3,980
SO2
                                    13,780
                                    22,580
                                    27,660
                                    31,020
Air Toxics
                                      60
                                      65
                                      72
                                      73
Diesel PM10
                                     2,980
                                     4,930
                                     6,060
                                     6,810
            Other Emissions vs. No-Action Alternative (% reduction)
CO
                                      0.2
                                      0.3
                                      0.4
                                      0.4
VOC and NOx
                                      1.4
                                      2.3
                                      2.9
                                      3.3
PM
                                      2.1
                                      3.4
                                      4.2
                                      4.7
SO2
                                      3.5
                                      5.7
                                      7.0
                                      7.9
Air Toxics
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
Diesel PM10
                                      3.3
                                      5.4
                                      6.7
                                      7.5

Sensitivity Analysis to Different Inputs to the DOT CAFE Model
This section describes some of the principal sensitivity results, obtained by running the various scenarios describing the policy alternatives with alternative inputs.  OMB Circular A-4 indicates that "it is usually necessary to provide a sensitivity analysis to reveal whether, and to what extent, the results of the analysis are sensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions and numeric inputs."  Considering this guidance, a number of sensitivity analyses were performed using analysis Method A to examine important assumptions and inputs, including the following, all of which are discussed in greater detail in the accompanying RIA:
   1. Payback Period:  In addition to the 0 and 6 month payback periods discussed above (denoted pb-00_central  and pb-06_central in the tables below), also evaluated cases involving payback periods of 12, 18, and 24 months.
   2. Fuel Prices:  Evaluated cases involving fuel prices from the AEO 2014 low and high oil price scenarios. (See AEO-Low and AEO-High in the tables.)
   3. Fuel Prices and Payback Period:  Evaluated one side case involving a 0 month payback period combined with fuel prices from the AEO 2014 low oil price scenario, and one side case with a 24 month payback period combined with fuel prices from the AEO 2014 high oil price scenario.
   4. Benefits to Vehicle Buyers:  The main Method A analysis assumes there is no loss in value to consumers resulting from vehicles that have an increase in price and higher fuel economy.  NHTSA performed this sensitivity analysis assuming that there is a 25, or 50 percent loss in value to consumers  -  equivalent to the assumption that consumers will only value the calculated benefits they will achieve at 75, or 50 percent, respectively, of the main analysis estimates. (These are labeled as 75pctConsumerBenefit and 50pctConsumerBenefit.)
   5. Value of Avoided GHG Emissions:  Evaluated side cases involving lower and higher valuation of avoided CO2 emissions, expressed as the social cost of carbon (SCC).  A side case involving valuation of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions was also evaluated.
   6. Rebound Effect:  Evaluated side cases involving rebound effect values of 5 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. (These are labeled as 05PctReboundEffect, 15PctReboundEffect and  20PctReboundEffect.)
   7. RPE-based Markup:  Evaluated a side case using a retail price equivalent (RPE) markup factor of 1.5 for non-electrification technologies, which is consistent with the NAS estimation for technologies manufactured by suppliers, and a RPE markup factor of 1.33 for electrification technologies (mild and strong HEV).
   8. ICM-based Post-Warranty Repair Costs:  NHTSA evaluated a side case that scaled the frequency of repair by vehicle survival rates, assumes that per-vehicle repair costs during the post-warranty period are the same as in the in-warranty period, and that repair costs are proportional to incremental direct costs (therefore vehicles with additional components will have increased repair costs).
   9. Mass-Safety Effect:  Evaluated side cases with the mass-safety impact coefficient at the values defining the 5[th] and 95[th] percent points of the confidence interval estimated in the underlying statistical analysis. (These are labeled MassFatalityCoeff05pct and MassFatalityCoeff95pct.)
   10. Strong HEVs:  Evaluated a side case in which strong HEVs were excluded from the set of technology estimated to be available for HD pickups and vans through model year 2030.
   11. Diesel Downsizing:  Evaluated a side case in which downsizing of diesel engines was estimated to be more widely available to HD pickups and vans.
   12. Technology Effectiveness:  Evaluated side cases involving inputs reflecting lower and higher impacts of technologies on fuel consumption.
   13. Technology Direct Costs:  Evaluated side cases involving inputs reflecting lower and higher direct incremental costs for fuel-saving technologies.
   14. Fleet Mix:  Evaluated a side case in which the shares of individual vehicle models and configurations were kept constant at estimated current levels.
Table VI-31Table VI-31 below, summarizes key results for each of the cases included in the sensitivity analysis using Method A for the proposed alternative.  The table reflects the changes in the metrics (columns) due to the particular sensitivity case (rows) for the proposed alternative 3. The last year of the analysis, 2030, is shown to highlight the movement of outcomes. More detailed results for all alternatives are available in the accompanying RIA Chapter 10.

Table VI-31 Sensitivity Analysis Results from CAFE Model in the HD Pickup and Van Market Segment using Method A and versus the Dynamic Baseline, Alternative 1b (2.5 % growth in stringency: Cells are percent change from base case)
Sensitivity Case
                       Average Achieved Fuel Consumption
                            Total Fuel Consumption
                                 C02 Reduction
                              Total Social Costs
                             Total Social Benefits
                              Social Net Benefits
pb-06_central
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.7%
                                     6.2%
pb-00_central
                                    -15.0%
                                    -13.7%
                                     13.6%
                                    247.1%
                                     8.4%
                                     7.0%
50pctConsumerBenefit
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     6.4%
                                     4.5%
75pctConsumerBenefit
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.1%
                                     5.5%
05PctReboundEffect
                                    -13.7%
                                    -13.2%
                                     13.0%
                                    206.1%
                                     8.0%
                                     6.5%
15PctReboundEffect
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.0%
                                     11.8%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.4%
                                     5.9%
20PctReboundEffect
                                    -13.7%
                                    -11.5%
                                     11.3%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.0%
                                     5.6%
MassFatalityCoeff05pct
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.7%
                                     6.2%
MassFatalityCoeff95pct
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.7%
                                     6.2%
07PctDiscountRate
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    188.2%
                                     8.1%
                                     6.5%
07PctDR_00Payback
                                    -15.0%
                                    -13.7%
                                     13.6%
                                    252.9%
                                     8.9%
                                     7.3%
AEO-Low
                                    -13.4%
                                    -12.7%
                                     12.5%
                                    219.0%
                                     6.9%
                                     5.2%
AEO-High
                                    -13.5%
                                    -12.0%
                                     11.8%
                                    172.7%
                                     8.0%
                                     6.8%
AEO-Low_00MonthPayback
                                    -14.7%
                                    -13.9%
                                     13.7%
                                    265.0%
                                     7.6%
                                     5.8%
AEO-High_24MonthPayback
                                     -6.8%
                                     -6.0%
                                     5.8%
                                     -5.5%
                                     3.8%
                                     2.9%
12MonthPayback
                                    -13.1%
                                    -12.0%
                                     11.8%
                                    185.1%
                                     7.3%
                                     5.8%
18MonthPayback
                                     -9.5%
                                     -8.7%
                                     8.6%
                                     91.2%
                                     5.2%
                                     3.9%
24MonthPayback
                                     -8.2%
                                     -7.5%
                                     7.4%
                                     47.8%
                                     4.5%
                                     3.3%
LowSCC
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.3%
                                     5.7%
LowSCC_00PayBack
                                    -15.0%
                                    -13.7%
                                     13.6%
                                    247.1%
                                     8.1%
                                     6.5%
HighSCC
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     7.9%
                                     6.5%
HighSCC_00PayBack
                                    -15.0%
                                    -13.7%
                                     13.6%
                                    247.1%
                                     8.7%
                                     7.3%
VeryHighSCC
                                    -13.7%
                                    -12.6%
                                     12.4%
                                    206.1%
                                     8.4%
                                     7.2%
VeryHighSCC_00PayBack
                                    -15.0%
                                    -13.7%
                                     13.6%
                                    247.1%
                                     9.3%
                                     8.0%
RPE-BasedMarkup
                                    -12.8%
                                    -11.7%
                                     11.7%
                                    327.4%
                                     7.5%
                                     5.4%
NoSHEVs
                                    -12.4%
                                    -11.4%
                                     11.3%
                                    288.8%
                                     7.2%
                                     5.3%
LowerEffectiveness
                                    -13.3%
                                    -12.2%
                                     12.0%
                                    187.6%
                                     7.5%
                                     5.2%
HigherEffectiveness
                                    -12.7%
                                    -11.7%
                                     11.5%
                                    128.5%
                                     7.0%
                                     6.0%
LowerDirectCosts
                                    -13.0%
                                    -11.9%
                                     11.9%
                                    330.4%
                                     7.6%
                                     5.8%
HigherDirectCosts
                                    -13.5%
                                    -12.5%
                                     12.3%
                                    226.5%
                                     7.7%
                                     4.9%
WiderDieselDownsizing
                                    -13.6%
                                    -12.5%
                                     12.4%
                                    178.8%
                                     7.7%
                                     6.3%
AllowGasToDiesel
                                    -15.3%
                                    -14.2%
                                     13.0%
                                    295.7%
                                     7.7%
                                     5.8%
AllowGasToDiesel_00Payback
                                    -16.7%
                                    -15.5%
                                     14.3%
                                    375.9%
                                     8.6%
                                     6.6%
flat_mix_after_2016
                                    -13.5%
                                    -12.4%
                                     12.2%
                                    216.9%
                                     7.7%
                                     6.1%

