[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74151-74456]
[DOCID:fr30no10-30]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, et al.

Department of Transportation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles; Proposed Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, 1066, and 1068

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 534, and 535

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162; NHTSA-2010-0079; FRL-9219-4]
RIN 2060-AP61; RIN 2127-AK74

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles

AGENCIES: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation,
are each proposing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty
National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase
fuel efficiency for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, responding to the
President's directive on May 21, 2010, to take coordinated steps to
produce a new generation of clean vehicles. NHTSA's proposed fuel
consumption standards and EPA's proposed carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions standards would be tailored to each of three
regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles: Combination Tractors;
Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans; and Vocational Vehicles, as well as
gasoline and diesel heavy-duty engines. EPA's proposed
hydrofluorocarbon emissions standards would apply to air conditioning
systems in tractors, pickup trucks, and vans, and EPA's proposed
nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions
standards would apply to all heavy-duty engines, pickup trucks, and
vans. EPA is also requesting comment on possible alternative
CO2-equivalent approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty
vehicles.
    EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean
Air Act would begin with model year 2014. NHTSA's proposed fuel
consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 would be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming
mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory categories.
Commercial trailers would not be regulated in this phase of the Heavy-
Duty National Program, although there is a discussion of the
possibility of future action for trailers.

DATES: Comments: Comments on all aspects of this proposal must be
received on or before January 31, 2011. Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received
by the Office of Management and Budget on or before December 30, 2010.
See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation''
for more information about written comments.
    Public Hearings: NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public
hearings on the following dates: November 15, 2010 in Chicago, IL; and
November 18, 2010 in Cambridge, MA, as announced at 75 FR 67059,
November 1, 2010. The hearing in Chicago will start at 11 a.m. local
time and continue until 5 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to
speak. The hearing in Cambridge will begin at 10 a.m. and continue
until 5 p.m. or until everyone has had a chance to speak. See ``How Do
I Participate in the Public Hearings?'' below at B. (7) under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on ``Public Participation'' for more
information about the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. NHTSA-
2010-0079 and/or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: NHTSA:<PHONE_NUMBER>; EPA:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail:
    NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    EPA: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery:
    NHTSA: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    EPA: EPA Docket Center, (Air Docket), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room: 3334,
Mail Code 2822T, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. NHTSA-2010-0079
and/or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
on ``Public Participation'' for additional instructions on submitting
written comments.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy in EPA's docket, but may be
available electronically in NHTSA's docket at regulations.gov. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the following locations:
    NHTSA: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    EPA: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EPA: Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:
(734) 214-4788; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Assessment and Standards Division Hotline;
telephone number;<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Does this action apply to me?

    This action would affect companies that manufacture, sell, or
import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b
through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, school and transit
buses, vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as
\3/4\-ton and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans.\1\ The heavy-duty category
incorporates all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
8,500 pounds or greater, and the engines that power them, except for
medium-duty passenger vehicles already covered by the greenhouse gas
standards and corporate average fuel economy standards issued for
light-duty model year 2012-2016 vehicles. This action also includes a
discussion of the possible future regulation of commercial trailers and
is requesting comment on possible alternative CO2-equivalent
approaches for model year 2012-14 light-duty vehicles. Potentially
affected categories and entities include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of NHTSA's fuel consumption regulations, non-
commercial recreational vehicles will not be covered, even if they
would otherwise fall under these categories. See 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.000

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposal. This table lists the types of entities that the agencies are
now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your activities may be regulated by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 1036 and
1037, 49 CFR parts 523, 534, and 535, and the referenced regulations.
You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to
the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

B. Public Participation

    NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of these joint
proposed rules. This section describes how you can participate in this
process.

(1) How do I prepare and submit comments?

    In this joint proposal, there are many aspects of the program
common to both EPA and NHTSA. For the convenience of all parties,
comments submitted to the EPA docket (whether hard copy or electronic)
will be considered comments submitted to the NHTSA docket, and vice
versa. An exception is that comments submitted to the NHTSA docket on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be considered
submitted to the EPA docket. Therefore, the public only needs to submit
comments to either one of the two agency dockets. Comments that are
submitted for consideration by one agency should be identified as such,
and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies
should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency
will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is
submitted on its proposal.
    Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or
NHTSA docket are described below.

    NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that
your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the
Docket I.D No. NHTSA-2010-0079 in your comments. By regulation, your
comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). NHTSA
established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments
in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional
documents to your comments. There is no limit on the lenght of the
attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF
(Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agencies
to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.\2\ Please note
that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive
data to be relied upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the
information quality standards set forth in the OMB and Department of
Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act quidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be access at http://
regs.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

(2) Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agencies may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a part or
section number from the Code of Federal Regulations.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified in the DATES section above.

(3) How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    NHTSA: If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket
Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a
self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your
comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return
the postcard by mail.

(4) How do I submit confidential business information?

    Any CBI submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to
the other agency.\3\ However, as with all public comments, any CBI
information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies'
dockets and it will be available to the other. Following are specific
instructions for submitting CBI to either agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to
40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential business
information received with NHTSA unless commenters expressly specify
that they wish to submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both
agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be CBI, to the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment containing CBI, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
CBI regulation. In addition, you should submit a copy from which you
have deleted the claimed CBI to the Docket by one of the methods set
forth above.
    EPA: Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim
to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

(5) Will the agencies consider late comments?

    NHTSA and EPA will consider all comments received before the close
of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent practicable, we will also consider comments received after
that date. If interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rules. However, the agencies'
ability to consider any such late comments in this rulemaking will be
limited due to the time frame for issuing the final rules.
    If a comment is received too late for us to practicably consider in
developing the final rules, we will consider that comment as an
informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the NHTSA Docket Management Facility or the EPA
Docket Center by going to the street addresses given above under
ADDRESSES.

How do I participate in the public hearings?

    EPA and NHTSA will jointly host two public hearings. The November
15 hearing will be held at the Millennium Knickerbocker Hotel Chicago,
163 East Walton Place (at N. Michigan Ave.), Chicago, Illinois 60611.
The November 18, 2010 hearing will be held at the Hyatt Regency
Cambridge, 575 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4896. If
you would like to present oral testimony at a public hearing, we ask
that you notify both the NHTSA and EPA contact persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Once
the agencies learn how many people have registered to speak at the
public hearings, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each
participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. For planning purposes,
each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes,
although we may need to shorten that time if there is a large turnout.
We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other
material for the agencies' panels. To accommodate as many speakers as
possible, we prefer that speakers not use technological aids (e.g.,
audio-visuals, computer slideshows). In addition, we will reserve a
block of time for anyone else in the audience who wants to give
testimony.
    Each hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign
language interpreters should contact the persons listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above no later than ten days before
the date of the hearing.
    EPA and NHTSA will conduct the hearings informally, and technical
rules of evidence will not apply. We will arrange for a written
transcript of each hearing and keep the official records of the
hearings open for 30 days to allow you to submit supplementary
information. You may make arrangements for copies of a transcript
directly with the court reporter.

C. Additional Information About This Rulemaking

    EPA's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for regulating
greenhouse gases under the CAA (see 73 FR 44353, July 30, 2008)
included a discussion of possible rulemaking paths for the heavy-duty
transportation sector. This notice of proposed rulemaking relies in
part on information that was obtained from that notice, which can be
found in Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318. That docket is
incorporated into the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.

Table of Contents

A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Public Participation
C. Additional Information About This Rulemaking
I. Overview
    A. Introduction
    B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program
    C. Summary of the Proposed EPA and NHTSA HD National Program
    D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program
    E. Program Flexibilities
    F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities
    G. Future HD GHG and Fuel Consumption Rulemakings
II. Proposed GHG and Fuel Consumption Standards for Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles
    A. What vehicles would be affected?
    B. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
    C. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
    D. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
    E. Other Standards Provisions
III. Feasibility Assessments and Conclusions
    A. Class 7-8 Combination Tractor
    B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
    C. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
IV. Proposed Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
    A. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
    B. Additional Proposed Flexibility Provisions
V. NHTSA and EPA Proposed Compliance, Certification, and Enforcement
Provisions
    A. Overview
    B. Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans
    C. Heavy-Duty Engines
    D. Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
    E. Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
    F. General Regulatory Provisions
    G. Penalties
VI. How would this proposed program impact fuel consumption, GHG
emissions, and climate change?
    A. What methodologies did the agencies use to project GHG
emissions and fuel consumption impacts?
    B. MOVES Analysis
    C. What are the projected reductions in fuel consumption and GHG
emissions?
    D. Overview of Climate Change Impacts From GHG Emissions
    E. Changes in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, Global
Mean Temperature, Sea Level Rise, and Ocean pH Associated With the
Proposal's GHG Emissions Reductions
VII. How would this proposal impact Non-GHG emissions and their
associated effects?
    A. Emissions Inventory Impacts
    B. Health Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
    C. Environmental Effects of Non-GHG Pollutants
    D. Air Quality Impacts of Non-GHG Pollutants
VIII. What are the agencies' estimated cost, economic, and other
impacts of the proposed program?
    A. Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Impacts
    B. Costs Associated With the Proposed Program
    C. Indirect Cost Multipliers
    D. Cost Per Ton of Emissions Reductions
    E. Impacts of Reduction in Fuel Consumption
    F. Class Shifting and Fleet Turnover Impacts
    G. Benefits of Reducing CO2 Emissions
    H. Non-GHG Health and Environmental Impacts
    I. Energy Security Impacts
    J. Other Impacts
    K. Summary of Costs and Benefits From the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Perspective
    L. Summary of Costs and Benefits From the Fuel Efficiency
Perspective
IX. Analysis of Alternatives
    A. What are the alternatives that the agencies considered?
    B. How do these alternatives compare in overall GHG emissions
reductions, fuel efficiency and cost?
    C. How would the agencies include commercial trailers, as
described in alternative 7?
X. Recommendations From the 2010 NAS Report
    A. Overview
    B. What were the major findings and recommendations of the 2010
NAS report, and how is the proposed HD national program consistent
with them?
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
XII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
    A. EPA
    B. NHTSA

I. Overview

A. Introduction

    EPA and NHTSA (``the agencies'') are announcing a first-ever
program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel
efficiency in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector. This broad
sector--ranging from large pickups to sleeper-cab tractors--together
represent the second largest contributor to oil consumption and GHG
emissions, after light-duty passenger cars and trucks.
    In a recent memorandum to the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA (and
the Secretaries of Transportation and

