sleeper cabs. The agencies assumed a 12 kWh waste heat recovery system
would reduce CO2 emissions by 6 percent at a cost of $8,400
per truck.\566\ The estimated reduction in CO2 emissions
from the engine for this alternative is included in RIA Chapter 6. The
impact of 100 percent application of the advanced aerodynamic
technology package would lead to a total 20.7 percent reduction in Cd
values for high roof sleeper cabs over a 2010 MY baseline tractor. The
incremental cost of this technology over the preferred case is $1,027
per vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \566\ TIAX. 2009. Note 198, Page 4-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The HD pickup truck and van standard would be based on the addition
of the turbocharged, downsized technology to gasoline engines which
would bring the total reduction for gasoline HD pickup trucks and vans
to 15 percent and match the level of reduction for the diesel pickup
trucks. The agencies do not consider this to be a technology from which
the 2017MY gasoline HD pickup truck standards should be premised on
because we are not yet convinced that turbocharged downsized gasoline
engines can be applied to heavy-duty truck applications in a durable
manner. We are aware that manufacturers are testing such engines and
that in pickup trucks with a duty cycle representing a mix of passenger
vehicle and work applications the engines can be durable. However, we
are unable to conclude today that such engines will be durable and
hence technically feasible when applied in heavy-duty truck
applications with an expected higher average load factor. The estimated
incremental cost increase to HD pickup trucks and vans to replace a
stoichiometric gasoline direct injected V8 engine with coupled cam
phasing used in Alternative 3 with a V6 stoichiometric gasoline direct
injection DOHC with dual cam phasing, discrete valve lift, and twin
turbochargers is estimated to be $1,743.\567\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \567\ See RIA chapter 2, Table 2.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vocational vehicle standard would be based on the addition
hybrid powertrains to 6 percent of the vehicles. The agencies assumed a
32 percent per vehicle reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption
due to the hybrid with a cost of $26,667 per vehicle based on the
average effectiveness and costs developed in the NAS report for box
trucks, bucket trucks, and refuse haulers.\568\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \568\ Committee to Assess Fuel Economy Technologies for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Vehicles; National Research Council; Transportation
Research Board (2010). ``Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles,'' (``NAS
Report''). Washington, DC The National Academies Press. Available
electronically from the National Academies Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12845. Page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) Alternative 5: Trailers Plus Accelerated Hybrid
    Alternative 5 builds on Alternative 4 through additional hybrid
powertrain application rates in the HD sector and by adding a
performance standard for fuel efficiency and GHG emissions to
commercial trailers. This alternative includes all elements of
Alternative 4 (some of which we already regard as infeasible in the
model years covered by the final rules), plus the application of
additional hybrid powertrains to the pickup trucks, vans, vocational
vehicles, and tractors. In addition, the agencies applied aerodynamic
technologies to commercial box trailers, along with tire technologies
for all commercial trailers.
    The agencies set the hybrid penetration for each category such that
it represents 50 percent of the HD pickup truck and van segment, 50
percent of vocational vehicles, and 5 percent of tractors in 2017 model
year. The agencies have concluded that it is not feasible to achieve
hybrid technology penetration rates at or even near these levels in the
time frame of this rulemaking. As with Alternative 4, we include a +c
in our cost estimates for this alternative to reflect additional costs
not estimated by the agencies. The agencies assumed that a hybrid
powertrain would provide a 32 percent reduction in CO2
emissions and fuel consumption of a vocational vehicle at a projected
cost of $26,667 per vehicle, based on the average of the NAS report
findings for box trucks, bucket trucks, and refuse vehicles.\569\ The
agencies are projecting a cost of $9,000 per vehicle for the HD pickup
trucks and vans with an effectiveness of 18 percent, again based on the
NAS report.\570\ Lastly, the effectiveness of hybrid powertrains
installed in tractors was assumed to be 10 percent at a cost of $25,000
based on the NAS report.\571\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \569\ NAS Report. Page 146.
    \570\ NAS Report. Page 146.
    \571\ NAS Report. Page 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The combination tractor technology package for Alternative 5
includes the preferred alternative technologies, waste heat recovery
and Advanced SmartWay aerodynamic package used in Alternative 4, and
application of hybrid powertrains discussed above, in addition to a
regulation for commercial trailers pulled by combination tractors. The
agencies assumed a box trailer program would mirror the SmartWay
program and include tire and aerodynamic requirements. The agencies
added low rolling resistance tires to all commercial trailers, which
are assumed to have 15 percent lower rolling resistance than the
baseline

trailer tire which is equivalent to the target value required by
SmartWay. The aerodynamics of the box trailers were assumed to improve
the coefficient of drag for the combination tractor-trailer by 10
percent through the application of technologies such as trailer skirts
and gap reducers.\572\ These technologies would result in further
reductions in drag coefficient and rolling resistance coefficient from
the MY 2010 baseline. As stated above for hybrids, the agencies do not
believe that it is possible to achieve technology penetration rates at
or even near these levels in the time frame of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \572\ The Cd improvement of 10 percent for trailer improvements
was derived from the TIAX report, Table 4-26 on page 4-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The combination tractor costs for this alternative are equal to the
costs in Alternative 4, plus $25,000 for hybrid powertrains in ten
percent of tractors, plus the costs of trailers. The costs for the
trailer program of Alternative 5 were derived based on the assumption
that trailer aerodynamic improvements would cost $2,150 per trailer.
This cost assumes side fairings and gap reducers and is based on the
ICF cost estimate.\573\ The agencies applied the aerodynamic
improvement to only box trailers, which represent approximately 60
percent of the trailer sales. The agencies used $528 per trailer (2014
MY cost) for low rolling resistance based on the agencies' estimate of
$66 per tire in the tractor program. Lastly, the agencies assumed the
trailer volume is equal to three times the tractor volume based on the
3:1 ratio of trailers to tractors in the market today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \573\ Assumed retail prices of $1,300 for side skirts and $850
for gap reducers based on the ICF Cost Report, page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Do These Alternatives Compare in Overall GHG Emissions
Reductions and Fuel Efficiency and Cost?

    The agencies analyzed all five alternatives through the MOVES model
to evaluate the impact of each alternative, as shown in Table IX-1. The
table contains the annual CO2 and fuel savings in 2030 and
2050 for each alternative (relative to the reference scenario of
Alternative 1), presenting both the total savings across all regulatory
categories, and for each regulatory category.
    Table IX-2 presents the annual technology costs associated with
each alternative (relative to the reference scenario of Alternative 1)
in 2030 and 2050 for each regulatory category. In addition, the total
annual downstream impacts of NOX, CO, PM, and VOC emissions
in 2030 for each of the alternatives are included in Table IX-3.
    Lastly, the agencies project the monetized net benefits associated
with each alternative in 2030 and 2050 as shown in Table IX-4 and Table
IX-5.

              Table IX-1--Annual CO2 and Oil Reductions Relative to Alternative 1 in 2030 and 2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Downstream CO2 Reductions       Oil reductions  (billion
                                                               (MMT)                         gallons)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2030            2050            2030            2050
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline.................................               0               0               0               0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline--Total................              39              90             3.9             9.0
Tractors........................................              29              73             2.9             7.1
HD Pickup Trucks................................               9              16             0.9             1.7
Vocational Vehicles.............................               1               2             0.1             0.2
Alt. 2 Less Stringent--Total....................              54              78             5.4             7.7
Tractors........................................              42              59             4.2             5.8
HD Pickup Trucks................................               7              11             0.8             1.2
Vocational Vehicles.............................               5               7             0.4             0.7
Alt. 3 Preferred--Total.........................              61              88             6.0             8.7
Tractors........................................              45              63             4.4             6.2
HD Pickup Trucks................................               8              13             0.9             1.3
Vocational Vehicles.............................               7              11             0.7             1.1
Alt. 4 More Stringent--Total....................              74             107             7.4            10.7
Tractors........................................              53              74             5.2             7.3
HD Pickup Trucks................................              10              15             1.0             1.6
Vocational Vehicles.............................              11              18             1.1             1.8
Alt. 5 Max Technology--Total....................              99             146             9.8            14.5
Tractors........................................              61              85             6.0             8.3
HD Pickup Trucks................................              15              24             1.6             2.5
Vocational Vehicles.............................              23              37             2.2             3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table IX-2--Technology Cost Projections Relative to Alternative 1 for
                            Each Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Technology costs \a\
                                                 (Millions, 2009$)
                                         -------------------------------
                                               2030            2050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline.........................              $0              $0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline--Total \b\....              --              --
Tractors................................              --              --
HD Pickup Trucks........................              --              --
Vocational Vehicles.....................              --              --
Alt. 2 Less Stringent--Total............          $1,676          $2,440
Tractors................................             743           1,227
HD Pickup Trucks........................             817           1,029
Vocational Vehicles.....................             117             185
Alt. 3 Preferred--Total.................           2,210           3,287