For some of the cases for which results are presented above, the sensitivity of results to changes in inputs is simple, direct, and easily observed.  For example, changes to valuation of avoided GHG emissions impact only this portion of the estimated economic benefits; manufacturers' responses and corresponding costs are not impacted.  Some other cases warrant closer consideration:
First, cases involving alternatives to the reference six-month payback period involve different degrees of fuel consumption improvement, and these differences are greatest in the no-action alternative defining the baseline.  Because all estimated impacts of the proposed standards are shown as incremental values relative to this baseline, longer payback periods correspond to smaller estimates of incremental impacts.
Second, cases involving different fuel prices similarly involve different degrees of fuel consumption improvement, with differences also being greatest for the no-action alternative.  Lower fuel prices correspond to larger estimates of incremental impacts, and higher fuel prices correspond to smaller estimates of incremental impacts.
Third, because the payback period and fuel price inputs work together (along with other inputs) to influence the degree of fuel consumption improvement, the two side cases involving changes to both payback period and fuel prices result in larger (for shorter payback periods combined with lower fuel prices) and smaller (for longer payback periods combined with higher fuel prices) estimates of incremental impacts.
Fourth, the cases involving different inputs defining the availability of some technologies do not impact equally the estimated impacts across all manufacturers.  Section C.8 above provides a discussion of a sensitivity analysis that excludes strong hybrids and includes the use of downsized turbocharged engine in vans currently equipped with large V-8 engines.  The modeling results for this analysis are provided in Section C.8 and in the table above. The no strong hybrid analysis shows that GM could comply with the proposed preferred Alternative 3 without strong hybrids based on the use of turbo downsizing on all of their HD gasoline vans.  Alternatively, when the analysis is modified to allow for wider application of diesel engines, strong HEV application for GM drops slightly (from 19% to 17%) in MY2030, average per-vehicle costs drop slightly (by about $50), but MY2030 additional penetration rates of diesel engines increase by about 10%.  Manufacturer-specific model results accompanying today's rule show the extent to which individual manufacturers' potential responses to the standards vary with these alternative assumptions regarding the availability and applicability of fuel-saving technologies.
Fifth, the case involving a static fleet mix involves market forecast changes that impact manufacturers' average requirements and potential responses under each regulatory alternative, including the no-action alternative.
Compliance and Flexibility for HD Pickup and Van Standards
Averaging, Banking, and Trading
The Phase 1 program established substantial flexibility in how manufacturers can choose to implement EPA and NHTSA standards while preserving the benefits for the environment and for energy consumption and security.  Primary among these flexibilities are the gradual phase-in schedule, and the corporate fleet average approach which encompasses averaging, banking and trading described below.  See Section IV.A. of the Phase 1 preamble (76 FR 57238) for additional discussion of the Phase 1 averaging, banking, and trading and Section IV.A (3) of the Phase 1 preamble (76 FR 57243) for a discussion of the credit calculation methodology.
Manufacturers in this category typically offer gasoline and diesel versions of HD pickup and van vehicle models.  The agencies established chassis-based Phase 1 standards that are equivalent in terms of stringency for gasoline and diesel vehicles and are proposing the same approach to stringency for Phase 2.  In Phase 1, the agencies established that HD pickups and vans are treated as one large averaging set that includes both gasoline and diesel vehicles and the agencies are proposing to maintain this averaging set approach for Phase 2.
As explained in Section II.C(3) of the Phase 1 preamble (76 FR 57167), and in Section VI.B (3) above, the program is structured so that final compliance is determined at the end of each model year, when production for the model year is complete.  At that point, each manufacturer calculates production-weighted fleet average CO2 emission and fuel consumption rates along with its production-weighted fleet average standard.  Under this approach, a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet that achieves a fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption level better than its standard would be allowed to generate credits.  Conversely, if the fleet average CO2 or fuel consumption level does not meet its standard, the fleet would incur debits (also referred to as a shortfall).
A manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year will have several options for using those credits to offset emissions from other HD pickups and vans. These options include credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, and credit trading within the HD pickup and van averaging set.  These types of credit provisions also exist in the light-duty 2012-2016 and 2017-2025 MY vehicle rules, as well as many other mobile source standards issued by EPA under the CAA.  The manufacturer will be able to carry back credits to offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year and was subsequently carried over to the current model year, with a limitation on the carry-back of credits to three model years.  After satisfying any need to offset pre-existing deficits, a manufacturer may bank remaining credits for use in future years, with a limitation on the carry-forward of credits to five model years.  Averaging vehicle credits with engine credits or between vehicle weight classes is not allowed, as discussed in Section I.  The agencies are not proposing changes to any of these provisions for the Phase 2 program.
While the agencies are proposing to retain 5 year carry-forward of credits for all HD sectors, the agencies request comment on the merits of a temporary credit carry-forward period of longer than 5 years for HD pick-ups and vans, allowing Phase 1 credits generated in MYs 2014-2019 to be used through MY 2027.  EPA included a similar provision in the MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle rule, which allows a one-time credit carry-forward of  MY 2010-2015 credits to be carried forward through MY 2021.  Such a credit carry-forward extension for HD pick-ups and vans may provide manufacturers with additional flexibility during the transition to the proposed Phase 2 standards.  A temporary credit carry-forward period of longer than five years for Phase 1 credits may help manufacturers resolve lead-time issues they might face as the proposed more stringent Phase 2 standards phase-in and help avoid negative impacts to their product redesign cycles which tend to be longer than those for light-duty vehicles.
As discussed in Section VI.B.4., EPA is proposing to change the HD pickup and van useful life for GHG emissions from the current 11 years/120,000 miles to 15 years/150,000 miles to make the useful life for GHG emissions consistent with the useful life of criteria pollutants recently updated in the Tier 3 rule.  As shown in the Equation VI-1 credits calculation formula below, established by the Phase 1 rule, useful life in miles is a multiplicative factor included in the calculation of CO2 and fuel consumption credits.  In order to ensure banked credits maintain their value in the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2, NHTSA and EPA propose an adjustment factor of 1.25 for credits that are carried forward from Phase 1 to the MY 2021 and later Phase 2 standards.  Without this adjustment factor the proposed change in useful life would effectively result in a discount of banked credits that are carried forward from Phase 1 to Phase 2, which is not the intent of the change in the useful life.  The agencies do not believe that this proposed adjustment results in a loss of program benefits because there is little or no deterioration anticipated for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption over the life of the vehicles.  Also, as described in the standards and feasibility sections above, the carry-forward of credits is an integral part of the program, helping to smoothing the transition to the new Phase 2 standards.  The agencies believe that effectively discounting carry-forward credits from Phase 1 to Phase 2 would be unnecessary and could negatively impact the feasibility of the proposed Phase 2 standards.  EPA and NHTSA request comment on all aspects of the averaging, banking, and trading program.
Equation VI-1: Total Model Year Credit (Debit) Calculation
CO2 Credits (Mg) = [(CO2 Std  -  CO2 Act) x Volume x UL] / 1,000,000
Fuel Consumption Credits (gallons) = (FC Std  -  FC Act) x Volume x UL x 100
Where:
CO2 Std = Fleet average CO2 standard (g/mi)
FC Std = Fleet average fuel consumption standard (gal/100 mile)
CO2 Act = Fleet average actual CO2 value (g/mi)
FC Act = Fleet average actual fuel consumption value (gal/100 mile)
Volume = the total production of vehicles in the regulatory category
UL = the useful life for the regulatory category (miles)