Energy), the President stated that ``America has the opportunity to
lead the world in the development of a new generation of clean cars and
trucks through innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur
economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs, enhance our
energy security, and improve our environment.'' \4\ Earlier this year,
EPA and NHTSA established for the first time a national program to
sharply reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption from passenger cars
and light trucks. Now, each agency is proposing rules that together
would create a strong and comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program
(``HD National Program'') designed to address the urgent and closely
intertwined challenges of dependence on oil, energy security, and
global climate change. At the same time, the proposed program would
enhance American competitiveness and job creation, benefit consumers
and businesses by reducing costs for transporting goods, and spur
growth in the clean energy sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness and Job
Creation, and Environmental Protection Through a Transformation of
Our Nation's Fleet of Cars And Trucks,'' Issued May 21, 2010,
published at 75 FR 29399, May 26, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of major HD truck and engine manufacturers representing
the vast majority of this industry, and the California Air Resources
Board (California ARB), sent letters to EPA and NHTSA supporting a HD
National Program based on a common set of principles. In the letters,
the stakeholders commit to working with the agencies and with other
stakeholders toward a program consistent with common principles,
including:
     Increased use of existing technologies to achieve
significant GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions;
     A program that starts in 2014 and is fully phased in by
2018;
     A program that works towards harmonization of methods for
determining a vehicle's GHG and fuel efficiency, recognizing the global
nature of the issues and the industry;
     Standards that recognize the commercial needs of the
trucking industry; and
     Incentives leading to the early introduction of advanced
technologies.
    The proposed HD National Program builds on many years of heavy-duty
engine and vehicle technology development to achieve what the agencies
believe would be the greatest degree of GHG emission and fuel
consumption reduction appropriate, feasible, and cost-effective for the
model years in question. Still, by proposing to take aggressive steps
that are reasonably possible now, based on the technological
opportunities and pathways that present themselves during these model
years, the agencies and industry will also continue learning about
emerging opportunities for this complex sector to further reduce GHG
emissions and fuel consumption. For example, NHTSA and EPA have stopped
short of proposing fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards for
trucks based on use of hybrid powertrain technology. Similarly, we
expect that the agencies will participate in efforts to improve our
ability to accurately characterize the actual in-use fuel consumption
and emissions of this complex sector. As such opportunities emerge in
the coming years, we expect that we will propose a second phase of
provisions in the future to reinforce these developments and maximize
the achieved reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption reduction
for the mid- and longer-term time frame.
    In the May 21 memorandum, the President requested the
Administrators of EPA and NHTSA to ``immediately begin work on a joint
rulemaking under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) to establish fuel efficiency and
greenhouse gas emissions standards for commercial medium- and heavy-
duty vehicles beginning with the 2014 model year (MY), with the aim of
issuing a final rule by July 30, 2011.'' This proposed rulemaking is
consistent with this Presidential Memorandum, with each agency
proposing rules under its respective authority that together comprise a
coordinated and comprehensive HD National Program.
    Heavy-duty vehicles move much of the nation's freight and carry out
numerous other tasks, including utility work, concrete delivery, fire
response, refuse collection, and many more. Heavy-duty vehicles are
primarily powered by diesel engines, although about 37 percent of these
vehicles are powered by gasoline engines. Heavy-duty trucks \5\ have
always been an important part of the goods movement infrastructure in
this country and have experienced significant growth over the last
decade related to increased imports and exports of finished goods and
increased shipping of finished goods to homes through Internet
purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In this rulemaking, EPA and NHTSA use the term ``truck'' in
a general way, referring to all categories of regulated heavy-duty
highway vehicles (including buses). As such, the term is generally
interchangeable with ``heavy-duty vehicle.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The heavy-duty sector is extremely diverse in several respects,
including types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes
of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work the trucks are
designed to perform, and the regulatory history of different
subcategories of vehicles and engines. The current heavy-duty fleet
encompasses vehicles from the ``18-wheeler'' combination tractors one
sees on the highway to school and transit buses, to vocational vehicles
such as utility service trucks, as well as the largest pickup trucks
and vans.
    For purposes of this preamble, the term ``heavy-duty'' or ``HD'' is
used to apply to all highway vehicles and engines that are not within
the range of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPV) covered by the GHG and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards issued for MY 2012-2016.\6\ It also does not
include motorcycles. Thus, in this notice, unless specified otherwise,
the heavy-duty category incorporates all vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating above 8,500 pounds, and the engines that power them,
except for MDPVs.\7\ We note that the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 requires NHTSA to set standards for ``commercial medium-
and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.'' \8\ NHTSA
interprets this to include all segments of the heavy-duty category
described above, except for recreational vehicles, such as motor homes,
since recreational vehicles are not commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule 75 FR
25323,(May 7, 2010).
    \7\ The CAA defines heavy-duty as a truck, bus or other motor
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating exceeding 6,000 pounds
(CAA section 202(b)(3)). The term HD as used in this action refers
to a subset of these vehicles and engines.
    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2). ``Commercial medium- and heavy-duty
on-highway vehicles'' are defined as on-highway vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, while ``work
trucks'' are defined as vehicles rated between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds gross vehicle weight that are not MDPVs. See 49 U.S.C.
32901(a)(7) and (a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Setting GHG emissions standards for the heavy-duty sector will help
to address climate change, which is widely viewed as a significant
long-term threat to the global environment. As summarized in the
Technical Support Document for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or
Contribute Findings under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,
anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are very likely (a 90 to 99 percent
probability) the cause of most of the

observed global warming over the last 50 years.\9\ The primary GHGs of
concern are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Mobile sources emitted 31 percent of all U.S. GHGs in 2007
(transportation sources, which do not include certain off-highway
sources, account for 28 percent) and have been the fastest-growing
source of U.S. GHGs since 1990.\10\ Mobile sources addressed in the
recent endangerment and contribution findings under CAA section
202(a)--light-duty vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, buses, and
motorcycles--accounted for 23 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions in
2007.\11\ Heavy-duty vehicles emit CO2, CH4,
N2O, and HFCs and are responsible for nearly 19 percent of
all mobile source GHGs (nearly 6% of all U.S. GHGs) and about 25
percent of section 202(a) mobile source GHGs. For heavy-duty vehicles
in 2007, CO2 emissions represented more than 99 percent of
all GHG emissions (including HFCs).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. EPA. (2009). ``Technical Support Document for
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'' Washington, DC,
available at Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11645, and at http://
epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html.
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007. EPA 430-R-09-
004. Available at http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
downloads09/GHG2007entire_report-508.pdf .
    \11\ See Endangerment TSD, Note 9, above, at pp. 180-194.
    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: See Note 10, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Setting fuel consumption standards for the heavy-duty sector,
pursuant to NHTSA's EISA authority, will also improve our energy
security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which has been a
national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Net
petroleum imports now account for approximately 60 percent of U.S.
petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly
concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price
shocks. Tight global oil markets led to prices over $100 per barrel in
2008, with gasoline reaching as high as $4 per gallon in many parts of
the United States, causing financial hardship for many families and
businesses. The export of U.S. assets for oil imports continues to be
an important component of the historically unprecedented U.S. trade
deficits. Transportation accounts for about 72 percent of U.S.
petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty vehicles account for about 17 percent
of transportation oil use, which means that they alone account for
about 12 percent of all U.S. oil consumption.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In 2009 Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 released May
11, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this joint proposal, the agencies have worked with a
large and diverse group of stakeholders representing truck and engine
manufacturers, trucking fleets, environmental organizations, and States
including the State of California.\14\ While our discussions covered a
wide range of issues and viewpoints, one widespread recommendation was
that the two agencies should develop a common Federal program with
consistent standards of performance regarding fuel consumption and GHG
emissions. The HD National Program we are proposing in this notice is
consistent with that goal. Further it is our expectation based on our
ongoing work with the State of California that the California ARB will
be able to adopt regulations equivalent in practice to those of this HD
National Program, just as it has done for past EPA regulation of heavy-
duty trucks and engines. NHTSA and EPA are committed to continuing to
work with California ARB throughout this rulemaking process to help
ensure our final rules can lead to that outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Pursuant to DOT Order 2100.2, NHTSA will place a memorandum
recording those meetings that it attended and documents submitted by
stakeholders which formed a basis for this proposal and which can be
made publicly available in its docket for this rulemaking. DOT Order
2100.2 is available at http://www.reg-group.com/library/DOT2100-
2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the industry's diversity, and consistent with the
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as discussed
further below, the agencies are proposing a HD National Program that
recognizes the different sizes and work requirements of this wide range
of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. NHTSA's proposed fuel
consumption standards and EPA's proposed GHG standards would apply to
manufacturers of the following types of heavy-duty vehicles and their
engines; the proposed provisions for each of these are described in
more detail below in this section:
     Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans.
     Combination Tractors.
     Vocational Vehicles.
    As in the recent light-duty vehicle rule establishing CAFE and GHG
standards for MYs 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, EPA's and NHTSA's
proposed standards for the heavy-duty sector are largely harmonized
with one another due to the close and direct relationship between
improving the fuel efficiency of these vehicles and reducing their
CO2 tailpipe emissions. For all vehicles that consume
carbon-based fuels, the amount of CO2 emissions is
essentially constant per gallon for a given type of fuel that is
consumed. The more efficient a heavy-duty truck is in completing its
work, the lower its environmental impact will be, because the less fuel
consumed to move cargo a given distance, the less CO2
emitted into the air. The technologies available for improving fuel
efficiency, and therefore for reducing both CO2 emissions
and fuel consumption, are one and the same.\15\ Because of this close
technical relationship, NHTSA and EPA have been able to rely on
jointly-developed assumptions, analyses, and analytical conclusions to
support the standards and other provisions that NHTSA and EPA are
proposing under our separate legal authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ However, as discussed below, in addition to addressing
CO2, the EPA's proposed standards also include provisions
to address other GHGs (nitrous oxide, methane, and air conditioning
refrigerant emissions), as required by the Endangerment Finding
under the CAA. See Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The timelines for the implementation of the proposed NHTSA and EPA
standards are also closely coordinated. EPA's proposed GHG emission
standards would begin in model year 2014. In order to provide for the
four full model years of regulatory lead time required by EISA, as
discussed in Section I.B.(5) below, NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption
standards would be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming
mandatory in model year 2016, except for diesel engine standards which
would be voluntary in model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, becoming
mandatory in model year 2017. Both agencies are also allowing early
compliance in model year 2013. A detailed discussion of how the
proposed standards are consistent with each agency's respective
statutory requirements and authorities is found later in this notice.
    Neither EPA nor NHTSA is proposing standards at this time for GHG
emissions or fuel consumption, respectively, for heavy-duty commercial
trailers or for vehicles or engines manufactured by small businesses.
However, the agencies are considering proposing such standards in a
future rulemaking, and request comment on such an action later in this
preamble.

