coasts, we need to keep vital trucks rolling across America to feed our families
and move needed goods in our economy. The 2,600 members of the North Carolina Federation
of Republican Women urge the EPA to delay implementing these rules. Thank you. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2450, p. 1]
Organization: North Carolina General Assembly, Philip E. Berger
Commercial vehicle manufacturers are committed to partnering with EPA and other stakeholders
to further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks without diverting resources necessary to
foster a phased transition to ZEVs. We urge you to work with them - not against them - to
finalize a cost-effective rule that will further reduce emissions, protect American jobs, and result
in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
2013
-------
Please do not discount the concerns expressed by commercial vehicle manufacturers. The
economy of North Carolina - indeed, the entire country - is dependent on their continued growth,
research, and reinvestment as we collectively work toward a cleaner environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1105-A1, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina House of Representatives, Office of the Speaker, Tim Moore
Commercial vehicle manufacturers are committed to partnering with EPA and other stakeholders
to further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks without diverting resources necessary to
foster a phased transition to ZEVs. We urge you to work with them - not against them - to
finalize a cost-effective rule that will further reduce emissions, protect American jobs, and result
in cleaner air and healthier communities for all. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 2]
Please do not discount the concerns expressed by commercial vehicle manufacturers. The
economy of North Carolina - indeed, the entire country - is dependent on their continued growth,
research, and reinvestment as we collectively work toward a cleaner environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1146-A1, p. 2]
Organization: North Carolina State House of Representatives, Larry W. Potts
Please do not discount the concerns expressed by commercial vehicle manufacturers. The
economy of North Carolina - indeed, the entire country- is dependent on their continued growth,
research, and reinvestment as we collectively work toward a cleaner environment. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1061-A1, p. 2]
Organization: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
NESCAUM supports the adoption of a 0.020 gram NOx engine standard in 2027 at intermediate
useful life and a 0.035 gram NOx standard at full useful life as specified in CARB's Omnibus
regulation. Ample data from CARB, EPA, and other research programs exist supporting the
feasibility of introducing a 0.020 gram NOx standard at intermediate useful life in
2027.19,20,21,22,23,24 EPA also released a memo on May 3, 2022 presenting heavy-duty diesel
engine test results similarly indicating that current engines are already approaching this NOx
standard, therefore supporting its feasibility by MY2027.25[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1249-
Al, p. 9]
19 Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association, "Technology Feasibility for Heavy-
Duty Diesel Trucks in Achieving 90% Lower NOx Standards in 2027," February 2020.
Available at https://www.meca.org/wp-
content/uploads/resources/MEC A_2027_Low_NOx_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf (accessed
May 4, 2022).
20 Southwest Research Institute, "Update on Heavy-Duty Low NOx Demonstration
Programs at SwRI," November 2019. Available at
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/hdlownox/files/workgroup_20190926/guest/swri_hd_low
_nox_demo_programs.pdf (accessed May 12, 2022).
2014
-------
21 Sharp, C.; Neely, G.; Rao, S.; Zaval, B., "An Update on Continuing Progress Towards
Heavy-Duty Low NOx and C02 in 2027 and Beyond," Southwest Research Institute,
WCX, Detroit, Michigan, April 5-7, 2022.
22 U.S. EPA, "Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis," March 28, 2022. Available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf.
23 Achates Power, "Heavy Duty Opposed Piston Engine Demonstration," CRC Real
World Emissions Workshop, March 15, 2022.
24 Mendoza Villafuerte, P.; Demuynck, J.; Bosteels, D., "Ultra-Low NOx Emissions
with a Close-Coupled Emission Control System on a Heavy-Duty Truck Application,"
Society of Automotive Engineers, September 21, 2021. Available at
https://www.aecc.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-01-1228.pdf (accessed April 25,
2022).
25 U.S. EPA, "Test Results from EPA Diesel Engine Demonstration," Memorandum
from J. Sanchez, OAR/OTAQ/ASD, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055, May 3, 2022.
Available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1082
(accessed May 12, 2022).
Organization: Northview Service Center
The current regulations that are in effect are stringent enough and it would put most small
operators out of business if there is a requirement to upgrade old equipment before that business
is ready financially to purchase new or newer vehicles. These vehicles will eventually come out
of service over time and be upgraded. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1016, p.l]
Organization: NTH Equipment
Against. These changes and new technologies need vetted by the industry for affectiveness. The
last change with the uria requirements failed and caused major damage to engines and have and
still cost millions upon millions to the industry and in turn the end users and add to inflation. We
do not need to cause more cost to be added to the every day persons lives and that is exactly what
more regulation will do. This is not the time to do this. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1044-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Odyne Systems, LLC (Odyne)
Odyne applauds the efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with industry
to reduce air pollution from highway heavy-duty vehicles and engines, including ozone,
particulate matter, and greenhouse gases. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1264-A1, p.l]
2015
-------
Organization: Our Children's Trust
As the Nation's only law firm dedicated to representing youth whose constitutional rights are
being infringed by their government's conduct that causes climate change, we write to advise
EPA to set stronger nitrogen oxide ('NOx') and other greenhouse gas ('GHG') standards and
further strengthen its heavy-duty greenhouse gas emission standards for MYs 2027-2029 and
beyond to align with the swift emission reductions needed to correct Earth's energy imbalance
and stabilize the climate system, and to abide by the constitutional, public trust, and legal
obligations that constrain EPA's actions.1 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1317-A1, p.l]
1 Our comments here apply equally to the limited amendments to regulations for air
pollutant emission standards for the other sectors referenced, including 'light-duty
vehicles, marine diesel engines, locomotives, various types of non road engines, vehicles,
and equipment.'
Organization: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
OPEI largely supports the Proposed Rule. OPEI is primarily seeking clarification with these
comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1205-A1, p.l]
Organization: Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
The regulatory options presented in the NPRM maintain an impractical approach to achieving
emissions reductions that discounts the contributions of the trucking industry, ignores realities
from previous flawed emissions rulemakings, and does not thoroughly contemplate the
operational impacts on small trucking businesses. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
Clean air is a priority for everyone, including truckers, but the technology used in heavy-duty
trucks to improve air quality has to be affordable and reliable. Small-business truckers and
owner-operators should not be used as trial cases for testing new technology, while getting
priced out of business in the process. Unfortunately, each of the proposed timelines to achieve
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions reductions leave us wondering if the same mistakes from
previous rulemakings will be repeated. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
EPA must consider a more feasible implementation timeline that would provide reliable and
affordable heavy-duty vehicles for consumers, particularly small trucking businesses and
individual owner-operators. We believe there is a more realistic path forward to reducing
commercial vehicle emissions that involves listening to the men and women of the trucking
industry. EPA should continue seeking out feedback from these stakeholders as the agency
develops any final rule. Truckers know all too well that poorly implemented regulations will
result in breakdowns, downtime, and ultimately set back the goal of achieving cleaner air. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.2]
As currently proposed, both option 1 and option 2 introduced in the NPRM fail also fail to
provide adequate production timelines to ensure vehicle reliability for motor carriers. Again,
2016
-------
other hurried emissions timelines have led to breakdowns, downtime, and ultimately set back the
goal of achieving cleaner air. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.5]
OOIDA has supported the administration's emphasis on improving driver recruitment and
retention. The trucking profession is by no means an easy one. Our members spend on average
250 nights on the road each year, keeping them away from family, friends, and the comforts of
home. They often work between 60 and 80 hours each week - a demanding schedule that is
rarely reflected in their paychecks. Instead of taking actions to benefit those who make their
living behind the wheel such as expanding truck parking capacity, increasing driver
compensation, and improving working conditions, this proposed rule would make small-business
truckers' jobs more difficult and push some out of the industry. The final rulemaking should
reflect more practical timelines that do not force drivers out of business or make it more
challenging for new drivers to enter the industry. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, p.6]
OOIDA believes that industry stakeholders, specifically small-business truckers and owner-
operators, will be an invaluable resource for EPA as the agency develops any final Heavy-Duty
NOx emissions rulemaking. We appreciate the agency's willingness to hear from professional
drivers that have real-world experience with emissions technologies. Moving forward, EPA must
prioritize affordability, reliability, and serviceability in order to achieve practical standards that
will reduce NOx emissions for heavy-duty vehicles. These objectives cannot be met until a
comprehensive Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is completed that addresses the Rule's impact
on small-business truckers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1266-A1, pp.12-13]
Organization: Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union
(MANE-VU)
The OTC and MANE-VU strongly support EPA's efforts to develop new heavy-duty engine and
vehicle emission standards and test procedures that will reduce NOx emissions from heavy-duty
trucks. NOx emissions are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level ozone and
secondary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and contribute to acid deposition, eutrophication, and
visibility impairment in the OTC region. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p.l]
The Clean Air Act requires ozone NAAQS attainment as 'expeditiously as practicable,' and
EPA's proposed Options 1 and 2 do not meet this requirement. The introduction of effective and
available heavy-duty engine and vehicle pollution reduction technologies will assist jurisdictions
in the OTR in reaching attainment of the ozone standards. This is the most 'expeditiously as
practicable' path called for by the Clean Air Act and anything less than this will not be
acceptable. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1250-A1, p. 13]
Organization: PACCAR, Inc (PACCAR)
PACCAR generally supports the goals of EPA's Proposed Rule, including many specific
elements and proposed regulatory changes. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1346-A1, p.59]
2017
-------
Organization: Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry
We strongly encourage EPA to modernize and streamline effective and durable nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emission standards for heavy-duty highway engines, and to work with states and
stakeholders so as to recognize cost-effective, technology-based requirements to achieve
reductions that will facilitate an improvement in air quality and continued economic expansion.