Advanced Technology Credits
The Phase 1 program included on an interim basis advanced technology credits for MYs 2014 and later in the form of a multiplier of 1.5 for the following technologies:
         * Hybrid powertrain designs that include energy storage systems
         * Waste heat recovery
         * All-electric vehicles
         * Fuel cell vehicles
The advanced technology credit program is intended to encourage early development of technologies that are not yet commercially available.  This multiplier approach means that each advanced technology vehicle would count as 1.5 vehicles in a manufacturer's compliance calculation.  A manufacturer also has the option to subtract these vehicles out of its fleet and determine their performance as a separate fleet calculating advanced technology credits that can be used for all other HD vehicle categories, but these credits would, of course, not then be reflected in the manufacturer's conventional pickup and van category credit balance.  The credits are thus `special' in that they can be applied across the entire heavy-duty sector, unlike the ABT and early credits discussed above and the proposed off-cycle technology credits discussed in the following subsection.  The agencies also capped the amount of advanced credits that can be transferred into any averaging set into any model year at 60,000 Mg to prevent market distortions.
	The advanced technology multipliers were included on an interim basis in the Phase 1 program and the agencies are proposing to end the incentive multipliers beginning in MY 2021, when the more stringent Phase 2 standards are proposed to begin phase-in.  The agencies are proposing a similar approach for the other HD sectors as discussed in Section I.C. (1).  The advanced technology incentives are intended to promote the commercialization of technologies that have the potential to provide substantially better GHG emissions and fuel consumption if they were able to overcome major near-term market barriers.  However, the incentives are not intended to be a permanent part of the program as they result in a decrease in overall GHG emissions and fuel consumption benefits associated with the program when used.  More importantly, as explained in Section I. above, the agencies are already predicating the stringency of the proposed standards on development and deployment of two of these Phase 1 advanced technologies (waste heat recovery and strong hybrid technology), so that it would be inappropriate (and essentially a windfall) to include credits for use of these technologies in Phase 2.
	As discussed in Section I, the agencies request comment on the proposed approach for the advanced technology multipliers for HD pickups and vans as well as the other HD sectors, including comments on whether or not the credits should be extended to later model years for more advanced technologies such as EVs and fuel cell vehicles.  These technologies are not projected to be part of the technology path used by manufacturer to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards for HD pickups and vans. Waste heat recovery is also not projected to be used for HD pickups and vans in the time frame of the proposed rule.  EV and fuel cell technologies would presumably need to overcome the highest hurdles to commercialization for HD pickups and vans in the time frame of the proposed rule, and also have the potential to provide the highest level of benefit.  We welcome comments on the need for such incentives, including information on why an incentive for specific technologies in this time frame may be warranted, recognizing that the incentive would result in reduced benefits in terms of CO2 emissions and fuel use due to the Phase 2 program.
NHTSA and EPA established that for Phase 1, EVs and other zero tailpipe emission vehicles be factored into the fleet average GHG and fuel consumption calculations based on the diesel standards targets for their model year and work factor.  The agencies also established for electric and zero emission vehicles that in the credits equation the actual emissions and fuel consumption performance be set to zero (i.e. that emissions be considered on a tailpipe basis exclusively) rather than including upstream emissions or energy consumption associated with electricity generation.  As we look to the future, we are not projecting the adoption of electric HD pickups and vans into the market; therefore, we believe that this provision is still appropriate.  Unlike the MY2012-2016 light-duty rule, which adopted a cap whereby upstream emissions would be counted after a certain volume of sales (see 75 FR 25434-25436), we believe there is no need to propose a cap for HD pickups and vans because of the infrequent projected use of EV technologies in the Phase 2 timeframe.  In Phase 2, we propose to continue to deem electric vehicles as having zero CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions as well as zero fuel consumption.  We welcome comments on this approach.  See also Section I for a discussion of the treatment of lifecycle emissions for alternative fuel vehicles and Section XI for the treatment of lifecycle emissions for natural gas specifically.
Off-cycle Technology Credits
The Phase 1 program established an opportunity for manufacturers to generate credits by applying innovative technologies whose CO2 and fuel consumption benefits are not captured on the 2-cycle test procedure (i.e., off-cycle).  As discussed in Sections III.F. and V.E.3., the agencies are proposing approaches for Phase 2 off-cycle technology credits for tractors and vocational vehicles with proposed provisions tailored for those sectors.  For HD pickups and vans, the approach for off-cycle technologies established in Phase 1 is similar to that established for light-duty vehicles due to the use of the same basic chassis test procedures.  The agencies are proposing to retain this approach for Phase 2.  To generate credits, manufacturers are required to submit data and a methodology for determining the level of credits for the off-cycle technology subject to EPA and NHTSA review and approval.  The application for off-cycle technology credits is also subject to a public evaluation process and comment period.  EPA and NHTSA would approve the methodology and credits only if certain criteria were met.  Baseline emissions and fuel consumption and control emissions and fuel consumption need to be clearly demonstrated over a wide range of real world driving conditions and over a sufficient number of vehicles to address issues of uncertainty with the data.  Data must be on a vehicle model-specific basis unless a manufacturer demonstrated model-specific data were not necessary.  Once a complete application is submitted by the manufacturer, the regulations require that the agencies publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register notifying the public of a manufacturer's proposed off-cycle credit calculation methodology and provide opportunity for comment.
As noted above, the approach finalized for HD pickups and vans paralleled provisions for off-cycle credits in the MY 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG program.  In the MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle program, EPA revised the off-cycle credits program for light-duty vehicles to streamline the credits process.  In addition to the process established in the MY 2012-2016 rule, EPA added a list or "menu" of pre-approved off-cycle technologies and associated credit levels.  Manufacturers may use the pre-defined off-cycle technology menu to generate light-duty vehicle credits by demonstrating at time of certification that the vehicles are equipped with the technology without providing additional test data.  Different levels of credits are provided for cars and light trucks in the light-duty program.  NHTSA also included these credits in the CAFE program (in gallons/mile equivalent) starting with MY 2017.  The list of pre-approved off-cycle technologies for light-duty vehicles is shown below.
Table VI-32 Pre-Approved Off-Cycle Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles
                           Pre-approved technologies
High Efficiency Exterior Lighting (at 100W)
Waste Heat Recovery (at 100W; scalable)
Solar Roof Panels (for 75 W, battery charging only)
Solar Roof Panels (for 75 W, active cabin ventilation plus battery charging)
Active Aerodynamic Improvements (scalable)
Engine Idle Start-Stop w/ heater circulation system
Engine Idle Start-Stop without/ heater circulation system
Active Transmission Warm-Up
Active Engine Warm-Up
Solar/Thermal Control

The agencies initially note that where vehicles are not chassis-certified, but rather evaluate compliance using the GEM simulation tool, with the proposed modifications to GEM, many more technologies (especially those related to engine and transmission improvements) will now be `on-cycle'  -  evaluated directly by the GEM compliance tool.  However, with respect to the proposed standards which would be chassis-certified  -  namely, the standards for heavy duty pickups and vans, the effectiveness of some technologies will be only partially captured (or not captured at all).  EPA and NHTSA are requesting comment on establishing a pre-defined technology menu list for HD pickups and vans.  The list for HD pickups and vans could include some or all of the technologies listed in Table VI-32.  As with the light-duty program, the pre-defined list may simplify the process for generating off-cycle credits and may further encourage the introduction of these technologies.  However, the appropriate default level of credits for the heavier vehicles would need to be established.  The agencies request comments with supporting HD pickup and van specific data and analysis that would provide a substantive basis for appropriate adjustments to the credits levels for the HD pickup and van category.  The data and analysis would need to demonstrate that the pre-defined credit level represents real-world emissions reductions and fuel consumption improvements not captured by the 2-cycle test procedures.
As with the light-duty vehicle program, the agencies would also consider including a cap on credits generated from a pre-defined list established for HD pickups and vans.  The cap for the light-duty vehicle program is 10 g/mile (and gallons/mi equivalent) applied on a manufacturer fleet-wide basis.  The 10 g/mile cap limits the total off-cycle credits allowed based on the pre-defined list across the manufacturer's light-duty vehicle fleet.  The agencies adopted the cap on credits to address issues of uncertainty regarding the level of credits automatically assigned to each technology.  Manufacturers able to demonstrate that a technology provides improvements beyond the menu credit level would be able to apply for additional credits through the individual demonstration process noted above.  Credits based on the individual manufacturer demonstration would not count against the credit cap. If a menu list of credits is developed to be included in the HD pickup and van program, a cap may also be appropriate depending on the technology list and credit levels. The agencies request comments on all aspects of the off-cycle credits program for HD trucks and vans.
Demonstrating Compliance for Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
The Phase 1 rule established a comprehensive compliance program for HD pickups and vans that NHTSA and EPA are generally retaining for Phase 2.  The compliance provisions cover details regarding the implementation of the fleet average standards including vehicle certification, demonstrating compliance at the end of the model year, in-use standards and testing, carryover of certification test data, and reporting requirements.  Please see Section V.B (1) of the Phase 1 rule preamble (76 FR 57256-57263) for a detailed discussion of these provisions.
The Phase 1 rule contains special provisions regarding loose engines and optional chassis certification of certain vocational vehicles over 14,000 lbs. GVWR.  The agencies are proposing to extend the optional chassis certification provisions to Phase 2 and are not proposing to extend the loose engine provisions.  See the vocational vehicle Section V.E. and XIV.A.2 for a detailed discussion of the proposal for optional chassis certification and II.D. for the discussion of loose engines.