B. Building Blocks of the Heavy-Duty National Program

    The standards that are being proposed in this notice represent the
first time

that NHTSA and EPA would regulate the heavy-duty sector for fuel
consumption and GHG emissions, respectively. The proposed HD National
Program is rooted in EPA's prior regulatory history, the SmartWay[reg]
Transport Partnership program, and extensive technical and engineering
analyses done at the Federal level. This section summarizes some of the
most important of these precursors and foundations for this HD National
Program.
(1) EPA's Traditional Heavy-Duty Regulatory Program
    Since the 1980s, EPA has acted several times to address tailpipe
emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from heavy-duty
vehicles and engines. During the last 18 years, these programs have
primarily addressed emissions of particulate matter (PM) and the
primary ozone precursors, hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX). These programs have successfully achieved significant
and cost-effective reductions in emissions and associated health and
welfare benefits to the nation. They have been structured in ways that
account for the varying circumstances of the engine and truck
industries. As required by the CAA, the emission standards implemented
by these programs include standards that apply at the time that the
vehicle or engine is sold as well as standards that apply in actual
use. As a result of these programs, new vehicles meeting current
emission standards will emit 98% less NOX and 99% less PM
than new trucks 20 years ago. The resulting emission reductions provide
significant public health and welfare benefits. The most recent EPA
regulations which were fully phased-in in 2010 are projected to provide
greater than $70 billion in health and welfare benefits annually in
2030 alone (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
    EPA's overall program goal has always been to achieve emissions
reductions from the complete vehicles that operate on our highways. The
agency has often accomplished this goal for many heavy-duty truck
categories through the regulation of heavy-duty engine emissions. A key
part of this success has been the development over many years of a
well-established, representative, and robust set of engine test
procedures that industry and EPA now routinely use to measure emissions
and determine compliance with emission standards. These test procedures
in turn serve the overall compliance program that EPA implements to
help ensure that emissions reductions are being achieved. By isolating
the engine from the many variables involved when the engine is
installed and operated in a HD vehicle, EPA has been able to accurately
address the contribution of the engine alone to overall emissions. The
agencies discuss below how the proposed program incorporates the
existing engine-based approach used for criteria emissions regulations,
as well as new vehicle-based approaches.
(2) NHTSA's Responsibilities To Regulate Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency
Under EISA
    With the passage of the EISA in December 2007, Congress laid out a
framework developing the first fuel efficiency regulations for HD
vehicles. As codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), EISA requires NHTSA to
develop a regulatory system for the fuel economy of commercial medium-
duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks in three steps:
A study by NAS, a study by NHTSA, and a rulemaking to develop the
regulations themselves.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The NAS study is described below, and the NHTSA study
accompanies this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, section 102 of EISA, codified at 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2), states that not later than two years after completion of
the NHTSA study, DOT (by delegation, NHTSA), in consultation with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA, shall develop a regulation to
implement a ``commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle
and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve
the maximum feasible improvement.'' NHTSA interprets the timing
requirements as permitting a regulation to be developed earlier, rather
than as requiring the agency to wait a specified period of time.
    Congress specified that as part of the ``HD fuel efficiency
improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible
improvement,'' NHTSA must adopt and implement:
     Appropriate test methods;
     Measurement metrics;
     Fuel economy standards; \17\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In the context of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), NHTSA interprets
``fuel economy standards'' as referring not specifically to miles
per gallon, as in the light-duty vehicle context, but instead more
broadly to account as accurately as possible for MD/HD fuel
efficiency. While it is a metric that NHTSA considered for setting
MD/HD fuel efficiency standards, the agency recognizes that miles
per gallon may not be an appropriate metric given the work that MD/
HD vehicles are manufactured to do. NHTSA is thus proposing
alternative metrics as discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compliance and enforcement protocols.
    Congress emphasized that the test methods, measurement metrics,
standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols must all be
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for
commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work
trucks. NHTSA notes that these criteria are different from the ``four
factors'' of 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) \18\ that have long governed NHTSA's
setting of fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks,
although many of the same factors are considered under each of these
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 49 U.S.C. 32902(f) states that ``When deciding maximum
feasible average fuel economy under this section, [NHTSA] shall
consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, the
effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel
economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress also stated that NHTSA may set separate standards for
different classes of HD vehicles, which the agency interprets broadly
to allow regulation of HD engines in addition to HD vehicles, and
provided requirements new to 49 U.S.C. 32902 in terms of timing of
regulations, stating that the standards adopted as a result of the
agency's rulemaking shall provide not less than four full model years
of regulatory lead time, and three full model years of regulatory
stability.
(3) National Academy of Sciences Report on Heavy-Duty Technology
    As mandated by Congress in EISA, the National Research Council
(NRC) under NAS recently issued a report to NHTSA and to Congress
evaluating medium-duty and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency improvement
opportunities, titled ``Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the
Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles.'' \19\ This study
covers the same universe of heavy-duty vehicles that is the focus of
this proposed rulemaking--all highway vehicles that are not light-duty,
MDPVs, or motorcycles. The agencies have carefully evaluated the
research supporting this report and its recommendations and have
incorporated them to the extent practicable in the development of this
rulemaking. NHTSA's and EPA's detailed assessments of each of the
relevant recommendations of the NAS

report are discussed in Section X of this preamble and in the NHTSA HD
study accompanying this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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,'' (hereafter,
``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 (last accessed
September 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) The Recent NHTSA and EPA Light-Duty National GHG Program
    On April 1, 2010, EPA and NHTSA finalized the first-ever National
Program for light-duty cars and trucks, which set GHG emissions and
fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016. The agencies have
used the light-duty National Program as a model for this proposed HD
National Program in many respects. This is most apparent in the case of
heavy-duty pickups and vans, which are very similar to the light-duty
trucks addressed in the light-duty National Program both
technologically as well as in terms of how they are manufactured (i.e.,
the same company often makes both the vehicle and the engine). For
these vehicles, there are close parallels to the light-duty program in
how the agencies have developed our respective proposed standards and
compliance structures, although in this proposal each agency proposes
standards based on attributes other than vehicle footprint, as
discussed below.
    Due to the diversity of the remaining HD vehicles, there are fewer
parallels with the structure of the light-duty program. However, the
agencies have maintained the same collaboration and coordination that
characterized the development of the light-duty program. Most notably,
as with the light-duty program, manufacturers will be able to design
and build to meet a closely coordinated Federal program, and avoid
unnecessarily duplicative testing and compliance burdens.
(5) EPA's SmartWay Program
    EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership program encourages
shipping and trucking companies to take actions that reduce fuel
consumption and CO2 by working with the shipping community
and the freight sector to identify low carbon strategies and
technologies, and by providing technical information, financial
incentives, and partner recognition to accelerate the adoption of these
strategies. Through the SmartWay program, EPA has worked closely with
truck manufacturers and truck fleets to develop test procedures to
evaluate vehicle and component performance in reducing fuel consumption
and has conducted testing and has established test programs to verify
technologies that can achieve these reductions. Over the last six
years, EPA has developed hands-on experience testing the largest heavy-
duty trucks and evaluating improvements in tire and vehicle aerodynamic
performance. In 2010, according to vehicle manufacturers, approximately
five percent of new combination heavy-duty trucks will meet the
SmartWay performance criteria demonstrating that they represent the
pinnacle of current heavy-duty truck reductions in fuel consumption.
    In developing this HD National Program, the agencies have drawn
from the SmartWay experience, as discussed in detail both in Sections
II and III below (e.g., developing test procedures to evaluate trucks
and truck components) but also in the draft RIA (estimating performance
levels from the application of the best available technologies
identified in the SmartWay program). These technologies provide part of
the basis for the GHG emission and fuel consumption standards proposed
in this rulemaking for certain types of new heavy-duty Class 7 and 8
combination tractors.
    In addition to identifying technologies, the SmartWay program
includes operational approaches that truck fleet owners as well as
individual drivers and their freight customers can incorporate, that
the NHTSA and EPA believe will complement the proposed standards. These
include such approaches as improved logistics and driver training, as
discussed in the draft RIA. This approach is consistent with the one of
the three alternative approaches that the NAS recommended be
considered. The three approaches were raising fuel taxes, liberalizing
truck size and weight restrictions, and encouraging incentives to
disseminate information to inform truck drivers about the relationship
between driving behavior and fuel savings. Taxes and truck size and
weight limits are mandated by public law; as such, these options are
outside EPA's and NHTSA's authority to implement. However,
complementary operational measures like driver training, which SmartWay
does promote, can complement the proposed standards and also provide
benefits for the existing truck fleet, furthering the public policy
objectives of addressing energy security and climate change.
(6.) Canada's Department of the Environment
    The Government of Canada's Department of the Environment
(Environment Canada) assisted EPA's development of this proposed
rulemaking, by conducting emissions testing of heavy-duty vehicles at
Environment Canada test facilities to gather data on a range of
possible test cycles.
    We expect the technical collaboration with Environment Canada to
continue as we address issues raised by stakeholders in response to
this NPRM, and as we continue to develop details of certain testing and
compliance verification procedures. We may also be able to begin to
develop a knowledge base enabling improvement upon this regulatory
framework for model years beyond 2018 (for example, improvements to the
means of demonstrating compliance). We also expect to continue our
collaboration with Environment Canada on compliance issues.