The options outlined in the most recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal
Register this past March, are simply unworkable and overly aggressive, as we will describe
below. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1319-A1, p.l]
With respect to air quality, the PA Chamber advocates for cost effective air laws, regulations and
policies based on sound principles that are reasonable and technologically and economically
feasible to protect and enhance public health and the environment without placing in-state
businesses at a competitive disadvantage. The PA Chamber supports regulatory policy which
balance societal environmental, energy, and economic objectives, fit rationally within any finally
adopted and applicable national or international strategy, and capitalize on the availability of
Pennsylvania's diverse natural resources to facilitate economic development in the
Commonwealth. It should be noted that this approach to economic growth and environmental
stewardship is also written into the Clean Air Act itself, where Section 101(b) directs EPA to
implement the provisions of the Act in a manner 'to promote public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of [the] population.' [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1319-A1, p.2]
Organization: Peoria Charter Coach Company
In conclusion, now is time for the EPA to help our industry in regard to pollution. For, the air
coming out of one of my vehicles is cleaner than the air (in certain cities} going in. I appreciate
your consideration in altering the current ruling based on the most current data. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-
2019-0055-1241]
Organization: Performance Truck
This in no way going to help anyone., the systems on these truck are prone to fail and end up
costing the consumer and businesses thousands of dollers Remember we are a government for
the people,,, YOU are making it AGAINST the people I look forward to the day when we start
over [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1009, p.l]
Organization: Pinnacle Converting Equipment & Services, LLC
As a small business owner in the US, please do not impose additional restrictions on trucking
emissions. There are not enough trucks on the road today and the economic impact will be quite
adverse in a time where the country has 1) not enough truck drivers and 2) not enough trucks to
transport the good we have currently in our ports. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1011, p.l]
Additionally, with inflation running rampant and fuel prices over $6/gallon for diesel, the cost
benefit analysis does not favor any additional regulation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1011, p.l]
2018
-------
Instead of this regulation on American owned and operated vehicles, please consider imposing
additional regulations on imports from China and India. Both countries have very different air
quality requirements from the US. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1011, p.l]
Organization: Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA)
On behalf of the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma, and The Northwest Seaport Alliance
(NWSA), we are writing in support of this important effort to strengthen emission standards for
criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases from heavy duty engines and vehicles. The proposed
rules align well with our own clean air, climate, and environmental justice goals, and will help
advance the ambitious vision of our recently updated clean air strategy: to eliminate emissions
from all seaport activities by 2050. From our perspective as one of the country's largest cargo
gateways, the transition to cleaner - and, ultimately, zero-emission - heavy duty trucks and
equipment will require significant financial, technical, and policy assistance from the U.S.
government to facilitate and accelerate the procurement of cleaner/zero-emission trucks and
equipment and the development of the necessary charging and fueling infrastructure here in the
Puget Sound region and Washington State. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1312-A1, p.l]
Organization: Proterra
Proterra thanks the EPA for its commitment to protecting the environment and human health,
and for the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking which represents a good first step in the
right direction towards a cleaner transportation future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1344-A1, p.l]
Proterra has entered into partnerships to develop or supply battery systems with more than a
dozen OEMs across 19 vehicle programs, powering zero-emission electric delivery vehicles and
work trucks, semi-trucks, construction and mining equipment, port container handlers and
forklifts, school and coach buses, and low-floor cutaway shuttles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1344-A1, p.l]
These partnerships have signaled the readiness of various medium- and heavy-duty sectors to
electrify, from Class 3 to Class 8. Proterra has invested to meet this customer demand. Several
states have also exhibited leadership in the move toward zero emission transportation. California
has led with the implementation of the Innovative Clean Transit rule for public transportation,
the Zero-Emission Airport Shuttle rule for airport shuttles, and the Advanced Clean Truck rule
for vehicle manufacturers, demonstrating the readiness of the market to meet clean transportation
needs. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1344-A1, p.l]
Other states like Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have also led
with the adoption of the Advanced Clean Truck rule first modeled by California. New York State
has led with a plan to fully electrify every school bus in the state by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1344-A1, p.2]
These state level efforts can be complemented with national leadership by EPA to create
regulatory certainty via this rulemaking and to encourage the further implementation of zero
emission vehicles across the country and further investments in US technology development and
2019
-------
job creation as the world moves toward an electric transportation future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1344-A1, p.2]
Organization: Public Citizen and Healthy Port Communities Coalition (HPCC)
We appreciate the Proposal put forth and support the need for urgent emission reductions from
the heavy-duty vehicle sector. We urge the EPA to strengthen the proposed rule and to move
quickly to finalize, implement, and enforce strong standards that will protect the health of the 72
million people living within one tenth of a mile of truck routes and quickly reduce greenhouse
gas emissions in order to limit global temperature rise to 1.5° Celsius. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1417-A2, p. 1]
Organization: Randolph M. Lyon
EPA is to be commended for assessing these issues and proposing a stronger regulatory posture.
The analysis presented to date, however, focuses on two options, termed Option 1 and Option 2
by EPA. Option 1 is the stronger of these two options and it has positive economic net benefits
and important health and social equity impacts under the different discount rates and other
technical assumptions considered. Also, significantly, Option 1 has greater net benefits than
Option 2 under the assumptions considered. The relative net benefits of the two main options and
the proposed rule's limited published information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions raise
several important questions that EPA should consider.
1. What would be the effects on net benefits, social equity, and public health of an option
that provides even stronger environmental protection than Option 1? Based on the
information provided with the current proposed rule, it is possible that a stronger
option would provide net economic, social equity, and public health benefits that are
even greater than those of Option 1. Once other collateral benefits, such as those from
GHG reductions, are considered, this possibility is likely to become even more likely.
2. What are the specific greenhouse gas reductions, in terms of tonnages and climatic
impacts, associated with different options? At a minimum, the specific tonnages
should be presented to enable analysts and policy makers to evaluate the net benefits
associated with these emission reductions.
3. What would be the effects on net benefits, social equity, and public health of
considering a positive economic value for GHG reductions in the analysis? EPA
should include results that present monetized values of the GHG reductions. If
appropriate, these values could consider a range of benefit estimates per ton to give
policymakers an understanding of the sensitivity (or insensitivity) of the results to
different assumptions.
4. What would be the net benefit, social equity, public health, and other characteristics of
considering an option to parallel the more stringent rules adopted by California and
several other states? While the current proposed rule and regulatory impact analysis
2020
-------
mention the California rule, they do not present a clear and transparent analysis—
including tables and figures with air quality, public health, and economic effects—of
expanding the California rule nationwide. Among other things, EPA should consider
the regulatory and zero-emission vehicle market development benefits of having a
common national standard. The State of Maryland Department of the Environment,
for example, submitted comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055- 1025) to this Docket
supporting adoption of the California rule on a national basis on April 22, 2022.
5. If deemed necessary, what adjustments could be considered to the California
framework to best extend it to a nationwide mandate if there are concerns about the
extent of vehicle availability in specific model classes and years? If EPA determines
there are practical uncertainties that suggest considering variants of the California rule,
such as a longer phase in for certain specific classes of vehicles, those options could be
discussed.
6. Would anticipated or potential co-investments, such as build-out of a nationwide
system of electric vehicle charging stations, change the feasibility of any options? For
example, does the enactment of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-
58) on November 15, 2021, increase the expected availability of a nationwide network
of charging stations in a manner that would facilitate adoption of zero-emission long-
haul trucks?
My expectation is that these additional analyses would support a stronger regulatory framework
than Option 1 and serious consideration of a framework similar to the one adopted by California
and, in turn, several other states. Thank you for preparing the proposals and analyses shared to
date and for seeking these comments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1100, p. 1-2]
Organization: Repair Association/Repair, org
These comments are made in support of making repair more accessible in an environment where
increased use of digital components is extending control of the vehicles by the manufacture and
limiting agricultural producers repair service providers or indeed the ability to self-repair the
equipment they own. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1036-A1, p.l]
Organization: Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
In conclusion, RILA appreciates the invitation to submit comments on the proposed rule. We
welcome further opportunities for input and dialogue, where the transporation practitioners of the
retail industry can be a resource to help facilitate commonsense and realistic approaches to
reducing transporation emissions. We share the goal of developing a final rule that will not create
or increase barriers to emissions reduction, but will help industry pave the way for a zero
emissions future.[EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1189-A2, p.9]
2021
-------
Organization: Rivian Automotive, LLC (Rivian)
While the options considered by the agency move in the right direction, Rivian believes EPA
should consider its current lineup of alternatives and proposals as a floor and demonstrate greater
ambition in the final rule. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.l]
In 2020, approximately 60 percent of those NOx and PM emissions occurred in urban areas.2
Electrifying MHD vehicles has particular benefits for neighborhoods and populations of concern
in and around America's major cities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.2]
The NPRM rightly describes an "historic opportunity" for bold action as the industry embarks on
a "significant transition" to zero-emissions vehicles ("ZEVs").3 Rivian applauded Executive
Order 14,037, which identified several potential regulatory actions for EPA to consider in
accelerating progress toward a zero-emission MHD sector.4 The agency's proposal for new
criteria pollutant standards and revised GHG standards was well received and comes as a
growing list of product launches and manufacturer commitments underscores the readiness of the
MHD sector to electrify more quickly than previously thought.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-
Al, p.2]
3 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. 59, 17,419 (Mar. 28, 2022) (revising 40 C.F.R. Parts 2, 59, 60,
80, 85, 86, 87, 600, 1027, 1030, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1043, 1045, 1048, 1051,
1054, 1060, 1065, 1066, 1068, and 1090).