Tractors................................           1,076           1,777
HD Pickup Trucks........................             918           1,156
Vocational Vehicles.....................             216             354
Alt. 4 More Stringent--Total............         5,211+c         6,996+c
Tractors................................         1,953+c         3,225+c
HD Pickup Trucks........................         1,442+c         1,816+c
Vocational Vehicles.....................         1,816+c         1,954+c
                                                17,909+c        27,306+c
Alt. 5 Max Technology--Total............         2,747+c         4,292+c
Tractors................................         5,669+c         7,142+c
HD Pickup Trucks........................         9,493+c        15,873+c
Vocational Vehicles.....................         5,211+c        6,996+c
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The +c is intended to make clear that the cost estimates we are
  showing do not include additional costs related to pulling ahead the
  development and expanding manufacturing base for these technologies.
\b\ The agencies did not conduct a cost analysis for the AEO2011
  baseline.

      Table IX-3--Downstream Impacts Relative to Alternative 1 of Key Non-GHGs for Each Alternative in 2030
                                                  [In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             CO             PM2.5            VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alt. 1 Baseline.................................               0               0               0               0
Alt. 1a AEO 2011 Baseline.......................             8.8             1.0            -3.8             7.2
Alt. 2 Less Stringent...........................           -21.9            -2.0             8.4           -19.0
Alt. 3 Preferred................................           -22.0            -2.0             8.5           -19.1
Alt. 4 More Stringent...........................           -22.5            -2.0             8.7           -19.5
Alt. 5 Max Technology...........................           -22.9            -2.1             8.4           -20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table IX-4--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                      2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vehicles
                                       [3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0          $5,900          $8,100       $20,700+c       $37,200+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0          45,000          50,100          63,900          79,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0           1,100           1,200           1,600           1,900
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           5,100           5,700           7,200           9,000
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           8,400           9,400          12,000          15,000
3% (95th percentile)............               0          16,000          17,000          22,000          27,000
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0           2,400           2,700           3,400           4,200
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0          -1,300          -1,500          -1,600          -1,600
Refueling Savings...............               0             300             400             500             600
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0          41,600          44,800        47,100+c        47,000+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0          45,600          49,300        52,700+c        54,100+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0          48,900          53,000        57,500+c        60,100+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0          56,500          60,600        67,500+c        72,100+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: 5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
  expected under this rulemaking (See RIA Chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs,
  the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

  Table IX-5--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                      2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vehicles
                                       [7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0          $5,900          $8,100       $20,700+c       $37,200+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0          30,900          34,400          43,800          53,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0           1,100           1,200           1,600           1,900
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           5,100           5,700           7,200           9,000
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           8,400           9,400          12,000          15,000
3% (95th percentile)............               0          16,000          17,000          22,000          27,000
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0           1,600           1,800           2,300           2,900
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -900          -1,000          -1,100          -1,100
Refueling Savings...............               0             200             200             300             400
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0          27,000          28,500        26,200+c        20,800+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0          31,000          33,000        31,800+c        27,900+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0          34,300          36,700        36,600+c        33,900+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0          41,900          44,300        46,600+c        45,900+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ The monetized GHG benefits presented in this analysis exclude the value of changes in non-CO2 GHG emissions
  expected under this rulemaking (See RIA chapter 5). Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs,
  the value of any increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

    The agencies also project the monetized net benefits associated
with each alternative by vehicle class for the 2014 through 2018 MY
vehicles over their lifetimes as shown in Table IX-6 through Table IX-8
at a three percent discount rate for HD pickup trucks & vans,
vocational vehicles and combination tractors, respectively, and in
Table IX-9 through Table IX-11 at a seven percent discount rate for HD
pickup trucks and vans, vocational vehicles and combination tractors,
respectively.

  Table IX-6--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                              2014 Through 2018 Model Year HD Pickup Trucks & Vans
                                       [3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0          $1,780          $1,970        $3,220+c        $9,890+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0           3,480           4,060           4,910           7,700
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0             190             220             270             420
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -330            -350            -370            -350
Refueling Savings...............               0              40              50              60              90
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             100             100             100             200
3% (avg SCC)....................               0             500             500             600             900
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0             800             900           1,100           1,500
3% (95th percentile)............               0           1,400           1,600           1,900           2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0           1,700           2,110         1,750+c        -1,830+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           2,100           2,510         2,250+c        -1,130+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           2,400           2,910         2,750+c          -530+c

3% (95th percentile)............               0           3,000           3,610         3,550+c           770+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

  Table IX-7 Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vocational Vehicles
                                       [3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0            $670          $1,140        $9,140+c       $15,840+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0           3,420           5,420           8,930          14,270
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0             180             290             480             760
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -540            -650            -670            -500
Refueling Savings...............               0              40              60             110             170
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             100             100             200             300
3% (avg SCC)....................               0             400             600           1,000           1,500
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0             700           1,100           1,700           2,600
3% (95th percentile)............               0           1,300           1,900           3,100           4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0           2,530           4,080           -90+c          -840+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           2,830           4,580           710+c           360+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           3,130           5,080         1,410+c         1,460+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0           3,730           5,880         2,810+c         3,560+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

  Table IX-8--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                2014 through 2018 Model Year Combination Tractors
                                       [3% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0          $3,300          $4,950        $8,430+c       $11,540+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0          38,140          40,650          50,030          57,190
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0           2,030           2,160           2,660           3,040
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -450            -480            -590            -770
Refueling Savings...............               0             230             250             300             350
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             900           1,000           1,200           1,400
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           4,200           4,500           5,600           6,500
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           7,000           7,500           9,300          11,000
3% (95th percentile)............               0          13,000          14,000          17,000          20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0          37,550          38,630        45,170+c        49,670+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0          40,850          42,130        49,570+c        54,770+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0          43,650          45,130        53,270+c        59,270+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0          49,650          51,630        60,970+c        68,270+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

  Table IX-9: Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                              2014 Through 2018 Model Year HD Pickup Trucks & Vans
                                       [7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0          $1,780          $1,970        $3,220+c        $9,890+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0           2,180           2,550           3,090           4,830
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0             120             140             170             260
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -220            -230            -250            -230
Refueling Savings...............               0              30              30              40              60
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             100             100             100             200
3% (avg SCC)....................               0             500             500             600             900
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0             800             900           1,100           1,500
3% (95th percentile)............               0           1,400           1,600           1,900           2,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value a b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             430             620           -70+c        -4,770+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0             830           1,020           430+c        -4,070+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           1,130           1,420           930+c        -3,470+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0           1,730           2,120         1,730+c        -2,170+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

 Table 1X-10--Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                2014 Through 2018 Model Year Vocational Vehicles
                                       [7% Discount rate, millions, 2009$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........              $0            $670          $1,140        $9,140+c       $15,840+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0           2,280           3,630           5,970           9,410
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0             120             190             320             500
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -380            -450            -460            -350
Refueling Savings...............               0              30              40              70             110
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             100             100             200             300
3% (avg SCC)....................               0             400             600           1,000           1,500
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0             700           1,100           1,700           2,600
3% (95th percentile)............               0           1,300           1,900           3,100           4,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0           1,480           2,370        -3,040+c        -5,870+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           1,780           2,870        -2,240+c        -4,670+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           2,080           3,370        -1,540+c        -3,570+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0           2,680           4,170          -140+c        -1,470+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.
\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