Aggregate GHG, Fuel Consumption, and Climate Impacts
Given that the purpose of setting these Phase 2 standards is to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, it is necessary for the agencies to analyze the extent to which the proposed standards would accomplish that purpose.  This section describes the agencies' methodologies for projecting the reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption, and the methodologies the agencies used to quantify the impacts associated with the proposed standards, as well as the impacts of Alternative 4.  In addition, EPA's analyses of the projected change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and consequent climate change impacts are discussed.  Because of NHTSA's NEPA obligations, NHTSA further analyzes the projected environmental impacts related to fuel consumption, GHG emissions, and climate change resulting from its proposed rule and reasonable alternatives in Chapters 3 and 5 of its DEIS and refers the interested reader there for more information.
         What Methodologies Did the Agencies Use to Project GHG Emissions and Fuel Consumption Impacts?
 Different tools exist for estimating potential fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts associated with fuel efficiency and GHG emissions standards.  One such tool is EPA's official mobile source emissions inventory model named Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES).  The agencies used the most current version of the model, MOVES2014, to quantify the impacts of the proposed standards on GHG emissions and fuel consumption.  MOVES was run with user input databases, described in more detail below, that reflected the projected technological improvements resulting from the proposed rules, such as the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency, aerodynamic drag, and tire rolling resistance.
Another such tool is DOT's CAFE model, which estimates how manufacturers could potentially apply technology improvements in response to new standards, and then calculates, among other things, resultant changes in national fuel consumption and GHG emissions.  For today's analysis of potential new standards for HD pickups and vans, the model was reconfigured to use the work-based attribute metric of "work factor" established in the Phase 1 rule for heavy-duty pickups and vans instead of the light-duty "footprint" attribute metric.  The CAFE model takes user-specified inputs on, among other things, vehicles that will be produced in a given model year, technologies available to improve fuel efficiency on those vehicles, potential regulatory standards that would drive improvements in fuel efficiency, and economic assumptions.  The CAFE model takes every vehicle in each manufacturer's fleet and decides what technologies to add to those vehicles in order to allow each manufacturer to comply with the standards in the most cost-effective way.  Based on the resulting improved vehicle fleet, the CAFE model then calculates total fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts based on those inputs, along with economic costs and benefits.  The DOT's CAFE model is further described in detail in Section VI.C of the preamble and Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.
For this rule, the agencies conducted coordinated and complementary analyses by employing both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model.  These models were used to project fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts resulting from the proposed standards.  The agencies used EPA's MOVES model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for tractor-trailers (including the engines which power the vehicle), and vocational vehicles (including the engine which powers the vehicle).  For heavy-duty pickups and vans, the agencies performed complementary analyses using the CAFE model ("Method A") and the MOVES model ("Method B") to estimate fuel consumption and emissions from these vehicles.  For both methods, the agencies analyzed the impact of the proposed rules and Alternative 4, relative to two different reference cases  -  less dynamic and more dynamic.  The less dynamic baseline projects very little improvement in new vehicles in the absence of new Phase 2 standards.  In contrast, the more dynamic baseline projects more improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency.  The agencies considered both reference cases (for additional details, see Chapter 11 of the draft RIA).  The results for all of the regulatory alternatives relative to both reference cases, derived via the same methodologies discussed in this section, are presented in Section X of the preamble.
For brevity, a subset of these analyses are presented in this section, and the reader is referred to both the RIA Chapter 11 and NHTSA's DEIS Chapters 3 and 5 for complete sets of these analyses.  In this section, Method A is presented for both the proposed standards (i.e., Alternative 3 -- the agencies' preferred alternative) and for the standards the agencies considered in Alternative 4, relative to both the more dynamic baseline (Alternative 1b) and the less dynamic baseline (Alternative 1a).  Method B is presented also for the proposed standards and Alternative 4, but relative only to the less dynamic baseline.  The agencies' intention for presenting both of these complementary and coordinated analyses is to offer interested readers the opportunity to compare the regulatory alternatives considered for Phase 2 in both the context of our HD Phase 1 analytical approaches and our light-duty vehicle analytical approaches.  The agencies view these analyses as corroborative and reinforcing: both support agencies' conclusion that the proposed standards are appropriate and at the maximum feasible levels.
Because reducing fuel consumption also affects emissions that occur as a result of fuel production and distribution (including renewable fuels), the agencies also calculated those "upstream" changes using the "downstream" fuel consumption reductions predicted by the CAFE model and the MOVES model.  As described in Section VI, Method A uses the CAFE model to estimate fuel consumption and emissions impacts for HD pickups and vans and to calculate upstream fuel consumption improvements as well.  Method B uses the same upstream tools originally created for the Renewable Fuel Standard 2 (RFS2) rulemaking analysis, used in the LD GHG rulemakings, HD GHG Phase 1, and updated for the current analysis.  The estimate of emissions associated with production and distribution of gasoline and diesel from crude oil is based on emission factors in the "Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation" model (GREET) developed by DOE's Argonne National Lab.  In some cases, the GREET values were modified or updated by the agencies to be consistent with the National Emission Inventory (NEI) and emission factors from MOVES.  For additional details, see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.  The upstream tool used for the Method B can be found in the docket.  As noted in Section VI above, these analyses corroborate each other's results.
The agencies analyzed the anticipated emissions impacts of the proposed rules and Alternative 4 on carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) for a number of calendar years (for purposes of the discussion in this proposed rule, only 2025, 2035 and 2050 will be shown) by comparing to both reference cases.  Additional runs were performed for just the three of the greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and for fuel consumption for every calendar year from 2014 to 2050, inclusive, which fed the economy-wide modeling, monetized greenhouse gas benefits estimation, and climate impacts analyses, discussed in sections below.
         Analysis of Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions Impacts Resulting from Proposed Standards and Alternative 4
The following sections describe the model inputs and assumptions for both the less dynamic and more dynamic reference cases and the control case representing the agencies' proposed fuel efficiency and GHG standards.  For additional details, see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.  The details of all the MOVES runs, and input data tables can be found in the docket.   See Section VI.C for the discussion of the model inputs and assumptions for the analysis of the HD pickups and vans using DOT's CAFE Model.
Model Inputs and Assumptions for the Less Dynamic Reference Case
The less dynamic reference case (identified as Alternative 1a in Section X), includes the impact of Phase 1, but generally assumes that fuel efficiency and GHG emissions are not improved beyond the required 2018 model year levels.  Alternative 1a functions as one of the baselines against which the impacts of the proposed standards can be evaluated.  This case projects some improvements in the efficiency of the box trailers pulled by combination tractors due to increased penetration of aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires attributed to both EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership and California Air Resources Board's Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas regulation, as described in Section IV of the preamble.  For other HD vehicle sectors, no market-driven improvement in fuel efficiency was assumed.  For HD pickups and vans, the CAFE model was applied in a manner that assumes manufacturers would only add fuel-saving technology as needed to continue complying with Phase 1 standards.  MOVES2014 defaults were used for all other parameters to estimate the emissions inventories for this case.  The less dynamic reference case assumed the MOVES2014 default vehicle population and miles traveled estimates.  The growth in vehicle populations and miles traveled in MOVES2014 is based on the relative annual VMT growth from AEO2014 Early Release for model years 2012 and later.
Model Inputs and Assumptions for the More Dynamic Reference Case
The more dynamic reference case (identified as Alternative 1b in Section X), also includes the impact of Phase 1 and generally assumes that fuel efficiency and GHG emissions are not improved beyond the required 2018 model year levels.  However, for this case, the agencies assume market forces would lead to additional fuel efficiency improvements for HD pickups and vans and tractor-trailers.  These additional assumed improvements are described in Section X of the preamble.  No additional fuel efficiency improvements due to market forces were assumed for vocational vehicles.  For HD pickups and vans, the agencies applied the CAFE model using the input assumption that manufacturers having achieved compliance with Phase 1 standards would continue to apply technologies for which increased purchase costs would be "paid back" through corresponding fuel savings within the first six months of vehicle operation.  The agencies conducted the MOVES analysis of this case in the same manner as for the less dynamic reference case.
Model Inputs and Assumptions for "Control" Case
    Vocational Vehicles and Tractor-Trailers
The "control" case represents the agencies' proposed fuel efficiency and GHG standards.  The agencies developed additional user input data for MOVES runs to estimate the control case inventories.  The inputs to MOVES for the control case account for improvements of engine and vehicle efficiency in vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers.  The agencies used the percent reduction in aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance coefficients and absolute changes in average total running weight (gross combined weight) expected from the proposed rules to develop the road load inputs for the control case, based on the GEM analysis.  The agencies also used the percent reduction in CO2 emissions expected from the powertrain and other vehicle technologies not accounted for in the aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance in the proposed rules to develop energy inputs for the control case runs.
Table VII-1 and Table VII-2 describe the proposed improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency from the proposed rules for vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers that were input into MOVES for estimating the control case emissions inventories.  Additional details regarding the MOVES inputs are included in the Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
Table VII-1 Estimated Reductions in Energy Rates for the Proposed Standards
VEHICLE TYPE
FUEL
MODEL YEARS
REDUCTION FROM REFERENCE CASE
Long-haul Tractor-Trailers and HHD Vocational
Diesel
2018-2020
                                     1.3%