C. Summary of the Proposed EPA and NHTSA HD National Program

    When EPA first addressed emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the
1980s, it established standards for engines, based on the amount of
work performed (grams of pollutant per unit of work, expressed as grams
per brake horsepower-hour or g/bhp-hr).\20\ This approach recognized
the fact that engine characteristics are the dominant determinant of
the types of emissions generated, and engine-based technologies
(including exhaust aftertreatment systems) need to be the focus for
addressing those emissions. Vehicle-based technologies, in contrast,
have less influence on overall truck emissions of the pollutants that
EPA has regulated in the past. The engine testing approach also
recognized the relatively small number of distinct heavy-duty engine
designs, as compared to the extremely wide range of truck designs. EPA
concluded at that time that any incremental gain in conventional
emission control that could be achieved through regulation of the
complete vehicle would be small in comparison to the cost of addressing
the many variants of complete trucks that make up the heavy-duty
sector--smaller and larger vocational vehicles for dozens of purposes,
various designs of combination tractors, and many others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The term ``brake power'' refers to engine torque and power
as measured at the interface between the engine's output shaft and
the dynamometer. This contrasts with ``indicated power'', which is a
calculated value based on the pressure dynamics in the combustion
chamber, not including internal losses that occur due to friction
and pumping work. Since the measurement procedure inherently
measures brake torque and power, the proposed regulations refer
simply to g/hp-hr. This is consistent with our other emission
control programs, which generally include standards in g/kW-hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Addressing GHG emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty
trucks, however, requires a different approach. Reducing GHG emissions
and fuel consumption requires increasing the

inherent efficiency of the engine as well as making changes to the
vehicles to reduce the amount of work that the engine needs to do per
mile traveled. This thus requires a focus on the entire vehicle. For
example, in addition to the basic emissions and fuel consumption levels
of the engine, the aerodynamics of the vehicle can have a major impact
on the amount of work that must be performed to transport freight at
common highway speeds. The 2010 NAS Report recognized this need and
recommended a complete-vehicle approach to regulation. As described
elsewhere in this preamble, the proposed standards that make up the HD
National Program aim to address the complete vehicle, to the extent
practicable and appropriate under the agencies' respective statutory
authorities, through complementary engine and vehicle standards, in
order to reduce the complexity of the regulatory system and achieve the
greatest gains as soon as possible.
(1) Brief Overview of the Heavy-Duty Truck Industry
    The heavy-duty truck sector spans a wide range of vehicles with
often unique form and function. A primary indicator of the extreme
diversity among heavy-duty trucks is the range of load-carrying
capability across the industry. The heavy-duty truck sector is often
subdivided by vehicle weight classifications, as defined by the
vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the
combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the
truck.\21\ Table I-1 below outlines the vehicle weight classifications
commonly used for many years for a variety of purposes by businesses
and by several Federal agencies, including the Department of
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Commerce, and the Internal Revenue Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ GVWR describes the maximum load that can be carried by a
vehicle, including the weight of the vehicle itself. Heavy-duty
vehicles also have a gross combined weight rating (GCWR), which
describes the maximum load that the vehicle can haul, including the
weight of a loaded trailer and the vehicle itself.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.001

    In the framework of these vehicle weight classifications, the
heavy-duty truck sector refers to Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles and
the engines that power those vehicles.\22\ Unlike light-duty vehicles,
which are primarily used for transporting passengers for personal
travel, heavy-duty vehicles fill much more diverse operator needs.
Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans (Classes 2b and 3) are used chiefly
as work truck and vans, and as shuttle vans, as well as for personal
transportation, with an average annual mileage in the range of 15,000
miles. The rest of the heavy-duty sector is used for carrying cargo
and/or performing specialized tasks. Commercial ``vocational''
vehicles, which may span Classes 2b through 8, vary widely in size,
including smaller and larger van trucks, utility ``bucket'' trucks,
tank trucks, refuse trucks, urban and over-the-road buses, fire trucks,
flat-bed trucks, and dump trucks, among others. The annual mileage of
these trucks is as varied as their uses, but for the most part tends to
fall in between heavy-duty pickups/vans and the large combination
tractors, typically from 15,000 to 150,000 miles per year, although
some travel more and some less. Class 7 and 8 combination tractor-
trailers--some equipped with sleeper cabs and some not--are primarily
used for freight transportation. They are sold as tractors and
sometimes run without a trailer in between loads, but most of the time
they run with one or more trailers that can carry up to 50,000 pounds
or more of payload, consuming significant quantities of fuel and
producing significant amounts of GHG emissions. The combination
tractor-trailers used in combination applications can travel more than
150,000 miles per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Class 2b vehicles designed as passenger vehicles (Medium
Duty Passenger Vehicles, MDPVs) are covered by the light-duty GHG
and fuel economy standards and not addressed in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and NHTSA have designed our respective proposed standards in
careful consideration of the diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty
truck industry, as discussed next.
(2) Summary of Proposed EPA GHG Emission Standards and NHTSA Fuel
Consumption Standards
    As described above, NHTSA and EPA recognize the importance of
addressing the entire vehicle in reducing fuel consumption and GHG
emissions. At the same time, the agencies understand that the
complexity of the industry means that we will need to use different
approaches to achieve this goal, depending on the characteristics of
each general type of truck. We are therefore proposing to divide the
industry into three discrete regulatory categories for purposes of
setting our respective standards--combination tractors, heavy-duty
pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles--based on the relative degree
of homogeneity among trucks within each category. For each regulatory
category, the agencies are proposing related but distinct program
approaches reflecting the specific challenges that we see for
manufacturers in these segments. In the following paragraphs, we
discuss EPA's proposed GHG emission standards and NHTSA's proposed fuel
consumption standards for the three regulatory categories of heavy-duty
vehicles and their engines.
    The agencies are proposing test metrics that express fuel
consumption and GHG emissions relative to the most important measures
of heavy-duty truck utility for each segment, consistent with the
recommendation of the 2010 NAS Report that metrics should reflect and
account for the work performed by various types of HD vehicles. This
approach differs from NHTSA's light-duty program that uses fuel economy
as the basis. The NAS committee discussed the difference between fuel
economy (a measure of how far a vehicle will go on a gallon of fuel)
and fuel consumption (the inverse measure, of how much fuel is consumed
in driving a given distance) as potential metrics for MD/HD
regulations. The committee concluded that fuel economy would not be a
good metric for judging the fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty vehicle,
and stated that NHTSA should alternatively consider fuel consumption as
the basis for its standards. As a result, for heavy-duty

pickup trucks and vans, EPA and NHTSA are proposing standards on a per-
mile basis (g/mile for the EPA standards, gallons/100 miles for the
NHTSA standards), as explained in Section I.C.(2)(b) below. For heavy-
duty trucks, both combination and vocational, the agencies are
proposing standards expressed in terms of the key measure of freight
movement, tons of payload miles or, more simply, ton-miles. Hence, for
EPA the proposed standards are in the form of the mass of emissions
from carrying a ton of cargo over a distance of one mile (g/ton-mi)).
Similarly, the proposed NHTSA standards are in terms of gallons of fuel
consumed over a set distance (one thousand miles), or gal/1,000 ton-
mile. Finally, for engines, EPA is proposing standards in the form of
grams of emissions per unit of work (g/bhp-hr), the same metric used
for the heavy-duty highway engine standards for criteria pollutants
today. Similarly, NHTSA is proposing standards for heavy-duty engines
in the form of gallons of fuel consumption per 100 units of work (gal/
100 bhp-hr).
    Section II below discusses the proposed EPA and NHTSA standards in
greater detail.
(a) Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
    Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and their engines contribute the
largest portion of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the
heavy-duty sector, approximately 65 percent, due to their large
payloads, their high annual miles traveled, and their major role in
national freight transport.\23\ These vehicles consist of a cab and
engine (tractor or combination tractor) and a detachable trailer. In
general, reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption for these vehicles
would involve improvements such as aerodynamics and tires and reduction
in idle operation, as well as engine-based efficiency improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The vast majority of combination tractor-trailers are used
in highway applications, and these vehicles are the focus of this
proposed program. A small fraction of combination tractors are used
in off-road applications and are treated differently, as described
in Section II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the heavy-duty combination tractor industry consists of
tractor manufacturers (which manufacture the tractor and purchase and
install the engine) and trailer manufacturers. These manufacturers are
usually separate from each other. We are not aware of any manufacturer
that typically assembles both the finished truck and the trailer and
introduces the combination into commerce for sale to a buyer. The
owners of trucks and trailers are often distinct as well. A typical
truck buyer will purchase only the tractor. The trailers are usually
purchased and owned by fleets and shippers. This occurs in part because
trucking fleets on average maintain 3 trailers per tractor and in some
cases as many as 6 or more trailers per tractor. There are also large
differences in the kinds of manufacturers involved with producing
tractors and trailers. For HD highway tractors and their engines, a
relatively limited number of manufacturers produce the vast majority of
these products. The trailer manufacturing industry is quite different,
and includes a large number of companies, many of which are relatively
small in size and production volume. Setting standards for the products
involved--tractors and trailers--requires recognition of the large
differences between these manufacturing industries, which can then
warrant consideration of different regulatory approaches.
    Based on these industry characteristics, EPA and NHTSA believe that
the most straightforward regulatory approach for combination tractors
and trailers is to establish standards for tractors separately from
trailers. As discussed below in Section IX, the agencies are proposing
standards for the tractors and their engines in this rulemaking, but
are not proposing standards for trailers in this rulemaking. The
agencies are requesting comment on potential standards for trailers,
but will address standards for trailers in a separate rulemaking.
    As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA have concluded that achieving reductions in GHG emissions and
fuel consumption from combination tractors requires addressing both the
cab and the engine, and EPA and NHTSA each are proposing standards that
reflect this conclusion. The importance of the cab is that its design
determines the amount of power that the engine must produce in moving
the truck down the road. As illustrated in Figure I-1, the loads that
require additional power from the engine include air resistance
(aerodynamics), tire rolling resistance, and parasitic losses
(including accessory loads and friction in the drivetrain). The
importance of the engine design is that it determines the basic GHG
emissions and fuel consumption performance of the engine for the
variety of demands placed on the engine, regardless of the
characteristics of the cab in which it is installed. The agencies
intend for the proposed standards to result in the application of
improved technologies for lower GHG emissions and fuel consumption for
both the cab and the engine.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.002

