Perhaps the most practical and basic method of verifying that a vehicle is in its certified configuration is through a vehicle emissions control information label, similar to that used for engines and light-duty vehicles.  We proposed that this label  list identifying features of the vehicle, including model year, vehicle model, certified engine family, vehicle manufacturer, test group, and GHG emissions category.  In addition, this label would list emission-related components that an inspector could reference in the event of a field inspection.  Possible examples may include LRR (for LRR tires), ARF (aerodynamic roof fairing), and ARM (aerodynamic rearview mirrors). With this information, inspectors could verify the presence and condition of attributes listed as part of the certified configuration.
     Several comments were received voicing concern that the large number of vehicle permutations within a given vehicle family (and perhaps vehicle subfamily) would lead to a large number of unique labels, at significant cost and labor burden to the manufacturer. In addition, including generic emission control system (EC) identifiers for vehicles would add a significant burden while providing little usable information for inspectors. A common example given in the comments was that simply identifying "ARF" for a roof fairing would not be sufficiently detailed for an inspector to know whether the correct roof fairing is present.  As a result of these concerns, commenters suggested that vehicle labels only include a minimal amount of information such as a compliance statement, vehicle family name, and date of manufacture.
     The agencies generally agree with the concerns raised by the commenters and do not wish to add burdensome and arbitrary labeling requirements.  Concurrently, we also remain committed to giving agency inspectors adequate tools to ensure a vehicle is in its certification at least at the time of sale. Therefore, we are finalizing a vehicle label requirement that includes:
     -Compliance statement
     -Vehicle manufacture
     -Vehicle family (and subfamily)
     -Date of manufacture
     -Regulatory subcategory
     -Emission control system identifiers
     To address the concerns from vehicle manufacturers identified above, particularly related to emission control (EC) identifiers, we believe a combination of selectable information on the label as well as a set of EPA-defined EC identifiers will provide a useful, but not overly burdensome labeling scheme.  Since the intent of these identifiers is to provide inspectors with a means for simply verifying the presence of a component, we do not believe overly detailed identifiers are necessary, particularly for tires and aerodynamic components.  For instance, current engine regulations require that three-way catalysts be identified on engine labels as "TWC." However, unique details such as catalyst size, loading, location, and even the number of catalysts are not on the label. In similar fashion, we believe that identifying tires and aerodynamic components in a general sense will prove similarly effective in determining if a vehicle has been built as intended or if it has been modified prior to being offered for sale.
     EPA is requiring that limited aerodynamic components (roof fairings, side skirts, & gap reducers), vehicle speed limiters, LRR tires, and idle reduction components be identified on the label.  The following identifiers must be used for the emission control label:
     Vehicle Speed Limiters
     	-VSL  -  Vehicle speed limiter
     	-VSLS  -  "Soft-top" vehicle speed limiter
     	-VSLE  -  Expiring vehicle speed limiter
     	-VSLD  -  Vehicle speed limiter with both "soft-top" and expiration
     Idle Reduction Technology
     	-IRT5  -  Engine shutoff after 5 minutes or less of idling
     Tires
     	-LRRA  -  Low rolling resistance tires (all)
-LRRD  -  Low rolling resistance tires (drive)
-LRRS  -  Low rolling resistance tires (steer)
     Aerodynamic Components
     	-ATS  -  Aerodynamic side skirt and/or fuel tank fairing
     	-ARF  -  Aerodynamic roof fairing
     	-ARFR  -  Adjustable height aerodynamic roof fairing
     	-TGR  -  Gap reducing fairing (tractor to trailer gap)
     On the vehicle label, several (if not all), available EC identifiers available in a given subfamily can be listed and the appropriate selections can be made at the time of assembly based on each unique vehicle configuration. This practice is common on engine ECI labels (normally for month/year of manufacture) and selections are made using a punch, stamp, check mark or other permanent method. This provides inspectors with the information they need while still affording flexibility to manufacturers with several unique vehicle configurations.
     At the time of certification, manufacturers will be required to submit an example of their vehicle emission control label such that EPA can verify that all critical elements mentioned above are present. In addition to the label, manufacturers will also need to describe where the unique vehicle identification number and date of production can be found on the vehicle (if the date is not present on the label)
     The agencies received several comments requesting the inclusion of consumer-focused labels for heavy-duty vehicles.  These requests mainly involved labels similar to that found on passenger vehicles, allowing consumers to easily determine and compare fuel efficiency between vehicles. While we agree that such labels proven to be valuable to consumers in the light-duty market when shopping and comparing vehicles, the vast array of in-use drive cycles for heavy-duty vehicles and significant impact on GHG emissions reduce the intrinsic value of such fuel efficiency data to consumers. Additionally, many heavy-duty vehicles are unique and purpose-built which prevents direct comparison to other vehicles. The agencies may revisit this topic for future rulemaking activities, however there is no consumer label requirement for this final action.
Other Certification Provisions
Warranty
Section 207 of the CAA requires manufacturers to warrant their products to be free from defects that would otherwise cause non-compliance with emission standards.  For purposes of this regulation, vehicle manufacturers must warrant all components installed which act to reduce CO2 emissions at the time of initial sale.  This includes all aerodynamic features, tires, idle reduction systems, speed limiting system, and other equipment added to reduce CO2 emissions. In addition, the manufacturer must ensure these components and systems remain functional for the warranty period defined in 40 CFR Part 86 for the engine used in the vehicle, generally defined as half of the regulatory useful life. As with heavy-duty engines, manufacturers may offer a more generous warranty, however the emissions related warranty may not be shorter than any other warranty offered without charge for the vehicle.  If aftermarket components are installed (unrelated to emissions performance) which offer a longer warranty, this will not impact emission related warranty obligations of the vehicle manufacturer.
Several comments were received from vehicle manufacturers voicing concern that tire warranties should be the responsibility of the tire manufacturer, not the vehicle manufacturer.  It has been, and remains, agency policy to hold the certifying entities responsible for warranty obligations. In this case, tire manufacturers are not certificate holders and therefore we do not believe it is appropriate for them to independently warrant their products. We see this as no different than requiring turbocharger or fuel injector manufacturers to provide warranties related to heavy-duty engines.  However, we do believe that vehicle manufacturers can and should hold tire manufacturers responsible for warranty of their products as part of their sourcing and purchasing agreements.  As proposed in the NPRM, tires are only required to be warranted for the first life of the tires (vehicle manufacturers are not expected to cover replacement tires).  The vehicle manufacturer is also required to warrant the A/C system  against design or manufacturing defects causing refrigerant leakage in excess of the standard. The warranty period for the A/C system is identical to the vehicle warranty period as described above.
At the time of certification, manufacturers must supply a copy of the warranty statement that will be supplied to the end customer.  This document should outline what is covered under the GHG emissions related warranty as well as the length of coverage.  Customers must also have clear access to the terms of the warranty, the repair network, and the process for obtaining warranty service.
Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to outline maintenance schedules that ensure their product will remain in compliance with emission standards throughout the useful life of the vehicle.  For heavy-duty vehicles, such maintenance may include fluid/lubricant service, fairing adjustments, or service to the GHG emission control system. This schedule is required to be submitted as part of the application for certification. Maintenance that is deemed to be critical to ensuring compliance with emission standards is classified as "critical emission-related maintenance." Generally, manufacturers are discouraged from specifying that critical emission-related maintenance is needed within the regulatory useful life of the engine. However, if such maintenance is unavoidable, manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for ensuring it is performed at the correct time. This may be demonstrated through several methods including survey data indicating that at least 80% of engines receive the required maintenance in-use or manufacturers may provide the maintenance at no charge to the user.
Manufacturers will be required to submit the recommended emission-related maintenance schedule (and other service related documentation) at the time of certification.  This documentation should provide sufficient detail to allow the owner/operator of the vehicle to maintain the emission control system in a way that will ensure functionality as intended. This would include items such as periodic inspection of aerodynamic components and maintenance unique to advanced or innovative technologies. In addition, these instructions should provide the owner/operator with adequate information to replace consumable components (such as tires) with comparable replacements.
Since low rolling resistance tires are key emission control components under this rule, and will likely require replacement at multiple points within the life of a vehicle, it is logical to clarify how this fits into the emission-related maintenance requirements.  While the agencies encourage the exclusive use of LRR tires throughout the life of heavy-duty vehicles, we recognize that it is inappropriate at this time to hold vehicle manufacturers responsible for ensuring that this occurs.  Additionally, we believe that owner/operators have a legitimate financial motivation for ensuring their vehicles are as fuel efficient as possible, which includes purchasing LRR replacement tires.  However owner/operators may not have a sound knowledge of which replacement tires to purchase to retain the as-certified fuel efficiency of their vehicle.  Therefore we are requiring that vehicle manufacturers supply adequate information in the owner's manual to allow the owner/operator of the vehicle to purchase tires meeting or exceeding the rolling resistance performance of the original equipment tires. We expect that these instructions will be submitted to EPA as part of the application for certification.
Certification Fees
Similar to engine certification, the agency will assess certification fees for heavy-duty vehicles.  The proceeds from these fees are used to fund the compliance and certification activities related to GHG regulation for this regulatory category.  In addition to the certification process, other activities funded by certification fees include EPA-administered in-use testing, selective enforcement audits, and confirmatory testing.  At this point, the exact costs associated with the heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance are not well known. EPA will assess its compliance program associated with this proposal and assess the appropriate level of fees. We anticipate that fees will be applied based on vehicle families, following the light-duty vehicle approach.
	Requirements for Conducting Aerodynamic Assessment Using Allowed Methods
The requirements for conducting aerodynamic assessment using allowed methods includes two key components:  adherence to a minimum set of standardized criteria for each allowed method and submittal of aerodynamic values and supporting information on an annual basis for the purposes of certifying vehicles to a particular aerodynamic bin as discussed in the Section II.
First, we are finalizing requirements for conducting each of the allowed aerodynamic assessment methods.  We will cite approved and published standards and practices, where feasible, but will define criteria where none exists or where more current research indicates otherwise.  A description of the requirements for each method is discussed later in this section.  The manufacturer would be required to provide information showing that the meet these requirements and attest to the accuracy of the information provided.
 Second, to ensure continued compliance, manufacturers will be required to provide a minimum set of information on an annual basis at certification time 1) to support continued use of an aerodynamic assessment method and 2) to assign an aerodynamic value based on the applicable aerodynamic bins.  The information supplied to the agencies should be based on an approved aerodynamic assessment method and adhere to the requirements for conducting aerodynamic assessment mentioned above.
The annual submission may be based on coastdown testing conducted consistent with the enhanced protocol detailed in this rulemaking or with an approved alternative method.  The coastdown testing must be conducted using the Enhance Protocol which uses SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 as a basis, in addition to the modifications developed in response to industry comments which raised concerns regarding test to test variability.
In addition to 8 valid coastdown runs in each direction, manufacturers using in-house test methods should provide an adjustment factor for relating their drag coefficient based on their in-house method to the reference method, enhanced coastdown.  The basis for the adjustment factor is:

	Adjustment Factor =   Cd in-house
                  Cd coastdown
For the test article used for certification that differs from the test article used for reference method testing, determine Cd to use for aerodynamics bin determination as described below.
Cd certification  =  Adjustment Factor x  Cdin-house measured

The specific requirements for the test article used in reference method testing using the coastdown procedures should meet the following requirements.