4 Exec. Order No. 14,037, 86 Fed. Reg. 151 (Aug. 10, 2021).
EPA's proposed rule raises the bar. Rivian welcomes the increased stringency identified in
Option 1 for criteria emissions and appreciates the tighter GHG standards proposed. We also
recognize that the EPA and the Biden Administration more broadly view this rule as just the first
regulatory action among several, including a fresh look at MD standards for MY27 and later as
well as HD GHG standards for MY30 and beyond. Certainly, Rivian agrees that more ambitious
regulatory action will be necessary for EPA's rules to proactively move the market forward and
deliver emissions reductions that protect public health and the climate. We look forward to those
future proposals.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.2]
However, important steps to strengthen this proposal can also be taken now. Our analysis of the
proposed rule found that EPA likely underestimated the pace of electrification that is feasible
over the timeframe in question. We have also identified provisions in the rule that appear likely
to soften the regulation's impact and result in delays to the stated goals of this administration.
These proposed provisions are not necessary given the rapidly growing availability of ZEVs in
the MHD market. A simpler regulatory framework aligned with industry's recent investments
and commitments will make the proposed rule even stronger, reducing emissions from the
transportation sector at a faster pace to better protect our climate and public health. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1229-A1, p.3]
2022
-------
Rivian views both the NOx and GHG proposals in the NPRM as a floor for EPA's deliberations
on a final rule. EPA should consider strengthening both standards to ensure the agency is doing
more than just keeping pace with trends toward electrification and maximizing the environmental
and public health benefits of this rule. In addition, we also encourage EPA to take a different
approach to the amendments proposed regarding LDV GHG and fuel economy testing
procedures, allowing manufacturers more time and flexibility. [EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1229-
Al, p.7]
Organization: Richard Leeds
Kudos to the EPA for issuing regulations to reduce pollution from trucks and buses, and that
advance the transition to zero-emissions transportation. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1333]
While the proposed level of regulation, and the rate of implementation are an improvement over
prior regulations, they will permit the continued use of poorly maintained vehicles for too long,
where research has shown that poorly maintained vehicles generate 10 to 100 times as much
unhealthy exhaust as a well maintained vehicle. Permitting poorly maintained vehicles to
continue operating in cities and highway will deny healthy lives to millions of people. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1333]
Further, delaying changeover to electric vehicles will exacerbate the climate crisis,
desertification, severe weather, fresh water shortages, fire disasters, sea level rise, and the
climate refugees that we are already seeing. Our failure to act at this time will cause longterm
damage the global habitat for humans and the variety of species on this planet, in perpetuity.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1333]
I ask that the EPA adopt the Alternative Option with stricter emission standards and earlier
implementation. [EPA-HQ-0AR-2019-0055-1333]
If the EPA determined that it is not possible to adopt the Alternative Option, I ask that the EPA
adopt Option 1 as a minimum to begin to exercise the EPA's governmental responsibilities to
provide for a healthy future.
Organization: Rocknaks Hardware Plus
I own a business that depends on the trucking company. One of our deliveries this past week was
three days late do to a breakdown. The breakdown resulted in another truck and driver to come
from Minnesota to Montana to pick up the trailer and complete the delivery. This was caused by
the original truck shutting down to an emissions program that failed. This country depends on
our trucks, if we continue to handcuff and require more complex circuitry we will have bigger
issues to deal with in the future. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1019, p.l]
Organization: Roush CleanTech (Roush)
ROUSH appreciates the EPA's thoughtful efforts to develop a strategy to best mitigate emissions
from internal combustion engines. Specifically, we recognize the importance of granting
2023
-------
eligibility to a wide array of advanced technologies to provide the best options for fleets, and
flexible regulatory structure for compliance. By doing so, we believe the overall air quality
benefits are maximized, as manufacturers can provide cost-effective solutions which consumers
are most likely to adopt and utilize. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1276-A1, p.l]
Organization: Royal Plastics, Inc.
I understand that there is concern for air pollution, etc. However, there needs to be a balance
between both the regulations and what is going to be economical for the trucking industry. There
is a lot of transportation in the US that is dependent upon truck drivers that are either individual
drivers or drivers that work for a small operation. If the expenses outweigh profitability for these
small businesses, they will close, and we will be even shorter on transportation in an already
short industry. And trying to subsidize with government funding is not the answer either. We are
already way overspending taxpayer dollars with fewer people working and paying into the tax
system. So, if there needs to be standards imposed, then they need to phase them in over an
extended period of time so the cost burden will be reasonable for the smaller operations to
handle. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1017, p.l]
Organization: RVIndustry Association (RVIA)
RVIA has reviewed the proposal published March 28 and has serious concerns about the cost
impact of the proposed regulations as they apply to motorhomes. Whereas EPA recognized in the
Phase 2 GHG rule2 that certain segments of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector deserve
to be assigned unique standards, the agency has does not propose to address the implications of
its proposal for motorhomes and other vehicle types that were included in the so-called 'custom
vocational chassis' category in the GHG rule. We request the agency either retain existing
standards for motorhomes or create new standards that are commensurate with the benefits that
are to be derived from more stringent standards for motorhomes. We ask that the agency avoid a
'one-size fits all' approach that has the potential to seriously harm the RV community. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 1]
2. EPA/NHTSA joint final rule establish Phase 2 GHG / Fuel Consumption standards for
medium- and heavy-duty trucks, 81 FR 73478, Oct. 25, 2016.
For a diesel motorhome costing $150,000 today, this would represent a massive cost increase of
over 10%. Unfortunately, motorhomes are subject to other EPA and NHTSA regulations that
will result in other price increases in the same 2027 timeframe (e.g., EPA's Phase 2 GHG rule
and NHTSA's forthcoming automatic emergency braking mandate). Motorhome costs are also
subject to other inflationary price pressures, not the least of which today is the ongoing chip
shortage. Cumulatively, regulatory changes like those proposed, when stacked on top of other
inflationary pressures, will result in product prices that are likely to significantly reduce the
percentage of people that can afford a motorhome. Being the discretionary purchases that they
are, motorhome sales are likely to be substantially reduced from current levels. This reduction in
sales will have a deleterious impact on jobs tied to the production, distribution, and sale of
motorhomes. The ability of average Americans to afford an alternative means of recreation that
became increasingly popular with the advent of the Covid-19 virus will be diminished. Operators
2024
-------
of campgrounds and recreation areas such as our National Parks will be negatively
impacted. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 3]
EPA can and should do what it did in the Phase 2 GHG rule. It should go beyond setting 'one-
size fits all' standards that will significantly harm the motorhome community and instead, either
maintain the existing standards or establish standards that are commensurate with the benefits to
be derived from regulating motorhomes. Looking at the Phase 2 GHG as an example, EPA
established custom vocational vehicles standards which it projected would incrementally
increase the cost of 2027 model year motor home chassis by approximately $900. This
contrasted to an estimated cost increase of $5,670 for other categories of 2027 model year heavy
duty trucks (a savings of $4,770 per vehicle)12. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 4]
12. Table 7 - Summary of Final 2027 Custom Chassis Vocational Standards Including
Average Per Vehicle Costs and Projected Improvement, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2
Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA-420-R-16-900, August 2016, page ES-16.
RVIA believes that a program like what was established in 2016 for custom vocational chassis is
necessary and appropriate. We ask that the EPA either retain its existing standards for
motorhomes or modify its proposal and establish standards for motorhomes that have costs that
are fitting with the benefits to be derived and not unduly harm the motorhome
community. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1270-A1, p. 5]
Organization: S&P Global Mobility
S&P Global Mobility supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards (NPRM), specifically the provisions related to production volume
data being considered emissions data not subject to confidential treatment. This letter is only
intended to comment on the treatment of production volume data. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1273-A1, p. 1]
Organization: Saahil Pasha
Air pollution and ground-level ozone are a major problem for all people living the United States.
Moreover, people living in urban communities are more impacted by heavy traffic. These
communities are disproportionately affected and consist of minority and low-income individuals.