2021-2023
                                     5.2%

2024-2026
                                     9.7%

2027+
                                     10.4%
Short-haul Tractor-Trailers and HHD Vocational
Diesel
2018-2020
                                     0.9%

2021-2023
                                     5.0%

2024-2026
                                     9.5%

2027+
                                     10.4%
Single-Frame Vocational
Diesel and CNG

2021-2023
                                     5.3%

2024-2026
                                     8.9%

2027+
                                     13.3%

Gasoline

2021-2023
                                     3.3%

2024-2026
                                     5.4%

2027+
                                     10.3%

Table VII-2 Estimated Reductions in Road Load Factors for the Proposed Standards
VEHICLE TYPE
MODEL YEARS
               REDUCTION IN TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT
                   REDUCTION IN AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT
                            WEIGHT REDUCTION (LB)i
Combination Long-haul Tractor-Trailers
2018-2020
                                     5.5%
                                     5.1%
                                     -131

2021-2023
                                     9.8%
                                     15.3%
                                     -199

2024-2026
                                     15.7%
                                     20.5%
                                     -246

2027+
                                     17.9%
                                     26.9%
                                     -304
Combination Short-haul Tractor-Trailers
2018-2020
                                     4.0%
                                     1.6%
                                      -41

2021-2023
                                     10.5%
                                     9.3%
                                      -79

2024-2026
                                     13.9%
                                     12.3%
                                     -100

2027+
                                     17.6%
                                     15.9%
                                     -127
Intercity Buses
2021-2023
                                     6.5%
                                      0%
                                       0

2024-2026
                                     9.2%
                                      0%
                                       0

2027+
                                     16.5%
                                      0%
                                       0
Transit Buses
2021-2023
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                       0

2024-2026
                                     2.9%
                                      0%
                                       0

2027+
                                     3.0%
                                      0%
                                       0
School Buses
2021-2023
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                       0

2024-2026
                                     2.9%
                                      0%
                                       0

2027+
                                     4.0%
                                      0%
                                       0
Refuse Trucks
2021-2023
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      20

2024-2026
                                     2.9%
                                      0%
                                      20

2027+
                                     3.0%
                                      0%
                                      25
Single Unit Short-haul Trucks
2021-2023
                                     4.8%
                                      0%
                                      5.8

2024-2026
                                     8.3%
                                      0%
                                      5.8

2027+
                                     13.0%
                                      0%
                                       7
Single Unit Long-haul Trucks
2021-2023
                                     6.5%
                                      0%
                                      20

2024-2026
                                     9.2%
                                      0%
                                      20

2027+
                                     16.5%
                                      0%
                                      25
Motor Homes
2021-2023
                                     3.0%
                                      0%
                                       0

2024-2026
                                     6.2%
                                      0%
                                       0

2027+
                                     7.4%
                                      0%
                                       0
Note:
i Negative weight reductions reflect an expected weight increase as a byproduct of other vehicle and engine improvements, as described in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
In addition, the proposed CO2 standard for tractors reflecting the use of auxiliary power units (APU) during extended idling, as discussed in Section III.D of the preamble, was included in the modeling for the long-haul combination tractor-trailers, as shown below in Table VII-3.

Table VII-3 Assumed APU Use during Extended Idling for Combination Long-haul Tractor-Trailers
VEHICLE TYPE
MODEL YEAR
                              APU PENETRATION[i]
Combination Long-Haul Trucks
2010-2020
                                      30%

2021-2023
                                      80%

2024+
                                      90%
              Note:
              [i] The assumed APU penetration remains constant for model years 2024 and later.
To account for the potential increase in vehicle use expected to result from improvements in fuel efficiency for vocational vehicles and combination tractor-trailers due to the proposed rules (also known as the "rebound effect" and described in more detail in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA), the control case assumed an increase in VMT from the reference levels by 1.83 percent for the vocational vehicles and 0.79 percent for the combination tractor-trailers.
    Heavy-Duty Pickups and Vans
As explained above and as also discussed in the draft RIA, the agencies used both DOT's CAFE model and EPA's MOVES model, for Method A and B, respectively, to project fuel consumption and GHG emissions impacts resulting from the proposed standards for HD pickups and vans, including downstream vehicular emissions as well as emissions from upstream processes related to fuel production, distribution, and delivery.
Method A for HD Pickups and Vans
For Method A, the CAFE model calculated fuel consumption rates, then calculated vehicular CO2 emissions from the fuel consumption based on fuel properties (density and carbon content).   It also applies per-mile emission factors from MOVES to estimated VMT (for each regulatory alternative, adjusted to account for the rebound effect) in order to calculate vehicular CH4 and N2O emissions (as well, as discussed below, of non-GHG pollutants), and applies per-gallon upstream emission factors from GREET in order to calculate upstream GHG (and non-GHG) emissions.
As discussed above in Section VI, the proposed standards for HD pickups and vans -- that is, the functions defining fuel consumption and GHG targets that each depend work factor --  increase in stringency by 2.5 percent annually during model years 2021-2027.  The standards define targets specific to each vehicle model, but no vehicle is required to meet its target; instead, the production-weighted averages of the vehicle-specific targets define average fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates that a given manufacturer's overall fleet of produced vehicles is required to achieve.  The standards are specified separately for gasoline and diesel vehicles, and vary with work factor.  Work factors could change, and today's analysis assumes that some applications of mass reduction could enable increased work factor in cases where manufacturers could increase a vehicle's rated payload and/or towing capacity.  Therefore, average required levels will depend on the mix of vehicles and work factors of the vehicles produced for sale in the U.S., and since these can only be estimated at this time, average required and achieved fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates are subject to uncertainty.   Between today's notice and issuance of the ensuing final rule, the agencies intend to update the market forecast (and other inputs) used to analyze HD pickup and van standards, and expect that doing so will lead to different estimates of required and achieved fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates (as well as different estimates of impacts, costs, and benefits).
The following four tables present stringency increases and estimated required and achieved fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates for the two No Action Alternatives (Alternative 1a and 1b) and the proposed standards defining the Preferred Alternative.  Stringency increases are shown relative to standards applicable in model year 2018 (and through model year 2020).  As mathematical functions, the standards themselves are not subject to uncertainty.  By 2027, they are 16.2 percent more stringent (i.e., lower) than those applicable during 2018-2020.  The DOT's CAFE model estimates that, by model 2027, the proposed standards could reduce average required fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates to about 4.86 gallons/100 miles and about 458 grams/mile, respectively.  The model further estimates that average achieved fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates could correspondingly be reduced to about the same levels.  If, as represented by Alternative 1b, manufacturers would, even absent today's proposed standards, voluntarily make improvements that pay back within six months, these model year 2027 levels are about 13.5 percent lower than the agencies estimate could be achieved under the Phase 1 standards defining the No Action Alternative.  If, as represented by Alternative 1a, manufacturers would, absent today's proposed standards, only apply technology as required to achieve compliance, these model year 2027 levels are about 15 percent lower than the agencies estimate could be achieved under the Phase 1 standards.  As indicated below, the agencies estimate that these improvements in fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates would build from model year to model year, beginning as soon as model year 2017 (insofar as manufacturers may make anticipatory improvements if warranted given planned produce cadence).
Table VII-4 Stringency of HD Pickup and Van Standards, Estimated Average Required and Achieved Fuel Consumption Rates for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1b
                                  Model Year
                             Stringency (vs. 2018)
                    Ave. Required Fuel Cons. (gal./100 mi.)
                    Ave. Achieved Fuel Cons. (gal./100 mi.)