Table V-2  Reference Method Test Vehicle Specifications

Table V-3 Reference Method Test Track Condition Specifications

Regardless of the method, all testing using high-roof sleepers should be performed with a tractor-trailer combination to mimic real world usage.  Accordingly, it is important to match the type of tractor with the correct trailer.  Although, as discussed elsewhere in this proposal, the correct tractor-trailer combination is not always present or tractor-only operation may occur, the majority of operation in the real world involves correctly matched tractor-trailer combinations and we will attempt to reflect that here.   Therefore, the following guidelines should be used when performing an aerodynamic assessment:
::	For a Class 7 and 8 tractor truck with a high roof, a standard box trailer must be used.
The definitions of for standard trailer are further detailed in §1037.501(g).  This ensures consistency and continuity in the aerodynamic assessments, and maintains the overlap with real world operation.  As mid-roof and low-roof coastdown testing will be conducted without the trailer if the aerodynamic bin is not extrapolated from a high-roof version, then testing using other methods should also be conducted based on the tractor alone.
Standardized Criteria for Aerodynamic Assessment Methods
Coastdown Procedure Requirements
For coastdown testing, the test runs should be conducted in a manner consistent with SAE J1263 with additional modifications as described in the 40 CFR part 1066, subpart C, and in Chapter 3 of the RIA using the mixed model analysis method.  Since the coastdown procedure is the primary aerodynamic assessment method, the manufacturer would be required to conduct the coastdown procedure according to the requirements in this final action and supply the following to the agency for approval:
         * Facility information:  name and location, description and/or background/history, equipment and capability, track and facility elevation, track grade and track size/length;
         * Test conditions for each test result including date and time, wind speed and direction, ambient temperature and humidity, vehicle speed, driving distance, manufacturer name, test vehicle/model type, model year, applicable model engine family, tire type and rolling resistance, test weight and driver name(s) and/or ID(s);
         * Average Cd result as calculated in 40 CFR 1037.520(b) from valid tests including, at a minimum, ten valid test results, with no maximum number, standard deviation, calculated error and error bands, and total number of tests, including number of voided or invalid tests.
Wind Tunnel Testing Requirements
Wind tunnel testing would conform to the following procedures and modifications, where applicable, including:
         * SAE J1252, "SAE WIND TUNNEL TEST PROCEDURE FOR TRUCKS AND BUSES" (July 1981) except that article 5.2 that specifies a minimum Reynolds number of 0.7 x 10[6] is not included and is superseded, for the purposes of this rulemaking, by a minimum Reynolds number of 1.0 x 10[6] and, for reduced-scale wind tunnel testing, a one-eighth (1/8[th]) or larger scale model of a heavy-duty tractor and trailer must be used and of sufficient design to simulate airflow through the radiator inlet grill;.
         * J1594, "VEHICLE AERODYNAMICS TERMINOLOGY" (December 1994); and
         * J2071, "AERODYNAMIC TESTING OF ROAD VEHICLES - OPEN THROAT WIND TUNNEL ADJUSTMENT" (June 1994).
In addition, the wind tunnel used for aerodynamic assessment would be a recognized facility by the Subsonic Aerodynamic Testing Association.  We are finalizing the provisions that manufacturers that perform wind tunnel testingdo sobased on the requirements detailed in this action.  The wind tunnel tests should be conducted at a zero yaw angle and, if so equipped, utilizing the moving/rolling floor (i.e., the moving/rolling floor should be on during the test as opposed to static) for comparison to the coastdown procedure, which corrects to a zero yaw angle for the oncoming wind.  The manufacturer is required to supply the following:
         * Facility information:  name and location, description and background/history, layout, wind tunnel type, diagram of wind tunnel layout, structural and material construction;
         * Wind tunnel design details:  corner turning vane type and material, air settling, mesh screen specification, air straightening method, tunnel volume, surface area, average duct area, and circuit length;
         * Wind tunnel flow quality:  temperature control and uniformity, airflow quality, minimum airflow velocity, flow uniformity, angularity and stability, static pressure variation, turbulence intensity, airflow acceleration and deceleration times, test duration flow quality, and overall airflow quality achievement;
         * Test/Working section information: test section type (e.g., open, closed, adaptive wall) and shape (e.g., circular, square, oval), length, contraction ratio, maximum air velocity, maximum dynamic pressure, nozzle width and height, plenum dimensions and net volume, maximum allowed model scale, maximum model height above road, strut movement rate (if applicable), model support, primary boundary layer slot, boundary layer elimination method and photos and diagrams of the test section;
         * Fan section description:  fan type, diameter, power, maximum rotational speed, maximum top speed, support type, mechanical drive, sectional total weight
         * Data acquisition and control (where applicable):  acquisition type, motor control, tunnel control, model balance, model pressure measurement, wheel drag balances, wing/body panel balances, and model exhaust simulation
         * Moving ground plane or Rolling Road (if applicable):  construction and material, yaw table and range, moving ground length and width, belt type, maximum belt speed, belt suction mechanism, platen instrumentation, temperature control, and steering; and
         * Facility correction factors and purpose.
CFD Requirements
Currently, there is no existing standard, protocol or methodology governing the use of CFD.  Therefore, we are establishing a minimum set of criteria based on today's practices and coupling the use of CFD with empirical measurements from coastdown and, for gaining innovative technology credits, wind tunnel procedures.  Since there are primarily two-types of CFD software code, Navier-Stokes based and Lattice-Boltzman based, we are outlining two sets of criteria to address both types.  Therefore, the agencies are requiring that manufacturers use commercially-available CFD software code with a turbulence model and Navier-Stokes formula solver, where applicable.  Further details and criteria for each type of commercially-available CFD software code follows immediately and general criteria for all CFD analysis are subsequently described.
For Navier-Stokes based CFD code, manufacturers must perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis with a mesh grid size with total surface elements of between one hundred and twenty million and one hundred and fifty million cells using hexagonal or polyhedral mesh cell shapes,  a cell size of less than or equal to 1 mm on the vehicle surface, and a surrounding volume element size in millimeters extending to the outer boundary of the volume as described by the equation:  integer of 2 to the power of n  where n equals the distance away from the vehicle surface (e.g., the cell size at 0.1mm (n) away from the surface would be 1mm [2 to the power of 0.1mm equals 1.07; the integer of 1.07 equals 1]).  All Navier-Stokes based CFD analysis should be performed with a turbulence model and mesh deformation (e.g., k-epsilon (k-ε), Reynolds stress or a shear stress transport k-omega (SST k-ω) ) enabled with boundary layer resolution of +/- 95%.  Finally, Navier-Stokes based CFD analysis for the purposes of determining the Cd should be performed once result convergence is achieved. Manufacturers should demonstrate convergence by supplying multiple, successive convergence values.
	For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code, the agencies propose that manufacturers perform an unstructured, time-accurate analysis  with a mesh grid size with total surface elements of between one hundred and twenty million and one hundred and fifty million cells using using cubic volume elements and triangle and/or quadrilateral surface elements,  a cell size of less than or equal to 1 mm on the vehicle surface, and a surrounding volume element size measured in millimeters and extending to the outer boundary of the volume as described by the equation:  integer of 2 to the power of n  where n equals the distance away from the vehicle surface (e.g., the cell size at 0.1mm (n) away from the surface would be 1mm since 2 to the power of 0.1mm equals 1.07 and the integer of 1.07 equals 1).
Finally, in general for CFD, all analysis should be conducted using the following conditions:  a tractor-trailer combination using the manufacturer's tractor and the trailer according to the trailer specifications in this regulation, an environment with a blockage ration of less than or equal to 0.2 percent to simulate open road conditions, a zero degree yaw angle between the oncoming wind and the tractor-trailer combination, ambient conditions consistent with the modified coastdown test procedures outlined in this regulation, open grill with representative back pressures based on data from the tractor model, and tires and ground plane in motion consistent with and simulating a vehicle moving in the forward direction of travel.
Alternative Aerodynamic Method Comparison to the Coastdown Test Procedure Reference Method
If a manufacturer uses any alternative aerodynamic method, the manufacturer would have to provide a comparison to the coastdown test procedure reference method.  The manufacturer would be required to perform the alternative aerodynamic method and the coastdown test procedure reference method on the same model and compare the Cd results.  The alternative aerodynamic method and coastdown test procedure reference method must be conducted under similar test conditions and adhere to the criteria discussed above for each aerodynamic assessment method.

This demonstration would be performed in the initial year of rule implementation and would require agency review and approval prior to use of the alternative aerodynamic method in future years and for other models.

The comparison would occur on one model of the manufacturer's highest sales volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family with a full aerodynamics package, either equipped at the factory or sold through a dealer specifically for that model as an OEM part.  If the manufacturer does not have such a model, the manufacturer may select a comparable model in that family or a model from another highest sales volume family in the manufacturer's fleet.

For the comparison, the manufacturer would be required to provide information on the test conditions for each test result including but not limited to: test date and time, wind speed (if applicable), temperature, humidity, manufacturer and model, model year, applicable model engine family, tire type and rolling resistance for actual model, model test weight, equivalent vehicle test weight, actual and simulated or equivalent vehicle speed, Reynolds number (if applicable), yaw angle (if applicable), blockage ratio, either calculated or measured (if applicable), model mounting (if applicable), model geometry, body axis force and moments (if applicable), total test duration, test vehicle and type and operator name(s) and/or ID(s).  In addition, the manufacturer must provide the Cd results from valid tests.

Once the comparison is performed in the initial year, the manufacturer is required to perform this comparison every three years on the highest sales volume, Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family equipped with a full aerodynamics package unless any or all of the following occurs: the  Class 8, high roof, sleeper cab family/model used for the original comparison is no longer commercially available, and/or significantly redesigned, with the meaning of "significantly" based on good engineering judgment, a fundamental change is made to the current alternative aerodynamic method (e.g., change from facility A to facility B as a source), and/or the alternative aerodynamic method is changed to something other than the coastdown test procedure reference method (e.g., switch to wind tunnel testing from coastdown, change wind tunnel testing facilities or CFD software code).  However, the agency reserves the right and has the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to request and have the manufacturer perform a comparison in any year and on any model that the manufacturer has certified.

Finally, the data generated for the purpose of this comparison can be used in annual certification for that model, also called the base model, and for determining Cd for other models and/or sub-families in the base model family, or other families in the manufacturer's fleet.