  Table 1X-11 Monetized Net Benefits Associated With Each Alternative Relative to Alternative 1 for Lifetime of
                                2014 Through 2018 Model Year Combination Tractors
                                       [7% Discount rate, millions, 2009]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Alt. 1        Alt. 2 less       Alt. 3        Alt. 4 more     Alt. 5 max
                                     baseline        stringent       preferred       stringent      technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Program Costs \d\.........               0           3,300           4,950         8,430+c        11,540+c
Fuel Savings (pre-tax)..........               0          26,420          28,170          34,710          39,680
Energy Security Impacts (price                 0           1,410           1,500           1,850           2,110
 shock).........................
Accidents, Congestion, Noise \e\               0            -320            -340            -420            -550
Refueling Savings...............               0             160             170             210             240
Non-CO2 GHG Impacts and Non-GHG              N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
 Impacts \c\....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Reduced CO2 Emissions at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0             900           1,000           1,200           1,400
3% (avg SCC)....................               0           4,200           4,500           5,600           6,500
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0           7,000           7,500           9,300          11,000
3% (95th percentile)............               0          13,000          14,000          17,000          20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Monetized Net Benefits at Each Assumed SCC Value \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% (avg SCC)....................               0          25,270          25,550        29,120+c        31,340+c
3% (avg SCC)....................               0          28,570          29,050        33,520+c        36,440+c
2.5% (avg SCC)..................               0          31,370          32,050        37,220+c        40,940+c
3% (95th percentile)............               0          37,370          38,550        44,920+c        49,940+c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Net present value of reduced CO2 emissions is calculated differently than other benefits. The same discount
  rate used to discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and 2.5 percent) is used to
  calculate net present value of SCC for internal consistency. Refer to the SCC TSD for more detail.
\b\ Section VIII.G notes that SCC increases over time. Corresponding to the years in this table, the SCC
  estimates range as follows: for Average SCC at 5%: $5-$16; for Average SCC at 3%: $22-$46; for Average SCC at
  2.5%: $36-$66; and for 95th percentile SCC at 3%: $66-$139. Section VIII.G also presents these SCC estimates.
\c\ Due to analytical and resource limitations, MY non-GHG emissions (direct PM, VOCs, NO2 and SO2) were not
  estimated for this analysis. Although EPA has not monetized changes in non-CO2 GHGs, the value of any
  increases or reductions should not be interpreted as zero.
\d\ ``+c'' indicates additional costs not estimated in this rulemaking.

\e\ Negative sign represents an increase in Accidents, Congestion, and Noise.

C. What is the agencies' decision regarding trailer standards?

    A central theme throughout our HD Program is the recognition of the
diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty vehicle segment. Trailers
are an important part of this segment and are no less diverse in the
range of functions and applications they serve. They are the primary
vehicle for moving freight in the United States. The type of freight
varies from retail products to be sold in stores, to bulk goods such as
stones, to industrial liquids such as chemicals, to equipment such as
bulldozers. Semi-trailers come in a large variety of styles--box,
refrigerated box, flatbed, tankers, bulk, dump, grain, and many others.
The most common type of trailer is the box trailer, but even box
trailers come in many different lengths ranging from 28 feet to 53 feet
or greater, and in different widths, heights, depths, materials (wood,
composites, and/or aluminum), construction (curtain side or hard side),
axle configuration (sliding tandem or fixed tandem), and multiple other
distinct features. NHTSA and EPA believe trailers impact the fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from combination tractors and
the agencies see opportunities for reductions. Unlike our experience
with trucks and engines, the agencies have very limited experience
related to regulating trailers for fuel efficiency or emissions.
Likewise, the trailer manufacturing industry has only the most limited
experience complying with regulations related to emissions and none
with regard to EPA or NHTSA certification and compliance procedures.
    The agencies broadly solicited comments on controlling fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions through eventual trailer regulations as we
described in the notice of proposed rulemaking which could set the
foundation of a future rulemaking for trailers. 75 FR at 74345-351
(although this was a solicitation for comment regarding future action
outside the present rulemaking).
    The general theme of the comments received was that technologies
exist today that can improve trailer efficiency. We received several
comments from stakeholders which encouraged the agencies to set fuel
efficiency and GHG emissions standards for trailers in this rulemaking.
The agencies also received comments supporting a delay in trailer
regulations. Specifically, IPI commented that the agencies should
regulate trailers at least to some degree, arguing that the agencies'
reasoning for not doing so was insufficient and requesting a plan and
schedule in the final rule for the future regulation of trailers. One
commenter recognized that there are well over 100 trailer manufacturers
in the U.S., with almost all being small businesses. They stressed the
need for the agencies to reach out to the trailer industry and
associations prior to developing a regulatory program for this
industry. In addition, they stated that time is needed to develop
sufficient research into the area. None of the commenters that
supported trailer regulation in this action addressed the complexities
of the trailer industry, nor a method to measure trailer aerodynamic
improvements.
    In the NPRM, the agencies discussed relatively conceptual
approaches to how a future trailer regulation could be developed;
however, we did not provide a proposed test procedure or proposed
standard. The agencies proposed to delay the regulation of trailers, as
the inclusion would not be feasible at this time due to the lack of a
test procedure and the myriad of technical and policy issues not teed
up in the NPRM or addressed in comments. Additionally, since a number
of trailer manufacturing entities are small businesses, EPA and NHTSA
need to allow sufficient time to convene a SBREFA panel to conduct the
proper outreach to the potentially impacted stakeholders. As noted
earlier, the agencies do not believe it warranted to delay the
combination tractor and vocational vehicle standards for the years it
will take to resolve these issues. NHTSA and EPA agree that the
regulation of trailers, when appropriate, is likely to provide fuel
efficiency benefits. We continue to believe that both agencies must
perform a more comprehensive assessment of the trailer industry, and
therefore that their inclusion at this time is not feasible. Until that
time, the SmartWay Transport Partnership Program will continue to
encourage the development and use of technologies to reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions from trailers.

X. Public Participation

    The agencies proposed their respective rules on November 30, 2010
(75 FR 74152). Two public hearings were held to provide interested
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposal; the first hearing was held in Chicago, IL on November 15,
2010, and the second in Cambridge, MA on November 18, 2010. The public
was invited to submit written comments on the proposal during the
formal comment period, which ended on January 31, 2011. The agencies
received over 41,000 comments--over 3,000 of them unique--from
industry, environmental organizations, states, and individuals.
    The vast majority of commenters supported the central tenets of the
proposed HD National Program. That is, there was broad support for a
national program which would reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions
from the three heavy-duty regulatory categories--heavy-duty pickup
trucks and vans, vocational vehicles, and combination tractors. The
agencies received specific comments on many aspects of the proposal.
    Throughout this notice, the agencies discuss many of the key issues
arising from the public comments and the agencies' responses. In
addition, the agencies have addressed all of the public comments in the
Response to Comments document associated with this final action and
located in the docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, or NHTSA-2010-
0079).

XI. NHTSA's Record of Decision

    On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum entitled
``Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness and Job Creation,
and Environmental Protection through a Transformation of our Nation's
Fleet of Cars and Trucks'' to the Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrator of NHTSA, the Administrator of EPA, and the Secretary of
Energy.\574\ The memorandum requested that the Administrators of EPA
and NHTSA begin work on a Joint Rulemaking under EISA and the Clean Air
Act and establish fuel efficiency and GHG emission standards for
commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles beginning with MY 2014. The
President requested that NHTSA implement fuel efficiency standards and
EPA implement GHG emission standards that take into account the market
structure of the trucking industry and the unique demands of heavy-duty
vehicle applications; seek harmonization with applicable State
standards; consider the findings and recommendations published in the
National Academy of

Sciences (NAS) report on medium- and heavy-duty truck regulation;
strengthen the industry and enhance job creation in the United States;
and seek input from all stakeholders, while recognizing the continued
leadership role of California and other States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \574\ The White House, Office of the Press Secretary,
Presidential Memorandum Regarding Fuel Efficiency Standards (May 21,
2010); The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, President
Obama Directs Administration to Create First-Ever National
Efficiency and Emissions Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks
(May 21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with this policy, this Final Rule promulgates fuel
efficiency standards for HD vehicles built in MYs 2014-2018. This Final
Rule constitutes the Record of Decision (ROD) for NHTSA's HD vehicle
Fuel Efficiency Improvement Program, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) implementing regulations.\575\ See 40 CFR1505.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \575\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-47. CEQ NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by CEQ regulations, this Final Rule and ROD sets forth
the following: (1) the agency's decision; (2) alternatives considered
by NHTSA in reaching its decision, including the environmentally
preferable alternative; (3) the factors balanced by NHTSA in making its
decision, including considerations of national policy; (4) how these
factors and considerations entered into its decision; and (5) the
agency's preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors,
including economic and technical considerations and agency statutory
missions. This Final Rule also briefly addresses mitigation.