The trucking and freight industries increase the level of risk as the vehicles emit large amounts of
pollutants. Nitrogen oxide emissions pose a significant threat to the lung and airway health for
many people. When exposed to these pollutants consistently, these issues further lead to chronic
conditions and a significant burden on the healthcare industry and economy. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1206]
Although Air North Texas encourages every individual to contribute towards reducing emissions
and air pollution, it is necessary for the EPA, as an executive agency, to enforce an industry wide
standard and uphold its mission of protecting the environment and public welfare. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1206]
2025
-------
I firmly support the proposed rules by the EPA. To reduce emissions, Air North Texas
recommends that North Texans should try to bike or walk, reduce engine idling, work from
home, carpool, use local transit system, and limit outdoor activities during high pollution times
of the day ("How to take action | Air north Texas," n.d.). Therefore, the proposal put forth by the
EPA to reduce nitrogen oxide, greenhouse gas, and particulate matter emissions would
significantly reduce pollution and improve pollution related health outcomes in the North Texas
area. In the proposed rule the EPA has provided information about the various projected health
benefits that are expected in 2045, when the program is fully implemented. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1206]
While the transportation industry may have reservations regarding the proposed rule, the EPA is
acting within its granted authority to propose regulations that contribute to improved air
standards and the protection of public health. Furthermore, the EPA has conducted cost benefit
analyses and considered the viability of the options to the trucking industry (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-0983, p. 17,415 - 17,416). Nonetheless, a collaborative approach to proposing a rule
may encourage stronger compliance from industry partners to transition towards vehicles that
work to achieve the goal of reduced emissions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1206]
Organization: Sage Lincoln
As a member of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, I am submitting comments in
response to the EPA's proposed changes to the heavy-duty emission control program. I strongly
support strengthening emissions standards and urge you to select Option 1 and implement the
most stringent standards possible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1073]
Organization: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District)
Given the importance of reducing heavy-duty truck emissions in meeting federal air quality
standards in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley), the District submitted a petition to EPA on June
22, 2016, requesting that EPA undertake rulemaking to establish new national standards for
heavy-duty trucks, and we appreciate and support EPA's response and efforts through the
proposed rule to address this important issue. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.l]
It has been nearly six years since the District petitioned EPA to begin rulemaking for onroad
heavy-duty trucks, and we appreciate the opportunity to support your action on this today. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1291-A1, p.3]
Organization: SEAM Group
SEAM Group supports the adoption of heavy duty electric vehicles as a replacement for Class
2b-8chassis [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2574, p.l]
2026
-------
Organization: Sierra Club, NJ Chapter
This proposed rule has monumental implications because it sets the stage for trucks and buses
that will be on the road for the next 20 years. To put that into a clearer perspective, that is after
2050. We all know the immediate and drastic action required by all of us on a national, state and
local scale in order to tackle climate change, and to try to mitigate as much as possible of the
already incoming disastrous environmental and community impacts. Thus, clean buses and
trucks policy, which has not seen a change since 20 years ago, will have a massive impact on this
necessary climate action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2558, p. 1]
Organization: Sophia Dowd
The proposed rule is sufficient for the reduction of air pollutants, specifically NOx.
While reviewing the proposed rule, it is clear the efforts to amend standards of heavy-duty
vehicles to reduce emission impact are satisfactory. Our environment is now in crisis and the
toxic air pollutants that are emitted by these heavy-duty vehicles directly impact the ozone layer
while also having an immediate impact on human health. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1043]
According to the University of Toronto near-road air pollution study, "If we were able to reduce
emissions of pollutants like black carbon, we would also see an immediate climate benefit". 1
This is critical to understanding the stakes of this proposed rule for the environment. The
proposed rule acknowledges the implications of heavy-duty vehicles on air pollutants and the
immediate benefits of reducing pollutants from these vehicles. The climate crisis has been
avoided for far too long, and this proposal is a sufficient remedy regarding the issue of heavy-
duty vehicle pollution. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1043]
The proposal takes into consideration the implications of these new standards on the trucking and
agricultural industry as well. While these proposals are focused on transitioning to reduce vehicle
emissions, this will not have an adverse effect on companies or small business vehicles. The
timeline provided allows for ample time to replace the vehicles and even notes that many
vehicles will need to be replaced before the proposed timelines. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1043]
Implementing this rule will create a nationwide standard for heavy-duty vehicles which will aid
in regulations regarding future manufacturing of these vehicles. This is essential when looking at
nationwide standards that will translate to the largest emission reduction we currently know of.
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1043]
This proposal reflects on the NOx emissions, which are not emitted as frequently as C02 but are
still responsible for warming. Effects of warming from emissions include temperature rises,
water shortages, increased fire threats, drought, weed and pest invasions, intense storm damage
and, salt invasion, etc.2 By 2045, when the proposal will be in full effect, the net benefits would
outweigh the costs. While there are some concerns from those who believe the vehicles have no
chance of being replaced without economic sacrifices, the plan properly relies on equity to allow
2027
-------
for these vehicles to reach a specific mileage and allow for replacement time. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1043]
The other portion of this proposed rule looks at the impact on human health. According to the
European Environment Agency (EEA), fine particulate matter causes the most substantial impact
of all air pollution- the same pollution these vehicles emit. These impacts include stroke, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, trachea, bronchus, lung cancers, aggravated asthma and lower
respiratory infections.3 This does not include the exacerbated impact of already diagnosed
diseases as well: chronic exposure can affect every organ in the body. This is a critical public
health issue that is being addressed by reducing air pollutants from heavy-duty vehicles. The
European Commission set a goal of 2030 to reduce PM (particulate matter) by 55%. This is
comparable to this proposed rule, and premature deaths attributed to PM exposure fell by 33%.4
[EP A-HQ-0 AR-2019-0055-1043]
The need for standards that reflect the urgency of the climate situation is present within this
proposed rule. By comparing the repair costs and operating costs of heavy-duty vehicles, it is
clear that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Concerns about how this rule's implementation
will affect the current industries that rely on heavy-duty vehicles are ignoring the equitable
timeline this rule has in place so companies and small business owners are able to financially
afford the transition to vehicles that follow the standards. It is vital these propositions turn into
regulations that help reduce climate change for future generations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1043]
IDo, Liz. "Large trucks are biggest culprits of near-road air pollution: U of T
Engineering study." University of Toronto Engineering News, 10 September 2018,
https://news.engineering.utoronto.ca/large-trucks-are-biggest-culprits-of-near-road-air-
pollution-u-of-t-engineering-s tudy/.
2WWF Australia. "Impacts of global warming." WWF-Australia,
https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/climate/impacts-of-global-warming Accessed 28
April 2022.
3Europe Environmental Agency. "Air pollution: how it affects our health — European
Environment Agency." European Environment Agency, 1 December 2021,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/health-impacts-of-air-pollution Accessed 28 April
2022.
4 Id.
Organization: Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC)
The proposed standards are an important step to promote cleaner cars and trucks, and we
welcome EPA's plans to update the current standards.2 Under the Clean Air Act, the medium
and heavy-duty vehicle emissions standards are 'technology-forcing' standards and technology
that eliminates, not just minimizes, tailpipe pollution from these vehicles already exists.3 Yet
EPA's proposal fails to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) technology in
2028
-------
this key part of the transportation sector. Vehicles sold while this rule is in effect will be on the
road for decades. Given the serious public health and environmental impacts of tailpipe pollution
from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and the availability of technology that eliminates this
pollution, we urge EPA to adopt the strongest possible standards under the Clean Air Act and to
finalize the rule by the end of this calendar year. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1247-A1, p.l]
2 Exec. Order No. 14037 (Aug. 5, 2021).
3 '[Clean Air Act] section 202(a)(3)(A) is a technology-forcing provision and reflects
Congress' intent that standards be based on projections of future advances in control
capability, considering costs and other statutory factors.' Control of Air Pollution From
New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards, 87 Fed. Reg. at
17436.
Organization: State Soybean Associations
The State Soybean Associations approve of EPA's intention to reduce NOx and GHG emissions
from heavy-duty transportation industry. Yet EPA must not to rely on electrification at the
expense of the biodiesel and renewable diesel industries, and EPA should use alternative
authorities, such as the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, if it wishes to force a mandate for
EVs; it should not perpetuate the fiction that it is setting tailpipe emission standards under the
Clean Air Act. We hope EPA will acknowledge the value of using biodiesel and renewable
diesel as an immediately available strategy to address GHG emissions, particularly while EV
technologies continue to evolve. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2035-A1, p.3]
Organization: States of California, et al. (The States)
The States commend EPA's efforts to strengthen criteria pollutant emission standards for heavy-
duty engines for the first time in almost 20 years. Heavy-duty engines are a significant source of
pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of ozone and particular matter that are linked to
premature death, respiratory illness including childhood asthma, cardiovascular problems, and
other adverse health impacts.2 Indeed, on-road heavy duty vehicles are the largest mobile-source
contributor of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx)—an ozone precursor—in the country.3 [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, pp. 1 -2]
2. 87 Fed. Reg. at 17,444.
3. Id. at 17,418. Ozone is created by a chemical reaction in the presence of sunlight
between NOx and volatile organic compounds.