Annual Certification Data Submittal for Aerodynamic Assessment
For each model in the manufacturer's fleet, the manufacturer is required to supply aerodynamic information on an annual basis to the agencies in their certification application.  Once the manufacturer has performed the coastdown test procedure or the comparison for an alternative aerodynamic method, the aerodynamic assessment method can be used to generate Cd values for all models the manufacturer plans to certify and introduce into commerce.  For each model, the manufacturer would determine a predicted aerodynamic drag (Cd times the frontal area, A).  This reduces burden on the manufacturer to perform aerodynamic assessment but provides data for all the models in a manufacturer's fleet.  If a manufacturer has previously performed aerodynamic assessment on the other models, the manufacturer may submit an experimental Cd in lieu of a predicted Cd.
The aerodynamic assessment data will be used in one of two ways:  the manufacturer will input the values and data including the Cd times A into the agency's model and determine a GHG value/score or the agencies will use the manufacturer's input data into the model and assign a GHG value/score.
Since the agencies may input the data into the model, manufacturers are required to provide the information from the coastdown test procedure, alternative aerodynamic method or the method comparison described above for annual certification.  In addition, the manufacturer would supply manufacturer fleet information to the agency for annual certification purposes along with the acceptance demonstration parameters:  manufacturer name, model year, model line (if different than manufacturer name), model name, engine family, engine displacement, transmission name and type, number of axles, axle ratio, vehicle dimensions, including frontal area, predicted or measured coefficient of drag, assumptions used in developing the predicted or measured Cd, justification for carry-across of aerodynamic assessment data, photos of the model line-up, if available, and model applications and usage options.
	Aerodynamic Validation and Compliance
 The agencies reserve the right to perform aerodynamic validation of the manufacturers aerodynamic results.  The agencies may conduct a vehicle confirmatory evaluation using a vehicle recruited from the in-use fleet and performing the reference method, coastdown test procedures, either at the manufacturer's facility  or an independent facility using the agencies equipment and tools.  If there is a discrepancy between the manufacturer's data submitted for certification and the agencies' validation results, the agency may perform a full audit of the manufacturer's source data and aerodynamic assessment methods and tools used by the manufacturer to produce the data.  The manufacturer would be required to make all equipment and tools available to the agencies to conduct the full audit.
Based on this audit, the agencies may require the manufacturer to make changes to their aerodynamic assessment methods ranging from minor adjustments to method criteria to switching allowed aerodynamic assessment methods.
Compliance Reports
	Early Model Year Data
	The regulatory text of the NPRM included specifications for manufacturers to submit pre-certification compliance reports for each of a manufacturer's fleet of heavy-duty tractors.  Navistar and Volvo commented that the requirements specified in the NHTSA pre-certification reports are overbroad and should be eliminated.   The pre-certification reports included requirements for manufactures to submit a wide variety of information on vehicles.  The variety of information was believed to be necessary given that these vehicles had no previous compliance information for meeting fuel efficiency and emission standards and the agencies wanted to ensure that enough information was obtain to ensure sufficient compliance with the program.  The agencies have since reviewed the level of detail required in the precertification reports and are in agreement with commenters that the required information may be overly broad for compliance purposes and given that this is the first time these manufacturers have been regulated, the level of information required may not be available until subsequent model years.   Therefore, the agencies will delete the requirement for manufactures to submit pre-certification compliances reports for these classes of vehicles.
As an alternative to receiving early compliance model year information in the precertification reports, the agencies have decided to use manufacturer's application for certificates of conformity to obtain early model estimates.  Currently, the applications for certificates are not required to include the fuel consumption information required by NHTSA.  Therefore, the agencies are adopting provisions in the final rule for manufacturers to provide emission and equivalent fuel consumption estimates in the manufacturer's applications for certification.  The agencies will treat information submitted in the applications as a manufacturer's demonstration of providing early compliance information, similar to the pre-model year report submitted for heavy-duty pick trucks and vans.   The final rule establishes a harmonized approach by which manufacturers will submit applications through the EPA VERIFY database system as the single point of entry for all information required for this national program and both agencies will have access to the information.  If by model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information through the EPA VERIFY database system, manufacturers are expected to submit written applications to the agencies.   This approach should streamline this process and reduce industry burden and provide sufficient information for the agency's to carry out their early compliance activities.
Final Reports
The NPRM proposed for manufacturers participating in the ABT program to provide EOY and final reports.  The EOY reports for the ABT program were required to be submitted by manufacturers no later than 90 days after the calendar year and final report no later than 270 days after the calendar year.  Manufacturers not participating in the ABT program were required to provide an EOY report within 45 days after the calendar year but no final reports were required.  The final ABT report due was established coinciding with EPA's existing criteria pollutant report for heavy-duty engines.  The EOY report was required in order to receive preliminary final estimates and identifies manufacturers that might have a credit deficit for the given model year.  Manufacturers with a credit surplus at the end of each model could receive a waiver from providing EOY reports.  As proposed, the remaining manufacturers were required to submit reports to EPA and send copies of those reports to NHTSA with equivalent fuel consumption values.
In response to the NPRM, commenters recommended collecting additional data.  One commenter requested collecting information to develop and refine test cycles that more accurately reflect actual driving cycles for medium and heavy duty trucks.  Several other commenters ( ACEE, Eaton, CALSTART, NRDC and UCS) recommended collecting advanced data on in-service vehicles and that the collected data be analyzed and characterized for each vocational application, especially for hybrid vehicles, in a cooperative government and industry effort.  Commenters (ACEE, DTNA, NRGDC, UCS and Volvo) also requested that the agency's data collection ensure to include information on actual vehicle configurations sold in the fleet.
Many commenters argued against the burden placed upon the industry in meeting the agencies required reporting provisions.  One commenter argued against providing actual production information due to the variability that exists in building heavy duty vehicles and in the influence of changing fleet interest each year indicating that only estimated information should have to be provided.  Commenters (Volvo and Navistar) generally objected stating that the agency requirements in its reports are both unnecessary and overly burdensome.  Comments in response to the NPRM requested that for manufacturers not using ABT provisions, the EOY report due 45 days after the end of the calendar year should be combined with the ABT report due 90 days after the same model year.  Commenters also requested that the exempted off-road vehicle report be consolidated with the EOY report.  Other concerns raised by commenters were for the agencies to remove any differences in reporting provisions and implement a single uniform reporting template that manufacturers can submit to both agencies.
One commenter (Volvo) requested that the agencies simply the reporting requirements for vehicle configurations in both the EOY and final reports commenting that the current proposal as outlined in the NPRM was extremely burdensome to vehicle manufacturers.  The NPRM regulation states that the manufacturer must identify each distinguishable vehicle configuration in the vehicle family or sub-family and identification of FELs for each subfamily.  The regulation calls for reporting of results and modeling inputs for each subfamily.  The commeter believed that the burden of meeting these requirements for the vast number of families/subfamilies is substantial and unjustified.   For this commenter, there is a potential for almost 45 million sub-families in the vocation and tractor categories.  This approach should reduce the number of vehicle families to an amount that is be suitable for reporting.  Comments received from the BlueGren Alliance and ACEEE also requested  the agencies should implement a program as part of the final rule to collect data, actual vehicle configurations sold and their performance as estimated by simulation modeling, which will provide information required to develop a full--‐vehicle program in the future.
For the final rule, the agencies will retain the NPRM proposal for EOY and final reports.  However, the agencies will consolidate the reporting as requested by comments and will provide equivalent fuel consumption information for all reports submitted to EPA.  The final rule establishes a harmonized approach by which manufacturers will submit reports through the EPA VERIFY database system as the single point of entry for all information required for this national program and both agencies will have access to the information.  If by model year 2012, the agencies are not prepared to receive information through the EPA VERIFY database system, manufacturers are expected to submit written reports to the agencies. The agencies are also combining the EOY reports for manufacturers not using ABT provisions with other EOY reports and are requiring a submission date 90 days after the calendar year.  The agencies view the adopted requirements in the final rule for EOY and final reports will provide sufficient data requests to satisfy these requests.  The agencies also agree with Volvo concerns and have adopted a new reclassification for selecting vehicle families as described elsewhere in this Section.  A summary of the required information in the final rule for EOY and final reports is as follows:
Vehicle family designation and averaging set.
Vehicle emissions and fuel consumption standards including any alternative standards used
Vehicle family FELs.
Final production volumes
Certified test cycles
Useful life values for vehicle families
A credit plan identifying the manufacturers actual credit balances, credit flexibilities, credit trades and a credit deficit plan if needed demonstrating how it plans to resolve any credit deficits that might occur for a model year within a period of up to three model years after that deficit has occurred
A plan describing the vehicles that were exempted such as for off-road or small business purposes
A plan describing any alternative fueled vehicles that were produced for the model year identifying the approaches used to determinate compliance and the production volumes
Additional Required Information
Throughout the model year, manufacturers will be required to submit various submissions to the agencies to comply with various aspects of the rule.  These requests have differing criteria for submission and approval.  Table V-4 below provides a summary of the types of submission, required submission dates and the EPA and NHTSA regulations that apply.  The agencies will review and grant any requests considering the timeliness of the submissions and the completeness of the requests.

Table V-4: Summary of Required Information for Compliance
Submission
Applies to
Required Submissions Date
EPA Regulation Reference
NHTSA Regulation Reference
Small business exemptions
Vehicle manufacturers meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria of a small business as described in 13 CFR 121.201.
Before introducing any  excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce
§1037.150
§535.8
Incentives for early introduction
The provisions apply with respect to tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its application for certificate of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Voluntary Compliance for NHTSA standards
Vehicle manufacturers seeking early compliance in model years 2014 to 2016
NHTSA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its application for certificate of conformity
NA
§535.8
Approval of alternate methods to determine drag coefficients
Tractors meeting §1037.106
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its application for certificate of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Off-road exemption
Manufacturers wanting to exclude tractor from vehicle standards
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its application for certificate of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Vocational Tractor
Manufacturers wanting to reclassify tractor as vocational tractors making them applicable to vocational vehicle standards
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits its application for certificate of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Exemption from EOY reports
Manufactures with surplus credits at the end of the model year
90-days after the calendar year ends
§1037.730
§535.8

Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
Final Compliance Approach
Like Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, heavy-duty vocational vehicles will be required to have both engine and complete vehicle certificates of conformity.  As discussed in the engine certification section, engines that will be used in vocational vehicles would need to be certified using the heavy-duty FTP cycle for GHG pollutants and show compliance through the useful life of the engine. This certification is in addition to the current requirements for obtaining a certificate of conformity for criteria pollutant emissions.
For this final action, the majority of the GHG reduction for vocational vehicles is expected to come from the use of LRR tires as well as increased utilization of hybrid powertrain systems. Other technologies such as aerodynamic improvements and vehicle speed limiting systems are not as relevant for this class of vehicles, since the typical duty cycle is much more urban, consisting of lower speeds and frequent stopping. Idle reduction strategies are expected to be encompassed by hybrid technology, which we anticipate will ultimately handle PTO operation as well.  Therefore, for this final action, certification of heavy-duty vocational vehicles with conventional powertrains will focus on quantifying GHG benefits due to the use of LRR tires through GEM.
Certification Process
Vehicles will be divided into vehicle families for purposes of certification.  As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, these are groups of vehicles within a given regulatory subcategory that are expected to share common emission characteristics.  Vocational vehicle regulatory subcategories share the same structure as those used for heavy-duty engine criteria pollutant certification and are based on GVWR.  This includes light-heavy (LHD) with a GVWR at or below 19,500 pounds, medium-heavy (MHD) with a GVWR above 19,500 pounds and at or below 33,000 pounds, and heavy-heavy (HHD) with a GVWR above 33,000 pounds. We anticipate manufacturers will have one vehicle family per regulatory subcategory, however hybrid vehicles will need to be separated into additional unique vehicle families. Manufacturers may also subdivide families into sub-families if GHG emissions performance is expected to change significantly within the vehicle family. As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, we anticipate using the standardized 12-digit naming convention to identify vocational vehicle families.  As with engines and Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, each certifying vehicle manufacturer would have a unique three digit code assigned to them.  Currently, there is no 5[th] digit (industry sector) code for this class of vehicles and EPA will issue an updated to the current guidance explaining which character(s) should be used for vocational vehicles. The agencies originally proposed that engine displacement be included in the vehicle family name, however the wide range of engines available across most regulatory subcategories makes this requirement irrelevant and unnecessary at the time of this rulemaking.  Therefore, we are reserving the remaining characters for California ARB and/or manufacturer use, such that the result is a unique vehicle family name.
Each vehicle family must demonstrate compliance with emission standards using the GEM approach.  GEM inputs for conventional (i.e. non-hybrid) vocational vehicles primarily involves entering tire rolling resistance information. Additional provisions are available for certification of hybrid vehicles or vehicles using unique technologies, which was detailed in Section IV.  If the vehicle family consists of multiple configurations, only results from the worst-case configuration are necessary for certification in addition to  an engineering evaluation demonstrating that the modeled configuration indeed reflects the worst-case configuration.  If the vehicle family is divided into subfamilies, unique GEM results are required for at least one configuration per subfamily.
The agencies have received comments from engine manufacturers, truck manufacturers, and hybrid system manufacturers raising concerns regarding the duty cycle and the weighting factors proposed for evaluating transient applications.  The agencies proposed three methods for evaluating hybrid system performance in an effort to generate credit which could be used to provide incentives to facilitate the introduction of advanced technology.  In response to concerns broached by engine manufacturers and hybrid system manufacturers regarding the operation of vehicles most likely to be hybridized in the near term, the proposed duty cycles considered for the proposal will continue to be used with this final action.  The agencies proposed a transient duty cycle, a 55 mile-per-hour steady state cruise and a 65 mile-per-hour steady state cruise.  The transient duty cycle which has been corrected to address a concern related to shift events is essentially the same transient cycle proposed in the NPRM with the exception that it minimizes inappropriate shift events.  Additionally, the steady state cycles proposed by the agencies remain essentially unchanged.  The modification being adopted with today's final action is to address the distribution of the emissions impact associated with each duty cycle.  The weighting factors will be changed such that a greater emphasis on the type of transient activity seen as more characteristic of hybrid applications will be evident.  The new weighting factors between duty cycles for hybrid certification will be 75% for the transient, 9% for the 55 mph cruise cycle, and 16% for the 65 mph cruise cycle.  The basis for this change may be seen in the memorandum to this rulemaking docket xxxx-xxxx which describes the data set used to describe real world vehicle performance.  In addition to this modification, the Power-Take-Off (PTO) operation will be characterized for vehicles utilizing a PTO system for which there is a benefit for use of the hybrid technology.  The testing provisions for the comparison in the A to B testing for complete vehicle or post-transmission powerpack testing may be seen in 40 CFR 1037.xxx. The testing provisions for work-specific pre-transmission evaluation using an engine based approach may be seen in 40 CFR 1036.xxx and 40 CFR 1065.xxx.
Demonstrating Compliance With the Final Standards
CO2 and Fuel Consumption Standards
Model
As stated above, the agencies are finalizing that demonstrating compliance with GHG and fuel consumption standards would primarily involve the use of LRR tires and quantifying the associated CO2 and fuel consumption benefit.  Similar to Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, this will be done using GEM. However, the input parameters entered by the vehicle manufacturer would be limited to the properties of the tires.  GEM will use the tire data, along with inputs reflecting a baseline truck and engine, to generate a complete vehicle model.  The test weight used in the model will be based on the vehicle class, as identified above.  Light-heavy-duty vehicles will have a test weight of 16,000 pounds; 25,150 pounds for medium heavy-duty vehicles; and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles will use a test weight of 67,000 pounds. The model would then be exercised over the HHDDT transient cycle as well as 55 and 65 mph steady-state cruise conditions.  The results of each of the three tests would be weighted at 37%, 21%, and 42% for 65 mph, 55 mph, and transient tests, respectively.
It may seem more expedient and just as accurate to require manufacturers use tires meeting certain industry standards for qualifying tires as having LRR. In addition, CO2 and fuel consumption benefits could be quantified for different ranges of coefficients of rolling resistance to provide a means for comparison to the standard.  However, we believe that as technology advances, other aspects of vocational vehicles may warrant inclusion in future rulemakings.  For this reason, we remain committed to having the certification framework in place to accommodate such additions.  While the modeling approach may seem to be overly complicated for this phase of the rules, it also serves to create a certification pathway for future rulemakings and therefore we believe this is the best approach.  Should innovative technologies be considered that are currently beyond the scope of the model, it would be necessary for the manufacturer to conduct A to B testing which reflects the improvement associated with the new technology.  The test protocol to be used and the basis of this assessment will require a public vetting process which mayinclude notice and comment.
In-use Standards
The category of wear items primarily relates to tires.  It is expected that vehicle manufacturers will equip their trucks with LRR tires, since the final vehicle standard is predicated on LRR tire performance.  The tire replacement intervals for this class of vehicle is normally in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 miles, which means the owner/operator will be replacing the tires at several points within the useful life of the vehicle.  We believe that as LRR tires become more common on new equipment, the aftermarket prices of these tires will also decrease. Along with decreasing tire prices, the fuel savings realized through use of LRR tires will ideally provide enough incentive for owner/operators to continue purchasing these tires.  The inventory modeling in this rule package reflects the continued use of LRR tires through the life of the vehicle.
Evaporative Emission Standards
Evaporative and refueling emissions from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles are currently regulated under 40 CFR part 86.  Even though these emission standards apply to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying with evaporative and refueling emission standards.  An important related point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may apply to either the engine or the vehicle.  For vehicles other than pickups and vans, the standards in this rule to address greenhouse gas emissions apply separately to engines and to vehicles.  Since we will be applying both greenhouse gas standards and evaporative/refueling emission standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it will be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification requirements written together as much as possible.  EPA regards these final changes as discrete, minimal, and for the most part clarifications to the existing standards.  We have not finalized any changes to the evaporative or refueling emission standards, but we have come across several provisions that warrant clarification or correction:
   * When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying evaporative emission standards for methanol-fueled compression-ignition engine.  The final regulations correct this by applying the new standards to all fuels that are subject to standards.
   * We are finalizing provisions to address which standards apply when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor vehicle, which is currently not directly addressed in the highway regulation.  The final approach requires testing complete vehicles with any auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system components).  Incomplete vehicles must be tested without the auxiliary engines, but any such engines and the corresponding fuel-system components will need to meet the standards that apply under our nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.
   * We have removed the option for secondary vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified by the certifying manufacturer without re-certifying the vehicle.  Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity will need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re-certify the vehicle itself.  Our understanding is that this provision has not been used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than managing a separate process.  We are also finalizing corresponding changes to the emission control information label.
   * Rewriting the regulations in a new part in conjunction with the greenhouse gas standards allows for some occasions of improved organization and clarity, as well as updating various provisions.  For example, we have finalized a leaner description of evaporative emission families that does not reference sealing methods for carburetors or air cleaners.  We have also clarified how evaporative emission standards affect engine manufacturers and are finalizing more descriptive provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR using engineering analysis.
   * Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for gaseous-fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design-based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240).  We request comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous-fuel vehicles to design-based certification.  This would allow for a simpler assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards that apply.

Demonstrating Compliance With the Final Standards
CO2 and Fuel Consumption Standards
Model
As stated above, the agencies are finalizing that demonstrating compliance with GHG and fuel consumption standards would primarily involve the use of LRR tires and quantifying the associated CO2 and fuel consumption benefit.  Similar to Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, this will be done using GEM. However, the input parameters entered by the vehicle manufacturer would be limited to the properties of the tires.  GEM will use the tire data, along with inputs reflecting a baseline truck and engine, to generate a complete vehicle model.  The test weight used in the model will be based on the vehicle class, as identified above.  Light-heavy-duty vehicles will have a test weight of 16,000 pounds; 25,150 pounds for medium heavy-duty vehicles; and heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles will use a test weight of 67,000 pounds. The model would then be exercised over the HHDDT transient cycle as well as 55 and 65 mph steady-state cruise conditions.  The results of each of the three tests would be weighted at 37%, 21%, and 42% for 65 mph, 55 mph, and transient tests, respectively.
It may seem more expedient and just as accurate to require manufacturers use tires meeting certain industry standards for qualifying tires as having LRR. In addition, CO2 and fuel consumption benefits could be quantified for different ranges of coefficients of rolling resistance to provide a means for comparison to the standard.  However, we believe that as technology advances, other aspects of vocational vehicles may warrant inclusion in future rulemakings.  For this reason, we remain committed to having the certification framework in place to accommodate such additions.  While the modeling approach may seem to be overly complicated for this phase of the rules, it also serves to create a certification pathway for future rulemakings and therefore we believe this is the best approach.  Should innovative technologies be considered that are currently beyond the scope of the model, it would be necessary for the manufacturer to conduct A to B testing which reflects the improvement associated with the new technology.  The test protocol to be used and the basis of this assessment will require a public vetting process which mayinclude notice and comment.
In-use Standards
The category of wear items primarily relates to tires.  It is expected that vehicle manufacturers will equip their trucks with LRR tires, since the final vehicle standard is predicated on LRR tire performance.  The tire replacement intervals for this class of vehicle is normally in the range of 50,000 to 100,000 miles, which means the owner/operator will be replacing the tires at several points within the useful life of the vehicle.  We believe that as LRR tires become more common on new equipment, the aftermarket prices of these tires will also decrease. Along with decreasing tire prices, the fuel savings realized through use of LRR tires will ideally provide enough incentive for owner/operators to continue purchasing these tires.  The inventory modeling in this rule package reflects the continued use of LRR tires through the life of the vehicle.
Evaporative Emission Standards
Evaporative and refueling emissions from heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles are currently regulated under 40 CFR part 86.  Even though these emission standards apply to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying with evaporative and refueling emission standards.  An important related point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may apply to either the engine or the vehicle.  For vehicles other than pickups and vans, the standards in this rule to address greenhouse gas emissions apply separately to engines and to vehicles.  Since we will be applying both greenhouse gas standards and evaporative/refueling emission standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it will be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification requirements written together as much as possible.  EPA regards these final changes as discrete, minimal, and for the most part clarifications to the existing standards.  We have not finalized any changes to the evaporative or refueling emission standards, but we have come across several provisions that warrant clarification or correction:
   * When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying evaporative emission standards for methanol-fueled compression-ignition engine.  The final regulations correct this by applying the new standards to all fuels that are subject to standards.
   * We are finalizing provisions to address which standards apply when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor vehicle, which is currently not directly addressed in the highway regulation.  The final approach requires testing complete vehicles with any auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system components).  Incomplete vehicles must be tested without the auxiliary engines, but any such engines and the corresponding fuel-system components will need to meet the standards that apply under our nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.
   * We have removed the option for secondary vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified by the certifying manufacturer without re-certifying the vehicle.  Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity will need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re-certify the vehicle itself.  Our understanding is that this provision has not been used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than managing a separate process.  We are also finalizing corresponding changes to the emission control information label.
   * Rewriting the regulations in a new part in conjunction with the greenhouse gas standards allows for some occasions of improved organization and clarity, as well as updating various provisions.  For example, we have finalized a leaner description of evaporative emission families that does not reference sealing methods for carburetors or air cleaners.  We have also clarified how evaporative emission standards affect engine manufacturers and are finalizing more descriptive provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 pounds GVWR using engineering analysis.
   * Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for gaseous-fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design-based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240).  We request comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous-fuel vehicles to design-based certification.  This would allow for a simpler assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards that apply.