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                  MYs 2014-2020 Subject to Phase 1 Standards
                                     6.41
                                     6.41
                                     0.0%
                                     6.21
                                     6.21
                                     0.0%
2015

                                     6.41
                                     6.41
                                     0.0%
                                     6.12
                                     6.12
                                     0.0%
2016

                                     6.27
                                     6.27
                                     0.0%
                                     6.15
                                     6.15
                                     0.0%
2017

                                     6.11
                                     6.11
                                     0.0%
                                     5.89
                                     5.88
                                     0.2%
2018

                                     5.80
                                     5.80
                                     0.0%
                                     5.75
                                     5.70
                                     0.8%
2019

                                     5.78
                                     5.78
                                     0.0%
                                     5.72
                                     5.68
                                     0.7%
2020

                                     5.78
                                     5.78
                                     0.0%
                                     5.69
                                     5.64
                                     0.8%
2021
                                     2.5%
                                     5.77
                                     5.64
                                     2.2%
                                     5.63
                                     5.42
                                     3.8%
2022
                                     4.9%
                                     5.77
                                     5.50
                                     4.7%
                                     5.63
                                     5.42
                                     3.8%
2023
                                     7.3%
                                     5.77
                                     5.38
                                     6.8%
                                     5.63
                                     5.28
                                     6.3%
2024
                                     9.6%
                                     5.77
                                     5.25
                                     9.0%
                                     5.63
                                     5.23
                                     7.1%
2025
                                     11.9%
                                     5.77
                                     5.12
                                     11.4%
                                     5.63
                                     4.99
                                     11.5%
2026
                                     14.1%
                                     5.77
                                     4.98
                                     13.7%
                                     5.63
                                     4.93
                                     12.5%
2027
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.62
                                     4.86
                                     13.7%
2028*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.62
                                     4.86
                                     13.7%
2029*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.62
                                     4.85
                                     13.7%
2030*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.62
                                     4.85
                                     13.7%
Note:
*Absent further action, standards assumed to continue unchanged after model year 2027.
Table VII-5 Stringency of HD Pickup and Van Standards, Estimated Average Required and Achieved CO2 Emission Rates for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1b
                                  Model Year
                             Stringency (vs. 2018)
                        Ave. Required CO2 Rate (g./mi.)
                        Ave. Achieved CO2 Rate (g./mi.)

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                  MYs 2014-2020 Subject to Phase 1 Standards
                                      602
                                      602
                                     0.0%
                                      581
                                      581
                                     0.0%
2015

                                      608
                                      608
                                     0.0%
                                      578
                                      578
                                     0.0%
2016

                                      593
                                      593
                                     0.0%
                                      580
                                      580
                                     0.0%
2017

                                      578
                                      578
                                     0.0%
                                      556
                                      554
                                     0.2%
2018

                                      548
                                      548
                                     0.0%
                                      543
                                      538
                                     0.8%
2019

                                      545
                                      545
                                     0.0%
                                      539
                                      535
                                     0.7%
2020

                                      545
                                      545
                                     0.0%
                                      536
                                      532
                                     0.8%
2021
                                     2.5%
                                      544
                                      532
                                     2.2%
                                      530
                                      510
                                     3.8%
2022
                                     4.9%
                                      544
                                      519
                                     4.7%
                                      530
                                      510
                                     3.8%
2023
                                     7.3%
                                      544
                                      507
                                     6.8%
                                      530
                                      496
                                     6.4%
2024
                                     9.6%
                                      544
                                      495
                                     9.1%
                                      530
                                      492
                                     7.2%
2025
                                     11.9%
                                      544
                                      482
                                     11.3%
                                      530
                                      470
                                     11.3%
2026
                                     14.1%
                                      544
                                      470
                                     13.6%
                                      530
                                      465
                                     12.3%
2027
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      529
                                      458
                                     13.4%
2028*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      529
                                      458
                                     13.4%
2029*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      529
                                      458
                                     13.5%
2030*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      529
                                      458
                                     13.5%

Note:
*Absent further action, standards assumed to continue unchanged after model year 2027.
Table VII-6 Stringency of HD Pickup and Van Standards, Estimated Average Required and Achieved Fuel Consumption Rates for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1a
                                  Model Year
                             Stringency (vs. 2018)
                    Ave. Required Fuel Cons. (gal./100 mi.)
                    Ave. Achieved Fuel Cons. (gal./100 mi.)

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                  MYs 2014-2020 Subject to Phase 1 Standards
                                     6.41
                                     6.41
                                     0.0%
                                     6.21
                                     6.21
                                     0.0%
2015

                                     6.41
                                     6.41
                                     0.0%
                                     6.12
                                     6.12
                                     0.0%
2016

                                     6.27
                                     6.27
                                     0.0%
                                     6.15
                                     6.15
                                     0.0%
2017

                                     6.11
                                     6.11
                                     0.0%
                                     5.89
                                     5.87
                                     0.3%
2018

                                     5.80
                                     5.80
                                    -0.1%**
                                     5.75
                                     5.70
                                     0.9%
2019

                                     5.78
                                     5.78
                                     0.0%
                                     5.73
                                     5.68
                                     0.8%
2020

                                     5.78
                                     5.78
                                     0.0%
                                     5.73
                                     5.68
                                     0.8%
2021
                                     2.5%
                                     5.77
                                     5.64
                                     2.3%
                                     5.72
                                     5.44
                                     4.8%
2022
                                     4.9%
                                     5.77
                                     5.50
                                     4.7%
                                     5.72
                                     5.44
                                     4.8%
2023
                                     7.3%
                                     5.77
                                     5.38
                                     6.8%
                                     5.72
                                     5.29
                                     7.6%
2024
                                     9.6%
                                     5.77
                                     5.25
                                     9.1%
                                     5.72
                                     5.23
                                     8.5%
2025
                                     11.9%
                                     5.77
                                     5.12
                                     11.4%
                                     5.72
                                     4.98
                                     12.9%
2026
                                     14.1%
                                     5.77
                                     4.98
                                     13.7%
                                     5.72
                                     4.94
                                     13.6%
2027
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.72
                                     4.87
                                     14.9%
2028*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.72
                                     4.87
                                     14.9%
2029*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.72
                                     4.86
                                     15.0%
2030*
                                     16.2%
                                     5.77
                                     4.86
                                     15.8%
                                     5.72
                                     4.86
                                     15.0%
Notes:
*Absent further action, standards assumed to continue unchanged after model year 2027.
**Increased work factor for some vehicles produces a slight increase in average required fuel consumption.

Table VII-7 Stringency of HD Pickup and Van Standards, Estimated Average Required and Achieved CO2 Emission Rates for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1a
                                  Model Year
                             Stringency (vs. 2018)
                        Ave. Required CO2 Rate (g./mi.)
                        Ave. Achieved CO2 Rate (g./mi.)

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                  MYs 2014-2020 Subject to Phase 1 Standards
                                      602
                                      602
                                     0.0%
                                      581
                                      581
                                     0.0%
2015

                                      608
                                      608
                                     0.0%
                                      578
                                      578
                                     0.0%
2016

                                      593
                                      593
                                     0.0%
                                      580
                                      580
                                     0.0%
2017

                                      578
                                      578
                                     0.0%
                                      556
                                      554
                                     0.3%
2018

                                      548
                                      548
                                    -0.1%**
                                      543
                                      538
                                     0.9%
2019

                                      545
                                      546
                                    -0.1%**
                                      539
                                      535
                                     0.8%
2020

                                      545
                                      545
                                    -0.1%**
                                      539
                                      535
                                     0.8%
2021
                                     2.5%
                                      544
                                      532
                                     2.2%
                                      538
                                      512
                                     4.9%
2022
                                     4.9%
                                      544
                                      519
                                     4.7%
                                      538
                                      512
                                     4.9%
2023
                                     7.3%
                                      544
                                      507
                                     6.8%
                                      538
                                      497
                                     7.7%
2024
                                     9.6%
                                      544
                                      495
                                     9.1%
                                      538
                                      492
                                     8.6%
2025
                                     11.9%
                                      544
                                      482
                                     11.4%
                                      538
                                      470
                                     12.7%
2026
                                     14.1%
                                      544
                                      470
                                     13.6%
                                      538
                                      466
                                     13.4%
2027
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      538
                                      459
                                     14.7%
2028*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      538
                                      459
                                     14.7%
2029*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      538
                                      459
                                     14.8%
2030*
                                     16.2%
                                      544
                                      458
                                     15.8%
                                      538
                                      459
                                     14.8%
Notes:
*Absent further action, standards assumed to continue unchanged after model year 2027.
**Increased work factor for some vehicles produces a slight increase in the average required CO2 emission rate.
While the above tables show the agencies' estimates of average fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates manufacturers might achieve under today's proposed standards, total U.S. fuel consumption and GHG emissions from HD pickups and vans will also depend on how many of these vehicles are produced, and how they are operated over their useful lives.  Relevant to estimating these outcomes, the CAFE model applies vintage-specific estimates of vehicle survival and mileage accumulation, and adjusts the latter to account for the rebound effect.  This impact of the rebound effect is specific to each model year (and, underlying, to each vehicle model in each model year), varying with changes in achieved fuel consumption rates.