A. The Agency's Decision

    In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the agency identified a
Preferred Alternative which would set overall fuel consumption
standards for HD vehicles and engines. The Preferred Alternative,
identified as Alternative 3 in the FEIS, would include standards for
engines used in Classes 2b-8 vocational vehicles (except engines in HD
pickups and vans, which are regulated as complete vehicles), fuel
consumption standards for HD pickups and vans by work factor, overall
vehicle fuel consumption standards for Classes 2b-8 vocational vehicles
(in gal/1,000 ton-miles), and overall fuel consumption standards for
Classes 7 and 8 tractors.
    The Preferred Alternative identified in the NPRM, DEIS, and FEIS
assumed that the vocational vehicle standards would lead to a 10
percent reduction in the tire rolling resistance levels of the tires
installed in vocational vehicles. After carefully reviewing and
analyzing all of the information in the public record including
technical support documents, the FEIS, and public and agency comments
submitted on the DEIS, the FEIS, and the NPRM, NHTSA has decided to
finalize a standard that includes slightly more stringent requirements
for vocational vehicles than those included in the Preferred
Alternative analyzed in the FEIS. Subsequent to issuing the proposed
rule, NHTSA and EPA conducted a tire testing program to evaluate the
tire rolling resistance of 156 different tires across a wide range of
truck applications. The results of the study indicate that the baseline
tire rolling resistance of this segment of vehicles was better than the
level assumed during the proposal. In the final action, therefore, the
agencies made the vocational truck standards slightly more stringent
than those included as part of the Preferred Alternative for the FEIS,
reflecting the better overall performance of tires in this segment. In
addition, the agencies have reduced the projected improvement in
average tire performance from 10 percent to 5 percent, reflecting the
better than expected baseline performance. NHTSA's analysis indicates
that the Agency's Decision will result in slightly less fuel savings
and CO2 emissions reductions than those noted in the
EIS.\576\ For environmental impacts associated with the final rule, see
Sections VI.C and VII of this Final Rule.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \576\ The agencies' analysis indicates that the change results
in a decrease in total 2014-2050 fuel savings of about 1.05% percent
compared to the Preferred Alternative modeled in the EIS and a
corresponding increase in CO2 emissions.
    \577\ The environmental impacts of this decision fall within the
spectrum of impacts analyzed in the DEIS and the FEIS. There are no
``substantial changes to the proposed action'' and there are no
``significant new circumstances or information relevant to
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its
impacts.'' Therefore, consistent with 40 CFR 1502.9(c), no
supplement to the EIS is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Alternatives Considered by NHTSA in Reaching Its Decision, Including
the Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    When preparing an EIS, NEPA requires an agency to compare the
potential environmental impacts of its proposed action and a reasonable
range of alternatives. In the FEIS, NHTSA identified alternatives that
represent the spectrum of potential actions the agency could take. The
environmental impacts of these alternatives, in turn, represent the
spectrum of potential environmental impacts that could result from
NHTSA's chosen action in setting fuel efficiency standards for HD
vehicles.
    The FEIS analyzed the impacts of four ``action'' alternatives, each
of which would separately regulate segments of the HD vehicle
fleet.\578\ Three of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4)
would regulate the same vehicle categories, but at increasing levels of
stringency, with Alternative 2 being the least stringent alternative
and Alternative 4 being the most stringent. Alternatives 2 and 4 were
constructed by starting with the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3)
and either removing the least cost effective technology in each of the
vehicle categories or adding the next most cost effective technology in
each of the vehicle categories.\579\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \578\ In the DEIS, NHTSA analyzed several alternatives that
applied only to specific components and/or segments of the HD
vehicle fleet. Many commenters urged the agency to consider
alternatives that applied to the entire HD vehicle fleet, reasoning
that such an approach would be more consistent with EISA
requirements. After careful consideration, NHTSA decided that those
alternatives that would set standards for the whole fleet--that is,
the engine as well as the entire vehicle for pickup trucks and vans,
vocational vehicles, and tractors--best met the purpose and need for
this action. It also allows for the achievement of the ``maximum
feasible improvement'' in HD fuel efficiency. Therefore, the FEIS
examined impacts associated with four of the action alternatives
analyzed in the DEIS.
    \579\ See Section 2.3.2 of the FEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternative 5 built on the Preferred Alternative by adding a
performance standard for the commercial trailers pulled by tractors and
by specifying more stringent standards based on accelerated adoption of
hybrid powertrains for HD vehicles. The DEIS and FEIS also analyzed the
impacts that would be expected if NHTSA adopted no HD vehicle standards
(the No Action Alternative). For a discussion of the environmental
impacts associated with each of the alternatives, see Chapters 3 and 4
of the FEIS.
    Along with the FEIS, the agency conducted a national-scale
photochemical air quality modeling and health risk assessment for a
subset of the DEIS alternatives to support and confirm the health
effects and health-related economic estimates of the EIS. The
photochemical air quality study is included as Appendix F to the FEIS.
The study used air quality modeling and health benefits analysis tools
to quantify the air quality and health-related benefits associated with
the alternative HD standards.
    NHTSA's environmental analysis indicates that Alternative 5
(Trailers and Accelerated Hybrid) is the overall Environmentally
Preferable Alternative because it would result in the largest
reductions in fuel use and GHG emissions among the alternatives

considered. Under each action alternative the agency considered, the
reduction in fuel consumption resulting from higher fuel efficiency
causes emissions that occur during fuel refining and distribution to
decline. For most pollutants, this decline is more than sufficient to
offset the increase in tailpipe emissions that results from increased
driving due to the fuel efficiency rebound effect, leading to a net
reduction in total emissions from fuel production, distribution, and
use. Because it leads to the largest reductions in fuel refining,
distribution, and consumption among the alternatives considered,
Alternative 5 would also lead to the lowest total emissions of
CO2 and other GHGs, as well as most criteria air pollutants
and mobile source air toxics (MSATs).\580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \580\ Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
and diesel particulate matter (DPM) for Alternative 5 are forecast
to be lower than under other action alternatives under all analysis
years, but slightly higher than under the No Action Alternative in
analysis years 2030 and 2050. See FEIS Tables 3.5.2-1 and 3.5.2-5.
This anomaly results from the agencies' assumptions regarding the
percent of all long-haul tractors that use an APU rather than the
truck's engine as a power source during extended idling (discussed
further in FEIS Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's environmental analysis indicates that emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO), acrolein, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde are slightly
(less than one percent) higher under Alternative 5 than under some
other action alternatives and analysis years. This occurs when
increased tailpipe emissions are forecast to exceed the reductions in
emissions due to reduced fuel refining and distribution. Thus, while
Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferable alternative on the
basis of CO2 and other GHGs, and on the basis of most
criteria air pollutants and MSATs, other alternatives are
environmentally preferable from the standpoint of some criteria air
pollutants and MSATs in some years. Overall, NHTSA considers
Alternative 5 to be the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.
    For additional discussion regarding the alternatives considered by
the agency in reaching its decision, including the Environmentally
Preferable Alternative, see Section IX of this Final Rule. For a
discussion of the environmental impacts associated with each
alternative, see Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS.

C. Factors Balanced by NHTSA in Making Its Decision

    For discussion of the factors balanced by NHTSA in making its
decision, see Sections III, VIII and IX of this Final Rule.

D. How the Factors and Considerations Balanced by NHTSA Entered Into
Its Decision

    For discussion of how the factors and considerations balanced by
the agency entered into NHTSA's Decision, see Sections III, VIII and IX
of this Final Rule.

E. The Agency's Preferences among Alternatives Based on Relevant
Factors, Including Economic and Technical Considerations and Agency
Statutory Missions

    For discussion of the agency's preferences among alternatives based
on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations,
see Section VIII and IX of this Final Rule.