Finally, due to statutory lead time requirements for model year 2027, the States note the
importance of finalizing the Proposed Rule as soon as possible but by the end of this year at the
latest. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1255-A1, p. 3]
2029
-------
Organization: Straights Lawn & Garden
WE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING ANY NEW AIR POLLLUTION CONTROLS. WE
ARE IN ATERRIBLE INFLATION AND FUEL SHORTAGE, WE SHOULD ADDRESS THE
REOPENING OF OUT PIPE LINES AND ADDRESSING INFLATION INSTEAD OF
TRYING TO MAKE MORECOSTLY RULES AND REGULATIONS, [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1723, p.l]
Organization: Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA)
The proposed changes would significantly alter the program by introducing new requirements
relating to test procedures, emission-related warranties, and underlying standards. While TPA
believes that Nitrogen Oxide emissions pose long-term health hazards for the U.S. population,
increasing regulatory costs will only succeed in creating unintended consequences that will
ultimately hamper the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Biden administration's
goals. Therefore, TPA opposes the proposed rule and urges a more measured and holistic
approach to abate emissions and keep costs under control. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1102-A1,
p.l]
Organization: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla)
Given the acceleration of public health and welfare impacts associated with climate change, it is
incumbent upon the EPA to recognize the appropriate role battery electric vehicle (BEV)
technology plays today and how widespread commercial availability of BEVs in the U.S. today
should inform the implementation of far more stringent finalized standards as part of this
rulemaking. As provided below, Tesla strongly supports efforts to address the significant public
health and community impacts of air pollution associated with the current heavy duty vehicle
fleet and encourages the agency to finalize nitrogen oxide (NOx) and greenhouse gas (GHG)
standards that are far more stringent than contained in Option 1 of the proposal by, at a
minimum, aligning with the stringency of the California Heavy-Duty Omnibus NOx Rule
beginning in MY 2027.4 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p.l]
4 See, California Air Resources Board, Heavy Duty Omnibus Regulation.
Tesla believes these changes will significantly reduce emissions, result in increased deployment
of the best available emissions reduction technology (BEVs), maintain U.S. manufacturing
leadership in medium and heavyduty BEV technology, and ensure the Administration is meeting
it statutory mandate to protect the public health and welfare from the significant and accelerating
impacts from criteria air pollution and climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
p.24]
In sum, electrifying the medium- and heavy-duty sector will provide significant improvements in
air quality and benefits to all Americans through reduced NOx, PM and GHG emissions. Tesla
believes it is essential for EPA to establish longer-term medium- and heavy-duty emission
standards that actively embrace a more wholesale transition to BEVs, and that the time for doing
so is now. EPA's failure to finalize a NOx and GHG rule that substantially puts the heavy-duty
2030
-------
sector on a path to full electrification and sufficiently reduces U.S. emissions commensurate with
the country's commitment to holding global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius would not
meet the legal benchmark of protecting the public health and welfare. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1219-A1, p.8]
As the agency discusses, the ACT regulation will drive significant emission reductions and
medium- and heavy-duty vehicle electrification through Model Year (MY) 2035.77 Additionally,
five states - Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,78 Oregon, and Washington - have already
adopted the standards starting in MY 2025. Several additional states are expected to adopt the
rule starting in MY 2026. In California alone, the ACT rule is estimated to require the
deployment of 100,000 heavy-duty ZEVs in 2030 and 300,000 by 2035.79 There is simply no
justification for not including this deployment of vehicles into the NOx proposal baseline. If the
seventeen states80 that have adopted the current California light duty ZEV standards also adopt
California's ACT rule, it is estimated that 1 in 8 trucks sold in 2030 will be electric.81 Moreover,
this adoption would yield significant NOx, PM, and C02 emission benefits.82 Importantly, the
ACT rule incentivizes early action from manufacturers, further supporting a significant increase
in deployment of zero emissions trucks in the near term in states that adopt the ACT rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 10]
77 87 Fed. Reg. at 17597; See also, CARB Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet (Aug. 20,
2021).
78 See, ICCT, Benefits of Adopting California Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Regulations In New York State (May 27, 2021).
79 CalMatters, California Mandates Zero-exhaust Big Rigs, Delivery Trucks (July 6,
2020).
80 CARB, States that have Adopted California's Vehicle Standards under Section 177 of
the Federal Clean Air Act (updating to include New Mexico's recent adoption of the
standards).
81 Union of Concerned Scientists, We Can Electrify One in Three Heavy Duty Trucks by
2030: Here's How. (Mar. 22, 2022).
82 ICCT, Update: Benefits of Adopting California Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Regulations Under Clean Air Act Section 177 (December 2021).
While the agency also notes the multi-state NESCAUM Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU),83 it should ensure that the deployment of BEV technology envisioned under the
agreement is included in the NOx (and GHG) baseline assessment. More specifically, in July
2020,84 fifteen states and the District of Columbia announced that they entered the joint MOU
wherein they committed to working together the advance and accelerate the market for electric
medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The parties agreed to a goal that 100% of new medium- and
heavy-duty vehicle sales would be zero emission by 2050, with an interim goal of 30% sales by
2030. A recent analysis found that expanding the MOU nationally would result in more than half
2031
-------
of the fleet being electric by 2045 and reduce annual GHG emission reductions 5% of U.S. truck
emissions in 2035 increasing to an 18% reduction in U.S. truck emissions in 2045.85 Another
found that these states adopting the ACT rule would lead to over 756,000 medium- and heavy-
duty ZEVs deployed between 2024 and 2035.86 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 10]
83 87 Fed. Reg. at 17598 (This effort was organizing by the Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). The state signing on to the MOU were
California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Washington.).
84 NESCAUM, 15 States and the District of Columbia Join Forces to Accelerate Bus and
Truck Electrification (July 14, 2020).
85 Rhodium Group, States Pave the Way for a Zero-Emission Vehicle Future (Aug. 13,
2020).
86 CALSTART, Zeroing in on Zero Emission Trucks (Jan. 2022) at 21.
Interest in the MOU and its goals continues to expand. 87 In September 2021, the Province of
Quebec signed on to the MOU. Virginia followed suite in December 2021, and Nevada just
joined at the end of March 2022, bringing the total number of signatories to 17 states, one
province, and the District of Columbia. The signatory states have committed to working together
through the existing multi-state ZEV Task Force88 to develop and implement an Action Plan to
help states meet these ambitious goals. In March, the Draft Multi-State Medium and Heavy-Duty
Zero-Emission Vehicle Action Plan was released for public comment.89 Notably, the first
recommendation in the draft Action Plan called for the signatory states to adopt the ACT
regulation. As noted in the plan: While market-enabling programs such as incentives are also
important, regulatory requirements mandating MHD ZEV sales provide market certainty needed
to drive investments in zero emission technologies and charging and fueling infrastructure at the
pace and scale required for rapid electrification. Indeed, the ZEV sales mandate for passenger
vehicles, established by California and adopted by other states, has prompted unprecedented
investment in light-duty zero-emission technologies and substantial growth in the market share
of light-duty ZEVs. The ACT regulation may be an even more important driver of electrification
of the MHD vehicle sector given the costs and characteristics of trucks and buses. 90 [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 11]
87 Transport Dive, States band together to push for nationwide fleet electrification (May
5, 2022)
88 NESCAUM, ZEV Task Force, Multi-State ZEV Action Plan (2018).
89 NESCAUM, Releases Draft Multi-State Medium-and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission
Vehicle Action Plan for Public Comment (March 10, 2022).
2032
-------
90 NESCAUM, Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission Vehicle Action
Plan (March 10, 2022) at 25.
Moreover, a new analysis indicates adoption of the ACT rule in these states would significantly
expand the BEV market and lead to 36% of all new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles being
powered by zero-emission engines in 2030.91 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 11]
91 ICCT, Benefits of the 2020 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero-Emission
Vehicle Memorandum of Understanding (Apr. 27, 2022).
Additionally, the EPA should also consider the plans and tenor of the Regional Electric Vehicle
Midwest Coalition (REV Midwest). In September 2021, five midwestern states - Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin - entered this MOU. According to the agreement,
the states will 'work together to enable an equitable transition to electric vehicles for all with
specific consideration for communities that are historically disadvantaged. REV Midwest will
position states in the Midwest region to leverage and collectively increase public and private
investment in electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure.'92 Specifically, in terms of
accelerating medium and heavy- duty fleet electrification, the states will remove barriers to
adoption by coordinating on optimizing charging infrastructure, and deployment
strategies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 11]
92 Regional Electric Vehicle Midwest Coalition, Memorandum of Understanding
Between Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Sept. 30, 2021) at 1-2.