Method B for HD Pickups and Vans

For Method B, the MOVES model was used to estimate fuel consumption and GHG emissions for HD pickups and vans.  MOVES evaluated the proposed standards for HD pickup trucks and vans in terms of grams of CO2 per mile or gallons of fuel per 100 miles.  Since nearly all HD pickup trucks and vans are certified on a chassis dynamometer, the CO2 reductions for these vehicles were not represented as engine and road load reduction components, but rather as total vehicle CO2 reductions.  The control case for HD pickups and vans assumed an increase in VMT from the reference levels by 1.18 percent for HD pickups and vans.

Table VII-8 Estimated Total Vehicle CO2 Reductions for the Proposed Standards and In-Use Emissions for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans in Method B
VEHICLE TYPE
FUEL
MODEL YEAR
                       CO2 REDUCTION FROM REFERENCE CASE
HD pickup trucks and vans
Gasoline and Diesel
2021
                                     2.50%

2022
                                     4.94%

2023
                                     7.31%

2024
                                     9.63%

2025
                                    11.89%

2026
                                    14.09%

2027+
                                    16.24%

         What Are the Projected Reductions in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions?
NHTSA and EPA expect significant reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption from the proposed rules  -  fuel consumption reductions from more efficient vehicles, emission reductions from both downstream (tailpipe) and upstream (fuel production and distribution) sources, and HFC emissions from the proposed air conditioning leakage standards.  The following subsections summarize two slightly different analyses of the annual GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions expected from these proposed rules, as well as the reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption expected over the lifetime of each heavy-duty vehicle categories.  In addition, because the agencies are carefully considering Alternative 4 along with Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, the results from both are presented here for the reader's reference.  Section VII. C. (1) shows the impacts of the proposed rules and Alternative 4 on fuel consumption and GHG emissions using the MOVES model for tractor-trailers and vocational vehicles, and the DOT's CAFE model for HD pickups and vans (Method A), relative to two different reference cases  -  less dynamic and more dynamic.  Section VII. C. (2) shows the impacts of the proposed standards and Alternative 4, relative to the less dynamic reference case only, using the MOVES model for all heavy-duty vehicle categories.  NHTSA also analyzes these impacts resulting from the proposed rule and reasonable alternatives in Chapters 3 and 5 of its DEIS.
Impacts of the Proposed Rules and Alternative 4 using Analysis Method A
Downstream (Tailpipe) Emissions Projections
As described in Section VII. A, the Method A used MOVES to estimate downstream GHG inventories from the proposed rules for vocational vehicles and tractor-trailers.  For HD pickups and vans, DOT's CAFE model was used.
The following two tables summarize the agencies' estimates of HD pickup and van fuel consumption and GHG emissions under the current and proposed standards defining the No-Action and Preferred alternatives, respectively.  The first shows results assuming manufacturers would voluntarily make improvements that pay back within six months (i.e., Alternative 1b).  The second shows results assuming manufacturers would only make improvements as needed to achieve compliance with standards (i.e., Alternative 1a).  While underlying calculations are all performed for each calendar year during each vehicle's useful life, presentation of outcomes on a model year basis aligns more clearly with consideration of cost impacts in each model year, and with consideration of standards specified on a model year basis.  In addition, the agencies performed explicit analysis of manufacturers' potential responses to HD pickup and van standards on a model year basis through 2030, and any longer-term costs presented in today's notice represent extrapolation of these results absent any underlying analysis of longer-term technology prospects and manufacturers' longer-term product offerings.
Table VII-9 Estimated Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions over Useful Life of Vehicles Produced in Each Model year for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1b
Model Year
                          Fuel Consumption (b. gal.)
                          over Fleet's Useful Life
                           GHG Emissions (MMT CO2eq)
                          over Fleet's Useful Life

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                                     9.41
                                     9.41
                                     0.0%
                                      115
                                      115
                                     0.0%
2015
                                     9.53
                                     9.53
                                     0.0%
                                      117
                                      117
                                     0.0%
2016
                                     9.72
                                     9.72
                                     0.0%
                                      119
                                      119
                                     0.0%
2017
                                     9.49
                                     9.47
                                     0.2%
                                      116
                                      116
                                     0.2%
2018
                                     9.26
                                     9.19
                                     0.7%
                                      113
                                      113
                                     0.7%
2019
                                     9.20
                                     9.14
                                     0.7%
                                      113
                                      112
                                     0.7%
2020
                                     9.19
                                     9.12
                                     0.7%
                                      112
                                      112
                                     0.7%
2021
                                     9.10
                                     8.79
                                     3.4%
                                      111
                                      107
                                     3.4%
2022
                                     9.13
                                     8.82
                                     3.4%
                                      112
                                      108
                                     3.4%
2023
                                     9.11
                                     8.59
                                     5.7%
                                      111
                                      105
                                     5.7%
2024
                                     9.32
                                     8.72
                                     6.4%
                                      114
                                      107
                                     6.4%
2025
                                     9.49
                                     8.49
                                     10.5%
                                      116
                                      104
                                     10.4%
2026
                                     9.67
                                     8.56
                                     11.5%
                                      118
                                      105
                                     11.3%
2027
                                     9.78
                                     8.55
                                     12.6%
                                      120
                                      105
                                     12.3%
2028
                                     9.90
                                     8.66
                                     12.6%
                                      121
                                      106
                                     12.3%
2029
                                     10.02
                                     8.75
                                     12.6%
                                      122
                                      107
                                     12.4%
2030
                                     10.03
                                     8.76
                                     12.6%
                                      123
                                      107
                                     12.4%

Table VII-10 Estimated Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions over Useful Life of Vehicles Produced in Each Model year for Method A, Relative to Alternative 1a
Model Year
                          Fuel Consumption (b. gal.)
                          over Fleet's Useful Life
                           GHG Emissions (MMT CO2eq)
                          over Fleet's Useful Life

                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
                                   No Action
                                   Proposed
                                   Reduction
2014
                                     9.41
                                     9.41
                                     0.0%
                                      115
                                      115
                                     0.0%
2015
                                     9.53
                                     9.53
                                     0.0%
                                      117
                                      117
                                     0.0%
2016
                                     9.72
                                     9.72
                                     0.0%
                                      119
                                      119
                                     0.0%
2017
                                     9.49
                                     9.46
                                     0.3%
                                      116
                                      116
                                     0.3%
2018
                                     9.27
                                     9.19
                                     0.8%
                                      114
                                      113
                                     0.8%
2019
                                     9.20
                                     9.14
                                     0.7%
                                      113
                                      112
                                     0.7%
2020
                                     9.25
                                     9.18
                                     0.7%
                                      113
                                      112
                                     0.8%
2021
                                     9.23
                                     8.82
                                     4.4%
                                      113
                                      108
                                     4.4%
2022
                                     9.26
                                     8.85
                                     4.4%
                                      113
                                      108
                                     4.4%
2023
                                     9.23
                                     8.60
                                     6.9%
                                      113
                                      105
                                     6.9%
2024
                                     9.45
                                     8.72
                                     7.7%
                                      116
                                      107
                                     7.7%
2025
                                     9.62
                                     8.48
                                     11.8%
                                      118
                                      104
                                     11.7%
2026
                                     9.81
                                     8.58
                                     12.5%
                                      120
                                      105
                                     12.3%
2027
                                     9.93
                                     8.57
                                     13.7%
                                      121
                                      105
                                     13.5%
2028
                                     10.05
                                     8.68
                                     13.7%
                                      123
                                      106
                                     13.5%
2029
                                     10.17
                                     8.77
                                     13.7%
                                      124
                                      108
                                     13.5%
2030
                                     10.18
                                     8.78
                                     13.7%
                                      124
                                      108
                                     13.5%
To more clearly communicate these trends visually, the following two charts present the above results graphically for Method A, relative to Alternative 1b.  As shown, fuel consumption and GHG emissions follow parallel though not precisely identical paths.  Though not presented, charts for Alternative 1a would appear sufficiently similar that differences between Alternative 1a and Alternative 1b remain best communicated by comparing values in the above tables.