F. Mitigation

    The CEQ regulations specify that a ROD must ``state whether all
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the
alternative selected have been adopted, and if not, why they were
not.'' 49 CFR 1505.2(c). The majority of the environmental effects of
NHTSA's action are positive, i.e., beneficial environmental impacts,
and would not raise issues of mitigation. Emissions of criteria and
toxic air pollutants are generally projected to decrease under the
final standards under all analysis years as compared to their levels
under the No Action Alternative. Analysis of the environmental trends
reported in the FEIS indicates that the only exceptions to this decline
are emissions of PM2.5, DPM, and 1,3-butadiene in some
analysis years. See Chapter 5 of the FEIS. The agency forecasts these
emissions increases because, under all the alternatives analyzed in the
EIS, increase in vehicle use due to improved fuel efficiency is
projected to result in growth in total miles traveled by HD vehicles.
The growth in travel outpaces emissions reductions for some pollutants,
resulting in projected increases for these pollutants. In addition,
NHTSA's NEPA analysis predicted increases in emissions of air toxic and
criteria pollutants to occur under certain alternatives based on
assumptions about the use of Auxiliary Power Units (APUs). For example,
NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes that some manufacturers will install
anti-idling technologies (including APUs) on some vehicle classes to
meet the requirements of the rule and that drivers' subsequent use of
those APUs will result in an increase in emissions of some criteria and
toxic air pollutants.
    NHTSA's authority to promulgate new fuel efficiency standards for
HD vehicles is limited and does not allow regulation of vehicle
emissions or of factors affecting vehicle emissions, including driving
habits and APU usage. Consequently, under the HD Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, NHTSA must set standards but is unable to take
steps to mitigate the impacts of these standards. Chapter 5 of the FEIS
outlines a number of other initiatives across government that could
ameliorate the environmental impacts of motor vehicle use, including
the use of HD vehicles.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

(1) Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the agencies
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    The agencies are also subject to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and NHTSA is subject to the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. These final rules
are also significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. Executive Order 12866 additionally requires NHTSA to
submit this action to OMB for review and document any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations.
    In addition, the agencies prepared an analysis of the potential
costs, fuel savings, and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis is contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is
available in the docket for these rules and at the docket Internet
address listed under ADDRESSES above and is briefly summarized in Table
XII-1.

   Table XII-1--Estimated Lifetime Discounted Costs, Benefits, and Net
           Benefits for 2014-2018 Model Year HD Vehicles a, b
                             [Billion 2009$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Lifetime Present Value \c\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................               $8.1
Fuel Savings.........................................                 50
Benefits.............................................                7.3
Net Benefits \d\.....................................                 49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Annualized Value \e\--3% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs.....................................                0.4
Fuel Savings.........................................                2.2
Annualized Benefits..................................                0.4
Net Benefits \d\.....................................                2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Lifetime Present Value \c\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Costs........................................                8.1
Fuel Savings.........................................                 34
Benefits.............................................                6.7
Net Benefits \d\.....................................                $33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Annualized Value \e\--7% Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Costs.....................................                0.6
Fuel Savings.........................................                2.6
Annualized Benefits..................................                0.5
Net Benefits \d\.....................................                2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different
  values of a one ton CO2 reduction (model average at 2.5% discount
  rate, 3%, and 5%; 95th percentile at 3%), which each increase over
  time. For the purposes of this overview presentation of estimated
  costs and benefits, however, we are showing the benefits associated
  with the marginal value deemed to be central by the interagency
  working group on this topic: the model average at 3% discount rate, in
  2009 dollars. Section VIII.F provides a complete list of values for
  the 4 estimates.
\b\ Note that net present value of reduced GHG emissions is calculated
  differently than other benefits. The same discount rate used to
  discount the value of damages from future emissions (SCC at 5, 3, and
  2.5 percent) is used to calculate net present value of SCC for
  internal consistency. Refer to Section VIII.F for more detail.
\c\ Present value is the total, aggregated amount that a series of
  monetized costs or benefits that occur over time is worth now (in year
  2009 dollar terms), discounting future values to the present.
\d\ Net benefits reflect the fuel savings plus benefits minus costs.
\e\ The annualized value is the constant annual value through a given
  time period (2012 through 2050 in this analysis) whose summed present
  value equals the present value from which it was derived.

(2) National Environmental Policy Act

    Under NEPA, a Federal agency must prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on proposed actions that could significantly impact the
quality of the human environment. The requirement is designed to serve
three major functions: (1) To provide the decisionmaker(s) with a
detailed description of the potential environmental impacts of a
proposed action prior to its adoption, (2) to rigorously explore and
evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and (3) to inform the public of,
and allow comment on, such efforts.
    In addition, the CEQ regulations emphasize agency cooperation early
in the NEPA process and allow a lead agency (in this case, NHTSA) to
request the assistance of other agencies that either have jurisdiction
by law or have special expertise regarding issues considered in an
EIS.\581\ At NHTSA's request, both EPA and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) agreed to act as cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the EIS. EPA has special expertise in climate change
and air quality, and FMCSA has special expertise regarding HD vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \581\ 40 CFR 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA, in cooperation with EPA and FMCSA, prepared a DEIS,
solicited public comments in writing and in public hearings, and
prepared an FEIS responding to those comments. Specifically, in June
2010, NHTSA published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for proposed
HD fuel efficiency standards.\582\ See 40 CFR 1501.7. On October 29,
2010, EPA issued its Notice of Availability of the DEIS,\583\
triggering a public comment period. See 40 CFR 1506.10. The public was
invited to submit written comments on the DEIS until January 3, 2011.
NHTSA mailed (both electronically and through regular U.S. mail) copies
of the DEIS to interested parties, including federal, state, and local
officials and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; and other interested
individuals. NHTSA and EPA held two hearings on the proposed rules and
the EIS, the first on November 15, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois, and the
second on November 18, 2010 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \582\ See Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for New Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program, 75 FR 33565 (June 14, 2010).
    \583\ Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability,
75 FR 66756 (Oct. 29, 2010); NHTSA also published a separate Notice
of Availability describing the program in greater detail, 75 FR
68312 (Nov. 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA received 3,048 written comments to the DEIS and the NPRM. The
transcript from the public hearing and written comments submitted to
NHTSA are part of the administrative record and are available on the
Federal Docket, which can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov, Reference Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0079. NHTSA
reviewed and analyzed all comments received during the public comment
period and revised the FEIS in response