The agency's NOx proposal baseline also does not consider the role electrification of the federal
medium- and heavy-duty fleet will play in driving the transition to electrification. In late 2021,
the President issued Executive Order 14057 directing all federal agencies, inter alia, to maximize
acquisition and deployment of zero emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.93 In seeking to
decarbonize the federal fleet, the President directed the U.S. Government to procure '100 percent
zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035.'94 Turning over the U.S. Government fleet will
require the transition of 103,00 medium-duty trucks and 39,000 heavy duty trucks.95 Not only
will this significantly reduce the fleets' cost per mile to operate the vehicles and the fleet's
collective GHG emissions, these procurement policies will further accelerate the deployment of
BEV medium- and heavy-duty technologies.96 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, pp. 11-
12]
93 President Biden, E.O. 14057, 'Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through
Federal Sustainability,' 86 Fed. Reg. 70935 (Dec. 13, 2021) at 204.
94 Id. at 102(a)(ii).
95 McKinsey, Net-zero emissions in US government fleets (April 18, 2022).
96 Id.
2033
-------
Under Clean Air Act 202(a)(3)(A), EPA is directed to set the proposed NOx emission standard
based upon the 'greatest degree of emission reduction achievable . . Simply put, BEVs - with
zero NOx and PM emissions - represent the best available technology upon which to base the
standard and provide the greatest achievable reduction in NOx emission by removing diesel from
the heavy-duty equation altogether. As discussed supra, the rapid electrification of the heavy-
duty fleet will demonstrably reduce NOx emissions and at a far greater pace than conventional
technologies. 129 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 14]
129 Utility Dive, Cleaner by the mile: Electric trucks can have outsized environmental
and health benefits (April 14, 2021); Texas A&M, Tailpipe Emission Benefits of
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Electrification in Houston, TX (Apr 14, 2021).
Despite the clear advantages that BEVs offer in terms of NOx mitigation, EPA's proposed
standard does not include BEVs in the baselinel30 and does not set the emission standards and
limits in the proposal commensurate with the expected level of BEV uptake in the coming years.
EPA's final rule should correct this omission. Failure to include a role for BEVs in setting the
NOx standard both ignores the agency's statutory directive and results in a proposal that is far
less stringent and protective of public health and welfare than is feasible. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-
0055-1219-A1, pp.14-15]
130 See 87 Fed. Reg. at 17561, fn. 707.
To address this shortcoming, Tesla strongly encourages EPA to finalize the proposed option for
BEVs to be included in the NOx emission standards baseline and to prevent backsliding by
substantially increasing the stringency in the NOx standards well beyond levels proposed in
Option 1. In accurately reflecting the expected penetration of BEVs in the baseline, the agency
can act to deliver a standard with the maximum health benefits. Accordingly, the family emission
limit (FEL)131 cap should be lowered, and levels set substantially below Option 1 and be
harmonized as close as possible with the stringency established in the recent California Heavy-
Duty Omnibus NOx rules.132 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 15]
131 See generally, 87 Fed. Reg. at 17552; 87 Fed. Reg. at 17560-61 (discussion on FEL
caps).
132 See, California Air Resources Board, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Omnibus
Regulation (establishing NOx standards that cut below current standards 90 percent
below current standards in 2027.)
Tesla welcomes the proposal to reduce GHG emission standards in many sub-categories. Further,
it encourages the agency to quickly develop more stringent Phase 3 GHG emissions standards for
heavy-duty engines and vehicles implement standards well-before MY 2030. To that end, Tesla
encourages the agency to amend the current GHG emission standards to reach stringency levels
that ensure BEV deployment reaches the levels in California's ACT rule for MY 2027-
2029.144 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 18]
2034
-------
144 See generally, CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet (Aug. 20, 2021) (Zero-
emission truck sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles
with combustion engines would be required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing
percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission
truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b - 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4-8
straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales).
In its proposal, EPA lays out several factors it utilizes when assessing the 'requisite technology'
that will support establishing a level of stringency in the standard. When analyzing feasibility
and these factors, it should be clear that electrification technology - which is already
commercialized - should form the basis for the agency implementing a far stronger GHG
standard than proposed. As discussed supra, in considering all these factors, the agency should
recognize that its proposed increases to the various sub-category stringency levels are inadequate
and need to be strengthened. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1, p. 18]
Tesla believes these changes will significantly reduce emissions, result in increased deployment
of the best available emissions reduction technology (BEVs), maintain U.S. manufacturing
leadership in medium and heavyduty BEV technology, and ensure the Administration is meeting
it statutory mandate to protect the public health and welfare from the significant and accelerating
impacts from criteria air pollution and climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1219-A1,
p.24]
Organization: Todd Snyder
As a stakeholder, I urge the EPA A to act aggressively on the toxic tailpipe emissions from
heavy trucks choking our communities and changing our climate.
EPA's proposed rule, option one, requiring all new heavy trucks cut NOx pollution by 90% by
2031 and cut greenhouse gas emissions is a critical first step toward the 100% electric truck
system we need to protect our communities' health and the planet we share.
We know we can move even faster and do even better.
As you know, several states require new heavy trucks reach this 90% benchmark by 2027.
Pairing this goal with strong GHG standards, we can accelerate the electrification of trucking
already happening in the market and reach 100% clean trucking by 2035
Robust national standards will not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a critical time,
but prevent thousands of asthma cases - especially among children - hospital visits, and even
deaths.
Even more important, accelerating the transition to 100% electric trucks would help protect the
72 million Americans who live by freight routes not just from NOx but also from soot and other
pollutants spewing out of tailpipes. As you know, those affected are overwhelmingly people of
color and poor families, making this not just about climate action and public health, but about
basic justice for Americans.
2035
-------
Yes, the timeline is aggressive. But the health of millions depends on it, and with more and more
electric trucks options entering the market, we know we can do it.
Most important, we call on you to reject option two for the rule, which will not meaningfully cut
either emissions or the NOx pollution poisoning our communities.
You've made fighting for climate action and environmental justice a cornerstone of EPA's work
and I stand with millions of Americans in honoring and applauding that effort. Now I'm calling
for you to take the next step and adopt a standard reducing NOx 90% by 2027 and working to
reach 100% clean trucks by 2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1391]
Organization: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota)
Toyota supports EPA's efforts to reduce emissions from HD vehicles and supports this rule.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1224-A1, p. 1 ]
Organization: Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA)
Furthermore, Option 1 can only be viewed as inflationary for the supply chain. As we are
currently seeing, many of the issues that are leading to inflation are related to transportation and
it is unlikely that all of those issues will be gone by the time these rules take effect. TRALA
members, and the trucking industry at large, are having to wait longer to receive new trucks once
being ordered due to labor and chip shortages. Additionally, the longer-term impact of the driver
shortage has increased the cost of moving goods across this country, and it is unlikely that the
trucking industry will be able to increase the supply of drivers in order to meet the demand for
goods. If EPA adopts Option 1, it will cause artificial increases to the cost of a new diesel truck
through the regulatory process. Federal and state governments are enacting environmental
policies that will lead to even greater inflation while also creating a patchwork of conflicting
rules for the industry to comply. The cost of shipping goods will inevitably increase for all
consumers. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1180-A1, pp. 2 - 3]
Organization: Truckload Carriers Association (TCA)
TCA consistently advocates that the trucking community continue to work to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to address the developing climate crisis. However, TCA is disappointed with the
proposed standards put forth by the EPA because the measure does not fully appreciate current
market and technology constraints within the trucking industry. TCA believes the regulations
would limit equipment options for carriers, as well as worsen environmental outcomes in the
long run by applying unmanageable pressure on pricing and disincentivizing fleet
turnover. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 1]
The proposed standards would require considerable expenditure by motor carriers to invest in
newer-model vehicles and engines. However, problems affecting the supply chain, like labor and
semiconductor chip shortagesl, are already causing a lack of availability that is hindering the
reasonable purchase of technology and parts. Recent data found that a Class 8 power unit order
placed in December 2021 would not be delivered until February 20232, compelling many motor
2036
-------
carriers to rely on older model engines, either by maintaining their current fleets or buying used.
In fact, as of now, only 50 percent of fleets have acquired 2010-or-newer model engines3 -
highlighting the need to improve access to newer, lower-emitting equipment, rather than restrict
availability with the new proposed standards. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, pp. 1-2]
1. United States, Department of Commerce, "Results from Semiconductor Supply Chain
Request for Information", January 25, 2022,
https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2022/01/results-semiconductor-supply-chain-
request-information
2. Alan Adler, "Inability to produce pushes Class 8 orders to lowest November in 26
years", FreightWaves, December 4, 2021, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/inability-
to-produce-pushes-class-8-orders-to-lowest-november-in-26-years
3. David Shepardson, "U.S. EPA proposing rules to cut emissions from heavy trucks",
March 7, 2022, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-emissions-
idTRNIKBN2L41Y9
TCA stresses that it is a precarious time to risk motor carrier operations by applying upward
influence on pricing and not adequately considering the present limitations on availability.