    Accordingly, for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies
are each proposing two sets of standards. For vehicle-related emissions
and fuel consumption, the agencies are proposing that tractor
manufacturers meet respective vehicle-based standards. Compliance with
the vehicle standard would typically be determined based on a
customized vehicle simulation model, called the Greenhouse gas
Emissions Model (GEM), which is consistent with the NAS Report
recommendations to require compliance testing for combination tractors
using vehicle simulation rather than chassis dynamometer testing. This
compliance model was developed by EPA specifically for this proposal.
It is an accurate and cost-effective alternative to measuring emissions
and fuel consumption while operating the vehicle on a chassis
dynamometer. Instead of using a chassis dynamometer as an indirect way
to evaluate real-world operation and performance, various
characteristics of the vehicle are measured and these measurements are
used as inputs to the model. These characteristics relate to key
technologies appropriate for this subcategory of truck--including
aerodynamic features, weight reductions, tire rolling resistance, the
presence of idle-reducing technology, and vehicle speed limiters. The
model would also assume the use of a representative typical engine,
rather than a vehicle-specific engine, because engines are regulated
separately and include an averaging, banking, and trading program
separate from the vehicle program. The model and appropriate inputs
would be used to quantify the overall performance of the vehicle in
terms of CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. The model's
development and design, as well as the sources for inputs and the
evaluation of the model's accuracy, are discussed in detail in Section
II below and in Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\Adapted from, Figure 4.1. Class 8 Truck Energy Audit,
Technology Roadmap for the 21st Century Truck Program: A Government-
Industry Research Partnership, 21CT-001, December 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and NHTSA also considered developing respective alternative
standards based on the direct testing of the emissions and fuel
consumption of the entire vehicle for this category of vehicles, as
measured using a chassis test procedure. This would be similar to the
proposed approach for standards for HD pickups and vans discussed
below. The agencies believe that such an approach warrants continued
consideration. However, the agencies are not prepared to propose
chassis-test-based standards at this time, primarily because of the
very small number of chassis-test facilities that currently exist, but
rather are proposing only the tractor standards and the engine-based
standards discussed above. The agencies seek comment on the potential
benefits and trade-offs of chassis-test-based standards for combination
tractors.
(1) Proposed Standards for Class 7 and 8 Combination Tractors
    The vehicle standards that EPA and NHTSA are proposing for Class 7
and 8 combination tractor manufacturers are based on several key
attributes related to GHG emissions and fuel consumption that we
believe reasonably represent the many differences in utility among
these vehicles. The proposed standards differ depending on GVWR (i.e.,
whether the truck is Class 7 or Class 8), the height of the roof of the
cab, and whether it is a ``day cab'' or a ``sleeper cab.'' These later
two attributes are important because the height of the roof, designed
to correspond to the height of the trailer, significantly affects air
resistance, and a sleeper cab generally corresponds to the opportunity
for extended duration idle emission and fuel consumption improvements.
    Thus, the agencies have created nine subcategories within the Class
7 and 8 combination tractor category based on the differences in
expected emissions and fuel consumption associated with the key
attributes of GVWR, cab type, and roof height. Table I-2 presents the
agencies' respective proposed standards for combination tractor
manufacturers for the 2017 model year for illustration.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.003

    In addition, the agencies are proposing separate performance
standards for the engines manufactured for use in these trucks. EPA's
proposed engine-based CO2 standards and NHTSA's proposed
engine-based fuel consumption standards would vary based on the
expected weight class and usage of the truck into which the engine
would be installed. EPA is also proposing engine-based N2O
and CH4 standards for manufacturers of the engines used in
combination tractors. EPA is proposing separate engine-based standards
for these GHGs because the agency believes that N2O and
CH4 emissions are technologically related solely to the
engine, fuel, and emissions aftertreatment systems, and the agency is
not aware of any influence of vehicle-based technologies on these
emissions. However, NHTSA is not incorporating standards related to
these GHGs due to their lack of influence on fuel consumption. EPA
expects that manufacturers of current engine technologies would be able
to comply with the proposed ``cap'' standards with little or no
technological improvements; the value of the standards would be to
prevent significant increases in these emissions as alternative
technologies are developed and introduced in the future. Compliance
with the proposed EPA engine-based CO2 standards and the
proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA
N2O and CH4 standards, would be determined using
the appropriate EPA engine test procedure, as discussed in Section II
below.
    As with the other categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA
are proposing respective standards that would apply to Class 7 and 8
trucks at the time of production (as in Table I-2, above). In addition,
EPA is proposing separate standards that would apply for a specified
period of time in use. All of the proposed standards for these trucks,
as well as details about the proposed provisions for certification and
implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail in
Sections II, III, IV, and V below and in the draft RIA.
(ii) EPA Proposed Air Conditioning Leakage Standard for Class 7 and 8
Combination Tractors
    In addition to the proposed EPA tractor- and engine-based standards
for CO2 and engine-based standards for N2O, and
CH4 emissions, EPA is also proposing a separate standard to
reduce leakage of HFC refrigerant from cabin air conditioning systems
from combination tractors, to apply to the tractor manufacturer. This
standard would be independent of the CO2 tractor standard,
as discussed below. Because the current refrigerant used widely in all
these systems has a very high global warming potential, EPA is
concerned about leakage of refrigerant over time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The global warming potential for HFC-134a refrigerant of
1430 used in this proposal is consistent with the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the interior volume to be cooled for most of these truck
cabins is similar to that of light-duty trucks, the size and design of
current truck A/C systems is also very similar. The proposed compliance
approach for Class 7 and 8 tractors is therefore similar to that in the
light-duty rule in that these proposed standards are design-based.
Manufacturers would choose technologies from a menu of leak-reducing
technologies sufficient to comply with the standard, as opposed to
using a test to measure performance.
    However, the proposed heavy-duty A/C provisions differ in two
important ways from those established in the light-duty rule. First,
the light-duty provisions were established as voluntary ways to
generate credits towards the CO2 g/mi standard, and EPA took
into account the expected use of such credits in establishing the
CO2 emissions standards. In this rule, EPA is proposing that
manufacturers actually meet a standard--as opposed to having the
opportunity to earn a credit--for A/C refrigerant leakage. Thus, for
this rule, refrigerant leakage is not accounted for in the development
of the proposed CO2 standards. We are taking this approach
here recognizing that while the benefits of leakage control are almost
identical between light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles on a per vehicle
basis, these benefits on a per mile basis expressed as a percentage of
overall GHG emissions are much smaller for heavy-duty vehicles due to
their much higher CO2 emissions rates and higher annual
mileage when compared to light-duty vehicles. Hence a credit-based
approach as done for light-duty vehicles would provide less motivation
for manufacturers to install low leakage systems even though such
systems represent a highly cost effective means to control GHG
emissions. The second difference relates the expression of the leakage
rate. The light-duty A/C leakage standard is expressed in terms of
grams per year. For this heavy-duty rule, however, because of the wide
variety of system designs and arrangements, a one-size-fits-all gram
per year standard would likely be much less relevant, so EPA believes
it is more appropriate to propose a standard in terms of percent of
total refrigerant leakage per year. This requires the total refrigerant
capacity of

the A/C system to be taken into account in determining compliance. EPA
believes that this proposed approach--a standard instead of a credit,
and basing the standard on percent leakage over time--is more
appropriate for heavy-duty tractors than the light-duty vehicle
approach and that it will achieve the desired reductions in refrigerant
leakage. Compliance with the standard would be determined through a
showing by the tractor manufacturer that its A/C system incorporated a
combination of low-leak technologies sufficient to meet the percent
leakage of the standard. This proposed ``menu'' of technologies is very
similar to that established in the light-duty GHG rule.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ At this time, EPA is considering approval of an alternative
refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, which has a very low GWP. The proposed A/C
leakage standard is designed to account for use of an alternative,
low-GWP refrigerant. If in the future this refrigerant is approved
and if it becomes widespread as a substitute for HFC-134a in mobile
A/C systems, EPA may propose to revise or eliminate the leakage
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA is not proposing an A/C system efficiency standard in
this heavy-duty rulemaking, although an efficiency credit was a part of
the light-duty rule. The much larger emissions of CO2 from a
heavy-duty tractor as compared to those from a light-duty vehicle mean
that the relative amount of CO2 that could be reduced
through A/C efficiency improvements is very small. We request comment
on this decision and whether EPA should reflect A/C system efficiency
in the final program either as a credit or a stand-alone standard based
on the same technologies and performance levels as the light-duty
program.
    A more detailed discussion of A/C related issues is found in
Section II of this preamble.
(b) Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans (Class 2b and 3)
    Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 8,501 and 10,000 lb are
classified in the industry as Class 2b motor vehicles per the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration definition. As discussed above,
Class 2b includes MDPVs that are regulated by the agencies under the
light-duty vehicle program, and the agencies are not considering
additional requirements for MDPVs in this rulemaking. Heavy-duty
vehicles with GVWR between 10,001 and 14,000 lb are classified as Class
3 motor vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles (referred to
in this proposal as ``HD pickups and vans'') together emit about 20
percent of today's GHG emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
    About 90 percent of HD pickups and vans are \3/4\-ton and 1-ton
pick-up trucks, 12- and 15-passenger vans, and large work vans that are
sold by vehicle manufacturers as complete vehicles, with no secondary
manufacturer making substantial modifications prior to registration and
use. These vehicle manufacturers are companies with major light-duty
markets in the United States, primarily Ford, General Motors, and
Chrysler. Furthermore, the technologies available to reduce fuel
consumption and GHG emissions from this segment are similar to the
technologies used on light-duty pickup trucks, including both engine
efficiency improvements (for gasoline and diesel engines) and vehicle
efficiency improvements.
    For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to propose GHG
standards for HD pickups and vans based on the whole vehicle, including
the engine, expressed as grams per mile, consistent with the way these
vehicles are regulated by EPA today for criteria pollutants. NHTSA
believes it is appropriate to propose corresponding gallons per 100
mile fuel consumption standards that are likewise based on the whole
vehicle. This complete vehicle approach being proposed by both agencies
for HD pickups and vans is consistent with the recommendations of the
NAS Committee in their 2010 Report. EPA and NHTSA also believe that the
structure and many of the detailed provisions of the recently finalized
light-duty GHG and fuel economy program, which also involves vehicle-
based standards, are appropriate for the HD pickup and van GHG and fuel
consumption standards as well, and this is reflected in the standards
each agency is proposing, as detailed in Section II.C. These proposed
commonalities include a new vehicle fleet average standard for each
manufacturer in each model year and the determination of these fleet
average standards based on production volume-weighted targets for each
model, with the targets varying based on a defined vehicle attribute.
Vehicle testing would be conducted on chassis dynamometers using the
drive cycles from the EPA Federal Test Procedure (Light-duty FTP or
``city'' test) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or ``highway''
test).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Light-duty FTP is a vehicle driving cycle that was
originally developed for certifying light-duty vehicles and
subsequently applied to HD chassis testing for criteria pollutants.
This contrasts with the Heavy-duty FTP, which refers to the
transient engine test cycles used for certifying heavy-duty engines
(with separate cycles specified for diesel and spark-ignition
engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards, the agencies
factored in vehicle size by basing the emissions and fuel economy
targets on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track
width).\28\ For those standards, passenger cars and light trucks with
larger footprints are assigned higher GHG and lower fuel economy target
levels in acknowledgement of their inherent tendency to consume more
fuel and emit more GHGs per mile. For HD pickups and vans, the agencies
believe that setting standards based on vehicle attributes is
appropriate, but feel that a weight-based metric provides a better
attribute than the footprint attribute utilized in the light-duty
vehicle rulemaking. Weight-based measures such as payload and towing
capability are key among the parameters that characterize differences
in the design of these vehicles, as well as differences in how the
vehicles will be utilized. Buyers consider these utility-based
attributes when purchasing a heavy-duty pick-up or van. EPA and NHTSA
are therefore proposing standards for HD pickups and vans based on a
``work factor'' that combines their payload and towing capabilities,
with an added adjustment for 4-wheel drive vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EISA requires CAFE standards for passenger cars and light
trucks to be attribute-based; see 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agencies are proposing that each manufacturer's fleet average
standard would be based on production volume-weighting of target
standards for each vehicle that in turn are based on the vehicle's work
factor. These target standards would be taken from a set of curves
(mathematical functions), presented in Section II.C. EPA is also
proposing that the CO2 standards be phased in gradually
starting in the 2014 model year, at 15-20-40-60-100 percent in model
years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018, respectively. The phase-in would take
the form of a set of target standard curves, with increasing stringency
in each model year, as detailed in Section II.C. The EPA standards
proposed for 2018 (including a separate standard to control air
conditioning system leakage) represent an average per-vehicle reduction
in GHGs of 17 percent for diesel vehicles and 12 percent for gasoline
vehicles, compared to a common baseline, as described in Sections II.C
and III.B of this preamble. Section II.C also discusses the rationale
behind the proposal of separate targets for diesel and gasoline vehicle
standards. EPA is also proposing a manufacturer's alternative
implementation schedule for