to comments on the EIS where appropriate.\584\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \584\ The agency also changed the FEIS as a result of updated
information that became available after issuance of the DEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 20, 2011, NHTSA submitted the FEIS to EPA. NHTSA also
mailed (both electronically and through regular U.S. mail) the FEIS to
interested parties and posted the FEIS on its Web site, http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. On June 24, 2011, EPA published a Notice of
Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.\585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \585\ 76 FR 37111 (June 24, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FEIS analyzes and discloses the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed HD fuel efficiency standards pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA,
DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA regulations.\586\ The FEIS compares the
potential environmental impacts of alternative standards considered by
NHTSA for the final rule. It also analyzes direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and analyzes impacts in proportion to their
significance. See the FEIS and the FEIS Summary for a discussion of the
environmental impacts analyzed. Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \586\ NEPA is codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. CEQ NEPA
implementing regulations are codified at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508. NHTSA NEPA implementing
regulations are codified at 49 CFR part 520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards adopted in this Final Rule have been informed by
analyses contained in the Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0079 (FEIS). For purposes of this rulemaking, the agency
referred to an extensive compilation of technical and policy documents
available in NHTSA's EIS/Rulemaking docket and EPA's docket. NHTSA's
EIS and rulemaking docket and EPA's rulemaking docket can be found
online at http://www.regulations.gov, Reference Docket Nos.: NHTSA-
2010-0079 (EIS and Rulemaking) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 (EPA
Rulemaking).
    Based on the foregoing, the agency concludes that the environmental
analysis and public involvement process complies with NEPA implementing
regulations issued by CEQ, DOT Order 5610.1C, and NHTSA regulations.
(a) Clean Air Act (CAA)
    The CAA (42 U.S.C. Sec.  7401) is the primary Federal legislation
that addresses air quality. Under the authority of the CAA and
subsequent amendments, the EPA has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, which are
relatively commonplace pollutants that can accumulate in the atmosphere
as a result of normal levels of human activity. The EPA is required to
review each NAAQS every five years and to change the standards if
warranted by new scientific information.
    The air quality of a geographic region is usually assessed by
comparing the levels of criteria air pollutants found in the atmosphere
to the applicable NAAQS. Concentrations of criteria pollutants within
the air mass of a region are measured in parts of a pollutant per
million parts of air (ppm) or in micrograms of a pollutant per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m3) of air present in repeated air samples taken at
designated monitoring locations. These ambient concentrations of each
criteria pollutant are compared to the permissible levels specified by
the NAAQS in order to assess whether the region's air quality attains
the standard.
    When the measured concentrations of a criteria pollutant within a
geographic region are below those permitted by the NAAQS, the region is
designated by the EPA as an attainment area for that pollutant, while
regions where concentrations of criteria pollutants exceed the NAAQS
are called nonattainment areas (NAAs). Former NAAs that have attained
the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. Each NAA is required to
develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which
documents how the region will reach attainment levels within time
periods specified in the CAA. In maintenance areas, the SIP documents
how the State intends to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. When EPA
changes a NAAQS, States must revise their SIPs to address how they will
attain the new standard.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA prohibits Federal agencies from taking
actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas that do not ``conform''
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of this conformity
requirement is to ensure that Federal activities do not interfere with
meeting the emissions targets in the SIPs, do not cause or contribute
to new violations of the NAAQS, and do not impede the ability to attain
or maintain the NAAQS. The EPA has issued two sets of regulations to
implement CAA Section 176(c):
     The Transportation Conformity Rules (40 CFR part 93,
subpart A), which apply to transportation plans, programs, and projects
funded or approved under U.S.C. Title 23 or the Federal Transit Laws
(49 U.S.C. chapter 53). Projects funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
usually are subject to transportation conformity. See 40 CFR 93.102.
     The General Conformity Rules (40 CFR part 93, subpart B)
apply to all other federal actions not covered under transportation
conformity. The General Conformity Rule established emissions
thresholds, or de minimis levels, for use in evaluating the conformity
of a project. If the net emissions increases attributable to the
project are less than these thresholds, then the project is presumed to
conform and no further conformity evaluation is required. If the
emissions increases exceed any of these thresholds, then a conformity
determination is required. The conformity determination can entail air
quality modeling studies, consultation with EPA and state air quality
agencies, and commitments to revise the SIP or to implement measures to
mitigate air quality impacts.
    The final fuel consumption standards and associated program
activities are not funded or approved under U.S.C. Title 23 or the
Federal Transit Act. Further, NHTSA's HD Fuel Efficiency Improvement
Program is not a highway or transit project funded or approved by FHWA
or FTA. Accordingly, the standards and associated rulemakings are not
subject to transportation conformity.
    Under the General Conformity Rule, a conformity determination is
required where a Federal action would result in total direct and
indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or precursor equaling or
exceeding the rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2) for
nonattainment and maintenance areas. As explained below, NHTSA's action
results in neither direct nor indirect emissions as defined in 40 CFR
93.152.
    The General Conformity Rule defines direct emissions as those of
``a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated
by the Federal action and originate in a nonattainment or maintenance
area and occur at the same time and place as the action and are
reasonably foreseeable.'' 40 CFR 93.152. Because NHTSA's action only
sets fuel consumption standards for HD vehicles, it causes no direct
emissions within the meaning of the General Conformity Rule.
    Indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule include
emissions or precursors: (1) That are caused or initiated by the
Federal action and originate in the same nonattainment or maintenance
area but occur at a different time or place than the action; (2) that
are reasonably foreseeable; (3)

that the agency can practically control; and (4) for which the agency
has continuing program responsibility. 40 CFR 93.152. Each element of
the definition must be met to qualify as an indirect emission. NHTSA
has determined that, for the purposes of general conformity, emissions
that occur as a result of the fuel consumption standards are not caused
by NHTSA's action, but rather occur due to subsequent activities that
the agency cannot practically control. ``[E]ven if a Federal licensing,
rulemaking, or other approving action is a required initial step for a
subsequent activity that causes emissions, such initial steps do not
mean that a Federal agency can practically control any resulting
emissions'' (75 FR 17254, 17260; 40 CFR 93.152). NHTSA cannot control
vehicle manufacturers' production of HD vehicles and consumer
purchasing and driving behavior. For the purposes of analyzing the
environmental impacts of this action under NEPA, NHTSA has made
assumptions regarding the technologies manufacturers will install and
how companies will react to increased fuel efficiency standards.
Specifically, NHTSA's NEPA analysis predicted increases in air toxic
and criteria pollutants to occur in some nonattainment areas under
certain alternatives based on assumptions about the use of APUs and the
rebound effect. For example, NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes that some
manufacturers will install anti-idling technologies (including APUs) on
some vehicle classes to meet the requirements of the program and that
drivers' subsequent use of those APUs will result in an increase in
some criteria pollutants. However, neither NHTSA's nor EPA's rules
mandate this specific manufacturer decision or driver behavior--the
program does not require that manufacturers install APUs to meet the
requirements of the rule, and it does not require drivers to use anti-
idling technologies instead of, for example, shutting off all power
when parked. Similarly, NHTSA's NEPA analysis assumes a rebound effect,
wherein the standards could create an incentive for additional vehicle
use by reducing the cost of fuel consumed per mile driven. This rebound
effect is an estimate of how NHTSA assumes some drivers will react to
the rule and is useful for estimating the costs and benefits of the
rule, but the agency does not have the statutory authority, or the
program responsibility, to control, among other items discussed above,
the actual vehicle miles traveled by drivers. Accordingly, changes in
any emissions that result from NHTSA's HD vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Improvement Program are not changes that the agency can practically
control; therefore, this action causes no indirect emissions and a
general conformity determination is not required.
(b) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
    The NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470) sets forth government policy and
procedures regarding ``historic properties''--that is, districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). See also 36 CFR part
800. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to ``take into
account'' the effects of their actions on historic properties. The
agency concludes that the NHPA is not applicable to NHTSA's Decision
because it does not directly involve historic properties. The agency
has, however, conducted a qualitative review of the related direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts, positive or negative, of the
alternatives on potentially affected resources, including historic and
cultural resources. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(c) Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
    Under Executive Order 12898, Federal agencies are required to
identify and address any disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations. NHTSA
complied with this order by identifying and addressing the potential
effects of the alternatives on minority and low-income populations in
Sections 3.6 and 4.6 of the FEIS, where the agency set forth a
qualitative analysis of the cumulative effects of the alternatives on
these populations.
(d) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA)
    The FWCA (16 U.S.C. Sec.  2900) provides financial and technical
assistance to States for the development, revision, and implementation
of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. In
addition, the Act encourages all Federal agencies and departments to
utilize their authority to conserve and to promote conservation of
nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats. The agency concludes that
the FWCA is not applicable to NHTSA's Decision because it does not
directly involve fish and wildlife.
(e) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
    The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1450) provides for the
preservation, protection, development, and (where possible) restoration
and enhancement of the nation's coastal zone resources. Under the
statute, States are provided with funds and technical assistance in
developing coastal zone management programs. Each participating State
must submit its program to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Once
the program has been approved, any activity of a Federal agency, either
within or outside of the coastal zone, that affects any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be carried out in a
manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
enforceable policies of the State's program.
    The agency concludes that the CZMA is not applicable to NHTSA's
Decision because it does not involve an activity within, or outside of,
the nation's coastal zones. The agency has, however, conducted a
qualitative review of the related direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts, positive or negative, of the alternatives on potentially
affected resources, including coastal zones. See Section 4.5 of the
FEIS.
(f) Endangered Species Act (ESA)
    Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) federal
agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out
are ``not likely to jeopardize'' federally listed threatened or
endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of the designated critical habitat of these species. 16 U.S.C.
1536(a)(2). If a federal agency determines that an agency action may
affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, it must
initiate consultation with the appropriate Service--the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of the Interior and/or
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) of the Department of
Commerce, depending on the species involved--in order to ensure that
the action is not likely to jeopardize the species or destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat. See 50 CFR 402.14. Under
this standard, the federal agency taking action evaluates the possible
effects of its action and determines whether to initiate consultation.
See 51 FR 19926, 19949 (Jun. 3, 1986).