Trucking companies, 97 percent of which are small business5, are working tirelessly to serve the
nation, already in the face of expanding market pressures, with the industry currently over
80,000 drivers short of demand6 and freight projected to grow 25.6 percent by 20307. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 2]
5. American Trucking Association (ATA), "Economics and Industry Data",
https://www.trucking.org/economics-and-industry-data
6. ATA, "Driver Shortage Update", October 25, 2021,
https://www.trucking.org/sites/default/files/2021-
10/ATA%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report%202021%20Executive%20Summary.FINA
L_.pdf
7. ATA, "ATA Freight Transportation Forecast: 2019 to 2030", August 21, 2019,
https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/latest-freight-forecast-projects-256-increase-
tonnage-2030
TCA is concerned that the proposed standards could potentially disrupt the pathway to a zero-
emissions future, by prematurely diverting industry investment into incremental, short-term fleet
transitions and away from long-term solutions. As it stands now, considerable investment,
innovation, and testing is required to lower costs and expand capacity for zero-emission trucks,
as well as strengthen our national charging infrastructure to ensure accessible and reliable power.
TCA holds that a more comprehensive strategy is needed to guide fleet advancements that
realistically accounts for and encourages solution-maximizing technology in the long run. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 3]
2037
-------
In sum, moving forward with these inadvisable standards would worsen market conditions, harm
carrier operations, and, in practice, disincentivize fleet turnover. TCA appreciates the effort of
the EPA to protect the environment and our association hopes to work together to put standards
in place that move the industry forward by reducing emissions and advancing climate-positive
outcomes in a progressive, but manageable manner that roundly considers material and financial
limitations. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1160-A1, p. 3]
Organization: United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society
The United Methodist Church understands 'climate justice not simply as an environmental or
economic concern but rather as a deep ethical and spiritual concern that the Church must address
so that abundant life is ensured for our children and future generations' (2016 Book of
Resolutions #1035 Climate Change and the Church's Response). Grounded in this belief, and in
response to the ongoing harm and future threats posed by greenhouse gas emissions, the General
Board of Church and Society - the agency of our church entrusted with the responsibility to
advocate for the official positions of The United Methodist Church - supports the Environmental
Protection Agency's proposed rule: Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy -
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards (EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055; FRL-7165-03- OAR). [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1042-A1, p.l]
The General Board of Church and Society supports standards set at a pace that would achieve
100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2035. We believe it is our moral responsibility to
address the adverse effects of greenhouse gasses from the transportation industry on our planet
and those people and communities that are most vulnerable to climate change's worst effects. We
believe these regulations are a critical step on the path to protect the basic right of clean air that
God has given us and more fully live into Jesus' command to love our neighbor as we love
ourselves. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1042-A1, p.l]
Organization: UnitedMotorcoach Association (UMA)
While UMA is not speaking to the technological feasibility of further NOx emissions reductions,
we do question the impact of diverting research and development resources of alternative and
zero emissions fuels and power. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-A1, p.2]
We recommend EPA consider the disruptions to the overall economy, job loss, and impact to the
supply chain. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1311-Al,p.2]
Organization: US. Chamber of Commerce
As the agency proceeds with this rulemaking, we encourage adherence to the following
objectives that should serve as the foundation of an effective rulemaking:
• Regulatory certainty and durability are key not only to achieving sustained emissions
reductions over the proposed rule's implementation timeline, but also to creating a stable
business environment needed for large investments to meet these types of regulatory
requirements.
2038
-------
• Cost-effective, technologically achievable standards that facilitate fleet turnover necessary to
drive real-word emissions reductions.
• National harmonization that avoids a patchwork of requirements and compliance obligations
among states will help reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers, ultimately
speeding implementation.
• Sufficient lead-time and compliance flexibility to allow manufacturers and other stakeholders
to plan, adapt, and invest in heavy-duty engine and vehicle technologies in a manner that does
not divert resources away from the longer-term transition to zero-emissions vehicles. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 2]
By EPA's own admission, implementing the framework described in Option 2 would also drive
more emissions reductions sooner compared with Option 1, helping increase the associated
health benefits of the rule to the communities that need it most. This not only would further
support the administration's goals to improve air quality, but is expected to reduce the exposure
of underserved groups living near areas with large numbers of medium- and heavy-duty
traffic. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1245-A1, p. 8]
Organization: U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development and National Clean
Energy Workforce Alliance
[From Hearing Testimony, April 13, 2022, Debra Rowe] As a life-long resident of Detroit and a
professor of sustainable energies for 44 years, I know the technology is available for the EPA to
create the strongest possible standards to reduce air pollution and diesel fumes. Many analyses
have supported the cost-effectiveness of these zero-emission trucks as the cheaper alternative for
the U.S., as we build a healthier population and a stronger economy. I am also here today
because I have worked with environmental justice organizations in Detroit and I have been a
convener and facilitator of the Detroit Green Skills Alliance, where we came together across
NGOs, government corporations, small businesses, and neighborhoods to create the
environmental and climate action plan for Detroit to reduce the existing pollution that is
highlighted in our famous Toxins Tour, and advocate for the necessary policies. This hearing is
about those necessary policies, a key portion of them. If you create the strongest possible
standards you will improve our economy and our environment simultaneously. So my main
requests are two key items in the standards. Reduce the deadly NOx pollution by 90 percent by
2027, and move the whole national bus and truck fleet to 100 zero-emission, all-electric vehicles
by 2035. This is doable. It is smart. Just some additional points. The trucks regulated by this
rule will be on the road for decades, so now is the time. They have to be cleaned up as soon as
possible. And today I have a son who runs a manufacturing facility that builds these electric
trucks. These electric trucks and buses are already capable of supporting the majority of freight,
delivery, transit use and needs, and they are cost-effective. So another couple key points. Your
proposed Option 1 is a start, but it should be significantly strengthened. And Option 2 should
not be seriously considered. I won't go into the details why but glad to talk to you more about it
if you want. I'm sure you know. On the greenhouse gas rule, the agency's minor adjustments to
the existing Phase 2 greenhouse gas standards, they are just weak. They are just not strong
enough. It wouldn't get a passing grade if I was teaching the class. And they reflect neither the
2039
-------
urgency of the climate crisis nor the rapid advancement in zero-emission truck technology.
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2867]
Organization: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Environmental Programs Department
The Ute Mountain Ute Environmental Programs Department urges the U.S. EPA, Congress and
States to do more to protect the health and quality of life of our members. Concurrently, Tribes
are doing their part to reduce emissions including the many harmful pollutants from heavy-duty
vehicles. For example, 119 Tribes and Alaska Native Villages have reduced diesel emissions
through use of the VW settlement fund. Even more have participated, and continue to participate,
in EPA's Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1259-
Al, p. 2]
The Ute Mountain Ute Environmental Programs Department Is encouraged by EPA's
commitment expressed on March 7, 2022, that 'This proposal would ensure the heavy-duty
vehicles and engines that drive American commerce and connect people across the country are as
clean as possible ...' We support this important goal and the necessary actions to protect our
health and quality of life. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 2]
While this specific regulation is an important step in reducing emissions of the many harmful
pollutants from these vehicles, it would not achieve all that is possible. For example,
• Given that proposed requirements begin with vehicle model year 2027, emissions
reduction technologies and strategies should mandate those that are most current and
rapidly developing. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 2]
• While acknowledging emerging engine technologies including electric and fuel cell, (see
FR pages 17 417 through 17 418), the proposed rule is focused on promoting emissions
reduction technologies, operation, and maintenance of diesel-fueled and, to a lesser extent
gasoline-fueled, vehicles. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 2]
Climate change stimulated by emissions of greenhouse gases from many sources including
heavy-duty vehicles and engines threatens our fundamental way of life. The Ute Mountain Ute
Environmental Programs Department supports Executive Order 14037, the Clean Trucks Plan
and EPA's commitment to requirements that heavy-duty engines and vehicles be 'as clean as
possible'. This rule should be promulgated consistent with the commitments. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1259-A1, p. 3]
Organization: Valero Energy Corporation
Valero urges EPA not to revise the heavy-duty truck standards as proposed. Instead, EPA should
adopt standards that will provide a level playing field in which different vehicle designs, fuel
types, and technologies can compete fairly to meet an appropriate performance target. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1328-A2, p.9]
2040
-------
Organization: Victoria D 'Amico
I am writing in strong support of EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055.1 appreciate the Biden
administration's commitment to cleaner energy. It's also appreciated how the administration is
committed to aiding in environmental justice issues as climate change will disproportionately
affect lower income families and POC. Climate change is an alarming threat to public health and
safety and the environment. We should be doing all we can to address climate change to lessen
the effects it will have. I have two criticisms of the rule: 2027 is too long to wait to address this
issue and small businesses should receive some sort of aid for the expenses of transitioning their
parts. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1214]
The year 2027 is too far off for these changes to be implemented. Time is of the essence in
regards to climate change action. According to BBC News (2022), the latest IPCC report states
that in order to avoid catastrophic climate events, temperatures must remain under 1.5C in this
century. Doing this requires immediate reduction of C02 emissions. I understand time is needed
to get through some red tape and ensure the safety standards are met, but this action must be the
highest priority to lessen the drastic effects of climate change. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-1214]
I support the overall goal of this proposal and hope to see it implemented in the near future.