Final Labeling Provisions
It is crucial that a means exist for allowing field inspectors to identify whether a vehicle is certified, and if so, whether it is in the certified configuration. As with engines and tractors, we believe an emission control information label is a logical first step in facilitating this identification.  For vocational vehicles, the engine will have a label that is permanently affixed to the engine and identify the engine as certified for use in a certain regulatory subcategory of vehicle (i.e., MHD, etc).
The vehicle will also have a label listing the manufacturer of the vehicle, vehicle family (and subfamily, if applicable), regulatory subcategory, date of manufacture, compliance statement, FEL, and emission control system identifiers.  Since LRR tires are expected to be the primary means for vehicles to comply, it is expected that LRR tires will be the only component identified as part of the emission control system on the label.  In addition, if any other emission related components are present, such as hybrid powertrains, key components will also need to be specified on the label. Like the engine label, this will need to be permanently affixed to the vehicle in an area that is clearly visible to the owner/operator. At the time of certification, manufacturers will be required to submit an example of their vehicle emission control label such that EPA can verify that all critical elements are present. In addition to the label, manufacturers will also need to describe where the unique vehicle identification number and date of production can be found on the vehicle.
Other Certification Issues
Warranty
As with other heavy-duty engine and vehicle regulatory categories, vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers would be required to warrant their product to be free from defects that would adversely affect emissions. This warranty also covers the failure of emission related components for the warranty period of the vehicle.  For vocational vehicles, this primarily applies to tires.
Manufacturers of chassis for vocational vehicles would be required to warrant tires to be free from defects at the time of initial sale.  As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, we expect the chassis manufacturer to only warrant tires the original tires against manufacturing or design-related defects.  This tire warranty would not cover replacement tires or damage from road hazards or improper inflation.
As with Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, all warranty documentation would be submitted to EPA at the time of certification. This should include the warranty statement provided to the owner/operator, description of the service repair network, list of covered components (both conventional and high-cost), and length of coverage.
EPA Certification Fees
Similar to engine and tractor-trailer vehicle certification, the agency will assess certification fees for vocational vehicles.  The proceeds from these fees are used to fund the compliance and certification activities related to GHG regulation for this industry segment.  In addition to the certification process, other activities funded by certification fees include EPA-administered in-use testing, selective enforcement audits, and confirmatory testing.  At this point, the exact costs associated with the heavy-duty vehicle GHG compliance are not well known. EPA will assess its compliance program associated with this proposal and assess the appropriate level of fees. We anticipate that fees will be applied based on certification families, following the light-duty vehicle approach.
Maintenance
Vehicle manufacturers are required to outline maintenance schedules that ensure their product will remain in compliance with emission standards throughout the useful life of the vehicle.  For heavy-duty vehicles, such maintenance may include fluid/lubricant service, fairing adjustments, or service to the GHG emission control system. This schedule is required to be submitted as part of the application for certification. Maintenance that is deemed to be critical to ensuring compliance with emission standards is classified as "critical emission-related maintenance." Generally, manufacturers are discouraged from specifying that critical emission-related maintenance is needed within the regulatory useful life of the engine. However, if such maintenance is unavoidable, manufacturers must have a reasonable basis for ensuring it is performed at the correct time. This may demonstrated through several methods including survey data indicating that at least 80% of engines receive the required maintenance in-use or manufacturers may provide the maintenance at no charge to the user.
General Regulatory Provisions
Statutory Prohibited Acts
Section 203 of the CAA describes acts that are prohibited by law. This section and associated regulations apply equally to the greenhouse gas standards as to any other regulated emission. Acts that are prohibited by section 203 of the CAA include the introduction into commerce or the sale of an engine or vehicle without a certificate of conformity, removing or otherwise defeating emission control equipment, the sale or installation of devices designed to defeat emission controls, and other actions. In addition, vehicle manufacturers, or any other party, may not make changes to the certified engine that would result in it not being in the certified configuration.
EPA proposes to apply §86.1854 - 12 to heavy-duty vehicles and engines; this codifies the prohibited acts spelled out in the statute.  Although it is not legally necessary to repeat what is in the CAA, EPA believes that including this language in the regulations provides clarity and improves the ease of use and completeness of the regulations.  Since this change merely codifies provisions that already apply, there is no burden associated with the change.
Regulatory Amendments Related to Heavy-Duty Engine Certification
We are finalizing  the adoption of the new engine-based greenhouse gas standards in 40 CFR part 1036 and the new vehicle-based standards in 40 CFR part 1037.  We are finalizing to continue to rely on 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 for conventional certification and compliance provisions related to criteria pollutants, but the final regulations include a variety of amendments that would affect the provisions that apply with respect to criteria pollutants.  We are not intending to change the stringency of, or otherwise substantively change any existing standards.
The introduction of new parts in the CFR is part of a long-term plan to migrate all the regulatory provisions related to highway and nonroad engine and vehicle emissions to a portion of the CFR called Subchapter U, which consists of 40 CFR parts 1,000 through 1299.  We have already adopted emission standards, test procedures, and compliance provisions for several types of engines in 40 CFR parts 1033 through 1074.  We intend eventually to capture all the regulatory requirements related to heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles in these new parts.  Moving regulatory provisions to the new parts allows us to publish the regulations in a way that is better organized, reflects updates to various certification and compliance procedures, provides consistency with other engine programs, and is written in plain language.  We have already taken steps in this direction for heavy-duty highway engines by adopting the engine-testing procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 and the provisions for selective enforcement audits in 40 CFR part 1068.
EPA sought comment on drafting changes and additions.  This solicitation related solely to the appropriate migration, translation, and enhancement of existing provisions.  EPA did not solicitcomment on the substance of these existing rules, and is not finalizing amending, reconsideration of, or otherwise re-examining these provisions' substantive effect.
The rest of this section describes the most significant of these final redrafting changes. The proposal includes several changes to the certification and compliance procedures, including the following:
         * We are requiring that engine manufacturers provide installation instructions to vehicle manufacturers (see §1036.130).  We expect this is already commonly done; however, the regulatory language spells out a complete list of information we believe is necessary to properly ensure that vehicle manufacturers install engines in a way that is consistent with the engine's certificate of conformity.
         * §1036.30, §1036.250, and §1036.825 spell out several detailed provisions related to keeping records and submitting information to us.
         * We wrote the greenhouse gas regulations to divide heavy-duty engines into "spark-ignition" and "compression-ignition" engines, rather than "Otto-cycle" and "diesel" engines, to align with our terminology in all our nonroad programs.  This will likely involve no effective change in categorizing engines except for natural gas engines.  To address this concern, we are including a provision in §1036.150 to allow manufacturers to meet standards for spark-ignition engines if they were regulated as Otto-cycle engines in 40 CFR part 86, and vice versa.
         * §1036.205 describes a new requirement for imported engines to describe the general approach to importation (such as identifying authorized agents and ports of entry), and identifying a test lab in the United States where EPA can perform testing on certified engines.  These steps are part of our ongoing effort to ensure that we have a compliance and enforcement program that is as effective for imported engines as for domestically produced engines.  We have already adopted these same provisions for several types of nonroad engines.
         * §1036.210 specifies a process by which manufacturers are able to get preliminary approval for EPA decisions for questions that require lead time for preparing an application for certification.  This might involve, for example, preparing a plan for durability testing, establishing engine families, identifying adjustable parameters, and creating a list of scheduled maintenance items.
         * §1036.225 describes how to amend an application for certification.
         * We are finalizing the exemption and recall provisions as written in 40 CFR part 1068 instead of the comparable provisions in 40 CFR part 85.  This involves only minor changes relative to current practice.
We are aware that it may be appropriate to move several additional provisions in 40 CFR parts 85 and 86 to subchapter U.  For example, highway engine manufacturers may find it preferable to use the same parameters specified for defining nonroad engine families for certifying highway engines.  To the extent that the nonroad provisions would apply appropriately for highway engines, we and the manufacturers would benefit from a consistent approach to certifying both types of engines in a way that does not compromise the degree of emission control achieved under the existing standards.
Another area of particular interest is defect reporting.  Existing regulations require manufacturers to report defects to EPA whenever the same defect occurs at least 25 times.  This approach can be somewhat onerous for manufacturers making high-volume products.  For example, for an engine model with annual sales above 25,000, this represents a defect rate of less than 0.1 percent.  In contrast, the approach to defect reporting in §1068.501 accommodates the high sales volumes associated with highway engines, basing requirements on a percentage of defective products, rather than setting a fixed number for all engine families.  This flexibility is paired with the explicit direction for the manufacturer to actively monitor warranty claims, customer complaints, and other sources of information to evaluate and track potential defects.  We believe this aligns both with the manufacturers' interest in producing quality products and EPA's interest in addressing any quality concerns that arise from the need to repair in-use engines and vehicles.
Test Procedures For Measuring Emissions From Heavy-Duty Vehicles
We are finalizing a new part 1066 that would contain a general chassis-based test procedures in for measuring emissions from a variety of vehicles, including vehicles over 14,000 pounds GVWR.  However, we are not finalizing application of these procedures broadly at this time.  The test procedures in 40 CFR part 86 would continue to apply for vehicles under 14,000 pounds GVWR.  Rather, the final part 1066 procedures would apply only for any testing that would be required for larger vehicles.  This could include "A to B" hybrid vehicle testing, coastdown testing, and potentially limited innovative technology testing.  Nevertheless, we will likely consider in the future applying these procedures also for other heavy-duty vehicle testing and for light-duty vehicles, highway motorcycles, and/or nonroad recreational vehicles that rely on chassis-based testing.
As noted above, engine manufacturers are already using the test procedures in 40 CFR part 1065 instead of those originally adopted in 40 CFR part 86.  The new procedures are written to apply generically for any type of engine and include the current state of technology for measurement instruments, calibration procedures, and other practices.  We are finalizing the chassis-based test procedures in part 1066 to have a similar structure.
The final procedures in part 1066 reference large portions of part 1065 to align test specifications that apply equally to engine-based and vehicle-based testing, such as CVS and analyzer specifications and calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms.  Since several highway engine manufacturers were involved in developing the full range of specified procedures in part 1065, we are confident that many of these provisions are appropriate without modification for vehicle testing.
The remaining test specifications needed in part 1066 are mostly related to setting up, calibrating, and operating a chassis dynamometer.  This also includes the coastdown procedures that are required for establishing the dynamometer load settings to ensure that the dynamometer accurately simulates in-use driving.
Current testing requirements related to dynamometer specifications rely on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents, and extensive know-how from industry experience that has led to a good understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the laboratory to measure emissions.  We attempted in this proposal to capture this range of material, organizing these specifications and verification and calibration procedures to include a complete set of provisions to ensure that a dynamometer meeting these specifications would allow for carefully controlled vehicle operation such that emission measurements are accurate and repeatable.  We request comment on the range of final requirements related to designing, building, and operating chassis dynamometers.  For example, we believe that the final verification and calibration procedures in part 1066, subpart B, for diameter, speed, torque, acceleration, base inertia, friction loss, and other parameters are all necessary to ensure proper dynamometer operation.  It may be that some of these checks are redundant, or could be achieved with different procedures.  There may also be additional checks needed to remove possibilities for inadequate accuracy or precision.
The procedures are written with the understanding that heavy-duty highway manufacturers have, and need to have, single-roll electric dynamometers for testing.  We are aware that this is not the case for other applications, such as all-terrain vehicles.  We are not adopting specific provisions for testing with hydrokinetic dynamometers, we are already including a provision acknowledging that we may approve the use of dynamometers meeting alternative specifications if that is appropriate for the type of vehicle being tested and for the level of stringency represented by the corresponding emission standards.
Drafting a full set of test specifications highlights the mixed use of units for testing.  Some chassis-based standards and procedures are written based largely on the International System of Units (SI), such as gram per kilometer (g/km) standards and kilometers per hour (kph) driving, while others are written based largely on English units (g/mile standards and miles per hour driving).  The proposal includes a mix of SI and English units with instructions about converting units appropriately.  However, most of the specifications and examples are written in English units.  While this seems to be the prevailing practice for testing in the United States, we understand that vehicle testing outside the United States is almost universally done in SI units.  In any case, dynamometers are produced with the capability of operating in either English or SI units.  We believe there would be a substantial advantage toward the goal of achieving globally harmonized test procedures if we would write the test procedures based on SI units.  This would also in several cases allow for more straightforward calculations, and reduced risk of rounding errors.  For comparison, part 1065 is written almost exclusively in SI units.  We sought comment on the use of units throughout part 1066.  At this time we are not finalizing changes from our current approach.
A fundamental obstacle toward using SI units is the fact that some duty cycles are specified based on speeds in miles per hour.  To address this, it would be appropriate to convert the applicable driving schedules to meter-per-second (m/s) values.  Converting speeds to the nearest 0.01 m/s would ensure that the prescribed driving cycle does not change with respect to driving schedules that are specified to the nearest 0.1 mph.  The regulations would include the appropriate mph (or kph) speeds to allow for a ready understanding of speed values (see 40 CFR part 1037, Appendix I).  This would, for example, allow for drivers to continue to follow a mph-based speed trace.  The +-2 mph tolerance on driving speeds could be converted to +-1.0 m/s, which corresponds to an effective speed tolerance of +-2.2 mph.  This may involve a tightening or loosening of the existing speed tolerance, depending on whether manufacturers used the full degree of flexibility allowed for a mph tolerance value that is specified without a decimal place.  Similarly, the Cruise cycles for heavy-duty vehicles could be specified as 24.5+-0.5 m/s (54.8+-1.1 mph) and 29.0+-0.5 m/s (64.9+-1.1 mph).