model years 2016-2018 that parallels and is equivalent to NHTSA's first
alternative described below.
    NHTSA is proposing to allow manufacturers to select one of two fuel
consumption standards alternatives for model years 2016 and later. To
meet the EISA statutory requirement for three year regulatory
stability, the first alternative would define individual gasoline
vehicle and diesel vehicle fuel consumption target curves that would
not change for model years 2016 and later. The proposed target curves
for this alternative are presented in Section II.C. The second
alternative would use target curves that are equivalent to the EPA
program in each model year 2016 to 2018. Stringency for the
alternatives has been selected to allow a manufacturer, through the use
of the credit and deficit carry-forward provisions that the agencies
are also proposing, to rely on the same product plans to satisfy either
of these two alternatives, and also EPA requirements. NHTSA is also
proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD
pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 2015. For these model
years, NHTSA's fuel consumption target curves are equivalent to EPA's
target curves.
    The proposed EPA and NHTSA standard curves are based on a set of
vehicle, engine, and transmission technologies expected to be used to
meet the recently established GHG emissions and fuel economy standards
for model year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, with full consideration
of how these technologies would perform in heavy-duty vehicle testing
and use. All of these technologies are already in use or have been
announced for upcoming model years in some light-duty vehicle models,
and some are in use in a portion of HD pickups and vans as well. The
technologies include:

 Advanced 8-speed automatic transmissions
 Aerodynamic improvements
 Electro-hydraulic power steering
 Engine friction reductions
 Improved accessories
 Low friction lubricants in powertrain components
 Lower rolling resistance tires
 Lightweighting
 Gasoline direct injection
 Gasoline engine coupled cam phasing
 Diesel aftertreatment optimization
 Air conditioning system leakage reduction (for EPA program
only)

    See Section III.B for a detailed analysis of these and other
potential technologies, including their feasibility, costs, and
effectiveness when employed for reducing fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions in HD pickups and vans.
    A relatively small number of HD pickups and vans are sold by
vehicle manufacturers as incomplete vehicles, without the primary load-
carrying device or container attached. We are proposing that these
vehicles generally be regulated as Class 2b through 8 vocational
vehicles, as described in Section I.C(2)(c), because, like other
vocational vehicles, we have little information on baseline aerodynamic
performance and expectations for improvement. However, a sizeable
subset of these incomplete vehicles, often called cab-chassis vehicles,
are sold by the vehicle manufacturers in configurations with many of
the components that affect GHG emissions and fuel consumption identical
to those on complete pickup truck or van counterparts--including
engines, cabs, frames, transmissions, axles, and wheels. We are
proposing that these vehicles be included in the chassis-based HD
pickup and van program. These proposed provisions are described in
Section V.B.
    In addition to proposed EPA CO2 emission standards and
the proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards for HD pickups and vans,
EPA is also proposing standards for two additional GHGs, N2O
and CH4, as well as standards for air conditioning-related
HFC emissions. These standards are discussed in more detail in Section
II.E. Finally, EPA is proposing standards that would apply to HD
pickups and vans in use. All of the proposed standards for these HD
pickups and vans, as well as details about the proposed provisions for
certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in
Section II.C.
(c) Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
    Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles consist of a wide variety of vehicle
types. Some of the primary applications for vehicles in this segment
include delivery, refuse, utility, dump, and cement trucks; transit,
shuttle, and school buses; emergency vehicles, motor homes,\29\ tow
trucks, among others. These vehicles and their engines contribute
approximately 15 percent of today's heavy-duty truck sector GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Again, we note that NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption
standards would not apply to non-commercial vehicles like motor
homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturing of vehicles in this segment of the industry is
organized in a more complex way than that of the other heavy-duty
categories. Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles are often built as a chassis
with an installed engine and an installed transmission. Both the engine
and transmissions are typically manufactured by other manufacturers and
the chassis manufacturer purchases and installs them. Many of the same
companies that build Class 7 and 8 tractors are also in the Class 2b-8
chassis manufacturing market. The chassis is typically then sent to a
body manufacturer, which completes the vehicle by installing the
appropriate feature--such as dump bed, delivery box, or utility
bucket--onto the chassis. Vehicle body manufacturers tend to be small
businesses that specialize in specific types of bodies or specialized
features.
    EPA and NHTSA are proposing that in this vocational vehicle
category the chassis manufacturers be the focus of the proposed GHG and
fuel consumption standards. They play a central role in the
manufacturing process, and the product they produce--the chassis with
engine and transmissions--includes the primary technologies that affect
emissions and fuel consumption. They also constitute a much more
limited group of manufacturers for purposes of developing a regulatory
program. In contrast, a focus on the body manufacturers would be much
less practical, since they represent a much more diverse set of
manufacturers, and the part of the vehicle that they add has a very
limited impact on opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and fuel
consumption (given the limited role that aerodynamics plays in the
types of lower speed operation typically found with vocational
vehicles). Therefore, the proposed standards in this vocational vehicle
category would apply to the chassis manufacturers of all heavy-duty
vehicles not otherwise covered by the HD pickup and van standards or
Class 7 and 8 combination tractor standards discussed above. The
agencies request comment on our proposed focus on chassis
manufacturers.
    As discussed above, EPA and NHTSA have concluded that reductions in
GHG emissions and fuel consumption require addressing both the vehicle
and the engine. As discussed above for Class 7 and 8 combination
tractors, the agencies are each proposing two sets of standards for
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. For vehicle-related emissions and fuel
consumption, the agencies are proposing standards for chassis
manufacturers: EPA CO2 (g/ton-mile) standards and NHTSA fuel
consumption (gal/1,000 ton-mile) standards). Also as in the case of
Class 7 and 8 tractors, we propose to use GEM, a customized vehicle
simulation model, to determine compliance with the vocational vehicle
standards. The primary manufacturer-generated input

into the proposed compliance model for this category of trucks would be
a measure of tire rolling resistance, as discussed further below,
because tire improvements are the primary means of vehicle improvement
available at this time. The model would also assume the use of a
typical representative engine in the simulation, resulting in an
overall value for CO2 emissions and one for fuel
consumption. As is the case for combination tractors, the manufacturers
of the engines intended for vocational vehicles would be subject to
separate engine-based standards.
(i) Proposed Standards for Class 2b-8 Vocational Vehicles
    Based on our analysis and research, the agencies believe that the
primary opportunity for reductions in vocational vehicle GHG emissions
and fuel consumption will be through improved engine technologies and
improved tire rolling resistance. For engines, as proposed for
combination tractors, EPA and NHTSA are proposing separate standards
for the manufacturers of engines used in Class 2b-8 vocational
vehicles. EPA's proposed engine-based CO2 standards and
NHTSA's proposed engine-based fuel consumption standards would vary
based on the expected weight class and usage of the truck into which
the engine would be installed. The agencies propose to use the
groupings EPA currently uses for other heavy-duty engine standards--
light heavy-duty, medium heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty, as discussed
in Section II below.
    Tire rolling resistance is closely related to the weight of the
vehicle. Therefore, we propose that the vehicle-based standards for
these trucks vary according to one key attribute, GVWR. For this
initial HD rulemaking, we propose that these standards be based on the
same groupings of truck weight classes used for the engine standards--
light heavy-duty, medium heavy-duty, and heavy heavy-duty. These
groupings are appropriate for the proposed vehicle-based standards
because they parallel the general divisions among key engine
characteristics, as discussed in Section II.
    The agencies intend to monitor the development of and production
feasibility of new vehicle-related GHG and fuel consumption reduction
improving technologies and consider including these technologies in
future rulemakings. As discussed below, we are including provisions to
account for and credit the use of hybrid technology as a technology
that can reduce emissions and fuel consumption. Hybrid technology can
currently be a cost-effective technology in certain specific vocational
applications, and the agencies want to recognize and promote the use of
this technology. We also are proposing a mechanism whereby credits can
be generated by use of other technologies not included in the
compliance model. (See Sections I.E and IV below.)
    Table I-3 presents EPA's proposed CO2 standards and
NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards for chassis manufacturers
of Class 2b through Class 8 vocational vehicles for the 2017 model year
for illustrative purposes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.004