    NHTSA received one comment to the Scoping notice for the HD program
indicating that the agency should engage in consultation under Section
7 of the ESA when analyzing the overall impact of GHG emissions and
other air pollutants. NHTSA has reviewed applicable ESA regulations,
case law, guidance, and rulings in assessing the potential for impacts
to threatened and endangered species from the HD fuel efficiency
standards. Consistent with NHTSA's determination under the agency's
most recent light-duty fuel economy rule, NHTSA believes that the
agency's action, which will result in nationwide fuel savings and,
consequently, emissions reductions from what would otherwise occur in
the absence of the agency's action, does not require consultation with
NOAA Fisheries Service or the FWS under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. For
discussion of the agency's rationale in the context of the CAFE
program, see Appendix G of the FEIS for MYs 2012-2016, available at:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy. Accordingly, NHTSA has concluded its
review of this action under Section 7 of the ESA.
(g) Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988 & DOT Order 5650.2)
    These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid the long- and short-
term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of
floodplains, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial
values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11988 also directs
agencies to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and
welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains through evaluating the potential effects of any
actions the agency may take in a floodplain and ensuring that its
program planning and budget requests reflect consideration of flood
hazards and floodplain management. DOT Order 5650.2 sets forth DOT
policies and procedures for implementing Executive Order 11988. The DOT
Order requires that the agency determine if a proposed action is within
the limits of a base floodplain, meaning it is encroaching on the
floodplain, and whether this encroachment is significant. If
significant, the agency is required to conduct further analysis of the
proposed action and any practicable alternatives. If a practicable
alternative avoids floodplain encroachment, then the agency is required
to implement it.
    In this rulemaking, the agency is not occupying, modifying and/or
encroaching on floodplains. The agency, therefore, concludes that the
Orders are not applicable to NHTSA's Decision. The agency has, however,
conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected
resources, including floodplains. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(h) Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (Executive Order 11990 & DOT
Order 5660.1a)
    These Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent
possible, undertaking or providing assistance for new construction
located in wetlands unless the agency head finds that there is no
practicable alternative to such construction and that the proposed
action includes all practicable measures to minimize harms to wetlands
that may result from such use. Executive Order 11990 also directs
agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or
degradation of wetlands in ``conducting Federal activities and programs
affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land
resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.'' DOT Order
5660.1a sets forth DOT policy for interpreting Executive Order 11990
and requires that transportation projects ``located in or having an
impact on wetlands'' should be conducted to assure protection of the
Nation's wetlands. If a project does have a significant impact on
wetlands, an EIS must be prepared.
    The agency is not undertaking or providing assistance for new
construction located in wetlands. The agency, therefore, concludes that
these Orders do not apply to NHTSA's Decision. The agency has, however,
conducted a review of the alternatives on potentially affected
resources, including wetlands. See Section 4.5 of the FEIS.
(i) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act (BGEPA), Executive Order 13186
    The MBTA provides for the protection of migratory birds that are
native to the United States by making it illegal for anyone to pursue,
hunt, take, attempt to take, kill, capture, collect, possess, buy,
sell, trade, ship, import, or export any migratory bird covered under
the statute. The statute prohibits both intentional and unintentional
acts. Therefore, the statute is violated if an agency acts in a manner
that harms a migratory bird, whether it was intended or not. See, e.g.,
United States v. FMC Corp., 572 F.2d 902 (2nd Cir. 1978).
    The BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668) prohibits any form of possession or
taking of both bald and golden eagles. Under the BGEPA, violators are
subject to criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty
provision for subsequent offenses.
    Executive Order 13186, ``Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds,'' helps to further the purposes of the MBTA by
requiring a Federal agency to develop a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Fish and Wildlife Service when it is taking an action
that has (or is likely to have) a measurable negative impact on
migratory bird populations.
    The agency concludes that the MBTA, BGEPA, and Executive Order
13186 do not apply to NHTSA's Decision because there is no disturbance
and/or take involved in NHTSA's Decision.
(j) Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f))
    Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U.S.C. 303), as amended by Public Law 109-59, is designed to preserve
publicly owned parklands, waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and
significant historic sites. Specifically, Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act provides that DOT agencies cannot
approve a transportation program or project that requires the use of
any publicly owned land from a significant public park, recreation
area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from a significant
historic site, unless a determination is made that:
     There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of
land, and
     The program or project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the property resulting from use, or
     A transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a
de minimis impact.
    The agency concludes that the Section 4(f) is not applicable to
NHTSA's Decision because this rulemaking does not require the use of
any publicly owned land. For a more detailed discussion, please see
Section 3.1 of the FEIS.

(3) Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in these rules have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The agencies propose to collect information to ensure compliance
with the provisions in these rules. This includes a variety of testing,
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for vehicle manufacturers.
Section 208(a) of the CAA requires that vehicle manufacturers provide
information the Administrator may reasonably require to determine
compliance with the

regulations; submission of the information is therefore mandatory. We
will consider confidential all information meeting the requirements of
section 208(c) of the CAA.
    It is estimated that this collection affects approximately 34
engine and vehicle manufacturers. The information that is subject to
this collection is collected whenever a manufacturer applies for a
certificate of conformity. Under section 206 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7521), a manufacturer must have a certificate of conformity before a
vehicle or engine can be introduced into commerce.
    The burden to the manufacturers affected by these rules has a range
based on the number of engines and vehicles a manufacturer produces.
The total estimated burden associated with these rules is 58,064 hours
annually (See Table XII-2). This estimated burden for engine and
vehicle manufacturers is a total estimate for new reporting
requirements. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Table XII-2--Burden for Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Affected Manufacturers......................                34
Annual Labor Hours for Each Manufacturer to Prepare               Varies
 and Submit Required Information......................
Total Annual Information Collection Burden............      58,064 Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final action.

(4) Regulatory Flexibility Act

(a) Overview
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of these rules on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by SBA regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
(b) Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    The agencies have not conducted a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for this action because the agencies are certifying that these rules
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As proposed, the agencies are deferring standards for
manufacturers meeting SBA's definition of small business as described
in 13 CFR 121.201 due to the extremely small fuel savings and emissions
contribution of these entities, and the short lead time to develop
these rules, especially with our expectation that the program would
need to be structured differently for them (which would require more
time). The agencies are instead envisioning fuel consumption and GHG
emissions standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory
action. This includes small entities in several distinct categories of
businesses for heavy-duty engines and vehicles: chassis manufacturers,
combination tractor manufacturers, and alternative fuel engine
converters.
    Based on a preliminary assessment, the agencies have identified a
total of about 17 engine manufacturers, 3 complete pickup truck and van
manufacturers, 11 combination tractor manufacturers and 43 heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers. Notably, several of these manufacturers produce
vehicles in more than just one regulatory category (HD pickup trucks/
vans, combination tractors, or vocational vehicles (i.e. heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers)). Based on the types of vehicles they
manufacture, these companies, however, would be subject to slightly
different testing and reporting requirements. Taking this feature of
the heavy-duty trucking sector into account, the agencies estimate that
although there are fewer than 30 manufacturers covered by the program,
there are close to 60 divisions within these companies that will be
subject to the final regulations. Of these, about 15 entities fit the
SBA criteria of a small business. There are approximately three engine
converters, two tractor manufacturers, and ten heavy-duty chassis
manufacturers in the heavy-duty engine and vehicle market that are
small businesses. (No major heavy-duty engine manufacturers, heavy-duty
chassis manufacturers, or tractor manufacturers meet the small-entity
criteria as defined by SBA). The agencies estimate that these small
entities comprise less than 0.35 percent of the total heavy-duty
vehicle sales in the United States, and therefore the deferment will
have a negligible impact on the fuel consumption and GHG emissions
reductions from the final standards.
    To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies are being
deferred, the agencies are requiring that such entities submit a
declaration to the agencies containing a detailed written description
of how that manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under the
provisions of 13 CFR 121.201. Some small entities, such as heavy-duty
tractor and chassis manufacturers, are not currently covered under
criteria pollutant motor vehicle emissions regulations. Small engine
entities are currently covered by a number of EPA motor vehicle
emission regulations, and they routinely submit information and data on
an annual basis as part of their compliance responsibilities. Because
such entities are not automatically exempted from other EPA regulations
for heavy-duty engines and vehicles, absent such a declaration, EPA
would assume that the entity was subject to the greenhouse gas control
requirements in this program. The declaration to the agencies will need
to be submitted at the time of either engine or vehicle emissions
certification under the HD highway engine program for criteria
pollutants. The agencies expect that the additional paperwork burden
associated with completing and submitting a small entity declaration to
gain deferral from the final GHG and fuel consumption standards will be
negligible and easily done in the context of other routine submittals
to the agencies. However, the