 Compliance Reports
	Early Model Year Data
Same as Tractors early model year data in Section V.D(4)(a).
Final Reports
Same as Tractors final reports in Section V.D(4)(b).
Additional Required Information
Table V-5 below provides a summary of the types of requests, required application submission dates and the EPA and NHTSA regulations that apply.

 -
Table V-5: Summary of Required Information for Compliance
Submission
Applies to
Required Submissions Date
EPA Regulation Reference
NHTSA Regulation Reference
Small business exemptions
Vehicle or engine manufacturers meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria of a small business as described in 13 CFR 121.201.
Before introducing any  excluded vehicle into U.S. commerce
§1037.150
§535.8
Incentives for early introduction
The provisions apply with respect to tractors and vocational vehicles produced in model years before 2014
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Air condition leakage exemption for vocational vehicles
Vocational Vehicles excluded from § 1037.115
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Model year 2014 N2O standards.
Manufacturers that choose to show compliance with the MY 2014 N2O standards requesting to use an engineering analysis
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Exemption for electric vehicles
All electric vehicles are deemed to have zero emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O
End of December prior to model year
§1037.150
§535.8
Off-road exemption
Manufacturers wanting to exclude vocational vehicles from vehicle standards
EPA must be notified before the manufacturer submits it applications for certificates of conformity
§1037.150
§535.8
Exemption from EOY reports
Manufactures with surplus credits at the end of the model year
90-days after the calendar year ends
§1037.730
§535.8

Penalties
Overview
In the NPRM, NHTSA proposed to assess civil penalties for non-compliance with fuel consumption standards.  NHTSA's authority under EISA, as codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), requires the agency to determine appropriate measurement metrics, test procedures, standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols for HD vehicles.  NHTSA interprets its authority to develop an enforcement program to include the authority to determine and assess civil penalties for noncompliance that would impose penalties based on the following discussions.
In cases of noncompliance, the agency explained in the NPRM that it would establish civil penalties based on consideration of the following factors:
         Gravity of the violation
         Size of the violator's business
         Violator's history of compliance with applicable fuel consumption standards
         Actual fuel consumption performance related to the applicable standard
         Estimated cost to comply with the regulation and applicable standard
         Quantity of vehicles or engines not complying
         Civil penalties paid under CAA Section 205 (42 U.S.C. 7524) for non-compliance for the same vehicles or engines

NHTSA proposed to consider these factors in determining civil penalties in order to help ensure, given the agency's wide discretion, that penalties would be fair and appropriate, and not duplicative of EPA penalties.  The NPRM expressly stated that neither agency intended to impose duplicative civil penalties, and that both agencies would give consideration to civil penalties imposed by the other in the case of non-compliance with its own regulations.  NPRM at 74280.
EMA, Volvo, the Truck Renting and Leasing Association (TRALA), and Navistar nevertheless commented that a dual enforcement scheme with separate NHTSA and EPA penalties could result in duplicative penalties, as manufacturers could be assessed penalties twice for the same violation.
The possibility of more than one prosecution or enforcement action arising from the same overall body of facts does not present a novel issue.  It commonly arises where there is overlapping jurisdiction, such as where the federal government and a state government have jurisdiction.  The issue of multiple or sequential prosecutions may be addressed as a matter of administrative policy and discretion.
Both NHTSA and EPA are charged with regulating medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.  NHTSA regulates them under EISA and EPA regulates them under the CAA.  Both agencies have compliance review and enforcement responsibilities.  The same body of evidence may establish a violation of EISA and a violation of the CAA.  A manufacturer that violates both EISA and the CAA will be considered to have committed two distinct violations, and may not claim immunity from one simply because it has been subject to an enforcement action under another.  NHTSA will address the concern about multiple enforcement actions both when considering initiating an action and when stating its penalty demand.  Before initiating an action, NHTSA will check with EPA to see if EPA has filed an action.  If EPA has filed an action, NHTSA ordinarily will not file an action.  There are two exceptions.  The first is if the EPA action has become bogged down by the manufacturer and NHTSA faces a statute of limitations.  The second is if, for whatever reason, the EPA action did not result in the payment of what NHTSA views as appropriate penalties to the Treasury.  If a manufacturer has paid a penalty in an EPA action, and NHTSA decides to pursue an action, in that action, NHTSA will offset the payment to the Treasury in an EPA action from NHTSA's penalty demand.
NHTSA believes that the above description adequately describes the process by which civil penalties may be assessed by both agencies.  Therefore, for the final rule, penalties will be based on the gravity of the violation, the size of the violator's business, the violator's history of compliance with applicable fuel consumption standards, the actual fuel consumption performance related to the applicable standard, the estimated cost to comply with the regulation and applicable standard, and the quantity of vehicles or engines not complying.  The collaborative enforcement process will ensure that the total penalties assessed will not be duplicative or excessive.
NHTSA would also like to clarify that the "estimated cost to comply with the regulation and applicable standard," will be used to ensure that penalties for non-compliance will not be less than the cost of compliance.  It would be contrary to the purpose of the regulation for the penalty scheme to incentivize noncompliance.
The final civil penalty amount NHTSA could impose would not exceed the limit that EPA is authorized to impose under the CAA.  The potential maximum civil penalty for a manufacturer would be calculated as follows in Equation V-1:
Equation V-1: Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty
Aggregate Maximum Civil Penalty for a Non-Compliant Regulatory Category = (CAA Limit) x (production volume within the regulatory category)
EPA has occasionally in the past conducted rulemakings to provide for nonconformance penalties-- monetary penalties that allow a manufacturer to sell engines or vehicles that do not meet an emissions standard.  Nonconformance penalties are authorized for heavy-duty engines and vehicles under section 206(g) of the CAA.  Three basic criteria have been established by rulemaking for determining the eligibility of emissions standards for nonconformance penalties in any given model year: (1) the emissions standard in question must become more difficult to meet, (2) substantial work must be required in order to meet the standard, and (3) a technological laggard must be likely to develop (40 CFR 86.1103-87). A technological laggard is a manufacturer who cannot meet a particular emissions standard due to technological (not economic) difficulties and who, in the absence of nonconformance penalties, might be forced from the marketplace.  The process to determine if these criteria are met and to establish penalty amounts and conditions is carried out via rulemaking, as required by the CAA.  The CAA (in section 205) also lays out requirements for the assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance with emissions standards.
As discussed in detail in Section III, the agencies have determined that the final GHG and fuel consumption standards are readily feasible, and we do not believe a technological laggard will emerge in any sector covered by these final standards.  In addition to the standards being premised on use of already-existing, cost-effective technologies, there are a number of flexibilities and alternative standards built into the proposal.  However, we do request comment regarding this assessment and on whether or not it would be appropriate for EPA and NHTSA to initiate rulemaking activity to set nonconformance penalties for the final standards, subject to their respective statutory authorities.  Should nonconformance penalties be warranted, the benefits of establishing them would be threefold: (1) the EPA and NHTSA programs would continue to be equivalent, allowing manufacturers to sell the same vehicles and engines to satisfy both programs, (2) competitiveness in the affected HD sector would be maintained, preserving jobs and consumer choices, and (3) nonconformance penalties would be set through a transparent public process, involving notice and public hearing.
      (1) NHTSA's Penalty Process
NHTSA proposed a detailed enforcement process in the NPRM.  As proposed, enforcement would begin with a notice of violation, after which the respondent may either pay the penalty proposed in the notice of violation or dispute it by requesting an agency hearing.  For a party that did not pay the proposed penalty or request a hearing within 30 days of the notice of violation, a finding of default would be entered and the penalty set forth in the notice of violation assessed.  If a hearing is timely requested, the respondent would receive written notice of the time, date and location of the hearing.  The respondent would have the right to counsel and to examine, respond to and rebut evidence presented by the Chief Counsel.  If civil penalties greater than $250,000,000 were assessed in the Hearing Officer's final order, that order would contain a statement advising the party of the right to appeal to the NHTSA Administrator.  In the event of a timely appeal, the decision of the Administrator would be a final agency action.  This structure was intended to ensure that a party was afforded ample opportunity to be heard.
Several manufacturers commented that NHTSA's penalty procedures should be more formal than was proposed in the NPRM.  EMA, Volvo and Navistar commented that the penalty procedures should be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) review requirements.  EMA, Volvo and Navistar, and TRALA commented that the penalty procedures violated due process requirements.  EMA argued that NHTSA must expressly grant a right to judicial review, and EMA and Navistar argued that the absence of an administrative appeals process for penalties under $250,000,000 would violate due process. Volvo faulted NHTSA for not classifying the hearing officer's decision as a final agency action, and stated that specifications regarding who could be a hearing officer should align with those specified for the light-duty program, which was laid out in 49 CFR Section 511.3.
As noted in the NPRM, the APA administrative hearing requirements of Sections 554, 556, and 557 are not required where formal procedures are not required by statute (generally, the organic statute must provide that the administrative proceeding must be an adjudication, determined on the record after the opportunity for an agency hearing, sometimes referenced as an opportunity for hearing on the record).  See e.g., 5 U.S.C. Section 554.  Where a formal adjudication is not required by statute, in general, agencies adopt and apply informal processes.  While the compliance, civil penalty and appeals provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 32911 and 32914 require formal adjudication in accordance with APA requirements, those sections only apply to the light-duty fuel economy program.  In contrast, for the heavy-duty program of Section 32902(k), the Congress did not require formal adjudication in accordance with the APA.  Therefore, informal adjudication procedures may be applied. NHTSA will not adopt the procedures of by 5 U.S.C. Sections 554, 556, or 557 for the final rule.
While the APA requirements for formal hearing procedures do not apply to NHTSA's enforcement under Section 32902(k), due process requirements do apply.  NHTSA believes that formal procedures are neither required by statute nor necessary for this enforcement process to meet due process requirements.  NHTSA expects that the cases will not be complex.  In general, there will be one or two issues:  (1) compliance with the regulations and, if not, (2) the appropriate civil penalty.  Compliance likely will involve narrow technical questions under the regulations being adopted today.  Non-compliance with applicable fuel consumption standards will be determined by utilizing the certified and reported CO2 emissions and fuel consumption data provided byEPA as described in this part, and after considering all the flexibilities available under Section 535.7.  Much of the evidence will be materials developed by the respondent.  There likely will not be wide ranging issues.  The parties will have ample opportunity to present their positions.  A hearing officer can readily address the sorts of questions that are likely to arise.  Second, if there is a noncompliance, there will be the question of the appropriate penalty.  NHTSA's regulations contain factors to be considered in assessing penalties.  Again, the parties will have ample opportunity to present their positions.  Ultimately, the agency's final decision must be sufficiently reasoned to withstand judicial review, based on the arbitrary and capricious standard.
To address commenters' concerns about the process provided, NHTSA made several adjustments and clarifications in the final rule.  The final rule provides that there will be a written decision of the Hearing Officer, and the assessment of a civil penalty by a hearing officer shall be set forth in an accompanying final order.  Together, these constitute the final agency action.  NHTSA has also revisited the minimum penalty level for an administrative appeal to the NHTSA Administrator and decided to lower the level significantly, to $1,000,000.  This provides a second level of review.  NHTSA believes this will promote an efficient use of administrative remedies and a further opportunity to be heard at the administrative level. Of course, if a party files an appeal with the NHTSA Administrator, the Hearing Officer's decision and order at that juncture shall no longer be final agency action.
NHTSA has considered the specifications of the Hearing Officer and determined that they are adequate for informal agency hearings of this nature.  However, the agency will add a clarification to the final rule that specifies that the Hearing Officer will be appointed by the Administrator.  Further, in addition to having no prior connection with the case and no responsibility, direct or supervisory, for the investigation of cases referred for the assessment of civil penalties, the Hearing Officer will have no duties related to the light-duty fuel economy or medium- and heavy-duty fuel efficiency programs.
NHTSA has also considered EMA's comment that a right to judicial review must be specified in the regulatory text.  The agency does not agree with this concern.  Parties, of course, cannot confer jurisdiction; only Congress can do so.  Whitman v. Department of Transportation, 547 U.S. 512, 514 (2006);  Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645, 652 (1973).  Moreover, judicial review of a final agency action is presumed. United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 452 (1998), citing Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967).  See generally, 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Therefore, NHTSA has determined that the right to judicial review does not need to be specified in the regulatory text.
How Will This Program Impact Fuel Consumption, GHG Emissions, and Climate Change?
What Methodologies Did the Agencies Use to Project GHG Emissions and Fuel Consumption Impacts?
EPA and NHTSA used EPA's official mobile source emissions inventory model named Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2010), to estimate emission and fuel consumption impacts of these final rules.  MOVES has capability to take in user inputs to modify default data to better estimate emissions for different scenarios, such as different regulatory alternatives, state implementation plans (SIPs), geographic locations, vehicle activity, and microscale projects.
The agencies performed multiple MOVES runs to establish reference case and control case emission inventories and fuel consumption values.  The agencies ran MOVES with user input databases that reflected characteristics of the final rules, such as emissions improvements and recent sales projections. Some post-processing of the model output was required to ensure proper results.  The agencies ran MOVES for non-GHGs, CO2, CH4, and N2O for calendar years 2005, 2018, 2030, and 2050.  Additional runs were performed for just the three greenhouse gases 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 analysis.
The agencies also used MOVES to estimate emissions and fuel consumption impacts for the other alternatives considered and described in Section IX.
MOVES Analysis
Inputs and Assumptions
The analysis performed for the final action mirrors what was done for the proposal.  The methods and models are the same, with differences lying primarily in the inputs, as a result of updates in the program, standards, and baseline data.
Reference run updates
Since MOVES2010a vehicle sales and activity data were developed from AEO2009, EPA first updated these data using sales and activity estimates from AEO2011.  .  MOVES2010a defaults were used for all other parameters to estimate the reference case emissions inventories.
Control Run Updates
EPA developed additional user input data for MOVES runs to estimate control case inventories.  To account for improvements of engine and vehicle efficiency, EPA developed several user inputs to run the control case in MOVES.  As explained at proposal, since MOVES does not operate based on Heavy-duty FTP cycle results, EPA used the percent reduction in engine CO2 emissions expected due to the final rules to develop energy inputs for the control case runs.  75 FR at 74280.  Also, EPA used the percent reduction in aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance coefficients and reduction in average total running weight (gross combined weight) expected from the final rules to develop road load input for the control case.  The fuel supply update used in the reference case was used in the control case.  Details of all the MOVES runs, input data tables, and post-processing are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162).
Table VI-1 and Table VI-2 describe the estimated expected reductions from these final rules, which were input into MOVES for estimating control case emissions inventories.
Table VI-1: Estimated Reductions in Engine CO2 -  Emission Rates
GVWR Class
Fuel
Model Years
CO2 Reduction from 2010 MY
HHD (8a-8b)
Diesel
2014-2016
3%