    At this time, NHTSA and EPA are not prepared to propose alternative
standards based on a whole-vehicle chassis test for vocational vehicles
in this initial heavy-duty rulemaking. As discussed above for
combination tractors, the primary reason is the very small number of
chassis-test facilities that currently exist. Thus, the agencies are
proposing only the compliance-model based standards and engine
standards discussed above, and seek comment on the appropriateness of
chassis-test-based standards for the vocational vehicle category.
    For vocational vehicles using hybrid technology, the agencies are
proposing two specialized approaches to allow manufacturers to gain
credit for the emissions and fuel consumption reductions associated
with hybrid technology. One option to account for the reductions
associated with vocational vehicles using hybrid technology would
compare vehicle-based chassis tests with and without the hybrid
technology. The other option would allow a manufacturer to simulate the
operation of the hybrid system in an engine-based test. The options are
further discussed in Section IV.
    The proposed program also provides for opportunities to generate
credits for technologies not measured by the GEM, again described more
fully in Section IV.
    As mentioned above for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, EPA
believes that N2O and CH4 emissions are
technologically related solely to the engine, fuel, and emissions
aftertreatment systems, and the agency is not aware of any influence of
vehicle-based technologies on these emissions. Therefore, for Class 2b-
8 vocational vehicles, EPA is not proposing separate vehicle-based
standards for these GHGs, but is proposing engine-based N2O
and CH4 standards for manufacturers of the engines to be
used in vocational vehicles. EPA expects that

manufacturers of current engine technologies would be able to comply
with the proposed ``cap'' standards with little or no technological
improvements; the value of the standards would be in that they would
prevent significant increases in these emissions as alternative
technologies are developed and introduced in the future. Compliance
with the proposed EPA engine-based CO2 standards and the
proposed NHTSA fuel consumption standards, as well as the proposed EPA
N2O and CH4 standards, would be determined using
the appropriate EPA engine test procedure, as discussed in Section II
below.
    As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA
and NHTSA are proposing standards that would apply to Class 2b-8
vocational vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is proposing
standards for a specified period of time in use. All of the proposed
standards for these trucks, as well as details about the proposed
provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are
discussed in more detail later in this notice and in the draft RIA.
    EPA is not proposing A/C refrigerant leakage standards for Class
2b-8 vocational vehicles at this time, primarily because of the number
of entities involved in their manufacture and thus the potential for
different entities besides the chassis manufacturer to be involved in
the A/C system production and installation. EPA requests comment on how
A/C standards might practically be applied to manufacturers of
vocational vehicles.
(d) What Manufacturers Are Not Covered by the Proposed Standards?
    EPA and NHTSA are proposing to temporarily defer the proposed
greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for any
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, manufacturers of combination
tractors, and chassis manufacturers for vocational vehicles that meet
the ``small business'' size criteria set by the Small Business
Administration. We are not aware of any manufacturers of HD pickups and
vans that meet these criteria. For each of the other categories and for
engines, we have identified a small number of manufacturers that would
appear to qualify as small businesses. The production of these
companies is small, and we believe that deferring the standards for
these companies at this time would have a negligible impact on the GHG
emission reductions and fuel consumption reductions that the program
would otherwise achieve. We request comment on our assumption that the
impact of these exemptions for small businesses will be small and
further whether it will be possible to circumvent the regulations by
creating new small businesses to displace existing manufacturers. We
discuss the specific deferral provisions in more detail in Section II.
    The agencies will consider appropriate GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory
action.

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the HD National Program

    This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the
proposed NHTSA fuel consumption and EPA GHG emissions standards. These
projections help to inform the agencies' choices among the alternatives
considered and provide further confirmation that the proposed standards
are an appropriate choice within the spectrum of choices allowable
under the agencies' respective statutory criteria. NHTSA and EPA have
used common projected costs and benefits as the bases for our
respective standards.
    The agencies have analyzed in detail the projected costs and
benefits of the proposed GHG and fuel consumption standards. Table I-4
shows estimated lifetime discounted costs, benefits and net benefits
for all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-
2018. These figures depend on estimated values for the social cost of
carbon (SCC), as described in Section VIII.G.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.005

    Table I-5 shows the estimated lifetime reductions in CO2
emissions (in million metric tons (MMT)) and fuel consumption for all
heavy-duty vehicles sold in the model years 2014-2018. The values in
Table I-5 are projected lifetime totals for each model year and are not
discounted. The two agencies' standards together comprise the HD
National Program, and the agencies' respective GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and
costs of the HD National Program.
    Table I-5 are projected lifetime totals for each model year and are
not discounted. The two agencies' standards together comprise the HD
National Program, and the agencies' respective GHG emissions and fuel
consumption standards, jointly, are the source of the benefits and
costs of the HD National Program.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.007

    Table I-6 shows the estimated lifetime discounted benefits for all
heavy-duty vehicles sold in model years 2014-2018. Although the
agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values
of a one ton CO2 reduction ($5, $22, $36, $66), for the
purposes of this overview presentation of estimated benefits the
agencies are showing the benefits associated with one of these marginal
values, $22 per ton of CO2, in 2008 dollars and 2010
emissions. Table I-6 presents benefits based on the $22 value. Section
VIII.F presents the four marginal values used to estimate monetized
benefits of CO2 reductions and Section VIII presents the
program benefits using each of the four marginal values, which
represent only a partial accounting of total benefits due to omitted
climate change impacts and other factors that are not readily
monetized. The values in the table are discounted values for each model
year of vehicles throughout their projected lifetimes. The analysis
includes other economic impacts such as fuel savings, energy security,
and other externalities such as reduced accidents, congestion and
noise. However, the analysis supporting the proposal omits other
impacts such as benefits related to non-GHG emission reductions. The
lifetime discounted benefits are shown for one of four different SCC
values considered by EPA and NHTSA. The values in Table I-6 do not
include costs associated with new technology required to meet the GHG
and fuel consumption standards.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.008

    Table I-7 shows the agencies' estimated lifetime fuel savings,
lifetime CO2 emission reductions, and the monetized net
present values of those fuel savings and CO2 emission
reductions. The gallons of fuel and CO2 emission reductions
are projected lifetime values for all vehicles sold in the model years
2014-2018. The estimated fuel savings in billions of barrels and the
GHG reductions in million metric tons of CO2 shown in Table
I-7 are totals for the five model years throughout their projected
lifetime and are not discounted. The monetized values shown in Table I-
7 are the summed values of the discounted monetized-fuel consumption
and

monetized-CO2 reductions for the five model years 2014-2018
throughout their lifetimes. The monetized values in Table I-7 reflect
both a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate as noted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.009

    Table I-8 shows the estimated incremental and total technology
outlays for all heavy-duty vehicles for each of the model years 2014-
2018. The technology outlays shown in Table I-8 are for the industry as
a whole and do not account for fuel savings associated with the
program.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.010

    Table I-9 shows EPA's estimated incremental cost increase of the
average new heavy-duty vehicles for each model year 2014-2018. The
values shown are incremental to a baseline vehicle and are not
cumulative.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30NO10.011

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

E. Program Flexibilities

    For each of the heavy-duty vehicle and heavy-duty engine categories
for which we are proposing respective standards, EPA and NHTSA are also
proposing provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of
flexibility in complying with the standards. These proposed provisions
have enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more
stringent and that would become effective sooner than we could consider
with a more rigid program, one in which all of a manufacturer's similar
vehicles or engines would be required to achieve the same emissions or
fuel consumption levels, and at the same time.\30\ We believe that
incorporating carefully structured regulatory flexibility provisions
into the overall program is an important way to achieve each agency's
goals for the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ NHTSA notes that it has greater flexibility in the HD
program to include consideration of credits and other flexibilities
in determining appropriate and feasible levels of stringency than it
does in the light-duty CAFE program. Cf. 49 U.S.C. 32902(h), which
applies to light-duty CAFE but not heavy-duty fuel efficiency under
49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's and EPA's proposed flexibility provisions are essentially
identical to each other in structure and function. For combination
tractor and vocational vehicle categories and for heavy-duty engines,
we are proposing four primary types of flexibility--averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) provisions, early credits, advanced technology
credits (including hybrid powertrains), and innovative technology
credit provisions. The proposed ABT provisions are patterned on
existing EPA ABT programs and would allow a vehicle manufacturer to
reduce CO2 emission and fuel consumption levels

further than the level of the standard for one or more vehicles to
generate ABT credits. The manufacturer could then use those credits to
offset higher emission or fuel consumption levels in other similar
vehicles, ``bank'' the credits for later use, or ``trade'' the credits
to another manufacturer. We are proposing similar ABT provisions for
manufacturers of heavy-duty engines. For HD pickups and vans, we are
proposing a fleet averaging system very similar to the light-duty GHG
and CAFE fleet averaging system.
    To best ensure that the overall emission and fuel consumption
reductions of the program would be achieved and to minimize any effect
on the ability of the market to respond to consumer needs, the agencies
propose to restrict the use of averaging to limited sets of vehicles
and engines expected to have similar emission or fuel consumption
characteristics. For example, averaging would be allowed among Class 7
low-roof day cab vehicles, but not among those vehicles and Class 8
sleeper cabs or vocational vehicles. Also, we propose that credits
generated by vehicles not be applicable to engine compliance, and vice
versa. For HD pickups and vans, we propose that fleet averaging be
allowed with minimum restriction within the HD pickup and van category.
    In addition to ABT, the agencies are proposing that a manufacturer
that reduces CO2 emissions and fuel consumption below
required levels prior to the beginning of the program be allowed to
generate the same number of credits (``early credits'') that they would
after the program begins.
    The agencies are also proposing that manufacturers that show
improvements in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption and
incorporate certain technologies (including hybrid powertrains, Rankine
engines, or electric vehicles) be eligible for special ``advanced
technology'' credits. Unlike other credits in this proposal, the
advanced technology credits could be applied to any heavy-duty vehicle
or engine, and not be limited to the vehicle category generating the
credit.
    The technologies eligible for advanced technology credits above
lend themselves to straightforward methodologies for quantifying the
emission or fuel consumption reductions. For other technologies which
can reduce CO2 and fuel consumption, but for which there do
not yet exist established methods for quantifying reductions, the
agencies still seek to encourage the development of such innovative
technologies, and are therefore proposing special ``innovative
technology'' credits. These innovative technology credits would apply
to technologies that are shown to produce emission and fuel consumption
reductions that are not adequately recognized on the current test
procedures and that are not yet in widespread use. Manufacturers would
need to quantify the reductions in fuel consumption and CO2
emissions that the technology could achieve, above and beyond those
achieved on the existing test procedures. As with ABT, we propose that
the use of innovative technology credits be only allowed among vehicles
and engines expected to have similar emissions and fuel consumption
characteristics (e.g., within each of the nine Class 7 & 8 combination
tractor subcategories, or within each of the three Class 2b-8
vocational vehicle subcategories).
    A detailed discussion of each agency's ABT, early credit, advanced
technology, and innovative technology provisions for each regulatory
category of heavy-duty vehicles and engines is found in Section IV
below.