Combatting climate change immediately is imperative to ensuring a better world for people and
the environment. Moving up the timeline this is enforced is significant in lowering emissions in a
timely manner. Assisting small businesses is important for maintaining public support and
looking out for our fellow citizens. I look forward to seeing this rule in action. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-1214]
Organization: Volvo Group
We urge EPA to take a holistic view of the regulation's implications. If the goal is to improve air
quality while simultaneously addressing climate change and moving towards a ZEV future, the
final regulation must not:
• lead fleets to massively pre-buy trucks to avoid technology they do not trust and cannot
afford, thereby repeating the nearly 50% production workforce reduction the Volvo
Group experienced because of the EPA's last technology-forcing regulation in 2007;
• encourage fleets to hold on to older trucks and impede the integration of new generation
trucks in the marketplace, similar to what we see today, with approximately 50% of
previous generation trucks still operating more than 12 years after the beginning of the
lastNOx regulation in 2010; nor
• force truck manufacturers like the Volvo Group to divert limited investment dollars away
from the accelerated development of battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell trucks, which
environmental justice advocates want to see across a broad range of applications in their
local communities. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 2]
In addition to these technological challenges, an ultra-low emission level will impose excessive
costs on fleets, due primarily to the extended emission warranty and useful life provisions. As
past is prologue, we can expect these higher costs to bring even graver economic and
2041
-------
environmental consequences than what was experienced in 2006-2008 during the last major
technology forcing regulation. In 2006, the year before the new EPA Particulate Matter
regulation came into force, the trucking market hit its historical high for truck sales as fleets
anticipated technology forcing solutions and accelerated their purchases to forgo new technology
vehicle purchases until the technology was proven. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p. 4]
Truck sales plummeted in 2007 and 2008 because of the regulation and this behavior led to a
reduction in force for Volvo Group UAW-represented production workers in our three truck and
engine plants from more than 4600 jobs in 2006 down to only 2300 jobs in June 2008 (before the
great recession began) representing a 50% loss of good paying union jobs. These production job
losses were not fully recouped until seven years later (i.e., 2014). [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1324-A1, p. 4.]
From an environmental perspective, we are still bearing the ramifications of this situation as
evidenced by the fact that approximately 50% of the fleet on the road today have the previous
generation NOx technology more than 12 years after it was mandated by regulation. The
reduction in emissions that could be realized by accelerating the turnover of these older vehicles
would far exceed that which will be achieved by the delta between a 75% reduction and a 90%
reduction of the last remaining 1-2% of NOx emissions.[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1324-A1, p.
5]
Organization; Wayne Aarum
I am opposed to the new rules for Heavy-Duty engines. This rule will only increase inflation and
harm the middle class even more. This appears to be virtue signaling for the sake of the left wing
of the political spectrum. If the Biden administration truly cared about emissions and pollution
they would be going after China and India - the world's biggest polluters, not hard working
American citizens. This rule is just one more layer of regulations that will hurt the average
American citizen. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1405]
Organization: WE ACTfor Environmental Justice
Our communities have contended with the cumulative exposure and impacts of pollution for far
too long. 13 Eliminating tailpipe emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles is required to
deliver much needed health benefits from reductions in harmful NOx and particulate matter
exposures. Zero-emission, electric trucks and buses are ready and available now and can replace
more than 50% percent of vehicles in each category of vehiclel4 on the road today. With ever
improving economics and capabilities, 15 electric models can reach cost parity with conventional
diesel vehicles by 2035, even without incentives. 16 The shift to all-electric trucks and buses is
inevitable and will occur rapidly. The clean trucks rule is a prime opportunity to reduce truck
pollution, safeguard the lives of communities adversely affected by truck pollution, and fulfill
federal commitments to the climate, cleaner vehicles, and environmental justice. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, p.2]
13 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-of-color-breathe-more-unhealthy-
air-from-nearly-all-polluting-sources/
2042
-------
14 https://rmi.org/insight/electrify-
trucking/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=spark&utm_content=spark&utm_campaign
=2022_0 5_0 5 &utm_term=button
15 https://blogs.edf.org/climate41 l/files/2022/02/EDF-MDHD-Electrification-
vl.6_20220209.pdf
16 https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82081.pdf
We commend the EPA for taking steps to update the Heavy Duty Vehicle standards for the first
time in 20 years. While the Agency's modeling estimates that by 2045, the largest improvements
in ozone and particulate matter emissions and public health benefits from the proposed rule will
occur in communities of color with the worst air quality, 17 our communities need the associated
public health benefits of these standards sooner rather than later. We cannot allow dirty diesel
tricks to be sold for another decade. We urge the Agency to expeditiously finalize and issue
the strongest and most protective emissions reduction standards by the end of 2022 and to
put us on a fast track towards the transition to zero-emission, electric trucks and buses by
2035. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1347-A1, pp.2-3]
17 https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10144K0.pdf
Reducing NOx and greenhouse gas emissions from the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sector
and transitioning away from dirty, diesel- and gasoline- trucks and buses is essential to tackling
climate change and protecting environmental justice communities throughout the country. Once
again, we urge the EPA to finalize the strongest possible rule and to continue meaningful
engagement, early and often with overburdened communities and environmental justice
advocates in its implementation and as the Agency begins to think about greenhouse gas
standards for the truck manufacturing industry for model year 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-
1347-A1, p.6]
Organization: Wendy
Zero emission trucks of all classes should be included in this rule with a start date no later than
2025. California and 5 other states have already adopted Advanced Clean Truck rules requiring
zero emission trucks. The federal government should follow suit. The regulations must drive the
market. People are dying and the planet is warming. We can't wait for the market to come up
with solutions. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1578]
Organization: Western Transport Logistics Inc.
The EPA is looking to overstep common sense and logic with the proposed NOx regs. This
nation runs on diesel and is powered by 18 wheelers. Not only would the proposal hurt small
businesses in the trucking industry, but that pain would cause further inflation and goods
shortages due to less trucks running on the roads. This is not good policy for our nation. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2236, p.l]
2043
-------
Organization: Westport Fuels Systems (WFS)
Westport supports EPA finalizing regulations that encourage much needed emission reductions.
We believe these reductions must be based on realistic expectations about the pace and cost of
technology and encourage engine makers and vehicle manufacturers to deploy a variety of
available, scalable, and cost-effective technologies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.l]
Key WFS commentary/observation highlights include:
• A tailpipe only perspective on C02 emissions does not directly correlate to the true C02
emissions reductions of technologies, nor is it a reliable method for guiding climate
change mitigation policies. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1278-A1, p.6]
Organization: White Pine Construction Corporation
While we are behind the push for better air quality, we have concerns over the costs the new
regulations will bring. We need to ensure that new rules won't lead to hurting the reliability of
the trucks and trailers we purchase, nor imposing unreasonable or unworkable costs on our
industry. The trucking industry has been hit hard enough with covid regulations and fuel prices
we cannot afford to continue to take hits to our bottom line. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1012,
p.l]
Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI)
We applaud the Biden administration for acting swiftly to address pollution from trucks and
buses and urge EPA to strengthen and finalize the strongest rule possible for reducing pollution
from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles while taking into consideration two underlying factors:
• The urgency of addressing transportation inequities for communities long overburdened
by air and climate pollution, and
• The opportunities electrification offers to transform our fleets, particularly for school and
transit buses where electrification is advancing at a more rapid pace. [EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0055-1298-A1, p.l]
EPA has the opportunity — and the responsibility — to finalize and implement the strongest rule
possible to (1) mitigate the disproportionate health impacts that air toxics, particulate matter, and
climate-changing greenhouse gas pollution from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles have on low-
income communities and communities of color and to (2) accelerate our transition to zero-
emission light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that offer a plethora of benefits while
providing relief from the volatility of gas prices that are hurting everyday Americans. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.4]
We support EPA's proposal to tighten the Phase 2 GHG standards for the subcategories of
vehicles that reflect the rapid market shifts to zero-emission technologies. Additionally, given the
commercial viability of both electric school and transit buses, we urge EPA to further increase
2044
-------
the stringency of the GHG standards and C02 standards for these vehicle classes for MYs 2027
through 2029 based on the technologies available. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.4]
The World Resources Institute commends the EPA for its efforts to promote clean air and reduce
pollution from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines with stricter, new standards and
stands ready to offer our assistance and staff expertise in further strengthening this rule. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1298-A1, p.4]
Organization: Worldwide Equipment Enterprises, Inc.
Regulated businesses simply hope for consistent and reality-based regulatory proposals when
regulations by the federal government are warranted. Unfortunately, proposed regulations such
as this one is prepared by government bureaucrats with no business experience within this or
other businesses that they regulate. That creates the unfortunate situation of unrealistic proposals,
no regard to either the cost of these regulations to the regulated businesses or consumers or
determining whether what is pointed to as the new requirement is even available or not. [EPA-
HQ-OAR-2019-0055-1275-A1, p.2]
Organization: Yellowstone Integrated Architecture and Construction
The EPA must not delay in the adoption of their proposed rule to regulate pollution from Heavy
Duty Vehicles or standards or the next round starting in 2030. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2816,
p.l]
These changes will drive a green economic boom that will help out our country get back on top
as leaders in electrification, including battery production. [EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0055-2816, p.l]
Our future generation depends on our actions for their health and economic stability. [EPA-HQ-
OAR-2019-0055-2816, p.l]
2045
------- |