agencies have accounted for this cost with a nominal estimate included
in the Information Collection Request completed under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Additional information can be found in the Paperwork
Reduction Act discussion in Section 0Paperwork Reduction Act. Based on
this, the agencies are certifying that the rules will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(5) Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
the agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agencies to adopt an
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the Administrator (of either agency)
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
    Before the agencies establish any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, they must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA and NHTSA regulations with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    These rules contain no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments. The rules impose no enforceable duty on any State, local
or tribal governments. The agencies have determined that these rules
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. The agencies have determined that these rules
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $134
million or more for the private sector in any one year. The agencies
believe that the program represents the least costly, most cost-
effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rules.
Section VIII.L, above, explains why the agencies believe that the fuel
savings that will result from these rules will lead to lower prices
economy-wide, improving U.S. international competitiveness. The costs
and benefits associated with the program are discussed in more detail
above in Section VIII and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as
required by the UMRA.
    Table XII-1, above, presents the rule-related benefits, fuel
savings, costs and net benefits in both present value terms and in
annualized terms. In both cases, the discounted values are based on an
underlying time varying stream of cost and benefit values that extend
into the future (2012 through 2050). The distribution of each monetized
economic impact over time can be viewed in the RIA that accompanies
these rules.
    Present values represent the total amount that a stream of
monetized costs/benefits/net benefits that occur over time are worth
now (in year 2009 dollar terms for this analysis), accounting for the
time value of money by discounting future values using either a 3 or 7
percent discount rate, per OMB Circular A-4 guidance. An annualized
value takes the present value and converts it into a constant stream of
annual values through a given time period (2012 through 2050 in this
analysis) and thus averages (in present value terms) the annual values.
The present value of the constant stream of annualized values equals
the present value of the underlying time varying stream of values. The
ratio of benefits to costs is identical whether it is measured with
present values or annualized values.
    It is important to note that annualized values cannot simply be
summed over time to reflect total costs/benefits/net benefits; they
must be discounted and summed. Additionally, the annualized value can
vary substantially from the time varying stream of cost/benefit/net
benefit values that occur in any given year.

(6) Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. These rules will apply to
manufacturers of motor vehicles and not to state or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the
agencies did consult with representatives of state governments in
developing this action.
    NHTSA notes that EPCA contains a provision (49 U.S.C. 32919(a))
that expressly preempts any State or local government from adopting or
enforcing a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards or
average fuel economy standards for automobiles covered by an average
fuel economy standard under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 329. However, commercial
medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks are not
``automobiles,'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(3). Accordingly,
NHTSA has tentatively concluded that EPCA's express preemption
provision would not reach the fuel efficiency standards to be
established in this rulemaking.
    NHTSA also considered the issue of implied or conflict preemption.
The possibility of such preemption is dependent upon there being an
actual conflict between a standard established by NHTSA in this
rulemaking and a State or local law or regulation. See Spriestma v.
Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 64-65 (2002). At present, NHTSA has no
knowledge of any State or local law or regulation that would actually
conflict with one of the fuel efficiency standards being established in
this rulemaking.

(7) Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

    These final rules do not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). These rules will
be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on
vehicle manufacturers. Tribal governments would be affected only to the
extent they purchase and use regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to these rules.

(8) Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the agencies believe that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. A synthesis of the science and
research regarding how climate change may affect children and other
vulnerable subpopulations is contained in the Technical Support
Document for Endangerment or Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which can
be found in the public docket for these rules.\587\ A summary of the
analysis is presented below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \587\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to GHG emissions, the effects of climate change
observed to date and projected to occur in the future include the
increased likelihood of more frequent and intense heat waves.
Specifically, EPA's analysis of the scientific assessment literature
has determined that severe heat waves are projected to intensify in
magnitude, frequency, and duration over the portions of the United
States where these events already occur, with potential increases in
mortality and morbidity, especially among the young, elderly, and
frail. EPA has estimated reductions in projected global mean surface
temperatures as a result of reductions in GHG emissions associated with
the final standards in this action (Section II). Children may receive
benefits from reductions in GHG emissions because they are included in
the segment of the population that is most vulnerable to extreme
temperatures.
    For non-GHG pollutants, EPA has determined that climate change is
expected to increase regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in
respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death. The
directional effect of climate change on ambient PM levels remains
uncertain. However, disturbances such as wildfires are increasing in
the United States and are likely to intensify in a warmer future with
drier soils and longer growing seasons. PM emissions from forest fires
can contribute to acute and chronic illnesses of the respiratory
system, particularly in children, including pneumonia, upper
respiratory diseases, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases.

(9) Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rulemaking is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In fact,
these rules have a positive effect on energy supply and use. Because
the final GHG emission and fuel consumption standards will result in
significant fuel savings, these rules encourage more efficient use of
fuels. Therefore, we have concluded that these rules are not likely to
have any adverse energy effects. Our energy effects analysis is
described above in Section VIII.I.

(10) National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials, specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the
agencies to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
agencies decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions
and fuel consumption from heavy-duty engines, the agencies will collect
data over the same tests that are used for the heavy-duty highway
engine program for criteria pollutants. This will minimize the amount
of testing done by manufacturers, since manufacturers are already
required to run these tests.
    For CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions
and fuel consumption from complete pickup trucks and vans, the agencies
will collect data over the same tests that are used for EPA's heavy-
duty highway engine program for criteria pollutants and for the
California Air Resources Board. This will minimize the amount of
testing done by manufacturers, since manufacturers are already required
to run these tests.
    For CO2 emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty
combination tractors and vocational vehicles, the agencies will collect
data through the use of a simulation model instead of a full-vehicle
chassis dynamometer testing. This will minimize the amount of testing
done by manufacturers. EPA's compliance assessment tool is based upon
well-established engineering and physics principals that are the basis
of general academic understanding in this area, and the foundation of
any dynamic vehicle simulation model, including the models cited by
ICCT in its study.\588\ Therefore, the EPA's compliance assessment tool
satisfies the description of a consensus. For the evaluation of tire
rolling resistance input to the model, EPA is finalizing to use the ISO
28580 test, a voluntary consensus methodology. EPA is adopting several
alternatives for the evaluation of aerodynamics which allows the
industry to continue to use their own evaluation tools because EPA does
not know of a single consensus standard available for heavy-duty truck
aerodynamic evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \588\ ICCT. ICCT Evaluation of Vehicle Simulation Tools. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For air conditioning standards, EPA is finalizing a consensus
methodology developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

(11) Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    With respect to GHG emissions, EPA has determined that these final
rules will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because
they increase the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. The reductions in CO2 and
other GHGs associated with the standards will affect climate change

projections, and EPA has estimated reductions in projected global mean
surface temperatures (Section VI). Within communities 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.\589\ In addition, the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program stated as one of its conclusions: ``The United
States is certainly capable of adapting to the collective impacts of
climate change. However, there will still be certain individuals and
locations where the adaptive capacity is less and these individuals and
their communities will be disproportionally impacted by climate
change.'' \590\ Therefore, these specific sub-populations may receive
benefits from reductions in GHGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \589\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 10, above.
    \590\ CCSP (2008) Analyses of the effects of global change on
human health and welfare and human systems. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research. [Gamble, J.L. (ed.), K.L. Ebi, F.G. Sussman, T.J.
Wilbanks, (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For non-GHG co-pollutants such as ozone, PM2.5, and
toxics, EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority and/or low income populations from
these rules.

(12) Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The agencies will submit a report containing these rules
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. A Major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). These rules will be effective November 14, 2011, sixty days
after date of publication in the Federal Register.

(13) Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an organization, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477-78,
April 11, 2000) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

A. EPA

    Statutory authority for the vehicle controls in these rules is
found in CAA section 202(a) (which requires EPA to establish standards