F. EPA and NHTSA Statutory Authorities

(1) EPA Authority
    Title II of the CAA provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile
sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from
all mobile source categories. When acting under Title II of the CAA,
EPA considers such issues as technology effectiveness, its cost (both
per vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer), the lead time
necessary to implement the technology, and based on this the
feasibility and practicability of potential standards; the impacts of
potential standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and non-GHGs;
the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the
impacts of standards on fuel savings by customers; the impacts of
standards on the truck industry; other energy impacts; as well as other
relevant factors such as impacts on safety.
    This proposal implements a specific provision from Title II,
section 202(a).\31\ Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA states that ``the
Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time
revise) * * * standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant
from any class or classes of new motor vehicles * * *, which in his
judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' With EPA's December
2009 final findings for greenhouse gases, section 202(a) authorizes EPA
to issue standards applicable to emissions of those pollutants from new
motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See 42 U.S.C. 7521(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) ``shall be applicable to
such vehicles * * * for their useful life.'' Emission standards set by
the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, as the levels
chosen must be premised on a finding of technological feasibility.
Thus, standards promulgated under CAA section 202(a) are to take effect
only ``after providing such period as the Administrator finds necessary
to permit the development and application of the requisite technology,
giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such
period'' (section 202(a)(2); see also NRDC v. EPA, 655 F.2d 318, 322
(DC Cir. 1981)). EPA is afforded considerable discretion under section
202(a) when assessing issues of technical feasibility and availability
of lead time to implement new technology. Such determinations are
``subject to the restraints of reasonableness'', which ``does not open
the door to `crystal ball' inquiry.'' NRDC, 655 F.2d at 328, quoting
International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 629 (DC Cir.
1973). However, ``EPA is not obliged to provide detailed solutions to
every engineering problem posed in the perfection of the trap-oxidizer.
In the absence of theoretical objections to the technology, the agency
need only identify the major steps necessary for development of the
device, and give plausible reasons for its belief that the industry
will be able to solve those problems in the time remaining. The EPA is
not required to rebut all speculation that unspecified factors may
hinder `real world' emission control.'' NRDC, 655 F.2d at 333-34. In
developing such technology-based standards, EPA has the discretion to
consider different standards for appropriate groupings of vehicles
(``class or classes of new motor vehicles''), or a single standard for
a larger grouping of motor vehicles (NRDC, 655 F.2d at 338).
    Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-
based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability. EPA
has the discretion to consider and weigh various factors along with
technological feasibility, such as the cost of compliance (see section
202(a)(2)), lead time necessary for compliance (section 202(a)(2)),
safety (see NRDC, 655 F.2d at 336 n. 31) and other impacts on
consumers, and energy impacts associated with use of the technology.
See George E. Warren Corp. v. EPA, 159

F.3d 616, 623-624 (DC Cir. 1998) (ordinarily permissible for EPA to
consider factors not specifically enumerated in the CAA). See also
Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1498, 1508-09 (2009)
(congressional silence did not bar EPA from employing cost-benefit
analysis under the Clean Water Act absent some other clear indication
that such analysis was prohibited; rather, silence indicated discretion
to use or not use such an approach as the agency deems appropriate).
    In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA
section 202(a) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to
be appropriate, but is not required to do so (as compared to standards
set under provisions such as section 202(a)(3) and section 213(a)(3)).
EPA has interpreted a similar statutory provision, CAA section 231, as
follows:
    While the statutory language of section 231 is not identical to
other provisions in title II of the CAA that direct EPA to establish
technology-based standards for various types of engines, EPA interprets
its authority under section 231 to be somewhat similar to those
provisions that require us to identify a reasonable balance of
specified emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, and other factors.
See, e.g., Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001) (upholding
EPA's promulgation of technology-based standards for small non-road
engines under section 213(a)(3) of the CAA). However, EPA is not
compelled under section 231 to obtain the ``greatest degree of emission
reduction achievable'' as per sections 213 and 202 of the CAA, and so
EPA does not interpret the Act as requiring the agency to give
subordinate status to factors such as cost, safety, and noise in
determining what standards are reasonable for aircraft engines. Rather,
EPA has greater flexibility under section 231 in determining what
standard is most reasonable for aircraft engines, and is not required
to achieve a ``technology forcing'' result (70 FR 69664 and 69676,
November 17, 2005).
    This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in NACAA v. EPA, 489
F.3d 1221, 1230 (DC Cir. 2007). CAA section 202(a) does not specify the
degree of weight to apply to each factor, and EPA accordingly has
discretion in choosing an appropriate balance among factors. See Sierra
Club v. EPA, 325 F.3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (even where a provision
is technology-forcing, the provision ``does not resolve how the
Administrator should weigh all [the statutory] factors in the process
of finding the `greatest emission reduction achievable' ''). Also see
Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254 F.3d 195, 200 (DC Cir. 2001) (great discretion
to balance statutory factors in considering level of technology-based
standard, and statutory requirement ``to [give appropriate]
consideration to the cost of applying * * * technology'' does not
mandate a specific method of cost analysis); see also Hercules Inc. v.
EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 106 (DC Cir. 1978) (``In reviewing a numerical
standard the agencies must ask whether the agency's numbers are within
a zone of reasonableness, not whether its numbers are precisely
right''); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 797 (1968)
(same); Federal Power Commission v. Conway Corp., 426 U.S. 271, 278
(1976) (same); Exxon Mobil Gas Marketing Co. v. FERC, 297 F.3d 1071,
1084 (DC Cir. 2002) (same).
(a) EPA Testing Authority
    Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited
unless the vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA
issues certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the Act,
based on (necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by
the manufacturer. The Heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure (Heavy-duty
FTP) and the Supplemental Engine Test (SET) are used for this purpose.
Compliance with standards is required not only at certification but
throughout a vehicle's useful life, so that testing requirements may
continue post-certification. Useful life standards may apply an
adjustment factor to account for vehicle emission control deterioration
or variability in use (section 206(a)).
    (b) EPA established the Light-duty FTP for emissions measurement in
the early 1970s. In 1976, in response to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, EPA extended the use of the Light-duty FTP to fuel
economy measurement (See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c)). EPA can determine fuel
efficiency of a vehicle by measuring the amount of CO2 and
all other carbon compounds (e.g., total hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide (CO)), and then, by mass balance, calculating the amount of
fuel consumed.
(b) EPA Enforcement Authority
    Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA broad authority to require
manufacturers to remedy vehicles if EPA determines there are a
substantial number of noncomplying vehicles. In addition, section 205
of the CAA authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up to $37,500 per
vehicle for violations of various prohibited acts specified in the CAA.
In determining the appropriate penalty, EPA must consider a variety of
factors such as the gravity of the violation, the economic impact of
the violation, the violator's history of compliance, and ``such other
matters as justice may require.''
(2) NHTSA Authority
    EISA authorizes NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency improvement
program for ``commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and
work trucks'' \32\ by rulemaking, which is to include standards, test
methods, measurement metrics, and enforcement protocols. See 49 U.S.C.
32902(k)(2). Congress directed that the standards, test methods,
measurement metrics, and compliance and enforcement protocols be
``appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible'' for the
vehicles to be regulated, while achieving the ``maximum feasible
improvement'' in fuel efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ ``Commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles''
are defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7), and ``work trucks'' are
defined at (a)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since this is the first rulemaking that NHTSA has conducted under
49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the agency must interpret these elements and
factors in the context of setting standards, choosing metrics, and
determining test methods and compliance/enforcement mechanisms.
Congress also gave NHTSA the authority to set separate standards for
different classes of these vehicles, but required that all standards
adopted provide not less than four full model years of regulatory lead-
time and three full model years of regulatory stability.
    In EISA, Congress required NHTSA to prescribe separate average fuel
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks in accordance
with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. section 32902(b), and to prescribe
standards for work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles in accordance with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. section
32902(k). See 49 U.S.C. section 32902(b)(1). We note that Congress also
added in EISA a requirement that NHTSA shall issue regulations
prescribing fuel economy standards for at least 1, but not more than 5,
model years. See 49 U.S.C. section 32902(b)(3)(B). For purposes of the
fuel efficiency standards that the agency is proposing for HD vehicles
and engines, NHTSA believes that one permissible reading of the statute
is that Congress did not intend for the 5-year maximum limit to apply
to standards promulgated in accordance with 49 U.S.C. section 32902(k),
given the language in

32902(b)(1). Based on this interpretation, NHTSA proposes that the
standards ultimately finalized for HD vehicles and engines would remain
in effect indefinitely at their 2018 or 2019 model year levels until
amended by a future rulemaking action. In any future rulemaking action
to amend the standards, NHTSA would ensure not less than four full
model years of regulatory lead-time and three full model years of
regulatory stability. NHTSA seeks comment on this interpretation of
EISA.
(a) NHTSA Testing Authority
    49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must adopt and implement
appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible test methods
and measurement metrics as part of the fuel efficiency improvement
program.
(b) NHTSA Enforcement Authority
    49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) also states that NHTSA must adopt and
implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible
compliance and enforcement protocols for the fuel efficiency
improvement program.
    In 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), Congress did not speak directly to the
``compliance and enforcement protocols'' it envisioned. Instead, it
left the matter generally to the Secretary. Congress' approach is
unlike CAFE enforcement for passenger cars and light trucks, where
Congress specified a program where a manufacturer either complies with
standards or pays civil penalties. But Congress did not specify in 49
U.S.C. 32902(k) what it precisely meant in directing NHTSA to develop
``compliance and enforcement protocols.'' It appears, therefore, that
Congress has assigned this matter to the agency's discretion.
    The statute is silent with respect to how ``protocol'' should be
interpreted. The term ``protocol'' is imprecise. For example, in a case
interpreting section 301(c)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the DC Circuit
noted that the word ``protocols'' has many definitions that are not
much help. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
88 F.3d. 1191, 1216 (DC Cir. 1996). Section 301(c)(2) of CERCLA
prescribed the creation of two types of procedures for conducting
natural resources damages assessments. The regulations were to specify
(a) ``standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring minimal
field observation'' (the ``Type A'' rules), and (b) ``alternative