Figure VII-7: Fuel Consumption (b. gal.) over Useful Life of HD Pickups and Vans Produced in Each Model Year for Method A

Figure VII-8: GHG Emissions (MMT CO2eq) over Useful Life of HD Pickups and Vans Produced in Each Model Year for Method A

Table VII-11 Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)[9]
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-12 Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-13: Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)[9]
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-14 Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-15 Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  - Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)[9]
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-16: Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-17 Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)[9]
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-18 Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025

2035

2050

Upstream (Fuel Production and Distribution) Emissions Projections
Table VII-19 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-20 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-21 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

Table VII-22 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025

2035

2050

HFC Emissions Projections
The projected HFC emission reductions due to the proposed AC leakage standards are 93,272 metric tons of CO2eq in 2025, 253,118 metric tons of CO2eq in 2035, and 299,590 metric tons CO2eq in 2050.

Total (Downstream + Upstream + HFC) Emissions Projections

Table VII-23 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream

Upstream

HFC
                                     0.09
                                     0.25
                                      0.3
Total

Table VII-24 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream

Upstream

HFC
                                     0.09
                                     0.25
                                      0.3
Total

Table VII-25 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream

Upstream

HFC
                                     0.09
                                     0.25
                                      0.3
Total

Table VII-26 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream

Upstream

HFC
                                     0.09
                                     0.25
                                      0.3
Total

    Model Year Lifetime Analysis
Table VII-27 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029

Table VII-28 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029

Table VII-29 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1b using Analysis Method A
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029

Table VII-30 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method A
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029

Impacts of the Proposed Rules and Alternative 4 using Analysis Method B
    Calendar Year Analysis
Downstream (Tailpipe) Emissions Projections
As described in Section VII. A., the Method B used MOVES to estimate downstream GHG inventories from the proposed rules and Alternative 4 relative to Alternative 1a for all heavy-duty vehicle categories (including the engines associated with tractor-trailer combinations and vocational vehicles).  The agencies expect reductions in CO2 emissions from all heavy-duty vehicle categories due to engine and vehicle improvements.  We expect N2O emissions to increase very slightly because of a rebound in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  However, since N2O is produced as a byproduct of fuel combustion, the increase in N2O emissions is expected to be more than offset by the improvements in fuel efficiency from the proposed rules.  We expect methane emissions to decrease primarily due to reduced refueling from improved fuel efficiency and the differences in hydrocarbon emission characteristics between on-road diesel engines and APUs.  The amount of methane emitted as a fraction of total hydrocarbons is expected to be significantly less for APUs than for on-road diesel engines during extended idling.  Overall, the downstream GHG emissions would be reduced significantly and are described in the following subsections.
Since fuel consumption is not directly modeled in MOVES, the total energy consumption was run as a surrogate in MOVES.  Then, the total energy consumption was converted to fuel consumption based on the fuel heating values assumed in the Renewable Fuels Standard rulemaking and used in the development of MOVES emission and energy rates.
Table VII-31 and Table VII-32 show the impacts on downstream GHG emissions and fuel savings in 2025, 2035 and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a, for the preferred alternative and Alternative 4, respectively.  Table VII-33 and Table VII-34 show the estimated fuel savings from the preferred alternative and Alternative 4 in 2025, 2035, and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a.  For both GHG emissions and fuel savings, the annual impacts are greater for Alternative 4 than the preferred alternative in earlier years, but the differences become indistinguishable by 2050.  The results from the comparable analyses relative to Alternative 1b are presented in Section VII. C. (1).
Table VII-31 Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025
                                     -27.0
                                     -0.4
                                     0.002
                                     -27.4
2035
                                     -93.7
                                     -1.0
                                     0.004
                                     -94.7
2050
                                    -135.1
                                     -1.4
                                     0.005
                                    -136.5
Table VII-32 Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
CO2
(MMT)
CH4
(MMT CO2eq)
N2O
(MMT CO2eq)
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM (MMT CO2eq)
2025
                                     -33.3
                                     -0.4
                                     0.002
                                     -33.7
2035
                                     -97.3
                                     -1.0
                                     0.004
                                     -98.3
2050
                                    -135.5
                                     -1.4
                                     0.005
                                    -136.9
Table VII-33 Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025
                                      2.5
                                      0.2
2035
                                      8.5
                                      0.8
2050
                                     12.3
                                      1.1

Table VII-34 Annual Fuel Savings in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                                DIESEL SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
                               GASOLINE SAVINGS
                               (Billion Gallons)
2025
                                      3.1
                                      0.3
2035
                                      8.8
                                      0.9
2050
                                     12.3
                                      1.1

Upstream (Fuel Production and Distribution) Emissions Projections
The upstream GHG emission reductions associated with the production and distribution of gasoline and diesel from crude oil were based on emission factors from DOE's "Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation" (GREET) model.  In some cases, the GREET values were modified or updated by the agencies to be consistent with EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and emission factors from MOVES.   More information regarding these modifications can be found in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. These estimates show the impacts for domestic emission reductions only.  Additionally, since this rulemaking is not expected to impact biofuel volumes mandated by the Annual Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) regulations, the impacts on upstream emissions from changes in biofuel feedstock (i.e., agricultural sources such as fertilizer, fugitive dust, and livestock) are not shown.  GHG emission reductions from upstream sources can be found in Table VII-35 and Table VII-36 for preferred alternative and Alternative 4, respectively.
Table VII-35 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025
                                     -8.4
                                     -0.9
                                     -0.04
                                     -9.3
2035
                                     -29.1
                                     -3.0
                                     -0.14
                                     -32.2
2050
                                     -41.9
                                     -4.4
                                     -0.20
                                     -46.5
Table VII-36 Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                                      CO2
                                     (MMT)
                                      CH4
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                      N2O
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
                                TOTAL UPSTREAM
                                  (MMT CO2eq)
2025
                                     -10.4
                                     -1.0
                                     -0.1
                                     -11.5
2035
                                     -30.1
                                     -3.2
                                     -0.1
                                     -33.4
2050
                                     -42.0
                                     -4.4
                                     -0.2
                                     -46.6

HFC Emissions Projections
Based on projected HFC emission reductions due to the proposed AC leakage standards, EPA estimates the HFC reductions to be 93,272 metric tons of CO2eq in 2025, 253,118 metric tons of CO2eq in 2035, and 299,590 metric tons CO2eq in 2050, as detailed in Chapters 5.3.4 of the draft RIA.
Total (Downstream + Upstream + HFC) Emissions Projections
Table VII-37 combines the impacts of the preferred alternative from downstream (Table VII-31), upstream (Table VII-35), and HFC to summarize the total GHG reductions in calendar years 2025, 2035 and 2050, relative to Alternative 1a.  The combined impact of Alternative 4 on total GHG emissions are shown in Table VII-38.  Because of the differences in lead time, as expected, Alternative 4 shows greater annual GHG reductions in earlier years (i.e., calendar year 2025), but by 2050, the preferred alternative and Alternative 4 show the same magnitude of reductions in annual GHG emissions.
Table VII-37 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream
                                     -27.4
                                     -94.7
                                    -136.5
Upstream
                                     -9.3
                                     -32.2
                                     -46.5
HFC
                                     -0.1
                                     -0.25
                                     -0.3
Total
                                     -36.8
                                    -127.2
                                    -183.3
Table VII-38 Annual Total GHG Emissions Impacts in Calendar Years 2025, 2035 and 2050  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
CY
                               2025 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2035 (MMT CO2eq)
                               2050 (MMT CO2eq)
Downstream
                                     -33.7
                                     -98.3
                                    -136.9
Upstream
                                     -11.5
                                     -33.4
                                     -46.6
HFC
                                     -0.1
                                     -0.25
                                     -0.3
Total
                                     -45.3
                                    -132.0
                                    -183.8

    Model Year Lifetime Analysis
In addition to the annual GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions expected from the proposed rules, the downstream GHG and fuel consumption impacts for the lifetime of the impacted vehicles were estimated.  Table VII-39 and Table VII-40 show the fleet-wide GHG reductions and fuel savings from the preferred alternative and Alternative 4, relative to Alternative 1a, through the lifetime of heavy-duty vehicles.  Compared to the preferred alternative, Alternative 4 shows greater lifetime GHG reductions and fuels savings by 12 percent and 13 percent, respectively.  For the lifetime GHG reductions and fuel savings by vehicle categories, see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
Table VII-39 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Preferred Alternative vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method B
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029
                                     772.6
                                     75.8
Table VII-40 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings  -  Alternative 4 vs. Alt 1a using Analysis Method
MODEL YEARS
                     DOWNSTREAM GHG REDUCTIONS (MMT CO2eq)
                        FUEL SAVINGS
(Billion Gallons)
2018-2029