2017+
6%
MHD (6-7) and LHD 4-5
Diesel
2014-2016
5%

2017+
9%

Gasoline
2016+
5%

Table VI-2: Estimated Reductions in Rolling Resistance Coefficient, Aerodynamic Drag Coefficient, and Gross Combined Weight
TRUCK TYPE
REDUCTION IN TIRE ROLLING RESISTANCE COEFFICIENT FROM BASELINE
REDUCTION IN AERODYNAMIC DRAG COEFFICIENT FROM BASELINE
WEIGHT REDUCTION (LBS.)
Combination long-haul
9.6%
12.1%
400
Combination short-haul
7.0%
5.9%
321
Straight trucks, refuse trucks, motor homes, transit buses, and other vocational vehicles
10.0%
0%
0
Since nearly all HD pickup trucks and vans will be certified on a chassis dynamometer, the CO2 reductions for these vehicles will not be represented as engine and road load reduction components, but total vehicle CO2 reductions.  These estimated reductions are described in Table VI-3.
Table VI-3: Estimated Total Vehicle CO2 Reductions for HD Pickup Trucks and Vans
GVWR Class
Fuel
Model year
CO2 Reduction from Baseline
HD Pickup Trucks and Vans
Gasoline
2014
1.5%

2015
2%

2016
4%

2017
6%

2018+
10%

Diesel
2014
2.3%

2015
3%

2016
6%

2017
9%

2018+
15%

What Are the Projected Reductions in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions?
EPA and NHTSA expect significant reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption from these final rules  -  emission reductions from both downstream (tailpipe) and upstream (fuel production and distribution) sources, and fuel consumption reductions from more efficient vehicles.  Increased vehicle efficiency and reduced vehicle fuel consumption will also reduce GHG emissions from upstream sources.  The following subsections summarize the GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions expected from these final rules.
Downstream (Tailpipe)
Consistent with the proposal, EPA used MOVES to estimate downstream GHG inventories from these final rules.  We expect reductions in CO2 from all heavy-duty vehicle categories.  The reductions come from engine and vehicle improvements.  EPA expects N2O emissions to increase very slightly because of a rebound in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and because significant vehicle reductions are not expected from these final rules.  In the proposal, we did not account for differences in methane emissions from use of auxiliary power units (APUs) during extended idling from sleeper cab combination tractors.  After accounting for these differences, EPA expects methane emissions to decrease primarily due to differences in hydrocarbon emission characteristics between on-road diesel engines and APUs.  The amount of methane emitted as a fraction of total hydrocarbons is significantly less for APUs than for diesel engines equipped with diesel particulate filters.  Overall, downstream GHG emissions will be reduced significantly, and is described in the following subsections.
For CO2 -  and fuel consumption, the total energy consumption "pollutant" was run in MOVES rather than CO2 itself.  The energy was converted to fuel consumption based on fuel heating values assumed in the Renewable Fuels Standard and used in the development of MOVES emission and energy rates.  These values are 117,250 kJ/gallon for E10 and 138,451 kJ/gallon for diesel.  To calculate CO - 2, the agencies assumed a CO2 content of 8,576 g/gallon for E10 and 10,180 g/gallon for diesel.  Table VI-4 shows the fleet-wide GHG reductions and fuel savings from reference case to control case through the lifetime of model year 2014 through 2018 heavy-duty vehicles.  Table VI-5 shows the downstream GHG emissions reductions and fuel savings in 2018, 2030, and 2050.  The analysis follows what was done for the proposal.  We did not receive comments indicating that this analysis was inappropriate or insufficient for estimating downstream emissions impacts of this program.

Table VI-4 Model Year 2014 through 2018 Lifetime GHG Reductions and Fuel Savings by Heavy-duty Truck Category

Downstream GHG Reductions (MMT CO2eq)
Fuel Savings (billion gallons)
HD pickups/vans
18
1.9
Vocational
27
2.7
Combination short-haul (Day cabs)
50
4.9
Combination long-haul (Sleeper cabs)
135
12.9

Table VI-5: Annual Downstream GHG Emissions Reductions and Fuel Savings in 2018, 2030, and 2050

Downstream GHG Reductions (MMT CO2eq)
Diesel Savings (million gallons)
Gasoline Savings (million gallons)
2018
23
2,146
60
2030
62
5,729
355
2050
90
8,428
531

Upstream (Fuel Production and Distribution)
Using the same approach as used in the NPRM, the upstream GHG emission reductions associated with the production and distribution of fuel were projected using emission factors from DOE's "Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation" (GREET1.8) model, with some modifications consistent with the MY 2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicle rulemaking. More information regarding these modifications can be found in the RIA Chapter 5. These estimates include both international and domestic emission reductions, since reductions in foreign exports of finished gasoline and/or crude make up a significant share of the fuel savings resulting from the GHG standards.  Thus, significant portions of the upstream GHG emission reductions will occur outside of the United States; a breakdown and discussion of projected international versus domestic reductions is included in the RIA Chapter 5. GHG emission reductions from upstream sources can be found in Table VI-6.
Table VI-6: Annual Upstream GHG Emissions Reductions in 2018, 2030, and 2050

CO2 (MMT)
CH4 (MMT CO2eq)
N2O (MMT CO2eq)
Total GHG (MMT CO2eq)
2018
5.1
0.9
0.02
6.0
2030
12.4
1.9
0.06
14.3
2050
16.4
2.5
0.08
19.0

HFC Emissions
Based on projected HFC emission reductions due to the final AC leakage standards, EPA estimates the HFC reductions to be 122,338 metric tons of CO2eq in 2018, 436,483 metric tons of CO2eq emissions in 2030 and 596,396 metric tons CO2eq in 2050, as detailed in RIA Chapter 5.3.4.
Total (Upstream + Downstream + HFC)
Table VI-7 combines downstream results from Table VI-5, upstream results Table VI-6, and HFC results to show total GHG reductions for calendar years 2018, 2030, and 2050.
Table VI-7: Annual Total GHG Emissions Reductions in 2018, 2030, and 2050

GHG Reductions (MMT CO2eq)
2018
29
2030
77
2050
109

Overview of Climate Change Impacts from GHG Emissions
Once emitted, GHGs that are the subject of this regulation can remain in the atmosphere for decades to millenia, meaning that 1) their concentrations become well-mixed throughout the global atmosphere regardless of emission origin, and 2) their effects on climate are long lasting. GHG emissions come mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with additional contributions from the clearing of forests and agricultural activities. Transportation activities, in aggregate, are the second largest contributor to total U.S. GHG emissions (27 percent) despite a decline in emissions from this sector during 2008.
This section provides a summary of observed and projected changes in GHG emissions and associated climate change impacts. The source document for the section below is the Technical Support Document (TSD) for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings Under the Clean Air Act (74 FR  66496, December 15, 2009). Below is the Executive Summary of the TSD which provides technical support for the endangerment and cause or contribute analyses concerning GHG emissions under section 202(a) of the CAA.  The TSD reviews observed and projected changes in climate based on current and projected atmospheric GHG concentrations and emissions, as well as the related impacts and risks from climate change that are projected in the absence of GHG mitigation actions, including this program and other U.S. and global actions. The TSD was updated and revised based on expert technical review and public comment as part of EPA's rulemaking process for the final Endangerment Findings.  The key findings synthesized here and the information throughout the TSD are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and NRC.
In May 2010, the NRC published its comprehensive assessment, "Advancing the Science of Climate Change."  It concluded that "climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for -- and in many cases is already affecting -- a broad range of human and natural systems."  Furthermore, the NRC stated that this conclusion is based on findings that are "consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on climate change."  These are the same assessments that served as the primary scientific references underlying the Administrator's Endangerment Finding.  Importantly, this recent NRC assessment represents another independent and critical inquiry of the state of climate change science, separate and apart from the previous IPCC and USGCRP assessments.  The NRC assessment is a clear affirmation that the scientific underpinnings of the Administrator's Endangerment Finding are robust, credible, and appropriately characterized by EPA.
Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Concentrations
The primary long-lived GHGs directly emitted by human activities include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6.  Greenhouse gases have a warming effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise escape to space. In 2007, U.S. GHG emissions were 7,150 teragrams of CO2 equivalent (TgCO2eq).  The dominant gas emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion.  Methane is the second largest component of U.S. emissions, followed by N2O and the fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFCs, and SF6).  Electricity generation is the largest emitting sector (34% of total U.S. GHG emissions), followed by transportation (27%) and industry (19%).
Transportation sources under section 202(a) of the CAA (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other trucks and buses, motorcycles, and passenger cooling) emitted 1,649 TgCO2eq in 2007, representing 23% of total U.S. GHG emissions. U.S. transportation sources under section 202(a) made up 4.3% of total global GHG emissions in 2005, which, in addition to the United States as a whole, ranked only behind total GHG emissions from China, Russia, and India but ahead of Japan, Brazil, Germany, and the rest of the world's countries.  In 2005, total U.S. GHG emissions were responsible for 18% of global emissions, ranking only behind China, which was responsible for 19% of global GHG emissions. The scope of this final action focuses on GHG emissions under section 202(a) from heavy-duty source categories (see Section II).
The global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased about 38% from pre-industrial levels to 2009, and almost all of the increase is due to anthropogenic emissions.  The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased by 149% since pre-industrial levels (through 2007); and the N2O concentration has increased by 23% (through 2007).  The observed concentration increase in these gases can also be attributed primarily to anthropogenic emissions. The industrial fluorinated gases, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, have relatively low atmospheric concentrations but the total radiative forcing due to these gases is increasing rapidly; these gases are almost entirely anthropogenic in origin.
Historic data show that current atmospheric concentrations of the two most important directly emitted, long-lived GHGs (CO2 and CH4) are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to at least the last 650,000 years.  Atmospheric GHG concentrations have been increasing because anthropogenic emissions have been outpacing the rate at which GHGs are removed from the atmosphere by natural processes over timescales of decades to centuries.
Observed Effects Associated With Global Elevated Concentrations of GHGs
Greenhouse gases, at current (and projected) atmospheric concentrations, remain well below published exposure thresholds for any direct adverse health effects and are not expected to pose exposure risks (i.e., from breathing/inhalation).
The global average net effect of the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, plus other human activities (e.g., land-use change and aerosol emissions), on the global energy balance since 1750 has been one of warming.  This total net heating effect, referred to as forcing, is estimated to be +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) watts per square meter (W/m[2]), with much of the range surrounding this estimate due to uncertainties about the cooling and warming effects of aerosols.  However, as aerosol forcing has more regional variability than the well-mixed, long-lived GHGs, the global average might not capture some regional effects. The combined radiative forcing due to the cumulative (i.e., 1750 to 2005) increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O is estimated to be +2.30 (+2.07 to +2.53) W/m[2].  The rate of increase in positive radiative forcing due to these three GHGs during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.  Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 +- 0.32F (0.74°C +- 0.18C) over the last 100 years.  Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.  Global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.  Climate model simulations suggest natural forcing alone (i.e., changes in solar irradiance) cannot explain the observed warming.
U.S. temperatures also warmed during the 20[th] and into the 21[st] century; temperatures are now approximately 1.3°F (0.7°C) warmer than at the start of the 20[th] century, with an increased rate of warming over the past 30 years.  Both the IPCC and the CCSP reports attributed recent North American warming to elevated GHG concentrations.  In the CCSP (2008) report, the authors find that for North America, "more than half of this warming [for the period 1951-2006] is likely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas forcing of climate change."
Observations show that changes are occurring in the amount, intensity, frequency and type of precipitation.  Over the contiguous United States, total annual precipitation increased by 6.1% from 1901 to 2008.  It is likely that there have been increases in the number of heavy precipitation events within many land regions, even in those where there has been a reduction in total precipitation amount, consistent with a warming climate.
There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20[th] century and is currently rising at an increased rate.  It is not clear whether the increasing rate of sea level rise is a reflection of short-term variability or an increase in the longer-term trend.  Nearly all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the last 50 years with the rate of rise reaching a maximum (over 2 millimeters [mm] per year) in a band along the U.S. east coast running east-northeast.
Satellite data since 1979 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 4.1% per decade.  The size and speed of recent Arctic summer sea ice loss is highly anomalous relative to the previous few thousands of years.
Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in the last 50 years across all world regions, including the United States.  Cold days, cold nights, and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.
Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.  However, directly attributing specific regional changes in climate to emissions of GHGs from human activities is difficult, especially for precipitation.
Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean pH (increased acidity) level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.  Consequences for marine ecosystems can include reduced calcification by shell-forming organisms, and in the longer term, the dissolution of carbonate sediments.
Observations show that climate change is currently affecting U.S. physical and biological systems in significant ways. The consistency of these observed changes in physical and biological systems and the observed significant warming likely cannot be explained entirely due to natural variability or other confounding non-climate factors.
Projections of Future Climate Change with Continued Increases in Elevated GHG Concentrations
Most future scenarios that assume no explicit GHG mitigation actions (beyond those already enacted) project increasing global GHG emissions over the century, with climbing GHG concentrations.  Carbon dioxide is expected to remain the dominant anthropogenic GHG over the course of the 21[st] century.  The radiative forcing associated with the non-CO2 GHGs is still significant and increasing over time.
Future warming over the course of the 21[st] century, even under scenarios of low-emission growth, is very likely to be greater than observed warming over the past century.  According to climate model simulations summarized by the IPCC, through about 2030, the global warming rate is affected little by the choice of different future emissions scenarios.  By the end of the 21[st] century, projected average global warming (compared to average temperature around 1990) varies significantly depending on the emission scenario and climate sensitivity assumptions, ranging from 3.2 to 7.2F (1.8 to 4.0C), with an uncertainty range of 2.0 to 11.5F (1.1 to 6.4C).
All of the United States is very likely to warm during this century, and most areas of the United States are expected to warm by more than the global average.  The largest warming is projected to occur in winter over northern parts of Alaska.  In western, central and eastern regions of North America, the projected warming has less seasonal variation and is not as large, especially near the coast, consistent with less warming over the oceans.
It is very likely that heat waves will become more intense, more frequent, and longer lasting in a future warm climate, whereas cold episodes are projected to decrease significantly.
Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in higher latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical latitudes and the southwestern United States, continuing observed patterns. The mid-continental area is expected to experience drying during summer, indicating a greater risk of drought.
Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase in the United States and other regions of the world.  More intense precipitation is expected to increase the risk of flooding and result in greater runoff and erosion that has the potential for adverse water quality effects.
It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense, with stronger peak winds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.  Frequency changes in hurricanes are currently too uncertain for confident projections.
By the end of the century, global average sea level is projected by IPCC to rise between 7.1 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeter [cm]), relative to around 1990, in the absence of increased dynamic ice sheet loss. Recent rapid changes at the edges of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets show acceleration of flow and thinning.  While an understanding of these ice sheet processes is incomplete, their inclusion in models would likely lead to increased sea level projections for the end of the 21[st] century.
Sea ice extent is projected to shrink in the Arctic under all IPCC emissions scenarios.
Projected Risks and Impacts Associated With Future Climate Change
Risk to society, ecosystems, and many natural Earth processes increase with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change.  Climate warming may increase the possibility of large, abrupt regional or global climatic events (e.g., disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet or collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet).  The partial deglaciation of Greenland (and possibly West Antarctica) could be triggered by a sustained temperature increase of 2 to 7F (1 to 4ºC) above 1990 levels. Such warming would cause a 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meter) rise in sea level, which would occur over a time period of centuries to millennia.
The CCSP reports that climate change has the potential to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system, as many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the uninsured.  The IPCC states with very high confidence that climate change impacts on human health in U.S. cities will be compounded by population growth and an aging population.
Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the United States where these events already occur, with potential increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young, and frail.
Some reduction in the risk of death related to extreme cold is expected.  It is not clear whether reduced mortality from cold will be greater or less than increased heat-related mortality in the United States due to climate change.
Increases in regional ozone pollution relative to ozone levels without climate change are expected due to higher temperatures and weaker circulation in the United States and other world cities relative to air quality levels without climate change.  Climate change is expected to increase regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in respiratory illnesses and premature death.  In addition to human health effects, tropospheric ozone has significant adverse effects on crop yields, pasture and forest growth, and species composition.  The directional effect of climate change on ambient particulate matter levels remains uncertain.
Within settlements experiencing climate change, certain parts of the population may be especially vulnerable; these include the poor, the elderly, those already in poor health, the disabled, those living alone, and/or indigenous populations dependent on one or a few resources.  Thus, the potential impacts of climate change raise environmental justice issues.
The CCSP concludes that, with increased CO2 and temperature, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly.  But, as temperature rises, these crops will increasingly begin to experience failure, especially if climate variability increases and precipitation lessens or becomes more variable.  Furthermore, the marketable yield of many horticultural crops (e.g., tomatoes, onions, fruits) is very likely to be more sensitive to climate change than grain and oilseed crops.
Higher temperatures will very likely reduce livestock production during the summer season in some areas, but these losses will very likely be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the winter season.
Cold-water fisheries will likely be negatively affected; warm-water fisheries will generally benefit; and the results for cool-water fisheries will be mixed, with gains in the northern and losses in the southern portions of ranges.
Climate change has very likely increased the size and number of forest fires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so. Over North America, forest growth and productivity have been observed to increase since the middle of the 20[th] century, in part due to observed climate change.  Rising CO2 will very likely increase photosynthesis for forests, but the increased photosynthesis will likely only increase wood production in young forests on fertile soils.  The combined effects of expected increased temperature, CO2, nitrogen deposition, ozone, and forest disturbance on soil processes and soil carbon storage remain unclear.
Coastal communities and habitats will be increasingly stressed by climate change impacts interacting with development and pollution.  Sea level is rising along much of the U.S. coast, and the rate of change will very likely increase in the future, exacerbating the impacts of progressive inundation, storm-surge flooding, and shoreline erosion.  Storm impacts are likely to be more severe, especially along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.  Salt marshes, other coastal habitats, and dependent species are threatened by sea level rise, fixed structures blocking landward migration, and changes in vegetation.  Population growth and rising value of infrastructure in coastal areas increases vulnerability to climate variability and future climate change.
Climate change will likely further constrain already over-allocated water resources in some regions of the United States, increasing competition among agricultural, municipal, industrial, and ecological uses.  Although water management practices in the United States are generally advanced, particularly in the West, the reliance on past conditions as the basis for current and future planning may no longer be appropriate, as climate change increasingly creates conditions well outside of historical observations. Rising temperatures will diminish snowpack and increase evaporation, affecting seasonal availability of water.  In the Great Lakes and major river systems, lower water levels are likely to exacerbate challenges relating to water quality, navigation, recreation, hydropower generation, water transfers, and binational relationships.  Decreased water supply and lower water levels are likely to exacerbate challenges relating to aquatic navigation in the United States.